With all the Israel-discussion going on, I thought I'd throw an idea out there, just for the sake of debate.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Last edited by DonFck (2006-07-31 02:29:14)
I need around tree fiddy.
I don't get it?DonFck wrote:
With all the Israel-discussion going on, I thought I'd throw an idea out there, just for the sake of debate.
Discuss.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/968/mapnewyo5.gif
because california is premium land, and to give away such valuable land to the "natives" (jews). i'd say go for it. maybe the natives will kill the tree huggers.
Last edited by i3igpete (2006-07-31 02:38:12)
And what illustrious source did you find this map from. . . . some drunk Indian pit boss at the Seven Feathers Casino in Medford, OR??
Debate and Serious Talkfadedsteve wrote:
And what illustrious source did you find this map from. . . . some drunk Indian pit boss at the Seven Feathers Casino in Medford, OR??
I need around tree fiddy.
Your point being?? What source did you receive that map from. . . .DonFck wrote:
Debate and Serious Talkfadedsteve wrote:
And what illustrious source did you find this map from. . . . some drunk Indian pit boss at the Seven Feathers Casino in Medford, OR??
Photoshop?fadedsteve wrote:
Your point being?? What source did you receive that map from. . . .DonFck wrote:
Debate and Serious Talkfadedsteve wrote:
And what illustrious source did you find this map from. . . . some drunk Indian pit boss at the Seven Feathers Casino in Medford, OR??
I need around tree fiddy.
ahh yes I love photoshop!. . .
+entire western coastline (w. the exception of Alaska)i3igpete wrote:
because california is premium land, and to give away such valuable land to the "natives" (jews).
Correct!
And stupid me who thought this would raise at least a bit discussion..
Last edited by DonFck (2006-07-31 03:04:15)
I need around tree fiddy.
Wouldn't the natives be the palistinians? They would best represent the population being displaced by colonisation. And I hope you choke to death on your own SUV fumes.i3igpete wrote:
because california is premium land, and to give away such valuable land to the "natives" (jews). i'd say go for it. maybe the natives will kill the tree huggers.
fadedsteve: Asking for a source on a hypothetical proposition, particularly one like this which isn't a realistic plan but rather a visual prompter, is stupid. It's like if I said "Why don't we bake a chocolate cake" and you said "I'll need a verifiable source for that".
LOL. Chocolate cake is an invention of teh liberal media, Bubbalo wake up! Jeez...Bubbalo wrote:
fadedsteve: Asking for a source on a hypothetical proposition, particularly one like this which isn't a realistic plan but rather a visual prompter, is stupid. It's like if I said "Why don't we bake a chocolate cake" and you said "I'll need a verifiable source for that".
On topic, I give that hypothetical nation about twenty minutes of sovereignty before it gets overrun. Again.
they'd still end up fighting the "republica del norte" crowd for it
Good point.. The natives in the Middle East-situation are in fact the palestinians, however jews can be characterized as a nomad people, with their own country established at their area of origin. So they are natives too..UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Wouldn't the natives be the palistinians? They would best represent the population being displaced by colonisation.
So in the US there is a group of nomads politically correct called Native Americans. What arguments are there for and against their own country in their area of origin?
I need around tree fiddy.
I thought the palestinians migrated from the eastern mediterranean, all arabic people were (some still are) pretty much nomadic, for that matter the "native" americans migrated from the siberia side of asia
DonFck,
Could you raise a debate with this, not just photoshop a map? Like paint a picture with words too? The first thing that poped into my head was there isn't enough American Indians to fill that much of the world.
Could you raise a debate with this, not just photoshop a map? Like paint a picture with words too? The first thing that poped into my head was there isn't enough American Indians to fill that much of the world.
There were, but somehow the number of native americans has decreased during the past.. ..couple of hundred years.cpt.fass1 wrote:
DonFck,
Could you raise a debate with this, not just photoshop a map? Like paint a picture with words too? The first thing that poped into my head was there isn't enough American Indians to fill that much of the world.
IMO the picture is enough to raise a conversation..
Last edited by DonFck (2006-07-31 07:03:10)
I need around tree fiddy.
Might makes right. The Native Americans could never retake land by force.
But a UN resolution could?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Might makes right. The Native Americans could never retake land by force.
I need around tree fiddy.
.........ummmmmm...........yeah
But there will be no UN-resolution, because there doesn't seem to exist a sufficient feeling of guilt, as in 1948..
I need around tree fiddy.
In the other thread that pointed to this one some retarded fuck said that the europeans wiped out the native americans. errrrrr wrong. The europeans started the war with native americans (the brits). The french aswell at some extent. However the war raged on even when the "americans" + french drove out the english cause they were at war at the time.
Europeans took like what.. 10-15% at most... Since we only stayed on the east coast. The Americans in turn moved inwards towards california etc where the spanish and portugese had settled. On the way they encountered loads and loads of natives. You traded with them killed some and eventually you took out 99% of their population cause you were greedy and thought the land belonged to you.
Europeans didn't take out the native americans. "Americans" did. However now all Americans think the land belong to them from origin for some dumb reason. Kind of like Israel believes it is there land from the beginning. When in fact they killed the Judanes and some other folk and took the land from them.
Now you see why america helps israel. They have this special bond. They both killed another civilisation to claim territory.
Europeans took like what.. 10-15% at most... Since we only stayed on the east coast. The Americans in turn moved inwards towards california etc where the spanish and portugese had settled. On the way they encountered loads and loads of natives. You traded with them killed some and eventually you took out 99% of their population cause you were greedy and thought the land belonged to you.
Europeans didn't take out the native americans. "Americans" did. However now all Americans think the land belong to them from origin for some dumb reason. Kind of like Israel believes it is there land from the beginning. When in fact they killed the Judanes and some other folk and took the land from them.
Now you see why america helps israel. They have this special bond. They both killed another civilisation to claim territory.
Last edited by Devolant (2006-07-31 07:13:24)
Natives would get overrun by illegals and turned into a fifth world country. The evil white man, sensing weakness, would step in and take it over..... again.DonFck wrote:
But there will be no UN-resolution, because there doesn't seem to exist a sufficient feeling of guilt, as in 1948..
Evil white guys ftw.
you rang?
I think I just realized this very moment
most people are stupid
most people are stupid