Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
43 comments displayed.
#35 to #3
-
anon (10 hours ago) [-]
You sure about that? Illegal immigrants certainly do not seek to better the society they enter, they just want to help themselves. They aggregate in their own closed communities where they serve their own self-interest and try to expand, without giving much thought to how it hurts others. Squatting on land and using that feudal-age power to influence rule over everyone to match their ideal. A good example is France but it is happening all over the place, America included. Unintended or sneaky conquest is still conquest.
#82 to #35
-
anonmynous (7 hours ago) [-]
and what have you done to help your own society that didn't benefit yourself? Our society works in such a way that getting an education and a good job does benefit society as a whole and that's all immigrants want while also escaping the poverty and death that surrounds their lives in their home countries. Silicon valley was founded by mexican immigrants.
#68 to #35
-
godofhorizons (8 hours ago) [-]
Get off your ******* high horse. You are describing 99% of anybody anywhere.
because colonial americans knew all about how viruses work right?
#37 to #33
-
malifauxdeux (10 hours ago) [-]
Yes actually. They used small-pox infected blankets as bio weapons.
#74 to #37
-
mindyourownbusines (8 hours ago) [-]
Really? People are still buying this? From what I remember there was one instance where Europeans openly used disease as a bio-weapon and it affected a very small percentage of one tribe. Most deaths had nothing to do with intentionally spread diseases.
Why do you sound like you're disagreeing with him? You're saying the same thing
#77 to #75
-
mindyourownbusines (8 hours ago) [-]
I don't entirely disagree with him. I just disagree with the implication people usually draw that it was a major plot on the part of Europeans to kill off all the natives by spreading disease. In reality, it was nowhere near as widespread as people make on. And I doubt, most colonial Americans knew the viruses were going to kill off the native people when they arrived, as was implied by the context. As I said, I think there was only one or two instances where Europeans intentionally used disease to harm natives.
Yeah, the British literally everywhere except Quebec. Canada hasn't been French since the French and Indian War.
but it can lead to conquest eventually. Like with the Native Americans/Canadians
Go to south Texas and tell me that those towns aren't mexico in all but name. Heck, go to east Texas and find the same thing.
Liberals only care about land grabs when white people do it. Fact.
Liberals only care about land grabs when white people do it. Fact.
The 60's called, they want their bleeding heart cause of the month back.
Baby boomer liberals. For like a month. Ask any beardleg at a Cuckie Panders rally what they think of Tibet and they'll say they love their coffee.
#53 to #50
-
youregaylol (9 hours ago) [-]
>"clear counter example"
>based on liberals from 50 years ago
I know you're likely not that bright, but when I say "liberals" I'm referring to current liberals, not every person who has called themselves a liberal in history, you ******* retard.
Next you'll be trying to argue that Liberals don't believe in gay marriage because classical liberals didn't, dummy.
>based on liberals from 50 years ago
I know you're likely not that bright, but when I say "liberals" I'm referring to current liberals, not every person who has called themselves a liberal in history, you ******* retard.
Next you'll be trying to argue that Liberals don't believe in gay marriage because classical liberals didn't, dummy.
Not only does your argument suck, but Tibet is literally still a prominent issue. Your whole ****** argument is based on wrong information
I live in America and I could ask the next 10 people about what they think about Tibet and China, and probably none of them would have a clue what was going on.
I never even heard of the issue until I was out of high school and I had to educate myself on the issue.
I never even heard of the issue until I was out of high school and I had to educate myself on the issue.
Tibet is still a prominent issue among liberals in the US? Seriously?
Where do they find you morons, it's like you roam in packs.
Where do they find you morons, it's like you roam in packs.
#104 to #78
-
vvthegreats (6 hours ago) [-]
My one question to you is this: Why are you still typing?
#106 to #105
-
vvthegreats (6 hours ago) [-]
You may do what you want, but there is a clear-cut difference between what is beneficial and what is not.
Your incoherent typing is not. For anyone. Especially for the ones with a positive IQ, like me.
Your incoherent typing is not. For anyone. Especially for the ones with a positive IQ, like me.
That "positive IQ" apparently hasn't given you the ability to type like a normal human being.
"Your incoherent typing is not. For anyone. "
I mean what the **** is that.
"Your incoherent typing is not. For anyone. "
I mean what the **** is that.
#39 to #18
-
malifauxdeux (10 hours ago) [-]
That's not conquering ******* . That's like saying the Irish conquered Boston.
If theres no assimilation, yes. You'd be hard pressed to find an Irish person who thinks Boston is a mini Ireland, but go into Pasadena, Texas and you won't be able to tell the difference from Mexico.
#42 to #40
-
malifauxdeux (9 hours ago) [-]
Oh yeah, because it's not like the mass Irish immigration in to the U.S didn't happen over a century ago or anything. OH wait... And let's not forget all these other "conquerors" like the Quakers, Catholics, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, or any other group who came in mass to the U.S. But here, let me make this easy enough for you to understand the difference between "a bunch of people from a different country moving in to or staying in an area." You know, because Texas was filled with Mexicans before we conquered it.
Conquer-
1.to acquire by force of arms; win in war:
to conquer a foreign land.
2.to overcome by force; subdue:
to conquer an enemy
Conquer-
1.to acquire by force of arms; win in war:
to conquer a foreign land.
2.to overcome by force; subdue:
to conquer an enemy
Ah, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. i'm sorry. You see when I mentioned "assimilation" that wasn't just a random assortment of letters. That means that the people assimilated into the country.
"You know, because Texas was filled with Mexicans before we conquered it. "
Who conquered it? Surely you don't mean the american immigrants turned mexican citizens. They were peaceful. They only became violent after they stopped being peaceful, ******** .
You're calling the americans conquerors because they immigrated to mexican land lawfully and took it over?
Why, that almost sounds like my argument.
"You know, because Texas was filled with Mexicans before we conquered it. "
Who conquered it? Surely you don't mean the american immigrants turned mexican citizens. They were peaceful. They only became violent after they stopped being peaceful, ******** .
You're calling the americans conquerors because they immigrated to mexican land lawfully and took it over?
Why, that almost sounds like my argument.
#48 to #44
-
malifauxdeux (9 hours ago) [-]
The Mexican American War~
A war between the U.S. and Mexico spanned the period from spring 1846 to fall 1847. The war was initiated by the United States and resulted in Mexico's defeat and the loss of approximately half of its national territory in the north. In the U.S. the war is termed the Mexican–American War, also known as the Mexican War, the U.S.–Mexican War or the Invasion of Mexico. Which led to...
Outnumbered militarily and with many of its large cities occupied, Mexico could not defend itself; the country was also faced with many internal divisions, including the Caste War of Yucatán. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, by American diplomat Nicholas Trist and Mexican plenipotentiary representatives Luis G. Cuevas, Bernardo Couto, and Miguel Atristain, ended the war. The treaty gave the U.S. undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande, and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming.
Areas gained by the U.S through the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo colored in white.
Jesus Christ dude...
As per "assimilation" I don't think you understand how long it takes for entire cultures to assimilate, and you still don't have a clear understanding of the word "conquer" apparently if you still want to try to use that word to describe Mexicans living together in a certain area.
A war between the U.S. and Mexico spanned the period from spring 1846 to fall 1847. The war was initiated by the United States and resulted in Mexico's defeat and the loss of approximately half of its national territory in the north. In the U.S. the war is termed the Mexican–American War, also known as the Mexican War, the U.S.–Mexican War or the Invasion of Mexico. Which led to...
Outnumbered militarily and with many of its large cities occupied, Mexico could not defend itself; the country was also faced with many internal divisions, including the Caste War of Yucatán. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, by American diplomat Nicholas Trist and Mexican plenipotentiary representatives Luis G. Cuevas, Bernardo Couto, and Miguel Atristain, ended the war. The treaty gave the U.S. undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande, and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming.
Areas gained by the U.S through the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo colored in white.
Jesus Christ dude...
As per "assimilation" I don't think you understand how long it takes for entire cultures to assimilate, and you still don't have a clear understanding of the word "conquer" apparently if you still want to try to use that word to describe Mexicans living together in a certain area.
Lol, you're trying lecture me about history yet you can't go 10 years back to the ******* TEXAS REVOLUTION. You know, the war not involving the US government and which ended in the Republic of Texas in 1836? That war was fought by Mexican citizens, primarily American immigrants, but not the government of the USA.
Mexico lost it's lands to its own citizens. They went to war with the US after their former citizens decided to join the USA.
"Jesus Christ dude..." indeed. I love it when morons who have no idea what they're talking about try to educate their betters. It's just...perfect,
Yes, the mexicans who have existed in Texans since before the mass immigration of europe in the early 1900's and still haven't assimiliated are just more stubborn than the Irish who assimilated much quicker. It couldn' possibly have to with the social climate of todays america. Just those stubborn americans.
Ask Mexico if their former american immigrants weren't conquerors. You liberals are so cute.
Mexico lost it's lands to its own citizens. They went to war with the US after their former citizens decided to join the USA.
"Jesus Christ dude..." indeed. I love it when morons who have no idea what they're talking about try to educate their betters. It's just...perfect,
Yes, the mexicans who have existed in Texans since before the mass immigration of europe in the early 1900's and still haven't assimiliated are just more stubborn than the Irish who assimilated much quicker. It couldn' possibly have to with the social climate of todays america. Just those stubborn americans.
Ask Mexico if their former american immigrants weren't conquerors. You liberals are so cute.
So you're telling me every city that has a Chinatown has been "conquered"? A large group of people in a foreign country isn't "conquering" it just a people from the same culture bringing into their daily lives to enhance them.
Conquering is stealing land and calling it yours, driving people out, none of which is done by peaceful gatherings of immigrants who abide by all laws set in their host country. You can live in Chinatown, the laws are the same in Chinatown, there is no "conquering" being done.
Conquering is stealing land and calling it yours, driving people out, none of which is done by peaceful gatherings of immigrants who abide by all laws set in their host country. You can live in Chinatown, the laws are the same in Chinatown, there is no "conquering" being done.
"A large group of people in a foreign country isn't "conquering" it just a people from the same culture bringing into their daily lives to enhance them. "
Oy Vey, some cultural enrichments afoot.
Tell that to the Mexicans who lost Texas to "peaceful immigrants.",at least until the immigrants decided to not be so peaceful anymore.
Tell that to the current Texans who are losing their cities now. You don't know a thing about how immigration can easily turn into conquest.
Oy Vey, some cultural enrichments afoot.
Tell that to the Mexicans who lost Texas to "peaceful immigrants.",at least until the immigrants decided to not be so peaceful anymore.
Tell that to the current Texans who are losing their cities now. You don't know a thing about how immigration can easily turn into conquest.
I agree, libs be biased
but it's not an organized conquering to our knowledge
but it's not an organized conquering to our knowledge