At 8/9/07 12:07 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:
Now you're just being a dick.
Please, 73 pound adults who can only eat by rooting through a massive garbage depot totally deserve to have their 2 month old children die. It's their fault for being born in a country with contaminated water and no medicine.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/9/07 12:07 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:
So they're stupid for electing someone ONCE who falsely presented himself as a reform leader and then, once in power cemented his position by rigging elections? They made ONE mistake. ONE FUCKING MISTAKE, and Mugabe handled the rest. You think African children in Zimbabwe should suffer and starve because their parents may have voted for Mugabe ONCE? You're one cold-hearted fucker.
;
Hey, I never heard of any stories of anyone attempting to stop the dismantling of the prosperous farms. In many cases the workers that lived there helped with the distruction.
So yeah, It looks damn good on them.
You put a asshole in charge, follow the idiot & his policies, so that you in the end harm yourself & your families.
Damn str8 I think they deserve it.
They want out, do like the other half of the continent is doing, start kiiling each other.
If anyone in the rest of the world believed that Africa was as completely raped by the Europeans, why is it that farmland cultivated and cared for for more than 5 generations of Europeans is now not producing , now that the original natives are in control?
On top of that why is anyone there from 1st world nations if it has been completely raped?
Not only are they there ,they wouldn't be there drilling & removing oil, gold ,diamonds etc. if the land was raped and nothing was left .
What are all those Native controled countries doing with the money?
They are using it to buy weapons to kill each other. Let the food agencies of the world feed the refugees, use whatever we can get to buy weapons.
Africa's problems are 99% caused by the Africans themselves.
An earlier comment in this thread about Rawanda, comes to mind.
You going to try to blame that genocide of BLACK Tutsis, killed by BLACK Hutu's as somehow being our fault as well?
The whole problem throughout Africa isn't/hasn't been caused by whites. It has been caused by one group of native black Africans killing another group of native Black Africans, or enslaving them etc. Its easy to say it was caused by colonialism , but if this was the problem....Why is it that whenever a colonial goverrment leaves & the Native Population regains control they start killing & oppressing their own ?
We must have brain washed them, yeah thats it... mind control from afar.
So how to stop the cycle of weapon buying, food reliance from Aid Agencies for refugees.
Stop sending in food.
Force them to decide weapons or starvation. It won't take long, you can't survive long on empty shell casings.
No goverment is going to survive the starvation of the population.
You want to argue innocents will die. YOu ARE TOO LATE !!!! They are all ready dieing hand over fist.
In my mind we are definately a problem(Europeans/Western cultures) and until we turn off the free food, they will continue in the present cycle indefinately.
I have personally chosen to no longer support that, call me cold hearted, so what do you call the people that are responsible for helping the present situation, allowing to continue?
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
At 8/9/07 04:46 AM, Pookie-Killed-RayRay wrote:At 8/8/07 10:36 PM, WolvenBear wrote:These statements just broadcast your ignorance. No one said they were and I really don't care that the Grand Wizard (yes I'm making a racist assumption, get over it) told you that and all sorts of nifty stories on how white men did blacks and indians such a generous favor by: imposing an unwanted authority upon them, destroying their lands (through mining, exterminating their food supplies, european-born plagues), and killing them to gain their lands (read up on how the Mormons paid mercenaries to slaughter the tribe occupying was in now Utah).
That's exactly what you said. You said, in essence, that the white man is responsible for all the ills facing Africa, Asia, and the Indians. While you weren't singing "All We Need is Love", you directly said that white aint right. Don't bitch that I called you on your crap.
And since you wish to call me racist you shit for brains little twerp, I no longer have to have thinly vailed patience with you. The historical fact of the matter is that the majority of Indian land transactions were voluntary and involved renumerations. Does this mean that the Trail of Tears (which I have mentioned 30 times) didn't happen? Of course not. To those of use with an IQ above room temperature, we can acknowledge that attrocities we're committed. History is not a yes/no or true/false subject. Things are complicated. But you're not interested in nuance or complexities (or even truth for that matter). You just want a world where the white man is always the bad guy. And if you have to sweep aside thousands of transactions that were fair to the Indian, then so be it. Since I have no preconceived bias, or point to prove, I can show that most transactions were fair, and then turn around and go "Gee, that Trails of Tears thing sucked." This is how adults look at the world.
Your world view is that of a 3 year old. To hell with the fact that mommy carried you for 9 months, keeps a roof over your head, keeps your belly full, etc. She won't let you stay up til 6 today without a nap...so you hate her.
If you read any history book (you done knows what one of thems is, yup? Wiki and the intarwebs aren't valid sources) you'll find that, most of everything you just shirked off are true.
Historical revisionism?
Of course the intarwebs is a valid source stupid. You have access to millions of articles that you wouldn't have access to otherwise. You don't just get to call my source bullshit and then say "I win." And wikipedia has it's uses. Despite being a generally liberal leaning source, it IS NOT ALWAYS INACCURATE. That said, the only real time I use it is to point out the blatantly obvious. Or I use it to back up other evidence I have. Wikipedia is never my first or my only source.
How about the fact that you're implying that every single slave was bought and paid for, as per tribal leaders? Any history book worth is weight will show you how small of a percentage selling off tribe members as slaves accounts for. The majority of slaves were kidnapped, and in many instances, the white men would usually finish a slave trade deal, get the the tribe stone-drunk, and kidnapped more people thereafter.
Wow, I never implied that, nor came close to implying that. Maybe when Mommy and Daddy told you you were special...they meant retarded. You can't just make up wild claims and attribute them to me. Of course there were people kidnapped. The slave trade actually grew out of the indentured slave program, so that's a given. But unlike your empty claim, that you don't source, because you made it up, the vast majority of slaves were part of the "trade triangle" (Molassas to Rum to Slaves if you remember the song). Most of the people who moved the slaves were merchants, not wily trappers. They made a trade (sometimes of Indian slaves for black slaves) to local leaders. Despite the PC nonsense that most little morons like yourself eat up, slavery was quite common in Africa, and still is.
The state of Africa?
Most tribes didn't even know about guns and explosives until the imperial army invaded and introduced them (there are STILL tribes that don't know what an AK47 is). And let's not forget that NOT EVERY TRIBE IS A WARRING ONE! People seem to love pretending that the entire continent is at war, but that is not, and never has been, the case. The same is true of Native Americans.
Because you TOTALLY can't kill someone without a gun. Of course not every tribe was a warring one. And even the warring ones weren't at war all the time. No one is suggesting that. What we are correctly saying is that the tribes killed each other routinely, over land, resources, or just for the sheer hell of it. Despite the myth of the noble savage, many of them were just savage.
We may have introduced guns, but we also introduced medicine, advanced tools, vaccines, pasturization, and rule of law.
The sad thing about these kinds of threads is they usually attract stubborn, close-minded people who spew misinformation and can't read up on history without bias, and when I say bias, I mean that the person will see this post, and will then selectively read through a history book long enough to find the sentence that slightly denounces what I've said. (ex. Saying, " OMG, all African tribez r @ worz!!!111!!1" after reading "Many of the northeastern tribes of Africa are in conflict")
Except you're the buffoon going "we are teh bad guy alllweys for EEEVR!" When I say that we treated Indians well you stick your fingers in your ears and start screaming "LALALALA" at the top of your lungs. My grasp of history is correct, and encompasses both the good and the bad. You selectively ignore the good and overemphasis the bad, make up facts to suit you, and then claim consensus.
In short: You came to this battle of wits unarmed junior.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
At 7/23/07 09:42 AM, Begoner wrote:At 7/23/07 09:24 AM, morefngdbs wrote: ...why not S.T.F.U. and get an education & then go get a decent job.Because meekly submitting to the iron-fisted will of a racist nation is the cowardly thing to do. It implicitly condones the history of categorical discrimination against blacks (including slavery) by not taking action to help right previous wrongs. One should stand up and vehemently protest when such egregious abuses occur unchecked, not lie down and take it willingly because "it could always be worse."
That might make some sense if they're the victims of such egregious abuses (and they WERE), but I'm afraid no one who survived the wrongs of slavery in the U.S. are still alive, nor are any people responsible for such crimes. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to suggest that anyone deserves compensation or punishment. They need nothing more than a simple apology, for that is all that we can reasonably give.
At 8/9/07 05:22 AM, Pookie-Killed-RayRay wrote: Just a few(not all of them, mind you):
Black&no job? You're considered lazy.
Black& have a job? You obviously stole it from a more deserving white man. Shame on u, blackie!
7 out of 10 times*, you will be tried as adult, years before you are 18.
You likely live in a lower income, seldom policed area, where your very ability to survive is in question. ;)
*approximation, depends upon location in US
Heaven forbid someone be called lazy for not having a job. Especially if that someone has a child to feed. You're not gonig to find any of those "white racists" calling a black man lazy for not getting a job, then turning around and congratulating a white man for not having one. It's an issue of principal, not race.
As for the rest of your crap, liberals are directly responsible for the deteriorating state of the black community. Look at your own stupidity:
7 out of 10 times*, you will be tried as adult, years before you are 18.
You likely live in a lower income, seldom policed area, where your very ability to survive is in question. ;)
Ignoring that fact that you're dramatically exaggerating in saying that 70% of black people are jailed before 18.....
By your own admission, most black people live in bad neighborhoods that are rife with crime. And since they are victims of crime, who is victimizing them>? Other black people you say?!?
Yet what happens when we try to put those people behind bars? "RACISM! UNFAIR TO THE BLACK MAN!" You can't have it both ways. Either we punish the black people who make teh black community sooooo bad, or you deal with it being bad. The liberals who cry hardest about the plight of the black community, then spin and fight tooth and nail any attempt to make it better.
Hell, the ridiculousness of blacks in crying racism has never been more evident than in their defense of Barry Bonds. (Deviation I know.) They had this idiot on the news last night saying that the criticism was because Bonds was black. "Hank Aaron never would've had to go through that." I wanted to kick the TV. Why? Cause HANK AARON WAS BLACK. Those who hate Bond are being accused of racism for trying to defend a black man's record from a cheater.
At 8/9/07 11:51 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Because the damage wasn't to real property.
What the fuck does that mean? Kuwaiti homes aren't real homes? Their oil isn't real oil? They're not real people?
Ah. So you have knowledge of every case ever, and with that knowledge there has NEVER been such a case?
Are you just going to keep asking stupid questions? Or are you going to indeed provide me evidence to the contrary?Maybe in your halfwit circle of friends asking "Is it?" is a valid refutation. Here, it's just annoying. Feel free to show me a case to the contrary. (I'm always open for evidence of being wrong.)
The fuck are you talking about? You just quoted me replying specifically to that point.
But in replying you ignore it. "Not our problem," you say. But if one guy comes up saying I want compensation for my dad's land being stolen from him...after he stole it from someone else, it certainly mitigates OUR responsibility. Not addressing a point is not addressing a point.
Since you can't be assed to read what your quoting, I assume it would be foolish to expect you to read back a post, so I'll re state; it's not our business how the indians got the land. We only deal with who WE got the land from.
That's a nifty little way of ignoring the argument. And it's complete bullshit.
Your entire assinine argument is that we need to pay back the Indians because our forefathers stole from their forefathers, but it's irrelevant that they stole that land? Please. That's ridiculous.
One would think that means I was claiming the suit would be won, fool.
They don't win the lawsuit tho. Chump.
God, your pulling this all out of your ass. There aren't enforced statues of limitations on property lawsuits.
Of course there are you empty headed little shit.
http://www.texasinjuryattorney.com/resea rch/statutes-limitations/california-stat ute-limitations
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/1163480 -1.html
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/envir onmental_pollution_1.shtml
You have no clue what the hell you're talking about. There are statute of limitation on EVERYTHING. Those above are just a smattering of laws.
No, it won't.
Well, I tell you what bud. You find a case to the contrary, and then we'll talk. Just saying your right means nothing.
Yes, we do.
No, you don't.
It's so fun when you claim things that can easily be proven wrong. Will you admit you just bullshitted that, or need I get examples.
Yes, you need to get examples. Because no one has been told they have to move so that the Indians can have their lands back.
And if you're going to point to this...OH YAY! They got underwater land!
Ah. So when it suits your agument, "No indian has ever gotten their ancestral land back", yet to make another point you talk about cases in which just that happens.
In the cases I'm talking about the Indians were given money. Or they were given nation park area. The federal government has never relocated home owners and put ther Indians back.
Contradictory? Nah.
How is it contradictory? How is acknowledging that the Indians were given other lands, or money, contradict my claim that none of them have gotten their original land back? Or do you not get the difference? For instance, if I steal your watch, and sell it. The court doesn't make me go get it back. They make me pay you the value of the watch. You got something back, but not your watch.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
At 8/9/07 07:18 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
What the fuck does that mean? Kuwaiti homes aren't real homes? Their oil isn't real oil? They're not real people?
Whilst technically the homes are real property, the usage of homes considered as RP is becoming less and less common.
And no, Oil and people don't fall into that category.
Are you just going to keep asking stupid questions? Or are you going to indeed provide me evidence to the contrary?Maybe in your halfwit circle of friends asking "Is it?" is a valid refutation. Here, it's just annoying. Feel free to show me a case to the contrary. (I'm always open for evidence of being wrong.)
Fine. My friend Alex's uncle petitioned the government for a specific plot of land on the border of Arizona which once belonged to a tribe his own father had been a member of. He personally had no claim to the land, however, and wasn't given the land.
There. Your claim that no Native American has ever asked for a specific plot of land is 100% incorrect. You lose.
But in replying you ignore it. "Not our problem," you say. But if one guy comes up saying I want compensation for my dad's land being stolen from him...after he stole it from someone else, it certainly mitigates OUR responsibility. Not addressing a point is not addressing a point.
By saying "that's not our problem", I AM addressing the point. It's not our problem. We don't compensate what wasn't our fault. Just like Jews couldn't ask for compensation from the U.S because it wasn't our problem, one indian can't seek compensation due to wrongs from another indian via the U.S government because it's not our problem. We give the compensation to who we took it from, not who THEY took it from.
That's a nifty little way of ignoring the argument. And it's complete bullshit.
Except, once again, I didn't ignore it.
Your entire assinine argument is that we need to pay back the Indians because our forefathers stole from their forefathers, but it's irrelevant that they stole that land? Please. That's ridiculous.
No, it's not ridiculous. We need to pay back the Indians who we took the land from, not the Indians THEY took the land from. The U.S legal system has the right to hear cases involving the action of it's own government, NOT the governments of independent Indian tribes.
They don't win the lawsuit tho. Chump.
Yet you have yet to give a single reason why. Simply asserting a fact doesn't make it so.
Of course there are you empty headed little shit.
http://www.texasinjuryattorney.com/resea rch/statutes-limitations/california-stat ute-limitations
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/1163480 -1.html
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/envir onmental_pollution_1.shtml
You have no clue what the hell you're talking about. There are statute of limitation on EVERYTHING. Those above are just a smattering of laws.
You just quoted 2 states laws and (for some reason) a link about California pollution laws. This does nothing to address federal cases.
Well, I tell you what bud. You find a case to the contrary, and then we'll talk. Just saying your right means nothing.
What the fuck do you mean, find a case? You yourself admitted there have been cases in which Indians got their land back, now your asking me to prove that Indians have gotten their land back?
Stop contradicting yourself.
No, you don't.
The power of assertion.
Yes, you need to get examples. Because no one has been told they have to move so that the Indians can have their lands back.
And if you're going to point to this...OH YAY! They got underwater land!
And? What does "underwater" have to do with it? The land was the Indians. It was flooded. They got it back. This directly disproves your claim that "No Indian has ever gotten their ancestrial land back". I can't claim the Colts have never won a Super Bowl in the new millenium, then back that up by saying "Well, their opponents sucked!"
In the cases I'm talking about the Indians were given money. Or they were given nation park area.
Or they where given their land back.
The federal government has never relocated home owners and put ther Indians back.
Nor did I claim it did.
How is it contradictory? How is acknowledging that the Indians were given other lands, or money, contradict my claim that none of them have gotten their original land back? Or do you not get the difference? For instance, if I steal your watch, and sell it. The court doesn't make me go get it back. They make me pay you the value of the watch. You got something back, but not your watch.
Fine. I misunderstood what you said; you still contradicted yourself with that link you gave however.
Also, don't you find it funny that whilst you claim to be offering a better argument then me, you only reply to the parts that you think you can counter, ignoring huge chunks of it. By that method, I could debate Bill Gates about computers and "win".
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/9/07 11:51 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:
So I say they get "something" back....and you go "AHA, so they do give them their land back!" Is that what I said? No. You're just so desperate to catch me in a lie...that's you're putting words in my mouth.
Yes, actually, they have. There have been many cases in which the government purchased land owned by private owners to give to native Americans. Not to mention that a good ammount of U.S land is still owned by the government.
Really? Show me something then. And if it's even a Casino....
A) Your completely incorrect, as imminent domain can apply to other things, and
Imminent Domain applies to one thing only...common good. In years past that only meant a public service, like a road, or transit system. Recently it has been used to give private land to developers under the guise that the tax revenues benefit the community more than the houses do.
B) I never claimed imminent domain.
That's what the government uses to accomplish what you think it's doing.
For some cases.
For the vast majority of cases. I have no doubt there were instances where Indians were stolen from. But they are a tiny minority of cases.
Of course they do. You don't deploy soldiers without keeping a record of it.
Sigh. So stupid
1) MOST people don't keep evidence of wrong doing.
2) As much of the land was bought from other countries who (for the sake of argument) all illegitimately stole it from the Indians, we have no access to those records.
3)Soldiers weren't used in cases where the Indian was "defrauded" out of his land. If the court found for the landowner, the US government didn't use soldiers to march out and an acre of land from an Indian. If anyone "forced" the Indian off his land, it was local police and marshalls...or landowners. These people did not keep records.
4) All official records show payments being made. Therefore-said records do not work to the Indians favor.
Etc.
That's complete bullshit, we have records of where individual tribes lived, why wouldn't they remember?
We have records of land we BOUGHT. There's a reason why most history books record things as "The Cheroke Nation" or "The Apache Nation" as opposed to the Beer Creek Tribe.
God, do you know ANYTHING about the law? Quite pulling things out of your ass; theft is EXACTLY what that is. If I claim that I'll pay you 20 bucks for a CD, then bolt once you hand me the CD without paying, THAT IS THEFT.
But that's not what happened. My account is more accurate. The relocation treaties were followed. Think of them as "as is" car transactions. The government promised the Indians "good land". The Indians then got there and the land was clearly inferior to the old land. As they now had both money AND new land, there was no theft. The very transfer of land directly refutes the charge of theft. You can argue underpayment, perhaps, but theft, no.
lolbullshit.
Are you going to start providing evidence to the contrary?
No you say?
Then ok...my point stands.
DING DING DING! The Cherokee Indians where recognized by the U.S court system as an independent nation. So if the land wasn't sold by Cherokee officials, IT WASN'T SOLD AT ALL. Bill Gates can claim the ability to sell government land as much as he wants, but unless the government sells it to you, you don't own it.
No, but Bill Gates can sell all the land he owns (because the Indians believed in private property), and the government can't say much about it. So Russia would then own a little piece of the USA. To make it a better analogy. If Katheryn Blanco (the elected governor of Louisiana) Jeb Bush (the elected governor of Florida), Bob Riley (Alabama), Haley Barbour (Mississippi) and Sonny Perdue (Georgia) offer to sell the South...then AGAIN, there's credibility. Congress May not be happy about it, but to denounce it as completely illegitimate is nonsense, and you know it.
So this incident is interesting for the following reasons:
1) Normally relocation contracts had provisions for those who didn't want to leave, this didn't. It showed a dramatic departure from a policy of treating the indians fairly...to screwing them. That this incident stands out shows how rare it was.
2) The brutality on the trail. These soldiers had a desire to inflict pain, and relished it. Another departure from the norm in how business was normally conducted.
3) OTHER INDIANS screwed over their own brethern. That tribal leaders would come forward and sell other tribes land...Not only does this put a chink in the armor of "whitie is bad. But it also illustrates my point.
Funny you should mention the Choctaw, since their Treaty of Fort Confederation gave them no payment whatsoever for their land. Well, there goes your "always compensated" argument.\
Which proves to go against a good majority of your argument.
Jesus, you're fucking stupid. The governor looks at the sales and has no idea which were coerced and which weren't. How in God's name does that refute what I said. Fuck you're an idiot.
And yet, coersion isn't theft.
Vast majority? Please. Just because it was claimed that compensation WOULD be given doesn't mean that that's how it would happen.
See, in a debate, when someone makes a claim, and backs it up with evidence...if you wish to make a counter claim, you have to REFUTE that evidence. Crying "nu uh" isn't a solid argument.
Yet the 1871 Federal Act was signed by white men, not the Natives. Oops.
And? OH DUDE! YOU TOTALLY JUST PROVED THAT NO ONE WAS PAID! Schmuck.
Yet, funny enough, while I have offered undeniable arguments about multiple points you where 100% incorrect about (I.E every indian was given compensation), you have yet to disprove a single point.
I said there was compensation given in all instances. You idiotically claim that land doesn't count as compensation. Yet, as I correctly proved....there was even compensation for the Cherokees, though I never once claimed EVERY indian got some. You're doing an awful lot of tap dancing. But, I'm still right.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
there are minorities that have gone with the times and have made something of themselves.Such as the Indians,the Chinese.These two ethnicities are some of the most successful minorities in the country they got that way because they stopped fighting and they realized that the only way to beat the stronger person is at their own game.And they are kicking ass too!
At 8/8/07 01:17 PM, tawc wrote: Don't be so ignorant. They died because the US wouldn't let the southern states have their independence.
The American Civil war is a perfect example of US Hypocrisy.
In a way, if you look back you'll see that the slave holding states that didn't try to secede were allowed to stay slave-holding...'course the only reason for that was because we didn't want them going to secede and lose more states now did we? But that was only a part of the civil war, albeit a very large part.
At 8/9/07 12:07 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:At 8/9/07 11:09 AM, morefngdbs wrote:At 8/9/07 11:54 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 8/8/07 10:36 PM, WolvenBear wrote:Oh please. What a load of crap.MAN what bullshit. Yes, I'm sure Africa just loves things like Slavery, disease, Apartheid, and the Rwanda Genocides.
Africa and Asia are much better off for having Europe in them.
Slavery predated the white man in Africa. Disease was there before us too. the Rwandan genocides were black on black murders.
But you know what they did love? Infrastructure, immunizations, medicine, etc.
Try again.
In the beginning of the European expansion into Africa, yes, that is the case. However, once Europeans had a strong enough foothold in Africa and had roads and steamboat routes established to help them carry goods/people in and out of the continent, they no longer needed black slave traders. Why BUY slaves when you can get them for free?
When shown evidence that slavery was done by blacks as well...change the terms of the debate. BRILLIANT!
Blah blah blah. Now you're just being a dick.
No, he's being realistic. This bullshit argument you're trying to advance is that...if it was white men's fault-then it was white men's fault. If it was done by the black man- it's STILL the white man's fault. Any good that happened in Africa because of Europeans is ignored, as is anything by black men that was bad.
It's no different that liberal attitudes towards America. We do nothing about Saddam during the Clinton years, and it's out fault he killed his people and that they starved. When we invade and take him out, it's our fault Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia and al Quida flood in and kill people. It's a no lose argument. No matter what happens, we're the bad guy.
At 8/9/07 08:08 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Whilst technically the homes are real property, the usage of homes considered as RP is becoming less and less common.
Where the hell do you get this nonsense from? It's certainly not from THE LAW. Because the law puts monetary value to property destroyed, and people (wrongful death for one). This is why I said you have no clue what you're talking about, and why I gave the definition of reparations and punishment. On an international scale, there is no such thing as repartions. A country may make renumerations to their citizenry, but that's voluntary. A country may have to pay another country back-but that's debt. And (Rarely) an invading army will redistribute stolen property to the citizenry it liberates (Allies during WW2).
And no, Oil and people don't fall into that category.
If there was ANYTHING that would fall into an international reparation scheme-it would be oil. As oil is a national reserve in this case, and attacking it hurts the country's economy.
On a law n order level, it counts as well...as property.
There. Your claim that no Native American has ever asked for a specific plot of land is 100% incorrect. You lose.
Wow, a completely uncorroboratable story based entirely on your word, which is-to say the least-less than credible.
Eye roll.
Furthermore: let's look at what I said!
"Actually in all the cases I'm aware of the Indians demanded money or land SOMEWHERE. There have been no cases where an Indian has demanded they get a certain plot of land back, though they have had to demonstrate where their land was taken from them."
So, I'm talking about cases I'm aware of. Now granted, I only looked through about 50, but my point is pretty clear. You're trying to play word games instead of refute my ACTUAL point, which is: the Indians who are suing just want SOMETHING and they don't care what. Your story tends to bolster MY case, as your friend Alex's uncle was trying to get back land that wasn't his, and he had no claim to. He felt he deserved land, and it didn't matter what land it was. He chose one either at random, or because he liked it.
And this reinforces another point. His father was a member of the tribe. Yet he had no claim to the land. Hmmmmm. That's odd.
By saying "that's not our problem", I AM addressing the point. It's not our problem. We don't compensate what wasn't our fault. Just like Jews couldn't ask for compensation from the U.S because it wasn't our problem, one indian can't seek compensation due to wrongs from another indian via the U.S government because it's not our problem. We give the compensation to who we took it from, not who THEY took it from.
Well, let me start by saying I have no clue what you're talking about with the Jew thing. Moving on...
There's nothing factual in that statement.
(For the purpose of this explaination, we will ignore the evidence of compensation and assume the Indians had their land stolen.)
You can't sue someone for property you have stolen. When you sue someone for something, you must prove it is actually yours. If someone else has claim as well, YOU cannot collect. This concept is known as "clean hands". You must have clean hands to bring a suit. (Yes, I know federal judges ignore this when it suits them. It's still the actual law, as opposed to their made up one.) For example, if I break in your house to rob you, I can't sue you if I get hurt. While it is true that anything that happens to me on your property is your responsibility, I was breaking the law by entering your house and lose my claim...due to no longer having clean hands.
Furthermore, since the current owners of said land usually have clean hands (a great many of them, bloodline wize, weren't in the country when said "theft" occured), it's immoral to take the property from them to subsidize decendants who, in several cases, got the property through ill means as well.
This is one of the reasons we have statutes of limitations on property cases and lawsuits. It's also why in lawsuits we demand the plaintiff show damages.
Those in favor of reparations say "The hell with all that. They are Indian!" And despite the fact that we have no clue which indians were fairly compensated, which were unfairly compensated, and which were "robbed", the pro-repartions movement cries again "The hell with that!" The bloodline of the Cherokee who sold out their brethern would have just as much claim to land as the bloodline of those who were screwed.
And if they illegally took that land from others...who cares? (Though it would be interesting to decide who to give it to under your idiocy...as only the people we "robbed" get preference. I'd assume that we'd tell those who could prove the land was stolen from then first would either be given another plot of land somewhere else....or they'd be told to dick off...as they're not our problem. I assume they get no benefit of our laws?)
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
Any idiot who thinks that a denomination has an inherant evil or goodness in them is bullshitting themself.
If you wan't to know why white people did what they did i recommend you watch guns germs and steel.
Humans as a whole, are inherintly selfish; for the simple biological meme that it is they're duty to do whatever they can to survive to ensure that they're ginetics are passed on. [Evolution baby!]
The same reason slavery and war occur has to do with the reason why a stranger might steal your wallet while you leave it on a table.
1) They care more about themselfs than you
2) They have an opportunity to get away with it
Very few people can resist the tempation to do something that would benefit them but hurt another; i mean some species of animals are completely built this way, to live off of other's and cause they're death as a result.
You say to yourself; 'Well if i was in that position i never would have enslaved them'
This is true, most likely because you were brought up in a more tollerant background. intense ignorance needs to be aded to the intolerance equation to explain why people commit horrible acts against one another. But remember in the case of slavery it's not you against them, it's 'our people against they're people' which is pretty much the same as a 1v1.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 8/9/07 08:08 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Except, once again, I didn't ignore it.
Sidestep, ignore. Whatever. You're ignoring a pretty big issue because you don't care about justice...you're just too damn dumb to admit you're wrong.
No, it's not ridiculous. We need to pay back the Indians who we took the land from, not the Indians THEY took the land from. The U.S legal system has the right to hear cases involving the action of it's own government, NOT the governments of independent Indian tribes.
Clean hands. Explained above. You get no compensation for goods/services/lands that you obtained illegally or through illicit means. ANOTHER good example. I can't steal your car and then sue teh first person who runs into me for "damage to my vehicle."
Yet you have yet to give a single reason why. Simply asserting a fact doesn't make it so.
Because that's. not. how. our. system. works.
I don't have to explain WHY. I just have to point out that that's the way it is.
To put your stupidity in perspective.
You claim jaywalking isn't illegal in Missouri. I say it is. You demand to know why, but I can't tell you. (Even though, in this case...I have.) That doesn't make me wrong. You're not right because I don't understand the meaning behind the law. Jaywalking is STILL illegal in Missouri, whether or not I bother to explain why. And as such, I am correct.
Full disclosure: I really don't understand why jaywalking is a crime.
You just quoted 2 states laws and (for some reason) a link about California pollution laws. This does nothing to address federal cases.
Now who's ignoring evidence?
You said statute of limitations on property laws don't exist. I proved they do. Since pollution affects property, it was an interesting note.
But if you want federal....
See: sovereign immunity.
Granted, this is ignored at times like all other things are. But for the most part it's solid.
What the fuck do you mean, find a case? You yourself admitted there have been cases in which Indians got their land back, now your asking me to prove that Indians have gotten their land back?
Oh that's TOTALLY not what I asked you and you know it.
I said you CAN'T sue me for my great grandfather stealing your great grandfather's watch, and win. Yo usaid you could. I told you to find me such a case.
So find it or shut the fuck up about it.
The power of assertion.
That's all you've fucking done you vapidly stupid little shit. That and make ridiculous claims that have NO BASIS in reality. You've been shot down again and again by numerous people as not knowing what youre talknig about. This has become little more than a game oh "Yes it is." "No, it isn't."
I prove you wrong and you sit there and go "nope."
It's like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0CTHS27D sA
Just like the video. You're a jackass.
And? What does "underwater" have to do with it? The land was the Indians. It was flooded. They got it back. This directly disproves your claim that "No Indian has ever gotten their ancestrial land back". I can't claim the Colts have never won a Super Bowl in the new millenium, then back that up by saying "Well, their opponents sucked!"
Actually, I found that item AFTER I claimed no Indian had gotten his land back. I then provided a single case where the Indians were given an unoccupied tract of land owned by the government.
Ironic also, that I found that, and offered it. Not you.
I admit to sloppy language there. But considering where the debate is...my point still remains the same.
Oh, and by the way, voluntarily giving back land does not imply legal responsibility to do so. For example, if it turns out I have your great grandfathers watch that means a great deal to your family. I may be convinced to give it back...that in no way means I HAVE the LEGAL responsibility to hand you back the watch. But you make me feel bad that I have it, and I cough it up. (Guilting me out of the watch however, is coersion. And by your silly thinking, that makes it theft.)
Or they where given their land back.
Which was.....drumroll....national land. And given back freely. In one instance.
Nor did I claim it did.
THAT'S BEEN YOUR REPEATED IDIOTIC CLAIM! You know, where you claimed the family would have to give back the house and all. Unlike you, I have no problem going back and reusing your words.
Here are a couple:
Yet, get this, you would still have to give the house back
Except they WOULDN'T lose the house. The control of the house still passes onto the heirs of the killed man, and those heirs heirs, etc.
The, simply enough, the heirs (government) are forced to also pay all the people they are kicking out of the house, since they knowingly sold housing to a household they where given by a father who illegally retained it.
You have indeed been arguing that the Indians have a legal right to their land back. And as I've said, correctly, no they don't. Whenever they win a case (and whether or not the law is correctly applied there is irrelevant to the debate), they don't get their land back. They get new land.
Fine. I misunderstood what you said; you still contradicted yourself with that link you gave however.
No, I inadequately wrote my statement. Read the corrected version above.
Also, don't you find it funny that whilst you claim to be offering a better argument then me, you only reply to the parts that you think you can counter, ignoring huge chunks of it. By that method, I could debate Bill Gates about computers and "win".
I either ignored repeated claims without factual basis (I deleted a good 10 "No it isn't.) Or I deleted things for space that I combined my response to on other points. I deleted about ten lines on the same topic, and then said "prove it." Instead of rising to the challenge, you cry hypocracy. And I deleted the parts I had already responded to to where you had added nothing new, but simply made the same stupid claim over. I have thoroughly debunked your entire argument.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
Oh, Cuppa, the "large parts of your argument I ignored" I was responding to. You know theres a text limit on these things. So since my response to your post was cut off neatly in the middle, and my response cut off too, it would've made far more sense to be patient and see if I fully responded...then to cry "you didn't touch all of it yet. HAHA I win!"
I think you'll find the rest of your points have been struck down now
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
At 8/9/07 06:35 PM, WolvenBear wrote:At 8/9/07 04:46 AM, Pookie-Killed-RayRay wrote:That's exactly what you said. You said, in essence,At 8/8/07 10:36 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
So wait, first it's exactly what I said, then two words later it's only "in essence"? Keep your story straight, kiddo. When exactly did I start implying "OMG u guyz, whitey done destroid da wurld, yall! He shuud gives us free moneys, nigg@!"? No, Europe's invasion of Africa wasn't the sole reason for all its problems, but to say it didn't worsen the state of it is stupid. To think that another authority coming in, removing the current leaders, stripping it of its resources and leaving doesn't have a negative effect on the state of a country, that is wanton ignorance!
http://www.moreorless.au.com/background/
south-africa.html
http://stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/3Bri t_invasion.html
And here a good thing to come from the invasion, but unfortunately that "good" is focused on Europe, not Africa.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episode s/2002/10/16
Yeah I said you were a racist, I'm one too. If you can't deal with the reality that you, me, and 99.9999999% of the "civilized" populous are racist, then that's not my problem. How about you read my post again, nowhere in it do I state that white men are evil, but for some reason, you decided to tack that implication on. You claim to be non-bias, yet when someone says something you don't like about white people, all of a sudden you're under direct attack? That would mean you are white therefor, you have a BIAS, you idiot! Unless you're an outside party (ie. not white, black or indian), then you'll have a goddamn biased view on the subject.
That brings up another problem of these threads: most posters are stubborn and unwilling to concede, for fear that they somehow admitting some fault about themselves. I'm just relaying info I've read, the same as you. Are you saying history books and intornets are out to get the white man? On the internet subject, yes, some sites have accreditation, but the majority of them do not. It may be a wealth of info, but the value of the info is not always equal. WHEN did I say slavery was over, or that no one died until the British arrived? You've got some lovely comprehension there. I don't know of many people who don't know (or can't logically conclude) that killing and slavery were occurring before the army arrived. Of course killing happened in Africa before AKs and IEDs, but you can only kill one person at a time with a spear, whereas you can kill 30 times that amount with an Assault Rifle (within the same time frame). Maybe you should stop watching animes, spears and knives don't explode through legions of fighters in one stroke.
Every wonder why it goes "rum to slaves"?All it takes is some common sense. Pick a fight with a African hunter fresh off the boat and see if you don't end up half past dead. The traders wanted that strength (stronger slave=higher asking price), and they knew the warriors wouldn't go peaceably if they hadn't been sold off fair and square.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02right s/slavery05.htm
I find it quite pathetic and childish that you can't make a decent rebuttal without first trying to deride everyone else viewpoint, claiming it to be invalid the second it deviates from you're own. Adults, you say? Adults hear/read something, look up the info( or lack thereof) THEMSELVES, because adults know that no one is going to spoon-feed them the proof. (you could have just searched "slave trade kidnappings" or similar on your precious internets and saved face, instead of screaming "U MAYD IT UP!!!" like some braying jackass). Adults realize how little they know on the whole, where children run around with their heads up their asses, completely sure that in 20 years or less of living that they know all that is to be known of 1000+ years of history. They also have no spine, so they must imagine the person on the other computer is minuscule and weak before they are brave enough to insult them. If you hadn't noticed, my signup - post is abysmal, meaning I actually HAVE a life. You should try out sometime, they're fun). And if you're older than 20 and STILL acting this way (with dialog that says next to nothing once stripped of its little man syndrome fueled "fuck you"'s, "Ur a piece of shit"'s and "I r smart cuz I called u retarded"'s) ,then I feel sorry for your man-child ass. I'm done on this whole thread, I'd rather get back to that "life" thing I mentioned. Have fun with your futile attempts to masturbate your own ego, I hopes of convincing yourself that you're smarter than you really are.
Cheers!
At 8/10/07 02:46 AM, Pookie-Killed-RayRay wrote: So wait, first it's exactly what I said, then two words later it's only "in essence"? Keep your story straight, kiddo.
Oh, shut up, asshat. If you plan to use semantics...
Speech by implication is the same as a direct statement. For example:
Rosey O'Donelle made the comment "Over 650,000 are dead in Iraq since our invasion. Who are the terrorists?"
She didn't come right out and say that US soldiers were terrorists. But she did make a statement so ridiculously transparent that it said as such.
For a different example. I am a speaker at an event. I say "Anyone wearing a blue shirt should be murdered." You're wearing a blue shirt. Is there any doubt I'm talking about you? Of course not.
You got a choice here child. You can play stupid, and we will continue to treat you as such, or you can own up and admit that you knew exactly what I was saying.
When exactly did I start implying "OMG u guyz, whitey done destroid da wurld, yall! He shuud gives us free moneys, nigg@!"? No, Europe's invasion of Africa wasn't the sole reason for all its problems, but to say it didn't worsen the state of it is stupid. To think that another authority coming in, removing the current leaders, stripping it of its resources and leaving doesn't have a negative effect on the state of a country, that is wanton ignorance!
The original quote you defended:
"Here's the thing: They CAN'T go back and live like the white man didn't rape their lives because the white man raped everything. Africa wouldn't be in such bad shape had europeans not ravaged the landscape, crop lands, tribes, ecosystems, and everything else that was devastated as a result of imperialism. Native Americans CAN'T go back living as they used to because so much of their land is now occupied by others, and their main sources of food (i.e. Buffalo) are FAR scarcer because of it."
So why is it stupid to say that a bunch of enlightened white men brought law and order to a chaotic region who loved cannibalism and slavery? Because they removed the ridiculous leaders who practiced human sacrifice and slavery...and in their wake brought vacinations and law? Yea, I'm not the one who sounds stupid here.
Yeah I said you were a racist, I'm one too. If you can't deal with the reality that you, me, and 99.9999999% of the "civilized" populous are racist, then that's not my problem.
One, you defended a guy who said white men are the problem. That MEANS you are saying white people are the problem. Piss off.
Two, I don't have a bias. I have no problem admitting that the slave trade was an awful thing. However, since I have no ridiculous bias to fulfill, I can see that black men sold the white men black slaves. Since I care more about the truth than any current political trend, I can change my viewpoint if I ever feel I'm proven wrong.
So while our biases are on display...I can prove that the cumulative affect on Africa has been positive. (Thus my position) You just claim that we exasperated the problems that are already there...with nothing to back you up. You are determined to make the white man seem bad. I have no problem saying "we did good here, but screwed up here." Therefore, my testimony is clearly less biased than yours.
Furthermore, where do you get this 99% racist crap? I challenge you to prove that. Bring your A game, cause I'm gonna fucking smote you on this one.
This is little more than you trying to pass your prejudices off on everyone else. And calling it "fact".
That brings up another problem of these threads: most posters are stubborn and unwilling to concede, for fear that they somehow admitting some fault about themselves.
So unless I'm willing to concede that I hate a certain color of people, my testimony is less reliable than yours? Oh please. What a crock of bull.
I'm just relaying info I've read, the same as you. Are you saying history books and intornets are out to get the white man? On the internet subject, yes, some sites have accreditation, but the majority of them do not. It may be a wealth of info, but the value of the info is not always equal. WHEN did I say slavery was over, or that no one died until the British arrived? You've got some lovely comprehension there. I don't know of many people who don't know (or can't logically conclude) that killing and slavery were occurring before the army arrived. Of course killing happened in Africa before AKs and IEDs, but you can only kill one person at a time with a spear, whereas you can kill 30 times that amount with an Assault Rifle (within the same time frame). Maybe you should stop watching animes, spears and knives don't explode through legions of fighters in one stroke.
I'M not the one who claimed that 70% of the black populous has been charged with a felony. Or that whites (on the whole) believe that every black who gets a job stole it from the white man.
Both of those are inherently racist statements (not to mention easily disproven) to begin with. If you wish to debate me on racism, you're going to lose.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
At 8/10/07 02:46 AM, Pookie-Killed-RayRay wrote: Every wonder why it goes "rum to slaves"?All it takes is some common sense. Pick a fight with a African hunter fresh off the boat and see if you don't end up half past dead. The traders wanted that strength (stronger slave=higher asking price), and they knew the warriors wouldn't go peaceably if they hadn't been sold off fair and square.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02right s/slavery05.htm
WOOT! Idle speculation!
The reason it went "rum to slaves" is because that's what they traded for slaves."
Just on an economic level. If I have no expertese in catching Africans (which at some point or other we HAVE to acknowledge that the slave traders had no knowledge of), then which is cheaper? hiring men to set traps and track the black men? Or jsut paying some schmuck to sell me the people he's already captured? The answer is b everytime! And since I know there's no onee stupid enough to argue GREED with me in the slave trade...this is a done issue.
Actually, due to my new literary project...I'm going to debate you on your absolutely
I find it quite pathetic and childish that you can't make a decent rebuttal without first trying to deride everyone else viewpoint, claiming it to be invalid the second it deviates from you're own. Adults, you say? Adults hear/read something, look up the info( or lack thereof) THEMSELVES, because adults know that no one is going to spoon-feed them the proof. (you could have just searched "slave trade kidnappings" or similar on your precious internets and saved face, instead of screaming "U MAYD IT UP!!!" like some braying jackass). Adults realize how little they know on the whole, where children run around with their heads up their asses, completely sure that in 20 years or less of living that they know all that is to be known of 1000+ years of history. They also have no spine, so they must imagine the person on the other computer is minuscule and weak before they are brave enough to insult them. If you hadn't noticed, my signup - post is abysmal, meaning I actually HAVE a life. You should try out sometime, they're fun). And if you're older than 20 and STILL acting this way (with dialog that says next to nothing once stripped of its little man syndrome fueled "fuck you"'s, "Ur a piece of shit"'s and "I r smart cuz I called u retarded"'s) ,then I feel sorry for your man-child ass. I'm done on this whole thread, I'd rather get back to that "life" thing I mentioned. Have fun with your futile attempts to masturbate your own ego, I hopes of convincing yourself that you're smarter than you really are.
Actually, my dialog, once you strip it of it's inherent condesceding attitude (because I know for a fact that you're a fucking moron...which is why I treat you as such), is completely correct. While deriding me for my superior attitude (and let's face it, I'm more intelligent now than you will ever be), you haven't offered a single counter point. if I call you a faggot, then explain why I think you're wrong...sure I've insulted you, but I've also provided WHY I think you're wrong. Offering up that I'm not civil is irrelevant. I'm a jackass. And I have no reason to speak to people of lesser intelligence as if they are my equals.
You are crying that I include in my thesis that Africans were, among other things, :cannibals, human sacrificers, slave traders, murderers and the like. Instead of actually refuting any of that...you offer the ridiculously obvious observation "But white people bought those slaves!" Who cares?!? That Europeans sought to make money from the lack of humanity of the black man certainly doesn't speak well of the European...but it speaks poorly of the African as well.
This is why my synopsis of history is inherently more valuable than yours. I have no problems acknowledging that the "home team" took slaves, and wasn't always fair in their practices. Thus, my view conforms with that of history. "Sometimes we were fair, sometimes we weren't. Sometimes we did right by people...sometimes we didn't."
Or in simpler terms...if I kick you in the nuts today, cause you make me mad....it doesn't negate that I paid you the 25 bucks you wanted for your CD that I bought.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
