|
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 02:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:25 farvacola wrote: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.
You can be less vague than this. What does "unequivocally promote English" actually mean?
|
On March 22 2017 02:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:25 farvacola wrote: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.
That would involve having a nation language, which the founders were pretty sternly against since quite a few of them were children of immigrants. Or immigrants themselves. Don't think that one is going to hold up.
|
United States42784 Posts
On March 22 2017 02:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:25 farvacola wrote: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.
Do you think it's wrong that English isn't the national language in Britain and that parts of Britain are bilingual?
|
On March 22 2017 02:28 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:25 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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":
[quote]
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?
We are getting close to the point where he calls us all stupid and takes off in a huff. His consistency in these discussions is pretty impressive.
|
On March 22 2017 01:48 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:43 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:36 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:27 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer 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? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US? Who is going to pay for their land and personal property? What about all the businesses in the US that dealt with FL or CA that now have to deal with this new nation? Who is going to pay for their assets, because they live in NY or some other state? What about all those loans and other contracts that people signed for like 30 years(mortgages) that are no null and void? Is someone going to cover that cost? Is everyone supposed to write off the decades of investment into that state because one group of people decided to hold a vote to leave? Those are ridiculous questions to pose in this forum. I am not a legal expert. This would have to be negotiated. It would be an incredibly complex matter, obviously. Just as the Brexit negotiations are going to be long and complicated, but that's still happening. Either way, I think the will of Crimean people should have been taken into account, and yet the west seems to be ignoring that in their approach to the annexation. It can't be negotiated. Russia isn't going to pay the Ukraine for the land they are taking. They could never afford it. Do you know how much that would be valued at? The Ukraine will never be made whole in any way. They are just taking the land and use the "willing of the people" as the reason. And that "will of the people" is something they have been cultivating for well over a decade through propaganda and political influence. Folks in this long era of peace and general stability have not seen this before, but this is the exact shit that leads to conflicts. We don't fuck with each other's elections. We try to make deals with our neighbors to annex the land they live on. None of this stuff is new. It is only a matter of time before Putin looks for the next low hanging fruit that he feels should come home. PS: The same goes for US states. They can't afford the cost of becoming independent and paying off all the debts. That is why its not viable or an option. When people try to do this stuff, they want to do it for free. There you go again with the propaganda excuse. 'It is not the will of the people, they have been unduly influenced by propaganda.' It's a terrible excuse, I think. Your own opinion is the result of the information presented to you through media as well. Just as mine is, and just as anyone in the fucking world is influenced by the opinions they hear from their surroundings. From people believing in myths because their parents told them those fairy tales are true to people believing that their own country is exceptional and the only one that is indispensable somehow. In my opinion, Europeans who consume too much American media (from actual news to infotainment such as the Daily Show, but even things like movies) are unduly influenced by Americans and can't see wrong from right anymore.
To be fair, i agree that crimea isn't an easy issue because it went to the ukraine out of a brainfart by kruschef (iirc) that never imagined the USSR failing. That doesn't make it legal but it puts a bit of a perspective on this.
But a referendum held at a time when its allready occupied by russia, when inhabitants that were against russian occupation allready left, isn't worth the paper its written on.
|
The most successful societies in human history have developed political institutions that are pluralistic and protect minorities. By design, these have also been the societies with the greater variety of cultures within them. I'd say history overwhelmingly supports the case for multicultural societies.
Portugal as an example, at the height of our empire we had muslim, christian, jewish and african communities living in a bubbling, multiethnic and multicultural metropolis. The moment the Muslims and Jews started being persecuted and expelled was the moment that marked the beginning of the decline. The Jewish communities then sought refuge in places most open to multiculturalism - London, Belgium, the Netherlands.
|
On March 22 2017 02:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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":
[quote]
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.
You asked specifically for examples not dealing with immigration. America is clearly a country that predominantly multicultural/multiracial through immigration. Pay attention to your own questions.
|
United States42784 Posts
On March 22 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:15 KwarK wrote: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.
If an individual decides "I have political grievances so I'm going to start bombing shit" then yes, that's terrorism. If the people collectively decide something through the political process and then the organs of the state, accountable to the people, do an act on behalf of the people and that act is wrong then yes, it's a fuckup. I really don't understand how you're struggling with this concept.
|
On March 22 2017 02:28 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:25 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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":
[quote]
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).
Distinguishing between nationality, culture, and race are critical to the argument. They are distinct concepts. If you aren't up to seeing why I'm not hiding behind semantics, then you'd best just butt out. And given that you're now saying that I defined "acceptable American multiculturalism" as European and Chinese, you clearly aren't up to this discussion.
|
that's literally what i said in the post you quoted.
since you've edited yours; so you have no argument against anything i said then? because all you've done yet again is claim the high ground on nothing but baseless name calling. how typical. if you'd like me to make bold where you defined your americanism to make it easier for you, let me know. but in my experience you aren't worth the effort.
|
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.
Ahh, I found it rather funny that xDaunt basically argued against his own birth.
|
United States42784 Posts
On March 22 2017 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You asked specifically for examples not dealing with immigration. America is clearly a country that predominantly multicultural/multiracial through immigration. Pay attention to your own questions.
Wait, what? What do you consider the default here? Native American? Were white guys the immigrants making it multiracial? Or do you now consider African Americans to be immigrants? Were the native Hispanic populations of the American Southwest also immigrants?
People coming to America didn't make it multiracial. What made it multiracial was the fact that America was built on top of a bunch of different people who already lived there and then y'all brought a few million Africans in against their will.
|
On March 22 2017 02:36 Gorsameth 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. Ahh, I found it rather funny that xDaunt basically argued against his own birth.
“It was fine for me, but now its different and a threat to my culture and way of life. These new people are different and not like my parents…blah, blah, blah” – The eternal argument made by folks opposing the new group of people moving in.
|
I feel like xDaunt thinks the white immigrants from the UK, and mostly across Europe were the first ones in the US... It's like saying a dark skinned man born in Cuba is African, when in fact, he's a native to Cuba from his past ancestors.
|
On March 22 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You asked specifically for examples not dealing with immigration. America is clearly a country that predominantly multicultural/multiracial through immigration. Pay attention to your own questions. Wait, what? What do you consider the default here? Native American? Were white guys the immigrants making it multiracial? Or do you now consider African Americans to be immigrants? Were the native Hispanic populations of the American Southwest also immigrants? People coming to America didn't make it multiracial. What made it multiracial was the fact that America was built on top of a bunch of different people who already lived there and then y'all brought a few million Africans in against their will.
There really isn't much of a default. Huge numbers of immigrants came to the US from the colonial period through the 20th and into the 21st centuries. The American Southwest was largely vacant when it was annexed into the US. It was only during the latter half of the 19th century that it really started to get populated (through immigration), a process which accelerated during the 20th century.
|
I mean in like 30 years the US will just reclassify Hispanic as white and we will move onto the next immigration battle. It is what we did with the Irish and all others before them.
Side note, listening to the gorsuch hearing I'm pretty sure the democrats won't and probably shouldn't filibuster.
|
On March 22 2017 02:42 Nevuk wrote:
I mean in like 30 years the US will just reclassify Hispanic as white and we will move onto the next immigration battle. It is what we did with the Irish and all others before them.
Side note, listening to the gorsuch hearing I'm pretty sure the democrats won't and probably shouldn't filibuster.
iirc hispanic/non-hispanic is a separate classification from things like white.
you can already be white hispanic.
|
On March 22 2017 02:40 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I feel like xDaunt thinks the white immigrants from the UK, and mostly across Europe were the first ones in the US... It's like saying a dark skinned man born in Cuba is African, when in fact, he's a native to Cuba from his past ancestors.
A reasonable number of the founding fathers and people who fought in the American Revolution weren’t even from the UK, but from all over Europe and surround colonies. They all got painted pale white, but have no doubt that founders are a bit more mixed in complexion than white as the driven snow US history remembers them.
|
On March 22 2017 02:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:36 Gorsameth 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. Ahh, I found it rather funny that xDaunt basically argued against his own birth. “It was fine for me, but now its different and a threat to my culture and way of life. These new people are different and not like my parents…blah, blah, blah” – The eternal argument made by folks opposing the new group of people moving in.
What I like about this is to observe the switch of targets over time. Before it was the Irish in your case, in Switzerland it was the Italians and the Portuguese. Now it's become apparent that the Irish, Italians and Portuguese aren't a problem, and so we move to Latinos in your case and Muslims in mine.
Clearly our process wasn't wrong, we just targeted the wrong immigrants with it!
I wish I would live long enough to see them explain that at least Muslims are terrans, which is why they were able to integrate and the Centauris won't.
|
On March 22 2017 02:40 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I feel like xDaunt thinks the white immigrants from the UK, and mostly across Europe were the first ones in the US... It's like saying a dark skinned man born in Cuba is African, when in fact, he's a native to Cuba from his past ancestors.
Wrong. My answer to whether the dark skinned man born in Cuba is African or Cuban is first to ask him which he is. If he identifies as Cuban, then there's no problem. If he identifies as African, then the next question is why does he not identify as Cuban?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
