Trump's Wall: total fantasyland says engineer

I already know about the Iroquois and I suggest you read 1491 because they were not even remotely unified prior to contact. They unified post contact when faced with a seemingly unbeatable outside force (white settlers). I even mentioned this phenomenon three times now!

Seriously, read Guns, Germs, and Steel and stop making yourself look ignorant. I have seen children with a better understanding of this topic than you. There are tons of examples of groups which unified due to an outside threat but we don't have those pre-contact which makes your use of this to claim immigration laws shouldn't exist so stupid.

Oh, well, since they weren't unified .., why didn't you say so in the first place. We should go take over Europe!! They're not unified in one nation. Hell, Africa!! They're not unified.

Again, just because something doesn't fit in with your idea of what is a government or ... who "owns" what land, doesn't mean others don't see differently. Being able to see another point of view or a different concept of reality is a sign of intelligence.

I've read those books and it doesn't at all surprise me that your poor reading comprehension exhibited repeatedly at Wordforge also applies to longer works.

gturner is a racist.

If there is no government then there is no legal or illegal and your claim that people were illegal aliens is nonsense. Especially the part where you compare it to modern times where there are governments and immigration laws. Your supposed counter example sucked, deal with it, and try to come up with a remotely logical reason why we should ignore duely passed immigration laws which conform to the Constitution because currently you aren't doing that.

If somehow you moved everyone to electric right now there would be no drop or a small drop in pollution. It's just all that pollution would be at the power plants working overtime to provide enough electricity to all the cars.

I'm not against electric but it's laughable to believe it will put a dent in pollution. Not to mention the pollution caused by pulling the stuff out of the ground to make the batteries.

Now however if......

We can get nuclear fusion up and running or Molten Salt Thorium Reactors we could do it.

You are too much, dude, and I recommend you reread it because he spent a whole chapter on this topic.

Here's the thing, much like personal responsibility, if you can't admit where you went wrong, you can never be right.

I'm not saying all the white people need to pack up and move out. I'm saying we need to be honest with ourselves. We stole this land.

BUT!, we are not the first humans in history to steal land. That has happened from the dawn of time. What's done is done and all we can do is move on from here. And the way we do that is recognize our mistakes and take steps to prevent it from happening in the future.

How does that relate to the OP topic? Easy, recognize that this country was built on poor, hard working immigrants. And that people who cross the border from Mexico, people who come here and work twice as hard for half as much, are just like our own ancestors. And they deserve the same opportunities that were afforded our ancestors.

1) Power plants are much easier to control pollution out of than millions of tailpipes.

2) We could easily ramp up nuclear and renewables. California is already closing in on the renewables goal of 35% and when you add hydro we will be over 50%. Build some nuke plants and you have the rest without primary ghg output. It just isn't that hard.

Granted, point sources of pollution (power stations) are much easier to scrub than mobile sources (autos).

Let us put aside how stupid and factually wrong your comparison is for a second and instead why don't you explain how that supports your previous position that immigration laws should be ignored? Or have you run away from your original argument?

You should probably reread your own posts in this thread. You said there were no governments. The Iroquois and half a dozen other native nations prove you wrong. You yourself admitted the Aztec and Inca represented sophisticated governments. So the Europeans clearly invaded and stole from these people. There is no controversy about this, and yet you continue with the claim that what the Europeans did was just fine. This is just more proof that you are a racist piece of shit. It also proves that you are a complete dumbass. You consistently fail to back your claims, you get confused about what you have said and even make contradictory statements. And then you have the brass to call names when others demonstrate your mistakes. You are probably the worst person on this board.

There WAS a government. Just because you don't recognize it as one, does not mean it did not exist.

Read the history, dude, because the Iroquois confederacy wasn't formed until after European contact as a response to outside aggression.

Seriously, learn to read because right now you are completely failing at that.

Expect they didn't even have a word for government and instead just had people talking around a fire in a single village which only was around a few month out of the year. That is not a government but a tribal big man system which hadn't even evolved to a chieftain system yet.

Seriously, read Guns, Germs, and Steel with Gul because you two are just fundamentally wrong.

See there you go again, proving that you are too dumb to understand the information. The term confederation was added by Europeans, to describe what was formerly known as the six nations. Those six nations had existed for hundreds of years by the time of Columbian contact. You should be embarrassed by how wrong you are.

I don't know any other way to say what I'm saying so, I guess I'll say it again in the hopes that you MIGHT understand - Just because YOU don't recognize it as a government, does not mean they did not have their own government. Just because they didn't have a word for it, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Do you think ... Adam and Eve had a word for relationship? They didn't have a word, so they didn't have a relationship?

Take off the blinders and stop judging by your standards.

Any books that postulate what you've been spewing here, is just someone else making excuses for what happened here. But, it's still just an excuse. Same as every other country that took someone else's land over the last 20 millennia.

Isn't that what Trump is suggesting? Let's stop the land stealing! Everyone stay put!

A real estate developer you doesn't steal land?

Who's trying to steal land?

The books he has cited don't say what he claims. He's just wrong and hoped nobody else had read those works, so that he could pull a Dayton chicken coop defense.

Mexicans. La Raza wants to make the Southwest a Hispanic nation and drive out the white folks.

\

Perhaps the statue of liberty is not american to you, but it sure is to me you fascist fuckwit.

Yeah, and to get past the Statue of Liberty you're supposed to get processed through Ellis Island and possibly get rejected, which is why we'd also screen applicants before they got on the boat.

Except, you are completely wrong as usual. Thanks for playing.

I'm not sure the analogy with cars is a very good one. Solutions to technical problems usually involve a conscious decision taken quickly (in historical terms) given the circumstances at the time.

Private property is a particular form of land ownership that developed over centuries in particular historical, economic, political and social circumstances. These circumstances did not exist in North America, or indeed in other parts of the world where such a system never emerged. It's not the same kind of choice as choosing between two different technical solutions.

There is in fact, despite the imposition by colonisers of their systems on colonised peoples, an enormous diversity of land ownership structures throughout the world. For anyone interested in learning about these issues I can recommend Man and the Land, which provides an excellent summary of the extant systems worldwide (although it's a little out of date now) in the context of agricultural and land reform.

This is not just wrong on its own terms, but, as with so much else you write, it is the terms themselves that are the real problem. You're looking at non-western people through a western lens, and finding them wanting by this standard, you assert that their way of doing things can't possibly work and, therefore, justify taking control over their affairs and repalcing their sytems with western ones. This, funnily enough, is exactly what European colonisers did all over the world. They said that A, B and C were necessary to be considered civilised/worthy, and as, surprise surprise, the natives lacked these, they needed to be shown the benefits of Christianity and civilisation, that is to say, to be overseen and controlled by white men.

Dinner is doing the same thing of course (and then, amusingly, getting his knickers in twist because no one is prepared to accept the framework he has set); this kind of thinking fits in perfectly with his racist and authoritarian ideology: he's decided that Native Americans were inferior, dehumanised them and, therefore, implicitly and explicitly justified whatever wrongs were done to them because of their supposed inferiority.

Perhaps the analogy to technical solutions is not accurate. But, the analogy to "Adam and Eve" and their relationship is.

There were people living on this continent at the time the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock and in Jamestown Virginia. Had they stayed on those little pieces of land, there would be no issues. However, they did not. Not only did they not stay there, they disrupted the way of life for the people who had previously occupied that land. When those people fought back, they were slaughtered.

Anyone arguing that that isn't stealing land has no idea of the concept of theft.

Have you been there lately? Mission accomplished!

And your problem is that you refuse to look at people through the lens of Western knowledge and experience. The Indian way of life was brutal, barbaric, and primitive. They lived like homeless people because they were homeless people. They had to stay homeless because they didn't have a sustainable set of crops. They didn't have steel tools that would let them chop whole trees into firewood. They didn't have metal fishhooks. We used to live like that - 10,000 years ago.

But we made invention after invention so we don't have to live in rough emergency shelters as we lead our tiny tribes after wandering herds. We looked at the Indian way of life, and lovely as we thought it was, we couldn't let them continue like that indefinitely. The decisions to change them were made by whites who lived with the Indians, intermarried with the Indians, and traded with the Indians. In fact, we put Indians in charge of dealing with the Indians. As a result they moved from being stone age hunter-gatherers directly into the 19th and 20th century. So they don't still follow the buffalo. Now they drive Chevy's. They fly helicopters. They live in Hollywood.

You would deny them access to any Western technology, including medicine, because of their race and ethnicity. And you think you have the moral high ground.