Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 90
It is a great quote and one we need to put into LAW.
Matthew are you are terrorist?
I mean, he didn't like "hyphenated Americans", he thought everybody should speak English and only English, and he thought all immigrants should assimilate as quickly and completely into "American culture" (whatever the hell that was supposed to be) as possible.
Last time I checked, there were still plenty of "hyphenated Americans", and while the vast majority of people in the US speak English, many also speak other languages, and in fact may speak those languages more often than they speak English.
At the end of the day, I think Teddy Roosevelt's ideas about what being a "real American" were all about are as out-of-date as his ideas about imperialism and Nordic racial superiority.
and sole loyalty to the American people, Teddy makes a good point about hyphenated
"Americans". When they call themselves something other than an American, they're
not an American at all. How true, and especially so, in this multiculturalistic age.
Teddy's words/ideas are actually more appropriate and relevant to today's life in America, than the era when he lived.
American (just like Roosevelt said). If you don't then you could be one depending on whatever else you do. I am of Danish & Belizian ancestry. My mother was born in Denmark. I don't know a word of Danish, don't know a thing about Denmark except that they're famous for making pastries and high quality furniture. I wish the Danes well, but frankly I couldn't care less about what they do.
Pretty much the same goes for Belize, my other ancestry. I don't carry any hyphens. As for what is a true American, there's probably a few definitions. One might be someone who has served in the military, defended the country in war, or had relatives/friends who lost their lives doing that.
Good points, Marvin. I think it's clear that all this talk about who counts as a "TRUE American" and who doesn't is mostly coming from nativist bigots. They've been around, in one form or another, for a long time.
They were around in the late 1700s when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, and in the 1850s when the American Party unsuccessfully ran Millard Fillmore in the Presidential election.
The American Party wanted to severely restrict immigration, just like these modern-day Know-Nothings. Of course since they were WASPs, they especially wanted to restrict immigration of Catholics. They also wanted laws that said that only native-born citizens could hold public office. And they wanted legal immigrants to live in the US for 21 years before they were eligible to apply for citizenship.
In Louisville, Kentucky election day (August 6, 1855) turned into "Bloody Monday" when supporters of the American Party and the Democrats fought in the streets. At least 22 people were killed, and some estimates put the number at over 100, with entire families burned to death when their homes were set alight.
Fillmore only won a single state, Maryland. But he did get over 20% of the popular vote. That's better than Ross Perot (19%) managed as a third-party candidate back in 1992, and better than George Wallace (13.5%) and the pro-segregation American Independent Party back in 1968.
Obviously they were around in Teddy Roosevelt's day, too. But thankfully they remain in the minority and haven't managed to take control of the U.S. government. And hopefully they never will.
It's sometimes hard being an American who has close ties to his racial descent because I am proud of both my being an American as well as being of PuertoRican decent...a lot people assume you need to choose between the two...
One last point....if some people see me walking down the street, and they have to describe me...I don't think they will say...he looked American.
I don't think so, either, Marvin. If Robert couldn't care less about his ancestry, that's his choice, and there's nothing wrong with it. But it doesn't make him more American than others such as yourself.
Hispanic surname, I refused to accept that. These are a few examples.
I wouldn't expect an internationalist/multiculturalist to understand this. Teddy
Roosevelt's words have great meaning today.
Roosevelt's words have great meaning today. "
Robert...you are 100% correct as is evident by ' Mister Know It All' Wil B's comment below....
"If those things make people "true Americans" then what are the people who don't do those things? False Americans? There's no such thing. You might not like it, but that's the way it is. "
Wil is the all knowing expert on everything..and you all must accept his above comment as the utter and complete undisputed truth. Wil knows all things..Wil knows what's good for us..Wil is the all knowing..all teaching..ultimate power of our moden world. If the all-mighty Wil says that something is good for us, then for goodness sakes it is good for us. And for anyone who disputes his wisdom, even with facts, he will even dispute that. Again. Wil is above all knowledge and facts. His intellect is above any knowledge or proven facts, thus he can dispute knowledge and facts with the utmost confidence in his own intellectual abilities which supersede knowledge and actual facts.
To sum this all up in layman's terms..Wil ( according to him) is the ultimate intelectual power of our universe,
Wil..just in case I haven't told you this lately.....F**K YOU AND THE KANGAROO THAT YOU RODE IN ON!!!!!
I don't know if you'd call them false Americans (your words, not mine), but if they don't adhere to American culture, especially language, and they call themselves
something-American, then they are certainly not true Americans. Why are you asking me this, when you've had our great ex-president Theodore Roosevelt to explain it to
you in the marvelous quote of this article ?
Thanks Jean B. I mention this quote, or at least the last sentence of it, every chance I get. And you can call Tim names if you want Wil, but I agree with his agreement of
what I said. Hang in there, Tim.
You and Teddy can repeat your bigoted, nativist opinions until you're blue in the face. I'm not buying into your prejudice any more than I buy into the prejudice of those who say the only true Americans are WASPs, or the ones that say that the only true Americans are the ones descended from those who were there before 1492.
Your description of my opinions is INCORRECT. WRONG. UNREASONABLE.
Let's check the dictionary (even if you don't believe in them, I do).
BIGOT - A person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.
Well, I don't hold BLINDLY to anything. I observe statistical studies, common sense, and interviews with people from all backgrounds, many on Lou Dobbs Tonight, as well as read books by informed authors. I'm quite sure you know that, so you got that one wrong, or as the bad, loud buzzer in the game shows says "AHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!
OK, how about nativist ?
NATIVISM - 1. the practice or policy of favoring native-born citizens as against immigrants.
2. The revival or preservation of a native culture.
Seeing as how in today's American society (overpopulated, resource poor, wage deficient, local tax deficient, deficit-ridden, etc.), immigration works to the disadvantage of the NATION, as a whole, I'd say yes, I am a nativist, that is regarding immigrants who are immigrating here NOW, and within the past few years. I don't only favor native-born citizens (my mother was an immigrant), but I also favor well-established legal immigrants over those immigrating here now, when we just plain can't afford to take more people. 300 million +. Are you kidding ? The lifeboat is overloaded - we all know that.
I'm also in favor of preserving our English language from erosion from foreign languages in our everyday life (telephone recordings, TV commercials, billboards, library sections etc.) .
Yeah, you could call me nativist and protectionist. I'm comfortable with those, and with Teddy Roosevelt as one of my favorite presidents, who like me, was often very accepting of different races of people (especially since I'm multi-racial myself). I could cite some examples of that acceptance and goodwill toward folks of other races, by
President Teddy, if you like.
Feel better now, Robert?
Are you talking to yourself again? No one here cares what YOU think. Maybe you should spend your time attempting to sway people's opinions in Australia, You know...where YOU live?
" Poor Tim. If only everybody would just agree with everything you say, life would be so much better for you, wouldn't it? I don't expect you to accept any of my comments as the utter and complete undisputed truth. Apparently you do which is why you act like a pouty little three-year-old with Tourette Syndrome when people don't agree with you. "
Then he wrote in response to one of Robert's comments......
" You can repeat your bigoted, nativist, protectionist opinions until you're blue in the face. "
Now just who is pouting like a three year old just because someone's comments weren't in agreement with his? LO FREAKING L!!!!!!!
ROCK ON KANGAROO BOY!!!!!!
I don't know, Tim. Who? Not me. I don't mind if Robert spouts his bigoted, nativist, protectionist opinions if he feels the need to. That doesn't mean I'll agree with them, but I fully support his right to spout them.
I am a WASP, from a long-line of settlers who arrived in htis country in the colonial era.
I grew up in communities where rural folk still speak German dialects, as they do in other parts of theis country.
One of the charms of New Orleans has been the lovely french patois that survives from the time of the French explorers of the Mississippi Valley.
One can hear Danish and Norwegian spoken in Minneapolis and its environs, and almost every language of the earth in Brooklyn.
That is the "true" America.
Irish-americans, German-americans, Danish-americans -they are all true americans.
This idiotic complaining about other people not meeting your definintion of a good citizen is the only sign of not being a true American.
Thank you for the compliment of calling my words "blather". (let's see if he catches on). For once though, I'm not really strongly opposed to your statements.
You obviously like Wil, are a multiculturalist. I, as a former Geography major, am not able to be that simply because I understand the meaning of what a NATION is, and isn't.
Yes, I know all about the languages in Brooklyn. That's across the river from
Manhattan (ground-zero land), and is also where my mother lived for 7 years after
immigrating here (legally) from Denmark. I also know that I don't speak a word of Danish, because when I was born 17 years after my mother arrived in the US, only English was spoken by my mother (bilingual Danish-English), and father (bilingual in
Spanish-English). They spoke inaccented (except for a New York accent.
This is an example of the "melting pot". The immigrants arrive but they learn English and American culture and become American. Exactly what Theodore Roosevelt
was talking about. New York City is very diverse ethnically, and the kids i grew up with were from many national ancestries. But I never knew what those ancestries were until I became an adult and some multiculturalistic inclined people started talking about
it. I liked it when we were all just New York, American kids together.
If you, et al, prefer the multiculturalisic style of things, so be it, you have that right
but you and Wil, and whoever else, really shouldn't down those of us who believe in the preservation of a culture that we have had, and the preservation of
a NATION - a stable, historically developed community of people, with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture, and language in common, (rather than a mish-mash).
PS - Wil. You haven't shown how I could be a bigot. Against whom, and how.
So Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater....What is un-American about being a Nativist?
" Not me. I don't mind if Robert spouts his bigoted, nativist, protectionist opinions if he feels the need to. "
Marsupial Boy..I pose the same question to you as I did Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater. And who's to say that Robert's opinions are bigoted? I suppose that since you are in disagreement with Robert's opinions, then they, according to you, are bigoted?
intolerance to certain people/things. NOTHING I do is done "BLIND", and Wil knows it
damn well. Everything we say is based on all those good reasons of why our immigration laws exist, and the HARMS we incur, when they're violated. there's nothing "BLIND" here at all. It's all very plain to see, and the American people are seeing it.
The American people are on board with us. Eliot spitzer found that out. Dick
Durbin (author of the DREAM Act) found it out. Kennedy, McCain, Lott, Reid, and other assorted Congressional misfits found it out. As for Wil ? Well, Wil's just living in WIL'S
WORLD, that's all.
intolerance to certain people/things"
So Robert...now we have the ' Bigot Card ' ???
Damn Robert....I forgot about the ' Nativest' card!
(I'm in Florida), they need to get Tshirts with the word HYPOCRITE written on it,
I reckon.
Sorry Robert, I thought I'd been fairly clear in my earlier posts. I know you've picked out a definition of "bigot" that you feel doesn't apply to you:
"Problem with Wil's reckless use of the word "bigot" is that "bigot" means a BLIND
intolerance to certain people/things. NOTHING I do is done "BLIND", and Wil knows it
damn well."
but other definitions don't mention the word "BLIND". For example (from Merriam-Webster):
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
and (from American Heritage):
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Also, you've freely admitted to being a nativist. Nativism is a form of bigotry, Robert. The American History Dictionary has an excellent description of what nativism is all about:
"Nativism, the fear and loathing of and hostility toward immigrants or other perceived "aliens," has run through American history ever since the European settlement of this continent. Though technically it refers to a person's place of birth, nativism is not simply xenophobia; it may be (and has been) directed toward nativeborn Americans whom nativists view as "un-American." The targets and the rhetoric of nativism shift over time, making difficult a single detailed description of it. However, all the disparate forms of nativism include a hostility toward those perceived as "outsiders," whether ethnic, religious, or political, and an emphasis on the purported moral, economic, and/or political dangers those people pose to America."
Ring any bells?
Nope. None whatsoever. Why do you ask ?
Reason it doesn't ring any bells with me is because I don't have "hostility" toward illegal aliens, at all. I see them as victims of the overall system created by crude, selfish, arrogant super-rich Mexican greed freaks, crude, selfish, American illegal employer, greed freaks, and do-gooders supporting this oppression, of these people.
For those wrongdoers, I have "hostility", not the illegal aliens. My definition of nativism (from Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition) is : 1. the practice or policy of favoring native-born citizens as against immigrants 2. the revival or preservation of a native culture.
This definition says nothing about "hostility" like yours does, and even your book's
definition doesn't fit me because, no, I don't have hostility, in fact in many comments,
I've expressed the need to take control over Mexico and fix the political/economic system, so that job programs and a safety net for the poor will exist, and the illegal aliens will have a decent opportunity country to return to (and this consideration has not really been expressed too often by too many gather members).
If you doubt that I've posted this position previously, quite a few times, just say so and I'll go find them, and direct you to them. So, you can either do that and wait for my responses, or you can apologize now.
You want to deport them, forcefully if necessary.
You want to invade and occupy Mexico and remove its democratically-elected government.
You use offensive and derogatory language to describe US citizens born to parents who are in the US illegally.
You say that people who speak languages other than English, or who use hyphens when indicating their heritage aren't true Americans.
You've said that appearing in a presidential debate televised on Univision is a "total disgrace to America" and "has forfeited his/her right to to be president."
I could go on, but I think those examples are enough to point out some of your "hostility".
"So, you can either do that and wait for my responses, or you can apologize now."
Or I could point out some of the reasons why I think you exhibit hostility to illegal immigrants, to legal immigrants, and to other people who you don't consider "true Americans." Which I've done. What I will apologize for is for spending so much time arguing with you about this. I'd much rather discuss the issues, not you.
You heard what I said about the illegal aliens, and you know that I've posted comments in ways protective to them, including war against Mexico, which isn't invading Mexico, it is fighting to repel their invasion of us.
"democratically elected government - LOL that's a good one. Even if they were democratically elected (Obrador disputes that), that would have nothing to do with the fact that we have a right to defend ourselves from their agression and colonization.
"Anchor babies" is neither derogatory or offensive. It describes the babies as what they are, factually.
This discussion refers back to you calling me a "bigot". (by your definition); my dictionary does not mention "hostility" in connection with "bigot". I go with my dictionary's version. One can have 'hostility" and not be a "bigot". I believe the word bigot has something to do with the concept of justice. When there is an UNJUST hostility or aversion to some group, then yes, I'd call that bigotry. But those people who are hostile to illegal aliens are absolutely JUST in that. Why wouldn't/shouldn't they be hostile to people who disrespect our laws (and thereby us as well) ? And against people who take away our jobs and livelihoods, reduce our wages, and cause us a lot of grief, in various ways, and aren't the least bit apologetic about it either.
From discussions with illegal aliens that I've had at their lamebrain protest rallies, they have nothing but contempt and HOSTILITY for the American people, and this country in general. They are here for 1 reason only - to parasite off us, and grab everything they can. As far as I'm concerned, if they are getting hostility from Americans, it is because of one good reason. Because they DESERVE IT.
Do what you would rather do, and then when you get back to that (after attacking me), you can apologize twice; first for wrongly saying I have "hostility", and second for this foolish (hostile) attack.
You've already received the only apology you're getting from me, Robert. Your most recent post in this thread has convinced me even more that you are a nativist bigot. That doesn't necessarily matter all that much in terms of these discussions, since I'm sure even nativisit bigots are capable of overcoming their personal prejudices and biases and participate in discussions based on reason and fact. Just because a person is a nativist bigot, that doesn't mean they're wrong.
But I think it's important to keep in mind, especially in those instances where you don't present arguments based on fact or reason, but on fallacious appeals to what you claim are "common sense" and popular sentiments.
Mexico isn't invading anybody, including the United States. Your plan is for the United States to illegally invade and occupy Mexico and overthrow its democratically-elected government. That's nasty. And every bit as wrong as the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"democratically elected government - LOL that's a good one. Even if they were democratically elected (Obrador disputes that), that would have nothing to do with the fact that we have a right to defend ourselves from their agression and colonization."
Lots of elections are disputed, including elections in the United States. If Putin decided to "liberate" the American people by invading and occupying the US and overthrowing the government, I've got a funny feeling a lot of American people wouldn't rush to embrace their "liberators."
"When there is an UNJUST hostility or aversion to some group, then yes, I'd call that bigotry. But those people who are hostile to illegal aliens are absolutely JUST in that."
Sure they are, Robert. The Klan, American Unity, Aryan Nations, FAIR, American Cause, the CCC, the American Nazi Party and all the rest of them...I'm sure all these people feel perfectly JUSTified to feel the way they do.
"I still say you're nothing but a phony, race carder like Peter Whimpsey, Still Stumbling Stephanie, and all the rest of the Gather disingenuous guilt trippers."
Wow, for a minute there I thought you were going to say "I'm rubber, you're glue..." LOL!
"Go ahead. Keep posting"
I plan to.
invasion of us, with their people who have penetrated our borders illegally, in a quantity of millions (AKA INVASION).
Whether Mexico's government was elected democratically or not, or has an ounce of
legitimacy, is dependent upon who you talk to. One thing's for sure. An extremely
large number of political scientists and people in general consider it illegimate, and most definitely harmful to the majority of it's population, and HARMFUL TO US as well.
Every nation has a right to take action against harm coming from its neighbor.
That is not only not nasty, not wrong, but it is necessary and our responsibilty.
To compare it to the invasion of Iraq (we now have the Iraq card ?), in which Iraq has not been invading/occupying/colonizing us, is simply idiotic.
"I've got a feeling a lot of American people wouldn't rush to embrace their liberators".
If Putin has a plan to liberate us from George Bush, let's hear it. I've got as funny a
feeling a lot of American people would not only embrace that, we might be part of it.
"Surely they are Robert". The Klan, American Unity....."
I wasn't talking about hate groups, and you know it. If you had an ounce of decency, you wouldn't try to put words like that in my mouth. I was talking
about the majority of the American people, who are JUST in having hostility toward illegal aliens who are invading us, and harming us.
Also, you include FAIR in the same sentence with those other groups ? You're even
more out in WIL'S WORLD than I thought you were. Merry Christmas !
LOL! An extremely large number of political scientists, huh? They must be a very quiet group then.
You've said you think the US ought to invade and occupy Mexico and overthrow its government. That sounds pretty hostile to me, Robert. But then again, you've said you'd be happy if Vladimir Putin sent the Russian military to invade and occupy the United States, and overthrow the US government, so obviously you're a big fan of "regime change" as long as you think it'll work in your favor.
" I wasn't talking about hate groups, and you know it."
Those groups all have anti-immigrant stances, Robert. Do they all self-identify as hate groups, or is that a label put on them by others? I mean I think they're hate groups, but they all seem to feel totally JUSTified in their opinions, no matter how divisive and hateful they are.
"Also, you include FAIR in the same sentence with those other groups ?"
All those groups have taken anti-immigrant stances. So has FAIR.
Have you been taking lessons from Rush Limbaugh ? You conveniently left out the fact that that advocated to "PRESSURE" Mexico. That in 4 steps, where we would never get
to #4 (seizing mexico's oil fields and gold mines), if Mexico would comply after our # 1,
2 (if necessary) and 3 (if necessary).
So really, our procedure depends on their response. If they don't respond
adequately to the first 3, then yes we need to go to #4, very definitely. That's OK, Wil.
It must be difficult for an internationalist to understand such things.
I'm a little curious though. If your neighbor was somehow causing harm to your yard, would you just sit back and do nothing ? Or would you pressure him to fix the situation whereby it would go in your "favor" (just not having that harm to your yard) ?
That's a good one, Robert. If we invade and occupy their country and overthrow their government, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves. Is that it? Sorry, but that sounds a lot like a guy who beats his wife and then says "See what you made me do!"
and then saying to him "See what you made me do!"
Besides, as I just got through telling James C. in another thread, it's not likely we would have to invade and occupy. This colonization taking place is about MONEY.
The remittances and welfare cost relief combined is Mexico,s #1 source of income.
If the first three scenarios don't get Mexico to cease their pillaging scam, and force is required, a seizure of their Gulf coast oil fields and gold mines along the
Mexico/USA border, should be enough to make them reassess how economical it is for
them to play Viking.
Since "seizing" their oil fields and gold mines would involve invading and occupying their country, it sounds like you're keen for the US government to start another illegal war.
Any chance you yourself would be doing any of the invading and occupying, Robert? Or are you hoping somebody else will go do the fighting and killing and dying for you?
I take back what I said earlier. What you're proposing sounds more like a guy who wants to beat his wife, but gets some other guy to do it for him, and then says "See what you made me get him to do!"
You're an asshole! At least Robert is a U.S. Veteran, and I don't think he had "some other guy do it for him". As a Veteran myself, dickhead, you can rest assured that if it came down to it Robert, myself, and thousands of other Vets would be there to defend the U.S. Unlike your sissy ass hiding in Australia. One thing's for sure, we'd NEVER ask a coward like YOU to "do it for us"!
Robert says the US has been under attack from Mexico for years now. So why aren't you and all those thousand of other Vets you pretend to speak for down on the border defending the border? Maybe you could end up sharing a cell with Ramos or Compean.
"One thing's for sure, we'd NEVER ask a coward like YOU to "do it for us"!"
Good, because I wouldn't beat your wives no matter how many times you asked me to.
"Good, because I wouldn't beat your wives no matter how many times you asked me to."
An expected response from a cowardly fool. Besides, my wife would kick your ass!
"So why aren't you and all those thousand of other Vets you pretend to speak for down on the border defending the border?"
Wars are fought in many ways....One more thing you know NOTHING about. LOL!
"Maybe you could end up sharing a cell with Ramos or Compean."
I might just spend a little time with both of them.....When they are RELEASED! I would be in good company.
Maybe you could share a cell with some of those LAMBDA folks. Perhaps you could share some tails...er... I mean tales with them! Probably right up your alley, eh mate?
And btw, since you brought up the subject of 'wives', does your wife still call out my name in the middle of the night?
"Robert says the US has been "under attack" from Mexico for years now.
Are you sure that's what Robert said? Or are you just lying again?
Who's LAMBDA and why would they be in prison?
in REPELLING an invasion, which another nation started, and has been continuing for
years now. As I said, it would be difficult for an internationalist like yoursef to understand such things.
No need to change my analogy. It was right the first time, and is now also.
The beaten wife is the USA, the overaggressive, inconsiderate, selfish husband lout is Mexico, and the US military or diplomats are the police. Get it ?
"so why aren't you......down on the border defending the border ?"
There you go making assumptions you're not qualified for, again. Who told you we're
NOT on the border, defending the border ? Have you ever seen the Minutemen when
they defend the border ? They do it like security guards. They observe (with binoculars)
and report (to the border patrol).
Here in Florida, we have a water border (the Gulf of Mexico), and while out fishing
(very often), we observe boatload of people arriving on overcrowded old crappy looking
boats. We report these to the Florida Marine Patrol and the US Coast Guard. Many of
these people have been turned over to ICE and deported.
"nd now you know the rest of the story"
If one of those ways involves posting childish insults, I can see where you might be slightly useful. Otherwise...not so much.
"It only sounds like "starting" a war to your internationalist mind, because you seem to have no concept of what a NATION is, and the responsibilities of a NATION's citizens, in REPELLING an invasion, which another nation started, and has been continuing for years now."
There's no invasion, Robert. There are people breaking a relatively minor US law. That doesn't constitute an act of war. If the US tried to use that lame excuse to justify invading and occupying Mexico, it would be just as guilty of starting an illegal war as it was when it illegally invaded and occupied Iraq.
" Here in Florida, we have a water border (the Gulf of Mexico), and while out fishing (very often), we observe boatload of people arriving on overcrowded old crappy looking boats."
Sounds like a great way to spend the afternoon. Especially if the fish aren't biting. But it doesn't sound anything like your plan to seize their oil fields and gold mines. Are you and your fishing buddies going to be involved in that, too?
I guess it's easy to try to start wars when you don't have to do the fighting. Just look at what the chickenhawks have accomplished in Iraq.
YOUR comments:
"Sorry, but that sounds a lot like a guy who beats his wife and then says "See what you made me do!"
"Any chance you yourself would be doing any of the invading and occupying, Robert? Or are you hoping somebody else will go do the fighting and killing and dying for you?"
"I take back what I said earlier. What you're proposing sounds more like a guy who wants to beat his wife, but gets some other guy to do it for him..."
"...I wouldn't beat your wives no matter how many times you asked me to."
"If one of those ways involves posting childish insults, I can see where you might be slightly useful."
The pot calling the kettle black, Wilbur? And what about this lie you told earlier?
"Robert says the US has been "under attack" from Mexico for years now.
And, so.....does she still?
Since I'm not sitting at my keyboard trying to convince people to go start a war I'm not going to fight in, I'd have to say "no".
"And what about this lie you told earlier?"
Why in the world would you think that was a lie, H.G. Haven't you been paying attention to Robert's posts? Does it have something to do with the way you keep putting the words "under attack" in quotation marks?
Oh yeah, and before I forget....who's LAMBDA and why would they be in prison?
O.K., I forgot your lack of comprehension and learning disability. Sorry.
How's this?...."...involves posting childish insults..."
The pot calling the kettle black, Wilbur? Now if you still don't get it, I suggest you sign up with one of those tutors I mentioned to you before.
....who's LAMBDA and why would they be in prison?"
O.K., wrong homo organization. Try NAMBLA, need a link?
So then...does she still?
It's pitiful HG, because you're leaving out the bits that provide the context. There's nothing new about you posting childish insults, so it's hardly worth commenting on. What made it funny this time is that you sit there in front of your computer talking about how you and all your vet buddies are ready to go defend America by illegally invading Mexico.
If I sat here posting childish insults and talking about how, "if it came down to it", me and my buddies could go invade Mexico if we wanted to, then yes, that would be the pot calling the kettle black.
"O.K., wrong homo organization."
Thanks for clearing that up. Let me guess...you're a homophobe?
Now what about that accusation about me being a liar because I said "Robert says the US has been under attack from Mexico for years now"? How exactly is that a lie?
"It's pitiful HG, because you're leaving out the bits that provide the context."
I provided all the "bits" in the previous post, but once again, your lack of comprehension made it hard for you to understand. maybe you should try re-reading it a few hundred times.
Talk about pitiful! Dude, you really SHOULD try and get a tutor!
"What made it funny this time is that you sit there in front of your computer talking about how you and all your vet buddies are ready to go defend America by illegally invading Mexico."
Is that what I said or are you just not capable of any reading comprehension?
And let me point out another one of your shortcomings in regards to comprehension:
"...me and my buddies could go invade Mexico if we wanted to..."
If someone here (besides you) said this, I would like to see it. Unless you are attempting another lie!
"Let me guess...you're a homophobe?"
Let me guess...you're a homo?
"Now what about that accusation about me being a liar because I said "Robert says the US has been under attack from Mexico for years now"? How exactly is that a lie?"
Show me those exact words genius.
No, I'm a hetro. Does it matter?
"Show me those exact words genius."
LOL! You try hard, but you're just not very good at this, are you HG? If I'd said he used those exact words, I'd have put them in quotation marks.
"If someone here (besides you) said this, I would like to see it."
Sorry HG, did I misunderstand when you were posting all that bullshit about how you're a vet, and about how "if it came down to it Robert, myself, and thousands of other Vets would be there to defend the U.S."?
Robert's plan to defend the U.S. is for the U.S. to invade Mexico. He thinks a "a seizure of their Gulf coast oil fields and gold mines along the Mexico/USA border should be enough to make them reassess how economical it is for them to play Viking."
So which is it? Are you and all your vet buddies going to make a run for the border and help Robert seize those oil fields and gold mines or not? I wouldn't want to misinterpret what you're saying about this, so please explain your position on the "Invade Mexico" plan.
H.G. ....Re-reading a hundred times won't work umless you translate to Mandarin Chinese for ol' Wil! LOL !!
No, no invasion. Just 12 - 20 million people from other countries, HERE, arranged by their ruling class leaders and government, grabbing jobs and wealth and tax funds, and turning these over to their home countries' economies and treasuries.
A small number of elder folks from the German and Japanese side in World War II
are still alive today. My guess is if asked if this is what they would like to have done, and was part of what they were trying to do, they'd say "of course". They would have been here by the millions, occupy the nation, take the wealth, and reinsert it all into Germany and Japan. No mystery here.
So why shouldn't it be called an invasion ? Because they're not dropping airborne troops into Kansas, Georgia, and New York ? No, they're not parachuting, they're walking, driving, sailing, and just about every other way of getting here, and it's not to compete in a tennis tournament.
Invasion. Plain and simple, and fighting to repel it has no relation to the invasion of Iraq, as you ludicrously stated.
"Any chance you yourself would be doing any of the invading and occupying, Robert ?"
There is a chance of that, sure, if I got the opportunity. Seeing as how I'm 61 years old though, the military commanders might not consider me quite front line material. When I was young, though, I was in the Army, and have 2 honorable discharges from that. Not in the chicken hawk category.
Maybe someone who never served could fit that description. Know anybody like that, Wil ?
Regarding what I'm "looking at", I'm "looking at" what the new Mexican War traitors are accomplishing here by defending Mexico, like tens of thousands of Americans killed by illegal alien gang violence, jobs and livelihoods ruined, hospitals closing, Billions of dollars lost, etc., yeah, you know the situation. Yeah, that's what we're looking at, while you're either in denial about it, or full of crap.
Whether it's 1 million, 12 million, or 20 million, it's not a military invasion, and it's not an act of war. If the US government were to respond with a military invasion of Mexico, that would be just as illegal, and just as wrong, as the invasion of Iraq.
"Seeing as how I'm 61 years old though, the military commanders might not consider me quite front line material."
So I'll take that as a "no". You want other, younger people to go fight the war you want to start.
The answers to this latest comment are in my comments of Dec.13, 8:53 PM and Dec.17. 11:32 AM.
And so are you. Obviously we're not going to change each other's views on this, so whenever you're ready to move on, feel free. :)
Sherriff's deputies-you need to watch Lou Dobbs more often) along the Mexican border.
Whether the Mexican invasion is military, economic, or some combination of these is irrelevant. What matters is, as American citizens, we have a duty to defend our country, and that should/will occur by military or lesser activity, if possible.
"So I'll take that as a no."
No you won't, because it's not a no. I said "there is a chance of that, sure". Don't you know what "sure" means ? It means yes, not no. No one in their 60's should be expected to engage in rigorous physical activity, but there's plenty of military work that can be done that does not involve that. I would be willing to put myself at great physical risk, possibly death, to defend the USA from outside invaders, in a military action that doesn't require strenuous physical activity (heavy lifting, running, etc.). This
could be some job on a warship in the Gulf of Mexico, or in planes flying over the oil fields or gold mines.
This isn't contradictory to what I've said. I only said I wouldn't be front line material (as an infantry foot soldier or my previous MOS - combat construction worker). So, yeah I'd go there and be in it. Maybe you should not be so quick to jump to conclusions and judgements, young man. Then, you can better avoid making a fool out of yourself. Now go get a shave, and change that shirt. You've been wearing it for 2 years now.
As irrelevant as whether or not Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction, had anything to do with the attacks on Sept. 11, and posed any sort of threat to the United States. Who cares, right? Any excuse to invade and occupy another country, seize their oil, and install a government that will do what they're told.
"No one in their 60's should be expected to engage in rigorous physical activity, but there's plenty of military work that can be done that does not involve that."
Maybe it wouldn't require too much rigorous physical activity to kill the women and children, or even just the baby "invaders".
Then you start talking about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ? I wasn't talking about REASONS for defending America, that's well UNDERSTOOD as evidenced by recent
Congressional action, polls, etc.
You're the one who keeps digging up issues already long completed. If you think we need an "excuse" to defend ourselves from Mexico or anyone else, you're even further out there in WIL'S WORLD than we thought.
Now go clean up all that rubbish that your next-door-neighbor dumped over the fence into your backyard, all because 1. he's nasty 2. because you thought you needed an excuse to invade him, and just a 30 foot pile of his trash in your yard wasn't
good enough. Would it require too much rigorous physical activity for you to call the cops, or is it just more appropriate for you to get used to the sight and smell of it ?
But if for some bizarre reason one of my neighbors did dump a 30-foot pile of trash in my yard, maybe I'd follow your example and constantly bitch and moan about it on Gather and see if that solved my problem.
And yeah, I guess you probably would have very diverse neighborhood down there in
Antarctica. To each his own. I prefer living in a nation.
As for the no fighting or whining about anybody taking your jobs or using your resources, then I guess nothing will be done about it, will there ? Also, how do you know this ? Have you spoken personally to everyone who has had a job taken from them, or is suffering in some way from needless resource scarcity ?
By killing them and their children? No thanks. Not my style.
"And yeah, I guess you probably would have very diverse neighborhood down there in Antarctica."
Damn Robert, for a guy who claims to have taught Geography, you seem pretty rusty on the southern hemisphere.
"To each his own. I prefer living in a nation."
Are you planning to move to one?
"As for the no fighting or whining about anybody taking your jobs or using your resources, then I guess nothing will be done about it, will there ?"
Nothing needs to be done. We're all doing fine. Thanks for caring.
"Also, how do you know this ? Have you spoken personally to everyone who has had a job taken from them, or is suffering in some way from needless resource scarcity?"
I've personally spoken to all those neighbors I mentioned earlier, plus the native Australians that also live in our little neighborhood, and while we've talked about our jobs and about resource scarcity (our city is on water restrictions because of a drought), and none of them have complained about people stealing their jobs or their natural resources.
Our neighborhood might be a little more diverse than others, but more than 1 in 5 people living in Canberra was born in another country, so I think that makes us a pretty diverse town. I like it that way, and so do most people I've talked to.
You Said: "Robert says the US has been under attack from Mexico for years now"? How exactly is that a lie?"
Then You Said: "If I'd said he used those exact words, I'd have put them in quotation marks."
This is how a liar and deciever operates. Putting words in people's mouths, twisting words to fit your own agenda and presenting them as fact, when in FACT that is not what was said. The lack of quotation marks prove NOTHING!
Here's another example of your lies...
"What made it funny this time is that you sit there in front of your computer talking about how you and all your vet buddies are ready to go defend America by illegally invading Mexico".
So....Show us all where I said this - LIAR!
"Robert's plan to defend the U.S. is for the U.S. to invade Mexico."
Does Robert have a plan to invade Mexico, or are you talking out of your ass again? LIAR!
Oh, yeah...I saved the best part for last. In your own words, proof that you are incapable of any reading comprehension whatsoever...
"So which is it? Are you and all your vet buddies going to make a run for the border and help Robert seize those oil fields and gold mines or not? I wouldn't want to misinterpret what you're saying about this, so please explain your position on the "Invade Mexico" plan."
So WTF, Wilbur! Are you believing and then misinterpreting your own lies now! And now, you want me to explain them to you? You're really not very good at this, are you? Perhaps you should seek psychiatric assistance!
And finally...
"did I misunderstand when you were posting all that bullshit about how you're a vet...
What's the matter Wilbur, wouldn't they let you enlist? Maybe you were classified 4F? ROFLMFAO!!
I was thinking about moving either to Belize (too many severe hurricanes) or Canada
(roads too icy), in the past. For now, I guess I'll hang around here and keep being an American despite the country going from "We the people" to "We the peopleS"
. "our city is on water restrictions because of a drought"
Sounds like an opportune time to invite your local Geography professor in to talk about the "benefits" of growth (population).
I wouldn't have thought either one of those countries met your criteria for a "nation."
"Sounds like an opportune time to invite your local Geography professor in to talk about the "benefits" of growth (population)."
Maybe I'll invite one to our next neighborhood get-together.
I wouldn't have thought they were "nations" to you because you've previously defined a nation as "a historically developed community of people, in a defined territory, united by a common descent, language and culture", and because you've often placed significant emphasis on the importance of a common language and culture.
Canada has two official languages, and the Canadian House of Commons has recognized Quebec as a "nation within a united Canada." And while Belize only has one official language, I've heard (never been there, personally) that most people there speak a creole language, and that Spanish is also widely-used in some parts of the country. And both countries are members of the British Commonwealth, ruled by Queen Elizabeth II.
Put all that together and it doesn't seem to meet your criteria. But then neither does the US, so maybe you aren't really that picky.
"national". The fishing in both places (Belize and Nova Scotia) is great.
For now, I'm staying here in Florida. Things might be improving.
LOL, speaking English, by your own definition, doesn't make a place a "nation". I'm sure the people (and the fish) of Nova Scotia and Belize are very happy to know that you're staying in Florida.