|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 22 2017 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:48 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. You'd send secessionists in the American Southwest, a land that used to be Mexico, back to Mexico? Why on earth do you think they'd have come from Mexico? They lived there as a majority sovereign people, they were absorbed into the United States as a minority, treated like shit, and you're saying that if they want their sovereignty back you'd exile them? That's about as crazy as arguing that the United Kingdom should have sent the Irish republican dissidents back to Boston. This is why it is imperative to keep a disgruntled minority as a minority. Importing more of that minority is a recipe for disaster. Obviously we can't deport and expel American citizens, but we sure as hell can get rid of everyone else who is not prepared to full embrace an American identity. And this is why it is critical that the US no longer tolerate anything that impedes cultural assimilation. In particular, tolerating bilingualism is one of the stupidest things that California is doing.
Idk how can you say why California tolerates bilingualism... That's just absurd. Studies show that knowing a second language in general is really beneficial. If you have an issue with that, then you have an issue with this country as a whole...
https://www.actfl.org/advocacy/what-the-research-shows
|
United States44190 Posts
On March 22 2017 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:48 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. You'd send secessionists in the American Southwest, a land that used to be Mexico, back to Mexico? Why on earth do you think they'd have come from Mexico? They lived there as a majority sovereign people, they were absorbed into the United States as a minority, treated like shit, and you're saying that if they want their sovereignty back you'd exile them? That's about as crazy as arguing that the United Kingdom should have sent the Irish republican dissidents back to Boston. This is why it is imperative to keep a disgruntled minority as a minority. Importing more of that minority is a recipe for disaster. Obviously we can't deport and expel American citizens, but we sure as hell can get rid of everyone else who is not prepared to full embrace an American identity. And this is why it is critical that the US no longer tolerate anything that impedes cultural assimilation. In particular, tolerating bilingualism is one of the stupidest things that California is doing.
They were the majority. In the areas that were historically Mexico that were turned into America the American identity included speaking Spanish and being Hispanic.
At a certain point you have to ask yourself why, if you wanted a national identity built on being white, English speaking and protestant, you built so much of your country on top of Mexico. You forfeited the right to say that the American identity is linked to speaking English when you decided to make a million acres of Mexico, populated by Spanish speakers, part of America. If you want a monolingual nation then the way to do that is to mind your own business and hang out with people who speak the same language as you.
|
United States44190 Posts
On March 22 2017 02:10 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:
Regardless of what you say you think xDaunt, I think if you'd grown up in a country where it was an actual issue you'd probably see it with more pragmatism. I have absolutely no sympathy for the IRA and it really pisses me off that convicted terrorists are now members of the Northern Irish Assembly wearing suits and pretending that they didn't used to put bombs under the cars of police officers. I'm fine with the fact that the members of the Easter Rising were hung and I shed absolutely no tears for Bobby Sands and his ilk. But the Northern Irish peace process ultimately worked to massively reduce the violence in the area.
If there was a button that could have been pressed to simply kill all the terrorists in Northern Ireland then I'd say fuck the peace process and weigh the button down with a brick. But we don't have that so instead we have this shitty deal where both sides resent the hell out of it because that's what it took to stop the war.
I would absolutely love to be a moral absolutist on the issue, I have zero moral qualms about my view that the loyalist British majority should not be subjected to foreign rule due to the threat of terrorism. But moral absolutism doesn't help when dealing with an enemy with their own moral absolutism based on alien values and sometimes you can't kill them all. It'd be nice if you mentioned that the British had done many evils just as bad what the IRA was guilty of, if for nothing else than the edification of unaware readers.
During the troubles the British were there at the request of the majority to protect them from a terrorist group. There were fuckups but had the IRA not been there the army wouldn't have been there either. Northern Irish republicans were a minority who hated the fact that they lived in a democracy which didn't allow them to get their way with the vote (ignoring obvious issues such as gerrymandering which were actual legitimate issues with how the democracy functioned) and turned to violence as a way to seize the power they couldn't legitimately win at the ballot box. Fuck them.
|
On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal. Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded". xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that.
This is the problem with you Regressive Leftists. Your heads are so far up the posterior of the politically correct that you automatically ascribe any questioning of the wisdom of unrestricted multiculturalism to xenophobia. How dull. And how wrong.
History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Singular national identity is a critical element to national stability. It takes an awful lot of hubris to presume that America is some how specially exempt from these forces. It's not.
And let me cue you in on something so that your next post shows a little more critical thinking. National identity and cultural identity are not the same as racial identity. My children are a mix of the following races: Lebanese, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Dutch, and Czhech. However, by the time that they are adults, they will unequivocally self-identify as Americans. Why? Because they will be in an environment where Americanism will be instilled into them. Americans used to do this on a national level, but the radical Left has slowly but surely put the brakes on it.
Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact.
|
But Kwark, we wanted all those natural resources for free and we just assumed we could deal with that other issue later. You know, by repatriation or something totally cool like that.
But it doesn’t matter, Xdaunts worries are reality. 2040 is when whites are no longer the majority in the US. The children growing up right now turn the tide in about 20 years. And these are all US citizens. Our future is known. Our culture will change and his children will grow up in the new one.
|
"my children are mixed race" is just another kind of "I have a black friend" justification. In any case, personal parenting choices and a belief that one's children will grow up to be American above all else accordingly are irrelevant.
Having grown up in a bilingual home, this whole "speak our language or we're diluting our national identity and committing suicide" spiel seems particularly silly.
|
On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal. Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded". xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact.
Can you show any examples of this that doesn't deal with immigration? Cause I know that immigration in past history didn't do so well, but that was because empires back then didn't have ways to deal with mass immigration.
|
On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal. Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded". xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that. This is the problem with you Regressive Leftists. Your heads are so far up the posterior of the politically correct that you automatically ascribe any questioning of the wisdom of unrestricted multiculturalism to xenophobia. How dull. And how wrong. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Singular national identity is a critical element to national stability. It takes an awful lot of hubris to presume that America is some how specially exempt from these forces. It's not. And let me cue you in on something so that your next post shows a little more critical thinking. National identity and cultural identity are not the same as racial identity. My children are a mix of the following races: Lebanese, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Dutch, and Czhech. However, by the time that they are adults, they will unequivocally self-identify as Americans. Why? Because they will be in an environment where Americanism will be instilled into them. Americans used to do this on a national level, but the radical Left has slowly but surely put the brakes on it. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact.
this post is so full of ridiculous bullshit it was almost hard to swallow. your own example is full of what some would call multiculturalism. an american identity being that which is of multiple nationalities. calling that acceptable americanism just because you excluded mexicans boils down to just plain racism. our entire national identity's foundation is multiculturalism.
in before you call this overt PC'ness for calling you out on just flat stupidity. where do you even find the time to put this garbage into words.
|
On March 22 2017 02:20 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal. Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded". xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. Can you show any examples of this that doesn't deal with immigration? Cause I know that immigration in past history didn't do so well, but that was because empires back then didn't have ways to deal with mass immigration.
The Middle East? Yugoslavia? Any place where people were arbitrarily thrown together within the same border and expected to get along?
|
"History" is a puppet that can star in any number of puppet shows. Asking xDaunt for one of his favorite puppet shows won't be very revealing Shockeyy 
|
On March 22 2017 02:19 farvacola wrote:
"my children are mixed race" is just another kind of "I have a black friend" justification. In any case, personal parenting choices and a belief that one's children will grow up to be American above all else accordingly are irrelevant.
Having grown up in a bilingual home, this whole "speak our language or we're diluting our national identity and committing suicide" spiel seems particularly silly.
There's a big difference between bilingual with English and monolingual with no English.
|
|
|
On March 22 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:19 farvacola wrote:
"my children are mixed race" is just another kind of "I have a black friend" justification. In any case, personal parenting choices and a belief that one's children will grow up to be American above all else accordingly are irrelevant.
Having grown up in a bilingual home, this whole "speak our language or we're diluting our national identity and committing suicide" spiel seems particularly silly. There's a big difference between bilingual with English and monolingual with no English.
So you want the government to regulate household language practices?
|
On March 22 2017 02:22 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal. Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded". xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that. This is the problem with you Regressive Leftists. Your heads are so far up the posterior of the politically correct that you automatically ascribe any questioning of the wisdom of unrestricted multiculturalism to xenophobia. How dull. And how wrong. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Singular national identity is a critical element to national stability. It takes an awful lot of hubris to presume that America is some how specially exempt from these forces. It's not. And let me cue you in on something so that your next post shows a little more critical thinking. National identity and cultural identity are not the same as racial identity. My children are a mix of the following races: Lebanese, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Dutch, and Czhech. However, by the time that they are adults, they will unequivocally self-identify as Americans. Why? Because they will be in an environment where Americanism will be instilled into them. Americans used to do this on a national level, but the radical Left has slowly but surely put the brakes on it. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. this post is so full of ridiculous bullshit it was almost hard to swallow. your own example is full of what some would call multiculturalism. an american identity being that which is of multiple nationalities. calling that acceptable americanism just because you excluded mexicans boils down to just plain racism. our entire national identity's foundation is multiculturalism. in before you call this overt PC'ness for calling you out on just flat stupidity.
It looks like you don't understand the differences between nationality, culture, and race.
|
On March 22 2017 02:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:10 LightSpectra wrote:On March 22 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:
Regardless of what you say you think xDaunt, I think if you'd grown up in a country where it was an actual issue you'd probably see it with more pragmatism. I have absolutely no sympathy for the IRA and it really pisses me off that convicted terrorists are now members of the Northern Irish Assembly wearing suits and pretending that they didn't used to put bombs under the cars of police officers. I'm fine with the fact that the members of the Easter Rising were hung and I shed absolutely no tears for Bobby Sands and his ilk. But the Northern Irish peace process ultimately worked to massively reduce the violence in the area.
If there was a button that could have been pressed to simply kill all the terrorists in Northern Ireland then I'd say fuck the peace process and weigh the button down with a brick. But we don't have that so instead we have this shitty deal where both sides resent the hell out of it because that's what it took to stop the war.
I would absolutely love to be a moral absolutist on the issue, I have zero moral qualms about my view that the loyalist British majority should not be subjected to foreign rule due to the threat of terrorism. But moral absolutism doesn't help when dealing with an enemy with their own moral absolutism based on alien values and sometimes you can't kill them all. It'd be nice if you mentioned that the British had done many evils just as bad what the IRA was guilty of, if for nothing else than the edification of unaware readers. During the troubles the British were there at the request of the majority to protect them from a terrorist group. There were fuckups but had the IRA not been there the army wouldn't have been there either. Northern Irish republicans were a minority who hated the fact that they lived in a democracy which didn't allow them to get their way with the vote (ignoring obvious issues such as gerrymandering which were actual legitimate issues with how the democracy functioned) and turned to violence as a way to seize the power they couldn't legitimately win at the ballot box. Fuck them.
Haha, okay. When it's terrorism against people you dislike it's just inevitable fuckups but overall totally legit. It's only terrorism when it's against people you like. Got it.
|
Where are these mythical monolingual families that living in the US that don’t want their kids to speak English? I have never seen or heard of them. I know a lot of families that wanted extra English lessons for their kids.
|
On March 22 2017 02:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:19 farvacola wrote:
"my children are mixed race" is just another kind of "I have a black friend" justification. In any case, personal parenting choices and a belief that one's children will grow up to be American above all else accordingly are irrelevant.
Having grown up in a bilingual home, this whole "speak our language or we're diluting our national identity and committing suicide" spiel seems particularly silly. There's a big difference between bilingual with English and monolingual with no English. So you want the government to regulate household language practices?
You're smarter than this. The government doesn't have to regulate household language practices. However, it should unequivocally promote English as the national language.
|
On March 22 2017 02:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:22 brian wrote:On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot.
The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger.
Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal. Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded". xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that. This is the problem with you Regressive Leftists. Your heads are so far up the posterior of the politically correct that you automatically ascribe any questioning of the wisdom of unrestricted multiculturalism to xenophobia. How dull. And how wrong. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Singular national identity is a critical element to national stability. It takes an awful lot of hubris to presume that America is some how specially exempt from these forces. It's not. And let me cue you in on something so that your next post shows a little more critical thinking. National identity and cultural identity are not the same as racial identity. My children are a mix of the following races: Lebanese, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Dutch, and Czhech. However, by the time that they are adults, they will unequivocally self-identify as Americans. Why? Because they will be in an environment where Americanism will be instilled into them. Americans used to do this on a national level, but the radical Left has slowly but surely put the brakes on it. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. this post is so full of ridiculous bullshit it was almost hard to swallow. your own example is full of what some would call multiculturalism. an american identity being that which is of multiple nationalities. calling that acceptable americanism just because you excluded mexicans boils down to just plain racism. our entire national identity's foundation is multiculturalism. in before you call this overt PC'ness for calling you out on just flat stupidity. It looks like you don't understand the differences between nationality, culture, and race.
I don't either. Please explain.
|
On March 22 2017 02:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:22 brian wrote:On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot.
The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger.
Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal. Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded". xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that. This is the problem with you Regressive Leftists. Your heads are so far up the posterior of the politically correct that you automatically ascribe any questioning of the wisdom of unrestricted multiculturalism to xenophobia. How dull. And how wrong. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Singular national identity is a critical element to national stability. It takes an awful lot of hubris to presume that America is some how specially exempt from these forces. It's not. And let me cue you in on something so that your next post shows a little more critical thinking. National identity and cultural identity are not the same as racial identity. My children are a mix of the following races: Lebanese, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Dutch, and Czhech. However, by the time that they are adults, they will unequivocally self-identify as Americans. Why? Because they will be in an environment where Americanism will be instilled into them. Americans used to do this on a national level, but the radical Left has slowly but surely put the brakes on it. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. this post is so full of ridiculous bullshit it was almost hard to swallow. your own example is full of what some would call multiculturalism. an american identity being that which is of multiple nationalities. calling that acceptable americanism just because you excluded mexicans boils down to just plain racism. our entire national identity's foundation is multiculturalism. in before you call this overt PC'ness for calling you out on just flat stupidity. It looks like you don't understand the differences between nationality, culture, and race.
what i don't understand is trying to use semantics as a way to dismiss something you don't agree with. laziness?
you've defined acceptable american multicultirslism as european. and chinese, oddly. surprised you didn't include russian. but then had the nerve to say it's not multiculturalism (assuredly because they're all white euros. and chinese).
|
On March 22 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:20 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot.
The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger.
Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal. Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded". xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. Can you show any examples of this that doesn't deal with immigration? Cause I know that immigration in past history didn't do so well, but that was because empires back then didn't have ways to deal with mass immigration. The Middle East? Yugoslavia? Any place where people were arbitrarily thrown together within the same border and expected to get along?
Bolded the part that you contradict yourself. Yoguslavia was thrown together, while the U.S wasn't thrown together. I want you show a country that was in similar conditions to the U.S, and that was destroyed by multiculturalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
