U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-27-2015, 08:53 AM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,759,789 times
Reputation: 5197

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
No, I said that Communism only took over as much as it did, because the United States(and Britain) helped the Soviets take, or just flat-out gave away, most of Europe.

Now, lets put this history in some context. Because this is kind of a simplistic way for me to present the facts.


What actually happened is this, FDR truly did want peace and Democracy to reign across the world. And FDR did believe that Stalin was actually a friend. And so he basically gave away Eastern Europe on the basis that Stalin could be reasoned with.

FDR said... "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he's not and that he doesn't want anything but security for his country, and I think if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...article02.html

Now, obviously FDR was naive to Stalin's scheming and intentions. And FDR didn't so much intend to give away Eastern Europe. He thought he could trust Stalin to leave Europe after the Nazis were defeated. Of course, he was wrong. Though FDR died before all of this became truly apparent.

Truman was a little tougher a character than FDR. Truman rushed to take as much of Germany as he could, and created the German bases that are still there today, to prevent the Soviets from marching across Europe. Truman was quite the tough-talker to the Japanese as well(and obviously didn't mind nuking them to get his point across). The problem was, much of the damage had already been done. The Soviets had taken Eastern Europe with the help of FDR, and nothing short of going to war against the Soviet Union was going to dislodge them.

Truman at that point did want to guarantee communism didn't take all of Europe, and did push through the Marshall plan. But it was merely a response to the bumbling shortsightedness of his predecessor. Truman nuked Japan when he did, because he knew the Soviets were going to enter the war, and wanted to cut Stalin completely out of East Asia, if he could, by ending the war before the Soviets could get rolling.

Truman also ultimately set up the circumstances for the eventual Korean War, by doing everything he could to make sure Korea didn't fall to communism as well. But as I said, most of the damage had already been done before Truman even became president.

My only criticism of Truman, was that he refused to listen to George Patton. He should have marched on the Soviet Union in 1945. Instead, the United States, under the leadership of one of the worst presidents in US History(FDR), helped the Soviets cast hundreds of millions of people under the tyranny of communism for decades, and in some places, it still continues.


Lets understand, Hitler was nothing but a "National Socialist". To the extent that Hitler hated the Jews, he hated them primarily because he thought they were a bunch of foreigners, who held inordinate power in Germany. And that the Jews used that power for their benefit alone, at the expense of the German people(by buying up all the land and controlling big-business and thus politics).

Hitler was trying to evoke "Nationalism", by creating a state purged of all foreigners. And his state was also to be "Socialist"(although his Socialist state was only partially Socialist). He would have things like "free healthcare, free education, welfare assistance, etc". Hitler's greatest ally, was Sweden. Who were also effectively "National Socialist".

What Hitler really wanted, was a Europe of Nation-states. Where each state was basically completely one nationality. Germany would be "for the Germans". France would be for the French. Hungary would be for the Hungarians(all with basically zero immigration, and all purged of Jews and the international bankers).

Where Hitler went wrong, was his obsession with "Lebensraum"(which means, "Living room"). What Lebensraum actually was, was a desire for Germany to be completely independent of the world markets, especially in food. During WWI, the British had blockaded Germany, which caused hundreds of thousands of Germans to effectively "starve to death". And Britain even held this blockade(and thus the starvation) in place until long after Germany surrendered, to coerce Germany to sign the "Treaty of Versailles"(which they hated).

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler felt like, unless Germany was completely self-sufficient, then it would always be at the mercy of foreign nations. So Hitler wanted to reclaim the parts of other European nations with German majorities(especially those which had previously belonged to Germany), to make sure it was powerful enough, and self-sufficient enough, to compete with the growing Superpowers of the Soviet Union, the United States, the British Empire, etc. Though his self-sufficiency plan would have also required taking parts of the Soviet Union(which is the primary reason Hitler invaded the Soviet Union).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-2q-QMUIgY


I don't necessarily like Hitler, but if we have to pick between Hitler and Stalin, I would take Hitler any day of the week. Had Hitler won, Eastern Europe would have been more free, more independent, and more prosperous. Hitler never actually wanted to "conquer the world". It is a myth. He wanted German independence and self-sufficiency.



You don't know what you are talking about. Everyone who understands the subject realizes that the six million number is completely made-up. Also, whatever number that they purport died, includes all deaths for all reasons. If a Jew was killed in allied bombing raids, he is included in the holocaust statistic. If a Jew was killed fighting against the Nazis, he is included in the holocaust statistic.

Even if six million Jews actually died during WWII(which is highly unlikely), they didn't all die from being gassed. Most Jews who died in WWII, died of disease(Typhus), or other causes related to a war that killed upwards of 60 million people(you know, violence from war).

This is David Cole, a Jew, he explains the situation far better than I ever could.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx9G4zmpKv0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLJnHGAfqdc



You keep ignoring the fact that had the United States not intervened in WWII, Hitler might have defeated the Soviet Union. Thus, your narrative whereby the United States had to fight WII to defeat the Nazis and stop the Soviet advance across Europe, is a completely false narrative.

Had the United States stayed completely out of WWII(including things like the lend-lease act and other monetary and military aid) there wouldn't have been a Cold War. Had the United States not fought in WWII, communism probably would have been wiped off the world map in 1942. And unlike what people believe, the Nazis did not want war with Britain, or France for that matter. Germany only had eyes on communism and the Soviet Union, and it is plain for everyone to see by listening to anything Hitler ever said.

Hitler's invasion of France, was because France and England had declared war on Germany, not the other way around(and on the basis that Hitler invaded Poland, even though the Soviets also invaded Poland). Hitler only invaded France, because after eight months of the "phony war", Britain, under Churchill, began bringing in troops and equipment to France.

Phoney War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler invaded France, pushed the British back at Dunkirk, and let them go. Hitler did order the assault of British military targets in Britain, in the "Battle of Britain". But his goal was actually for Britain to agree to a negotiated peace between Germany and Britain, not an invasion(which was basically impossible).

Ultimately, it was Churchill who began indiscriminately bombing civilians in Germany(although no one ever teaches you that).

Hitler didn't start indiscriminate bombings

21st July 1942: Churchill: severe, ruthless bombing of Germany needed

Rudolf Hess(basically the second highest ranking official in Nazi Germany) even flew to England hoping to achieve peace between Germany and Britain.

Rudolf Hess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The point is, I'm not a fan by Socialism by any means, but most of what you are taught about Hitler and the Nazis is an absolute lie. I mean, if we are going to rank the countries in WWII by the "nicest" to the "most dickish". I would put United States as being the nicest(FDR was definitely nice, even if a bit naive), but I would put Hitler above the scumbag Winston Churchill(who was the head of the "British Empire", a pretty ruthless/dickish empire). And the biggest douches in WWII were easily the Soviet Union and Japan, by a mile. The French wanted to be douches(IE Treaty of Versailles/occupation of the Ruhr), the Nazis just gangbanged them so hard, they never got the chance.

I still rofl a bit seeing a picture of Hitler forcing the French to sign the Armistice in the same place the Germans were forced to sign the treaty of Versailles.

Armistice of 22 June 1940 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wish you would read some "Pat Buchanan"(a pretty reliable source), on WWII, instead of the history most of us are taught in our crappy, propaganda-filled schools. Or on our propaganda-filled TV's.

Did Hitler Want War?

Looking Back at ‘The Good War’

Katyn and ‘The Good War’

The ‘Good War’ and the Terrible Peace



The Japanese wanted to surrender regardless, but didn't want an unconditional surrender. Japan didn't surrender until nearly a week and a half after we bombed Hiroshima. In fact, more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than in the atomic bombing of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really need to read more.

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy



First, I'm definitely NOT a liberal, I despise liberals with a fiery passion. And secondly, if America was really out to free anyone, it could have freed the entire world from communism in 1945, it didn't. Because freeing people was never part of the plan. Making lots of money for corporations was the plan.

Low-wage Communist China is useful to American capitalists/corporations. Communism was useful in "rapidly industrializing" undeveloped countries. Wall Street and the international bankers loved communism(at least, from a distance). Why do you think so many communists were Jews?






I'm not going to answer everything you just wrote because you are all over the place:


A FEW FACTS:



1) Stalin was an allied during WW 2 and the Soviets paid the highest casualties during the war to defeat the Nazis. Europe was divided by the victors just like any other war in history. The Red Army had occupied Poland completely and held much of Eastern Europe they paid in the price of blood with a military power three times greater than Allied forces in the West. FDR and Churchill had to give the Soviets their prize of the booty or you expected the Americans/British to go to war with the Red Army while the U.S. was fighting the Empire of Japan in the Pacific ?.....FDR and Churchill were in NO position to take on the RED ARMY at the time. They had to concede to Stalin the territories the Soviets fought and paid for in blood.


2) To say that the Nazis would have defeated the Soviets if the U.S. didn't enter WW 2 is based on opinion not facts.....by the U.S. entering WW 2 it ended the European war a few years earlier but the Soviets were going to defeat the Germans with the U.S. in the war or not. The Red Army was too much for the Germans....Hitler made the same mistakes Napoleon made. Germans couldn't beat the Soviet Army in the winter.


3) It was after WW2 that Stalin had other intentions and didn't honor the agreement he made with the allies at the end of WW 2 and that's how the cold war started. Which I'm not going to get into it. Its all public record.



This conversation is debated in the WW 2 forums not here. I can give you links of books from historians and military experts to contradict your opinions. The Red Army was going to beat the Germans if the U.S. was in the war or not. The only thing the U.S. prevented was the spread of the Red Army in all Europe with the A BOMB and our troops but the Red Army were going to beat the Germans no matter what the U.S. did....Germany's fate was sealed the moment Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and winter came....they were done it was a matter of time. The Red Army was too big.

Last edited by Hellion1999; 05-27-2015 at 09:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2015, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,714,592 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
1) Stalin was an allied during WW 2 and the Soviets paid the highest casualties during the war to defeat the Nazis. Europe was divided by the victors just like any other war in history. The Red Army had occupied Poland completely and held much of Eastern Europe they paid in the price of blood with a military power three times greater than Allied forces in the West. FDR and Churchill had to give the Soviets their prize of the booty or you expected the Americans/British to go to war with the Red Army while the U.S. was fighting the Empire of Japan in the Pacific ?.....FDR and Churchill were in NO position to take on the RED ARMY at the time. They had to concede to Stalin the territories the Soviets fought and paid for in blood.
FDR and Churchill were in no position to take on the Red Army? What? The Western allies invaded Germany with 4.5 million soldiers. More than half of that was American. And America had nukes.

Western Allied invasion of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Soviets didn't "deserve a prize" for fighting the Nazi's. What are you talking about? And why exactly did they deserve Poland and Czechoslovakia? The Soviets definitely paid the highest price in the war. But it happened largely because Stalin decided to kill most of his generals a year before he teamed up with Hitler to invade Poland.

Great Purge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean, the way you are talking, you sound like one of those idiot Russian nationalists who thinks "Stalin was a great man".

FDR didn't have to hand Stalin Eastern Europe. But as I said, FDR didn't believe he was handing Stalin Eastern Europe. FDR thought Stalin was just helping to liberate Eastern Europe from the Nazis, for the defense of the Soviet Union and nothing more. In reality, Communism wanted to take over the world, not Nazism. Communism was the real threat in 1939(and after 1939). The only reason we went to war against Hitler instead of Stalin, was because Hitler was closer to France and Britain.

Anyone who thinks Hitler was a greater threat than the Soviets, obviously has no knowledge of history. And the Red Army was the worst Army on the planet. Full of degenerates, rapists, and murderers. The Nazis were practically saints compared to the Soviet scumbags. Though the Soviets tried to blame many of their crimes on the Nazis(Katyn Massacre).

Soviet war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then the United States forcefully repatriated hundreds of thousands of Soviets who didn't want to be returned to the Soviet Union. Many of them were immediately shot down by the Red Army.

Operation Keelhaul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
2) To say that the Nazis would have defeated the Soviets if the U.S. didn't enter WW 2 is based on opinion not facts.....by the U.S. entering WW 2 it ended the European war a few years earlier but the Soviets were going to defeat the Germans with the U.S. in the war or not. The Red Army was too much for the Germans....Hitler made the same mistakes Napoleon made. Germans couldn't beat the Soviet Army in the winter.
I am certainly making an assumption that Hitler could have actually defeated the Soviets had it not been for America's entry into the war. You might be right that Hitler would have lost to the Soviets regardless.

But, I think you are downplaying the significance of America's role in WWII.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

The United States was involved in WWII long before the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor. The "Lend-Lease act" was enacted in March of 1941(nine months before Pearl Harbor, and three months before Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union).

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Soviet Union was receiving a significant amount of aid from the United States. Not only in aircraft, tanks, and other weapons. But also in fuel, clothes, medical supplies, trucks, trains, and food. And food was incredibly important since Stalin's collectivization of Soviet farming had already left so many people starving(and still millions of people died in the Soviet Union during WWII from starvation).

In total, America sent 17.5 million tons of supplies to the Soviet Union. Including 400,000 Jeeps and Trucks.

I would say, without America's support, I think Moscow would have collapsed in November/December of 1941. And without Britain's support, it would have collapsed even earlier.

Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Book Review)

You should read the comments on those "Historynet" articles. They know a lot more than I do about the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
This conversation is debated in the WW 2 forums not here. I can give you links of books from historians and military experts to contradict your opinions. The Soviets were going to beat the Germans if the U.S. was in the war or not. The only thing the U.S. prevented was the spread of the Red Army in all Europe with the A BOMB but the Red Army were going to beat the Germans no matter what the U.S. did....Germany's fate was sealed the moment Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and winter came....they were done it was a matter of time. The Red Army was too big.
Well, you've made a lot of statements. And there are certainly many books that say the Soviets would have won without US help. But there are also books that say they wouldn't. So what?

I will say this, the Soviets came pretty close to losing. So it isn't unreasonable to think that they would have actually lost had it not been for our help.

On the other hand, had Britain not entered the war at all(and thus not drained so much of Germany's resources fighting on multiple fronts, let alone the fact that Italy was full of retards). Hitler definitely would have curb-stomped Stalin.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-27-2015 at 10:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,714,592 times
Reputation: 2877
Regardless, my point is, America played WWII VERY BADLY. The Soviet Union was a much bigger threat to world peace than the Nazis. And FDR played WWII the worst of all. When he basically let the Soviets do whatever they wanted, after giving them massive aid, basically for free(they never even paid for most of it).

Had America played WWII better, there never would have been a Cold War. For that matter, if the allies hadn't been such douchebags during and after WWI, there might have never been a WWII at all.


Though I can say, I'm at least moderately proud of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points(even though I hate Woodrow Wilson for the Federal Reserve). Had the scumbag French actually listened to Woodrow Wilson, they wouldn't have become the joke of the world, after Hitler treated them like a punching bag.


I also think Britain played WWII really badly as well. Churchill was a jerk, and Britain ultimately lost its empire(which it was basically fighting Germany to protect). It definitely had no business going to war against Germany when it did. It wasn't doing it in the name of freedom or justice. It was all about trying to keep Germany weak, and thus to maintain "British imperial hegemony/power".


WWII was really nothing but a bunch of imperial powers duking it out with each other. Though I do concede, the United States(under FDR) was the most virtuous of the bunch. But that isn't saying much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 11:39 AM
 
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,869 posts, read 2,830,011 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
is there a copy of the constitution of the Five Nations of the Iroquois? or we have to take the word of a college professor and opinions in the New York Times?
A most dubious piece of misinformation if ever there was one.


They tried to propagate this piece of nonsense to me when I was taking a course in Native American history in college and there was little proof to back it up.


More left-wing hogwash to try to besmirch, vilify and trash the great and unparalleled accomplishments of the great Europeans who created this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 01:16 PM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,759,789 times
Reputation: 5197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
FDR and Churchill were in no position to take on the Red Army? What? The Western allies invaded Germany with 4.5 million soldiers. More than half of that was American. And America had nukes.

Western Allied invasion of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus dude! Stop getting your WW 2 facts from WIKIPEDIA. The U.S. hadn't fully developed an Atomic bomb when Germany surrendered on May 7th 1945 and when the Allies were dividing Europe in Yalta was February of 1945.......U.S. experimented on the A BOMB on Japan on August 1945.

What does invading a defeated Germany on the western front has to do with the Red Army?.....what part of the Red Army had 3 times the size of the western allies army combine you don't get?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The Soviets didn't "deserve a prize" for fighting the Nazi's. What are you talking about? And why exactly did they deserve Poland and Czechoslovakia? The Soviets definitely paid the highest price in the war. But it happened largely because Stalin decided to kill most of his generals a year before he teamed up with Hitler to invade Poland.

Great Purge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean, the way you are talking, you sound like one of those idiot Russian nationalists who thinks "Stalin was a great man".
there you go again with Wikipedia.......who said anything about defending Stalin?....the Red Army was a force to be reckon with regardless if Stalin made purges....you lost me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
FDR didn't have to hand Stalin Eastern Europe. But as I said, FDR didn't believe he was handing Stalin Eastern Europe. FDR thought Stalin was just helping to liberate Eastern Europe from the Nazis, for the defense of the Soviet Union and nothing more. In reality, Communism wanted to take over the world, not Nazism. Communism was the real threat in 1939(and after 1939). The only reason we went to war against Hitler instead of Stalin, was because Hitler was closer to France and Britain.
that's you playing monday quarterback....FDR had no choice to let Stalin keep his territories just like the allies kept theirs.......What part of the RED ARMY was 3 times bigger than the allied western front armies you don't get? That was the main reason FDR had no choice.....oh yeah!!! we had the NUKES in February of 1945 to nuke half of Europe and beat the Red Army because you say so.

FDR CALLING STALIN: "hey big bear, what's up? you know that deal we made in Yalta last month, well we are not really going to honor it, because we have a top secret BOMB call the ATOMIC BOMB, we haven't really used it or tested it in battle but I heard it will make us invincible. So, I need for you to take your RED ARMY which is 3 times bigger than our army and go back to the Soviet Union and stay there and let us (Churchill and me) control the whole Europe.......yes, I know your army and country had the most casualties and blood and the most cost in defeating the Nazis but we don't need you in the post war era.....the U.S. and Britain will just take over here. Once you hit Berlin and make the Germans surrendered I need for you to get out and let us take over.....if not? I might just have to use the A bomb on you.

Stalin: 'CLICK'


FDR: hello? hello???? Big Bear are you there? hello....hellooooo.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Anyone who thinks Hitler was a greater threat than the Soviets, obviously has no knowledge of history. And the Red Army was the worst Army on the planet. Full of degenerates, rapists, and murderers. The Nazis were practically saints compared to the Soviet scumbags. Though the Soviets tried to blame many of their crimes on the Nazis(Katyn Massacre).

Soviet war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then the United States forcefully repatriated hundreds of thousands of Soviets who didn't want to be returned to the Soviet Union. Many of them were immediately shot down by the Red Army.

Operation Keelhaul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


more wikipedia.....why bother in getting a real education in history, you have wikipedia!
at the time Germany was a threat....who cares who was a bigger threat. Both had to be defeated......you sound silly calling the Nazis saints compare to the Soviets.......both countries lived under a dictatorships and Hitler also did purges in Germany....of course the crimes of Stalin is greater looking back in time because he lasted longer in power and the Soviets got nukes to make things more complicated and make the cold war last long....Hitler only lasted 12 years but if he would have stayed in power longer and had nukes of course he would have had the same record as Stalin or worse.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I am certainly making an assumption that Hitler could have actually defeated the Soviets had it not been for America's entry into the war. You might be right that Hitler would have lost to the Soviets regardless.
I am right, if you bother to take real history and learn tactical military defense not just read wikipedia you would know Hitler had NO chance of conquering the Soviet Union and let alone keep it.

The Red Army would have defeated Germany on its own.....you couldn't say that of the U.S./Brits/France

Red Army killed 2,742,909 Germans (military deaths) the other allies including the U.S./Britain killed 534,683 Germans.


you don't need to look for wikipedia to let you know by those numbers who carried most of the load in WW 2 defeating Germany and who did most of the dirty work and we go back to the reason FDR had no choice but to let Stalin keep his territories the Red Army paid in blood in the post war Europe just like U.S./BRITAIN/FRANCE kept their territories and colonies.

what was FDR going to do take on the RED ARMY who was 3 times bigger than the western allied armies?......yeah I forgot, FDR was going to experiment the A Bomb on the RED ARMY to see if it works ....FDR was going to take that big risk when he didn't have to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 01:36 PM
 
6,563 posts, read 9,072,595 times
Reputation: 2837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post

is there a copy of the constitution of the Five Nations of the Iroquois? or we have to take the word of a college professor and opinions in the New York Times?
This clarifies this some.


Quote:
Our ruling

The Facebook meme said "the U.S. Constitution owes its notion of democracy to the Iroquois Tribes."


There’s a grain of truth here: The Iroquois system of government was known to 18th century leaders in the colonies and the new republic, and it shared some similarities with post-revolutionary attempts at governance.


However, the meme overstates the consensus among historians...

Viral meme says Constitution 'owes its notion of democracy to the Iroquois' | PolitiFact
Politifcats main point is that The Iriquois to some degree may have had an influence on shaping the thinking of some of the founders.

Last edited by Motion; 05-27-2015 at 01:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 01:37 PM
 
Location: North America
14,210 posts, read 10,109,215 times
Reputation: 5547
Sure, why not? No Country is perfect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 01:50 PM
 
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,869 posts, read 2,830,011 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
This is from the Massachusetts school of law.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ka7HgmQYDw
Hogwash. All of it.

They didn't even have written language until the gringos showed up and civilized them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 01:55 PM
 
6,563 posts, read 9,072,595 times
Reputation: 2837
^

I reposted that with something else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 02:01 PM
 
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,869 posts, read 2,830,011 times
Reputation: 1446
If you spread a lie enough it does not make it a truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top