Refugees Protect Woman From Sexual Harassment In Germany

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-28-2016, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know much about Medved, nor do I really care. This little bit, though, why? Why should what happened here have been the last? Why not one of the times before it, or after it? Hitler and men like him certainly haven't been the only ones since 1789 to do this. People often forget how new the borders in the old world really are. These territorial conquests happen constantly all over the world.

I have mixed feelings on these sorts of things. I've done a fair amount of reading on the interactions with natives here in Virginia and early colonists. The natives here thought Jamestown was just another trading outpost, and when they discovered otherwise they weren't too happy about it. By then, though, it was too late. Combine that with cultural misunderstandings and you have a recipe for disaster. My problem isn't so much with the conquest of the lands; that is, as has been pointed out, the standard throughout history and will be into the future. My issues lie with our treatment with the native tribes after treaties were written and they accepted a role within the U.S. Sure there were insurgents for many years after, but even those that weren't a part of that were faced with broken promises and mistreatment that have led to the near extinction of many tribes.

Because of racism in the Old Dominion, almost none of the Virginia tribes can receive federal recognition because for many years they were denied the status of "Indian" and relegated just to being "Colored". This break in the records combined with the treatment that came with it has caused a number of problems for the tribes. Cultures nearly lost to the ages as they are pushed to the brink.

No, how we conquered them may be something that some people have issues with, and I can understand that as a pacifist. But the mistreatment that occurred after they were to be considered a part of our nation is really the biggest tragedy of the story.

Simple they owned a vast majority of the good cotton producing lands, and white man wanted it.
They were pushed out with Indian Removal Act of 1630, which also allowed the US to no longer respect their rights.
Then the Trail of Tears came and that hurt them even more. One thing I never understood was why Jackson and the US didn't provide food etc after promising it to the Redman.
Later when the Civil War broke out, the Indians sided with the Confederacy and once the war was over, the North used it as an excuse to break off as many treaties as possible with them.

Also on a side note, when the Redman was still in the South and East of the Mississippi, there were some really rich Indians that owned some big cotton plantations and *gasps African Slaves. That's another thing I never understood, why is it always the White man is the bad man for owning slaves, when Native Americans, other Blacks and so on have also owned slaves.

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2016, 11:32 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Simple they owned a vast majority of the good cotton producing lands, and white man wanted it.
They were pushed out with Indian Removal Act of 1630, which also allowed the US to no longer respect their rights.
Then the Trail of Tears came and that hurt them even more. One thing I never understood was why Jackson and the US didn't provide food etc after promising it to the Redman.
Later when the Civil War broke out, the Indians sided with the Confederacy and once the war was over, the North used it as an excuse to break off as many treaties as possible with them.

I'm aware of this history, doesn't make it any less tragic. As to the Confederacy, they really should have stayed out of it. They sided with the CSA in the hopes a new government would uphold their word, but even if they would have won it would have likely been more broken promises.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-28-2016, 12:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm aware of this history, doesn't make it any less tragic. As to the Confederacy, they really should have stayed out of it. They sided with the CSA in the hopes a new government would uphold their word, but even if they would have won it would have likely been more broken promises.

I know, and you are probably right, they should've stayed out of it. Let the White Man kill the White Man for a change. lol

But the North already had such a glowing resume with them. So it's only obvious that they would try to better their situation just like anyone else would by joining up with the Confederates.

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2016, 01:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I know, and you are probably right, they should've stayed out of it. Let the White Man kill the White Man for a change. lol

But the North already had such a glowing resume with them. So it's only obvious that they would try to better their situation just like anyone else would by joining up with the Confederates.

Oh, I can't fault them at all for looking at the situation and taking advantage of a chance to say screw off to the Feds.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2016, 09:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: Medved is a walking encyclopedia. On occasion I am able to listen to his program, and I've never heard anyone that is able to rattle off statistical data and historical fact from the top of his head no matter what subject is being discussed quite like him. Medved is spot on in this article.  Quite a remarkable guy, so for you to call him stupid doesn't do a whole lot for your credibility.

Fair enough.  While memory and intelligence are related they aren't the same.  For example, Marilu Henner can remember almost every day of her life due to hyperthymesia.  However, her incredible recall doesn't prevent her from saying stupid things.  "A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future." is a stupid statement.  If you disagree that's fine.  It won't be the first time you are wrong nor the last.

Calling others "liberal dick," addressing individuals whom you've never talked to before as "you people," combined with ignorant assumption about how I feel about illegal immigrants negatively impacts your credibility.  Are you familiar with the idiom about people in glass houses throwing stones?

Quote:Medved prefaces the article by acknowledging the suffering of Native Americans, and anyone with a lick of common sense would tell you that Medveds aim was not to dismiss the mistreatment of Native Americans.

Show me where I stated Medved's aim was to dismiss the mistreatment of Native Americans.

Quote:Being ashamed of it to the level that the self loathing leftist "hate America first" crowd wants everyone to is what Medved is addressing. If we're not sulking over our "evil" past, then we ourselves must be evil.

First of all, I'm not self loathing.  If anything, I'm a narcissistic, elitist asshole with an inflated sense of self worth and right now there is no doubt in my mind I'm a better person than you.

Secondly, I'm a military veteran because I love my country, I'm proud to be an American, and I care enough about the rights of my fellow Americans I swore multiple times to defend their rights (including your's) up to and including my death. 

Third, I never told you are anyone here they should be ashamed of the treatment of Native Americans hundreds of years ago.  Acknowledging something happened that you had no part in and cannot change isn't a call for you to feel ashamed.  You are disagreeing with something I never stated which is the classic strawman argument.

Last but not least, I have both liberal and conservative views.  Every once in awhile, I might change my mind about something based upon new information.  (Like capital punishment.  I used to be "for" now I'm leaning towards "against.")  So I'm not surprised you would label me "leftist" due to your shallow intellect and superficial analysis combined with an inability to deal with nuance of the grey areas between the black and white secondary to a simplistic and childlike world view.

Quote:Aside from the fact that the Native Americans stole this land from other Native Americans through constant tribal wars, the conquest of the Native Americans by whitey was not the first time one group of people conquered another.

Frequent or even constant conflict between the Native American tribes doesn't diminish or change what occurred secondary to colonization.  Keep it simple, stupid:  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:As Medved points out:
On six continents, such shifting populations – with countless cruel invasions and occupations and social destructions and replacements - have been the rule rather than the exception.
Lets see, in Europe alone there were the Goths, the Visigoths, Vandals, Gauls, Franks, Saxons, and a slew of other barbarian peoples that by conquering others may have had something to do with the formation of the European countries we see today. I don't know. I'm not an expert in the history of Western Civ.

Review my last comment above.  Just because something happened in the Eastern Hemisphere repeatedly doesn't mean it didn't happen in the Western Hemisphere because it happened repeatedly in the Old World.  By your logic, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosovo never happened because the Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Gauls, Franks, and Saxons had slaughter a bunch of people before.  Try trolling harder the next time.

Quote:So if you're of French descent for example, perhaps you should be ashamed because some group may have been wiped out by another so that France may exist.

Unlike you, I haven't suggested you should be ashamed of anything.

Quote:And those illegal Mexicans you have a soft spot for, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Spanish conquests of Central America.
You people ignore the Spaniards because they don't count, although Caucasian, they don't quite fit into your anti white narrative. 

I haven't mentioned skin color a single f$%&ing time.  Not once.  Medved wrote about white "genocide" and white cruelty and viciousness.  Take it up with him.  I wrote "European colonialism."  Check a map.  Spain is in Europe.  Spain participated in European colonialism in the New World.  I didn't ignore the Spaniards and I'm not to blame for you lack of reading comprehension.  My "anti white narrative" is a figment of your imagination.  You and I have never discussed illegal immigrants from Mexico so you wouldn't know what kind of "spot" I have for them.  You're making ignorant assumption based upon a complete lack of information.

Again with the "you people"?  This is the second time you have called me "you people" in as many posts.  How the hell could you be bigoted towards me in your very first comment to me?

Quote:The discovery of the new world and the founding of United States should have marked the last and final episode of one mans territorial conquest over another.
Too bad guys like Hitler didn't see it that way.

Why?  You noted Medved pointed out this sort of activity has occurred on six continents throughout history.  Why would it stop?  Right now we (well, not you) are involved in a land war in Asia and even the character Vizzini from The Princess Bride knows that is one the two classic blunders along with, "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2016, 11:32 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Simple they owned a vast majority of the good cotton producing lands, and white man wanted it.
They were pushed out with Indian Removal Act of 1630, which also allowed the US to no longer respect their rights.
Then the Trail of Tears came and that hurt them even more. One thing I never understood was why Jackson and the US didn't provide food etc after promising it to the Redman.
Later when the Civil War broke out, the Indians sided with the Confederacy and once the war was over, the North used it as an excuse to break off as many treaties as possible with them.

How do you reconcile your statement above with your statement below?

(01-27-2016, 05:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The early US did not promote policies that were to physically eliminate all Indians, in fact, they actually created policies that promoted assimilation. The only time the US agreed to "exterminate" the Natives, was when a group the Natives would refuse to cede their lands to the Americans per the signed treaty.

Quote:Also on a side note, when the Redman was still in the South and East of the Mississippi, there were some really rich Indians that owned some big cotton plantations and *gasps African Slaves. That's another thing I never understood, why is it always the White man is the bad man for owning slaves, when Native Americans, other Blacks and so on have also owned slaves.

I was always of the opinion people who opposed slavery opposed slavery regardless of the skin color of the slave owner.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-28-2016, 03:59 PM) pid=\171425' Wrote:First of all, I'm not self loathing.  If anything, I'm a narcissistic, elitist asshole with an inflated sense of self worth and right now there is no doubt in my mind I'm a better person than you.

Secondly, I'm a military veteran because I love my country, I'm proud to be an American, and I care enough about the rights of my fellow Americans I swore multiple times to defend their rights (including your's) up to and including my death. 

 

1.  Based solely on the evidence of statements made here on these boards, I firmly second your contention. 

2.  Thank you for your service. 

[StLucieBengal]

oncemoreuntothejimbree Wrote:You have an open invitation to come visit me. Just let me know. You can verify my identity with my drivers license then cross reference my drivers license with my DD 214. 

I have never been concerned with your service record one way or another. I take you at your word. I was just having a laugh seeing how much I could get you to post. I can't remember who I was PM'ing with during that time but I think I was trying to get you to take a photo by your car holding a glass of milk wearing a blue shirt or something.

You seemed bothered by my comment questioning your service. It's just a bengals message board and I really could care less what anyone's employment record is here.

My point was that it's just petty nonsense to be concerned with telling someone else what they did in their life.

I don't need to verify your identity if we ever did meet I am quite sure we would be having a laugh over several things, none of which would be checking id's

[StLucieBengal]

 Vas Defer Wrote:This has to be one of the most egregious repeated acts of disrespect on these boards.  You're going to continually slander a veteran over on his merit and service after he's given proof of said service to our country.  You and everyone of your rogue miscreant slack jawed buddies on here should be ashamed at yourself, only you're incapable of doing so.   I'm genuinely surprised the mods continue to allow an intolerant troll to hide behind a digital veil and say things like this to anyone, let alone a veteran who's given evidence of his service. 

Man up and prove some of your bodacious claims.  

Relax Francis.  

[StLucieBengal]

GMDi Wrote:It took forever for his previous account/other name on the old boards to be banned...he'll go too far soon enough.

Banned for what?

[Belsnickel]

Sometimes when I see posts quoted that I missed earlier in the thread I'm a bit disheartened at the level of dialogue in this place. You don't agree with someone? Fine. Attack their argument. I know we're all guilty of making it a bit personal around here but some of this shit is just getting out of hand.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-28-2016, 04:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How do you reconcile your statement above with your statement below?





I was always of the opinion people who opposed slavery opposed slavery regardless of the skin color of the slave owner.

Easy, I was pointing out that in the early stages of the US, we were actually very good to the Native Americans and respected their rights as well. It was only later on when things got nasty.
Both sides contributed to the constant escalation of the violence towards each other.

If someone hits you, you will hit back, then it goes like that for a while and now your eye got poked out, now you want both of the other person's eyes poked out.

Andrew Jackson was a fool and didn't like the Indians, he mishandled this whole thing. The Supreme Court ruled that the Indians could not be forced from their land, and he told the states that he had no intention of enforcing that law.

Just keep in mind the Intent. it was never the intent to ELIMINATE the Native Americans, if they wanted to eliminate them, then they would have and they wouldn't have owed them any money for their lands etc.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2016, 06:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Easy, I was pointing out that in the early stages of the US, we were actually very good to the Native Americans and respected their rights as well. It was only later on when things got nasty.
Both sides contributed to the constant escalation of the violence towards each other.

If someone hits you, you will hit back, then it goes like that for a while and now your eye got poked out, now you want both of the other person's eyes poked out.

Andrew Jackson was a fool and didn't like the Indians, he mishandled this whole thing. The Supreme Court ruled that the Indians could not be forced from their land, and he told the states that he had no intention of enforcing that law.

Just keep in mind the Intent. it was never the intent to ELIMINATE the Native Americans, if they wanted to eliminate them, then they would have and they wouldn't have owed them any money for their lands etc.

So your saying the first "punch" wasn't thrown until after the Native Americans were displaced from the 13 original colonies and western expansion from that point?

[Vas Deferens]

(01-28-2016, 05:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Relax Francis. 

I'd tell you to act like a civilized adult, but we're past the point where your indiscretions could be reversed. 

[Vas Deferens]

(01-28-2016, 05:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have never been concerned with your service record one way or another.   I take you at your word.   I was just having a laugh seeing how much I could get you to post.    I can't remember who I was PM'ing with during that time but I think I was trying to get you to take a photo by your car holding a glass of milk wearing a blue shirt or something.  

You seemed bothered by my comment questioning your service.   It's just a bengals message board and I really could care less what anyone's employment record is here.  

My point was that it's just petty nonsense to be concerned with telling someone else what they did in their life.    

I don't need to verify your identity if we ever did meet I am quite sure we would be having a laugh over several things, none of which would be checking id's

You originally claimed he wasn't a veteran by stating his rank and service post numbers were off.  Who were you PMing with having a laugh this time?  It would be nice to know who else thinks this kind of attack on someone's character constitutes "having a laugh"

You seem to make that claim fairly regularly.  Either you're full of shit and using it as an excuse or you and your peacock brethren have a lot to say which you don't have the testicular fortitude to say in public.  

[Vas Deferens]

(01-28-2016, 05:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Banned for what?

PM yourself.  You'll figure it out. 

[GMDino]

(01-28-2016, 05:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have never been concerned with your service record one way or another.   I take you at your word.   I was just having a laugh seeing how much I could get you to post.    I can't remember who I was PM'ing with during that time but I think I was trying to get you to take a photo by your car holding a glass of milk wearing a blue shirt or something.  

You seemed bothered by my comment questioning your service.   It's just a bengals message board and I really could care less what anyone's employment record is here.  

My point was that it's just petty nonsense to be concerned with telling someone else what they did in their life.    

I don't need to verify your identity if we ever did meet I am quite sure we would be having a laugh over several things, none of which would be checking id's

Go look at your messages.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-28-2016, 07:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Go look at your messages.

I'm sure the other poster in question will just come out of hiding and reveal themselves.  

[Rotobeast]

(01-28-2016, 07:34 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: You originally claimed he wasn't a veteran by stating his rank and service post numbers were off.  Who were you PMing with having a laugh this time?  It would be nice to know who else thinks this kind of attack on someone's character constitutes "having a laugh"

You seem to make that claim fairly regularly.  Either you're full of shit and using it as an excuse or you and your peacock brethren have a lot to say which you don't have the testicular fortitude to say in public.  

(01-28-2016, 07:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Go look at your messages.

It was me.
I believe he mentioned it when we were PMing about the history between Pat and Brad.
I said something about Breech putting out quite a bit of evidence and Lucie mentioned trying to get him to pose with a glass of milk.

[StLucieBengal]

Rotobea Wrote:It was me.
I believe he mentioned it when we were PMing about the history between Pat and Brad.
I said something about Breech putting out quite a bit of evidence and Lucie mentioned trying to get him to pose with a glass of milk.

Ty Roto.