US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7168

On March 22 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote:

Hey, if you can get the rest if our country to agree with that, it won’t be a hard sell for us to stop footing the bill for your national defense. It hasn’t been that popular over here in a long time.

Same with Syria. If we had any confidence in the EU nations to handle that thing on their own, I’m sure we would never get involved. Sadly your track record is pretty piss poor. You are good at heckling from the sidelines. The reason I know this is that the one time the US decided not to jump into the middle of a Middle East conflict, the EU as a whole just hung out and hoped it would resolve itself. And that didn’t really work out.

We can play the blame game all day, but at some point we travel back to when the US wasn’t a world power and everyone ignored Hitler. And before that how everyone was super smart after WWI and decided to slap Germany really hard for like two decades.

On March 22 2017 04:00 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, you don't get to say that Spanish is incompatible with being American when you build America on top of Spanish lands occupied by people who speak Spanish.

On March 22 2017 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:

What is your point? No one in this thread claims anything other then this.

On March 22 2017 04:38 xDaunt wrote:

Where are you getting this from? The American Southwest was not distinctly Spanish at the time of annexation. It was predominantly empty. And to the extent that those lands were being settled, it was predominantly Americans who were settling there. This is what precipitated Texan independence in the 1830s and the Bear Flag Revolt in the next decade. There was nothing "Mexican" about the American Southwest during the 19th Century other than some names on a map.This is why it is ludicrous to compare American annexation of these territories to the English assimilating the British Isles.

On March 22 2017 04:38 LegalLord wrote:
Personally I think that nations should be required to match or exceed US spending as percent of GDP, whatever level it is at, to be guaranteed NATO protection. If their military doesn't require more money they should be required to relax the efficiency of their spending in order to properly meet the threshold required. They should also be required to be on board with any random ass venture the US pursues in the world, on their own dime.

Pay your fair share, you leeches.

On March 22 2017 04:37 a_flayer wrote:



You do not pay for our national defense. That is not how NATO works, and you know it. Didn't we establish this just a few days ago? The US would spend just as much on its military even if Europe spent twice as much as it does now, and the US invests in NATO because they gain from it.

Europe and the US have no business in Syria because they were not invited to help them deal with the problem of terrorism. The Syrian government didn't ask for help from the US because the US would simply try ousting the existing government as part of this and they see Europe as a puppet (probably due to Russian propaganda, amirite?).

And you really genuinely believe that all the meddling in the Middle East by the US has resulted in anything good? It didn't do any good when European countries drew those retarded borders in the first half of the 20th century, and it didn't help in the slightest when the US kept up the interference in the second half. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq...

Holy crap I'm just so confused by your attitude. I thought we more or less agreed on this matter of meddling in other countries.

On March 22 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:

This simply isn't the case. I know that it's great to pretend that American Manifest Destiny involved populating previously empty lands but they weren't empty, they were populated by "undesirables". Hell, a fair bit of effort was made to try and make them empty, including mass deportations of Hispanic American citizens in the 1930s, but that doesn't work backwards.

I mean hell, in my own state we have church records going back hundreds of years. People lived here.

On March 22 2017 04:50 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, I guess that is another option. That's a possibility too. Maybe we should try to spend less rather than trying to squeeze more out of others.

On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:


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.

Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote.

On March 22 2017 04:53 xDaunt wrote:

Have you bothered to look at how many lived there at the time of annexation? Texas had less than 4,000 at the time of its secession from Mexico. California had less than 10,000 non-Indians before the Gold Rush. Americans built the American Southwest from the ground up. Not Mexicans.

On March 22 2017 04:53 xDaunt wrote:

Have you bothered to look at how many lived there at the time of annexation? Texas had less than 4,000 at the time of its secession from Mexico. California had less than 10,000 non-Indians before the Gold Rush. Americans built the American Southwest from the ground up. Not Mexicans.

On March 22 2017 05:01 KwarK wrote:

I'm glad you're now willing to admit that there were at least some Indians in the land that became the American west, that's an improvement on your earlier insistence that the lands were empty and waiting for the white man to come and claim them. But no, still wrong.
When my state was established as a US territory Spanish speakers outnumbered English speakers 25:1. By 1900, after the railroads opened the state up to large scale Anglo immigration, it was still 2:1. In 1909, despite a franchise that limited participation by the Hispanic population Spanish speakers still occupied 11 of 21 seats in the New Mexico House. In 1915, after statehood, 24 of 49.

People lived here. This was not virgin land lying dormant waiting for the white man.

On March 22 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:

No, you're the one who is now getting on the right track. Two problems with your post, however. First, you're now limiting your argument to New Mexico, which is one of the Mexican territories least settled by Americans following annexation. This is highly misleading for obvious reasons -- particularly in light of the distinctly American development of all of the larger, surrounding states -- most notably California and Texas. Second, you're speaking in relative terms (ie the ratios) instead of absolute numbers. This hides the real issue of whether America occupied truly "Mexican/Hispanic" lands as you are arguing.