Rats are jumping ship, Ukraine edition.

[DustyDog]

Used to immigrants, came to this country, wanted to be Americans, learned to speak the language assimilated into the culture as best they could. They wanted their children to be Americans. Thats' not what it is happening now , they are not assimilating , they bring their culture, they do not want to learn the language, they fly their nations flags, Diversity. Personally I believe the problem is a lot worse than the media is telling you.

A nation without borders, common values and culture is not a nation, multiculturalism will destroy western civilization.

I always say:

A Nation is a group of people who are akin to an extended family, e.g., the Cherokee Nation.

A country is a place delineated on a map, something the Cherokee Nation never had.

With 450,000 words in the English language, there's plenty of room for nuance

 

[Bodhisattva]

Most of us are native-born. What about us and what we want? Hell, most of our founders were not immigrants. I'd say it was founded for the Citizens, not "people from all over hell and back".

And, just as someone once said that "Democracy must be more than just a counting of heads without any consideration as to what's in them", "Whatever floats ashore" is not an "immigration policy".

Our founders were political refugees that didn't want to be subject to the King's rule anymore.

 

[Shootist]

Our founders were political refugees that didn't want to be subject to the King's rule anymore.

No our founders were religious refugees, they really had no problem with the King/Crown, until abuses started.

Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.

 

[Bodhisattva]

No our founders were religious refugees, they really had no problem with the King/Crown, until abuses started.

Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.

Protestantism was the predominant religious affiliation, but the colonies were religiously diverse, with different Protestant denominations brought by British, German, Dutch, and other immigrants, aka refugees.

The colonies were also extraordinary resources for the Crown. It was the taxation of those resources that brought about the dissatisfaction with the Crown.

I think we agree, just not get too wrapped up in terms.

 

[DustyDog]

Our founders were political refugees that didn't want to be subject to the King's rule anymore.

If they were born here, they couldn't also be either a "refugee" or an "immigrant":

"Most of the group were natives of the 13 Colonies.Only seven were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, andPaterson) in Ireland, one (Robert Morris) in England, one (Wilson) inScotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies."

From:
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/constitution/bio.htm

 

[Shootist]

If they were born here, they couldn't also be either a "refugee" or an "immigrant":

"Most of the group were natives of the 13 Colonies.Only seven were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, andPaterson) in Ireland, one (Robert Morris) in England, one (Wilson) inScotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies."

From:
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/constitution/bio.htm

Your right but the original founders came here 150 years or so before the Revolution.

 

[Shootist]

Protestantism was the predominant religious affiliation, but the colonies were religiously diverse, with different Protestant denominations brought by British, German, Dutch, and other immigrants, aka refugees.

The colonies were also extraordinary resources for the Crown. It was the taxation of those resources that brought about the dissatisfaction with the Crown.

I think we agree, just not get too wrapped up in terms.

No, terms matter, words matter. A lot of difference between a political refuge and a religious refugee.

 

[DustyDog]

Your right but the original founders came here 150 years or so before the Revolution.

I would call them "colonists" who were traveling to British colonies, not away from British rule.

Remember, there were still loyalists here at the time of the revolution, so... colonists, loyalists, recent immigrants, refugees... and I'm sure there were many who didn't care one way or another.

But the founders were a very specific group. I wouldn't use it to describe "everyone who was here at the time of the revolution", much less people who were long-dead.

 

[Shootist]

I would call them "colonists" who were traveling to British colonies, not away from British rule.

Remember, there were still loyalists here at the time of the revolution, so... colonists, loyalists, recent immigrants, refugees... and I'm sure there were many who didn't care one way or another.

But the founders were a very specific group. I wouldn't use it to describe "everyone who was here at the time of the revolution", much less people who were long-dead.

Personally I agree with you, the other poster used the term refugee and I stuck with it.
I always like settler or explorer.

 

[DustyDog]

Personally I agree with you, the other poster used the term refugee and I stuck with it.
I always like settler or explorer.

Oh, and I ain't no Harvard Historian in case you didn't notice... mostly blowing smoke... but hey, at least it's usually my opinion, not something I'm parroting off the Internet

 

[ccc]

My step mother is an “Immigrant” (Vietnamese) and came here LEGALLY, the right way. It took YEARS, $$$$$$, and lots of paperwork. DO NOT confuse ILLEGAL ALIENS with IMMIGRANTS.

 

[Shootist]

duplicate

 

[tros6t]

What’s happening is the same thing that happens with any major conflict. Weak minded individuals do not have the stomach for war. Months and years go by and bodies start stacking and what started out as a patriotic, stand our ground and push the invaders out of our country, becomes “We need to think about concessions”.

I think they can win! All they need is a million more bodies to stack and it will probably be over!

 

[ccc]

I think they can win! All they need is a million more bodies to stack and it will probably be over!

Cowardly Brandon needs to give them authorization to hit them in Russia where they assemble, and it would be over.

 

[Shootist]

Cowardly Brandon needs to give them authorization to hit them in Russia where they assemble, and it would be over.

And hope of course that Russia does not want to escalate to using nukes.

Play with fire long enough and you will get burned.

Remember in past conflicts supplying arms to one side during a war could be considered and act war.

 

[DustyDog]

And hope of course that Russia does not want to escalate to using nukes.

Play with fire long enough and you will get burned.

Remember in past conflicts supplying arms to one side during a war could be considered and act war.

As I've said previously elsewhere about Brzezinski and his "brilliant plan" to arm the Mujahideen:

WHOA! This is NUTS!
Watch the video below (2 years old)... it's all good, but notice MIKA nodding @ 1:47



NOW, juxtapose THAT with an excerpt from an article about her DADDY:

"Brzezinski acknowledged in an interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in January 1998 that he initiated a policy in which the CIA covertly began arming the mujahedeen in July 1978—six months before Soviet troops intervened in Afghanistan—with the explicit aim of dragging the Soviet Union into a debilitating war.

Asked, given the catastrophe unleashed upon Afghanistan and the subsequent growth of Islamist terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, whether he regretted the policy he championed in Afghanistan, Brzezinski replied:

“Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.”

Asked specifically whether he regretted the CIA’s collaboration with and arming of Islamist extremists, including Al Qaeda, in fomenting the war in Afghanistan, Brzezinski responded contemptuously:

“What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

In the four decades of nearly uninterrupted fighting that flowed from Brzezinski’s “excellent idea”—with nearly 9,000 US troops still on the ground and plans being set in motion to carry out another escalation—over 2 million Afghans have lost their lives and millions more have been turned into refugees."
(from "Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of the catastrophe in Afghanistan, dead at 89", WSWS, May 29th, 2017)

Yep... Brzezinski thought his luring of the U.S.S.R. into Afghanistan in the late '70s was a stroke of genius... up until the day he died in 2017, apparently. After all, it may have had something to do with the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union... right?

BUT AT WHAT COST? MILLIONS of Afghans dead, 9/11, TRILLIONS spent by the U.S. on subsequent wars, THOUSANDS of American soldiers killed or maimed, the Taliban armed beyond their WILDEST DREAMS AND, even TODAY, Afghan refugees being settled in the U.S. AS WE SPEAK... over FORTY years later!

You have to understand: These people are in the WAR BUSINESS... PERIOD. ALL the biggest dirtbags in D.C. have been CRAWLING ALL OVER Ukraine for YEARS. It's why the State Department HATED Trump so much: He was throwing a monkey wrench into their LONG-PLANNED Ukraine conflict!

 

[Shootist]

 

[sloporsche]

Our founders were political refugees that didn't want to be subject to the King's rule anymore.

........that didn't want to pay taxes to the king's rule anymore...... the legitimate government at the time

 

[Shootist]

........that didn't want to pay taxes to the king's rule anymore...... the legitimate government at the time

Actually they paid taxes for 150years or so, it wasn't until they considered them repressive that they engaged in revolt.

 

[sloporsche]

Actually they paid taxes for 150years or so, it wasn't until they considered them repressive that they engaged in revolt.

damn they looked pretty good for being 150 years old lol ...i sometimes wonder if the old rich white guys that owned slaves and didn't wanna pay taxes had a little too much to drink at the tavern nights while writing " we the people......" .....ben f be like "this ought to jam them for a couple hundred years figuring out who exactly people are " lol