"The last gasp of white America ... The Latinos are coming"

[Heracles 417]

They're not making babies go go go make more babies and forget how raise them.

Best solution: Removed Amendment IV.

Citizenship should only available by US citizenship parent and or naturalization.

Weren't you criticizing me for saying the constitution needed to be updated in another thread. Your exact view was one of my points.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Maybe I'm looking at this whole issue simplistically, but why would it even matter who originally owned the land? We own this land now, so we make the rules for it. Maybe at some point in the future, a different nation will claim it as their own, but for right now, it's ours. Whoever had it in the past is irrelevant.

We can't start giving back land to countries (and the people who live there) who may have once owned land where other countries now stand. It's not logical nor is it practical. Nearly every country today was formed out of warfare somehow -- either directly or indirectly. While this rarely happens today, it was common practice years ago. The basic idea was that if you could hold onto your land, it was yours; if someone else rolled in and was able to take it from you, it now belonged to them. If you didn't like that, but couldn't defend against the attack, that was too bad.

Was that fair? Probably not. Then again, no one ever said life was fair. If the United States were to be perfectly "fair" according to some and return the land it won (and even paid for, considering Mexico), this country would cease to exist. We wouldn't be the only ones to suffer either. Nations all over Europe, Asia and the Middle East would topple, assuming whatever societies were defeated however many years ago still exist. If they did, however, the world map, not to mention the political and socio-economic structure, would be severely altered and probably not the better.

Edited March 26, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[*JG* 2]

Ha ha......if you look like that, you should be hanging around the CWE, not Cherokee Street!!!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Maybe I'm looking at this whole issue simplistically, but why would it even matter who originally owned the land? We own this land now, so we make the rules for it. Maybe at some point in the future, a different nation will claim it as their own, but for right now, it's ours. Whoever had it in the past is irrelevant.

We can't start giving back land to countries (and the people who live there) who may have once owned land where other countries now stand. It's not logical nor is it practical. Nearly every country today was formed out of warfare somehow -- either directly or indirectly. While this rarely happens today, it was common practice years ago. The basic idea was that if you could hold onto your land, it was yours; if someone else rolled in and was able to take it from you, it now belonged to them. If you didn't like that, but couldn't defend against the attack, that was too bad.

Was that fair? Probably not. Then again, no one ever said life was fair. If the United States were to be perfectly "fair" according to some and return the land it won (and even paid for, considering Mexico), this country would cease to exist. We wouldn't be the only ones to suffer either. Nations all over Europe, Asia and the Middle East would topple, assuming whatever societies were defeated however many years ago still exist. If they did, however, the world map, not to mention the political and socio-economic structure, would be severely altered and probably not the better.

what i found particularly stupid about the video was someone saying they occupied this land 40,000 years ago and they are mexican. like please!

on another note, who here buys into the radical lines this video is spouting?

[Heracles 417]

We can't start giving back land to countries (and the people who live there) who may have once owned land where other countries now stand. It's not logical nor is it practical. Nearly every country today was formed out of warfare somehow -- either directly or indirectly. While this rarely happens today, it was common practice years ago. The basic idea was that if you could hold onto your land, it was yours; if someone else rolled in and was able to take it from you, it now belonged to them. If you didn't like that, but couldn't defend against the attack, that was too bad.

Yes. It is amazing how so many people fail to comprehend this little fact. I know I have argued countless times with people overseas about this because the say American is imperialist. The last person caught doing something usually ends up being the scapegoat.

[peejay 327]

Maybe I'm looking at this whole issue simplistically, but why would it even matter who originally owned the land? We own this land now, so we make the rules for it. Maybe at some point in the future, a different nation will claim it as their own, but for right now, it's ours. Whoever had it in the past is irrelevant.

We can't start giving back land to countries (and the people who live there) who may have once owned land where other countries now stand. It's not logical nor is it practical. Nearly every country today was formed out of warfare somehow -- either directly or indirectly. While this rarely happens today, it was common practice years ago. The basic idea was that if you could hold onto your land, it was yours; if someone else rolled in and was able to take it from you, it now belonged to them. If you didn't like that, but couldn't defend against the attack, that was too bad.

Was that fair? Probably not. Then again, no one ever said life was fair. If the United States were to be perfectly "fair" according to some and return the land it won (and even paid for, considering Mexico), this country would cease to exist. We wouldn't be the only ones to suffer either. Nations all over Europe, Asia and the Middle East would topple, assuming whatever societies were defeated however many years ago still exist. If they did, however, the world map, not to mention the political and socio-economic structure, would be severely altered and probably not the better.

what i found particularly stupid about the video was someone saying they occupied this land 40,000 years ago and they are mexican. like please!

on another note, who here buys into the radical lines this video is spouting?

The even bigger question is...where is the condemnation of the Tan Klan?

[Heracles 417]

what i found particularly stupid about the video was someone saying they occupied this land 40,000 years ago and they are mexican. like please!

on another note, who here buys into the radical lines this video is spouting?

Yes considering humans first arrived here approx 10,000 ago during the last ice age, from Europe..

[HAL 9000 96]

Maybe I'm looking at this whole issue simplistically, but why would it even matter who originally owned the land? We own this land now, so we make the rules for it. Maybe at some point in the future, a different nation will claim it as their own, but for right now, it's ours. Whoever had it in the past is irrelevant.

We can't start giving back land to countries (and the people who live there) who may have once owned land where other countries now stand. It's not logical nor is it practical. Nearly every country today was formed out of warfare somehow -- either directly or indirectly. While this rarely happens today, it was common practice years ago. The basic idea was that if you could hold onto your land, it was yours; if someone else rolled in and was able to take it from you, it now belonged to them. If you didn't like that, but couldn't defend against the attack, that was too bad.

Was that fair? Probably not. Then again, no one ever said life was fair. If the United States were to be perfectly "fair" according to some and return the land it won (and even paid for, considering Mexico), this country would cease to exist. We wouldn't be the only ones to suffer either. Nations all over Europe, Asia and the Middle East would topple, assuming whatever societies were defeated however many years ago still exist. If they did, however, the world map, not to mention the political and socio-economic structure, would be severely altered and probably not the better.

I think its the point of the OP video, not whether or not we like the reality of a war of expansion. As for paying, the only payment was the Gadsen Purchase in present day Arizona.

Giving back the stolen territory would be silly, as is imposing rules on other nations while trying to self-serve at their expense- in present day terms.

Maybe I'm looking at this whole issue simplistically, but why would it even matter who originally owned the land? We own this land now, so we make the rules for it. Maybe at some point in the future, a different nation will claim it as their own, but for right now, it's ours. Whoever had it in the past is irrelevant.

We can't start giving back land to countries (and the people who live there) who may have once owned land where other countries now stand. It's not logical nor is it practical. Nearly every country today was formed out of warfare somehow -- either directly or indirectly. While this rarely happens today, it was common practice years ago. The basic idea was that if you could hold onto your land, it was yours; if someone else rolled in and was able to take it from you, it now belonged to them. If you didn't like that, but couldn't defend against the attack, that was too bad.

Was that fair? Probably not. Then again, no one ever said life was fair. If the United States were to be perfectly "fair" according to some and return the land it won (and even paid for, considering Mexico), this country would cease to exist. We wouldn't be the only ones to suffer either. Nations all over Europe, Asia and the Middle East would topple, assuming whatever societies were defeated however many years ago still exist. If they did, however, the world map, not to mention the political and socio-economic structure, would be severely altered and probably not the better.

what i found particularly stupid about the video was someone saying they occupied this land 40,000 years ago and they are mexican. like please!

on another note, who here buys into the radical lines this video is spouting?

True enough Charles.

what i found particularly stupid about the video was someone saying they occupied this land 40,000 years ago and they are mexican. like please!

on another note, who here buys into the radical lines this video is spouting?

Yes considering humans first arrived here approx 10,000 ago during the last ice age, from Europe..

...