This is what you call not enough real conservative misinformation under our own noses, we have to go to the far reaches of remote Brazil to extract an "unsettling" comment from Limbaugh, nice work MMFA.  We know ya hate Rush, but isn't this a little ridiculous?

So what, savages are primitive people, an apt description.  

Gee, what a surprise. I've been away for awhile, and the very first post I read is Tommy defending and echoing bigoted remarks. You might want to look up "savage" in the dictionary and rethink your use of the term.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savages

1 : a person belonging to a primitive society

_______________ 

Perhaps you should look it up, thanks for coming back!

Tommy,

There is a book out titled "Savages" by Joe Cane that details the territorial fight between an indigenous Indian Amazon population & oil companies.

Apparently the word savages is still the correct usage in describing primitive people, & has not yet been successfully removed from our language by the PC police. Except here, of course.

This is just another MMFA Rush attack. But it's a lame one.

Words don't just have literal meanings as defined in dictionaries, they also have connotations which are a major factor in usage. For much of history, the terms "savage" and "savagery" have had very negative connotations.These terms were frequently used to describe the nazis in WWII.

No doubt, it's a dehumanizing and condescending term. But don't waste your time the literalist defense has been trotted out in conjunction with the lazy minded pc police accusation. The point of no return has been reached, conservative minds are operating on auto-pilot.

Have a coke and a smile. Enjoy the ride.

Roundhouse,

Your sanctimonious dismissive post does not remove the fact that primitive tribes can be, & are still referred to as savages. Of course the word savage can be used in a derogatory way as well. But in this instance Limbaugh was describing a primitive indigenous tribe. Savages. I suppose the author of the book I mentioned here would in your mind be as guilty as Limbaugh?

What if Limbaugh had called them primitives? [A person belonging to a nonindustrial, often tribal society, especially a society characterized by a low level of economic complexity]  We all know you'd be bellyaching. This is more about Limbaugh with you than savages. But hey whatever...

It's getting harder & harder to take anything you write here seriously.

Then stop reading my posts.

Jeter wrote:

>>I suppose the author of the book I mentioned here would in your mind be as guilty as Limbaugh?

See my post above. Good grief again!  

What if Limbaugh had called them primitives?

Did he do that? Then your post is hypothetical nonsense.

No surprise there. 

Jeter,

If you happened to come across a person from a primitive society would call (or refer to) that person as a savage?

I somehow don't think you would. I think you understand that calling someone a "savage" is kind of an insult.

RJC,

If I were speaking about a primitive tribe, I think I might indeed refer to them as either Primitives or Savages. That's the word that was used when I was in school [it may have been removed by the PC police by now]

Please note I left info about a book [above post] written about an indigenous Amazon tribe called "Savages". The author did not mean it as an insult.

The word savage can be used in a derogatory way, or as another word to describe a primitive tribe.

I think the fact that Limbaugh used Savage is what's really the problem with everyone more than the actual word.

I understand what you're saying and coming from you, I don't think the derogatory meaning would be (or is) your intention.

Personally, I don't think it's a good word to use to describe people, but that's just my opinion.

Jeter,

Did Rush call the Texas Polygamsts, savages?

"Did Rush call the Texas Polygamsts, savages?" -freidbergboy

Of course he did or should not have, these people are not primitive.

in fact one would think you libs would see them as visionaries, as no doubt you consider others of unusual sexual practices. 

Yet i assumed you WOULD call them savages. Would you? 

 

*TWEEEEET!*  (Sound of boots walking towards Fin's computer) 

Officer: Sir, have you been drinking and posting tonight?  I'm going to have to ask you to step away from the monitor and take this logiclizer test.  Just say the first thing that pops into your head and then immediately back it up with something remotely coherent and/or factual. 

Fin:  Libs are bad!  Because...., because, they.., they, they like bad sexy savages!  I hate them and I want one!  I... I just want somebody to love me!  *sniffle, sniffle* (wiping snot from nose with sleeve) 

A little authoritarian Orwellian fantasy you have there, eh Mr.L? 

A little authoritarian Orwellian fantasy you have there, eh Mr.L? 

Well, you seem to be living under a fantasy that people around here give a rat's rump what you think about anything, Finarfin.  :-)

Please clarify your post.  I don't call anyone savages FWIW.

By asking whether Rush would have called the Texas polygamst cult savages, i assumed that you think they are savages.  

Fin,

I wouldn't call anyone savages, but I would think that one who thought the Brazilian tribes were would think the same of a polygamist cult.

Please clarify your post.  I don't call anyone savages FWIW.

Chances are pretty good that before they were arrested, Jeff Christie referred to that male prostitute he was with as a "silly savage"......

I have never heard of that book, but I wonder if the use of the word was in order to describe the oil companies.

Through our own history we have heard people describe the Native Americans, African Americans, and other minority groups as savages.  When, in fact, you read the history books, you know the real savages were the ones who used the word "savage" as a justification for slavery and mass murder.

"Through our own history we have heard people describe the Native Americans, African Americans, and other minority groups as savages." 

 Onionhead, these people were indeed savages. their low standard of living prompted their culture to develop into one that is particularity barbaric. Although their lack of development has stymied their ability to kill efficiently, this does not mean they commit savage acts with any less zeal.

"When, in fact, you read the history books,"

Well, these history books are written by humans who are also capable political sentiment. Americas history books are known to be tempered by a trace of liberal bias (as a student i have seen this). Whether the evil oppressive white man or the poor minority is savage is certainly a question that can easily be decided the writer of history books. 

It is notably ironic that though the  "winner writes the history books," in the case of white Americans the history books are written in favor of the losers. 

"you know the real savages were the ones who used the word "savage" as a justification for slavery and mass murder"

All i have to say is; to the winner go the spoils.

We won. If they had been in the position to win and had indeed one they would have done the same to us. The world is not a place that conforms to your naïve, idealistic fancy.

 

??WTF??

Are you serious?  So because whites enslaved blacks, gave them no rights, no property, no education, etc., it was the BLACKS who were savages?  Or because the Europeans came over to North America with guns, greed and diseases that decimated the native population by up to 90% it was the NATIVES who were savages? 

Also, please tell me where you went to school that had a liberal history book.  I've been teaching the last several years and find the history books to be pretty bland, but nuetral, when discussing world events.  I would love to see a 'liberal'-stanced book because it would be interesting to see what the 'liberal' parts are. 

And your sweeping, and totally incorrect, view that deplorable living conditions result in barbaric actions is laughable.  Remember the crusades, WWI, WWII?  Highly 'civilized' cultures finding more efficient ways to kill those who don't believe what they believe.

GAG, my man... (Get A Grip)   

WW1 and WWII???

I hope to god you are teaching PE or something. 

 

Leather,

I know you are only used to seeing the capital 'E' after the letters 'WW', but Mr. L was referring to the 1st and 2nd World Wars.  It made perfect sense to me.

So Leather, if you are disagreeing with his/her statement, is it on the grounds that Germany was not a civilized culture at those times, or that they did not commit any savage acts?  Which of those do you take issue with? 

"Americas history books are known to be tempered by a trace of liberal bias (as a student i have seen this)."--finarfin

I suppose if you think opposing ending slavery, preventing women's voting rights, supporting Jim Crowe Laws, opposing desegregation, opposing MLK, Jr., opposing workers' safety and health regulations, etc. -- then you may have a point as most regular people and historians take the liberal side on all of those things.  History is written by the winners - which explains why it doesn't really favor you guys so much.

Jeter writes, "There is a book out titled "Savages" by Joe Cane that details the territorial fight between an indigenous Indian Amazon population & oil companies.Apparently the word savages is still the correct usage in describing primitive people..."

 So you found one example of someone who once (12 years ago) used the word as a book title, and for you that's evidence enough of its "correct usage"? Why don't you type the n-word into your Amazon search and let's see if you still feel like making the same argument. There are dozens of books that use that title, so that must make you feel all right about using it yourself, right?

 In case you haven't figured it out on your own yet (it would have taken a couple minutes of poking around online), Joe Cane was using the traditionally offensive term ironically in order to comment on the abuses perpetrated by the oil companies he was writing about. See the Mark Twain quote that someone helpfully posted below.

 So now you can be upset that the "pc police" have made it unacceptable for you to refer to various cultures that you know absolutely nothing about as "savages." How will you ever make it through the day?

Oh, Clams. You're just sanctimonious and dimissive. ;)

Jeter wrote:

>>There is a book out titled "Savages" by Joe Cane that details the territorial fight between an indigenous Indian Amazon population & oil companies.

>>Apparently the word savages is still the correct usage in describing primitive people, & has not yet been successfully removed from our language by the PC police. Except here, of course.

Good grief! The title of the book is meant *ironically* If you read any reviews of the book on Amazon, you see the author feels the opposite about the people he writes about. 

Savage is still very much a derogatory term, so please stop with your PC police crap.  

Savage is still very much a derogatory term

Especially when it is preceded by the word "Michael." 

Hahahaha.  Here are the 2nd and 3rd definitions Tommy apparently did not want to show you because is doesn't support his argument:

2 : a brutal person 3 : a rude or unmannerly person

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savages

It seems "savage" is not quite the neutral term tommy is trying so hard to present.

By those latter two definitions, Rush is a savage.

Exactly. It's a derogatory term precisely because it implies that those cultures are inherently bloodthirsty and cruel. Tommy and Jeter know nothing about this particular Brazilian tribe beyond what we've seen from a plane a few hundred feet above, and yet they see nothing wrong with labeling them as savages. It's ignorant and ethnocentric.

If you were to go visit this tribe they would cut your head off as soon as they saw you. These people are uncivilized savages.

And you know that how?

He doesn't know.

Rino is a caricature of the cultural conservative. Fearful of anything that falls outside of his dim assumptions of how the world ought to be. He sees threat everywhere, violence is the natural state of the world and believes the mighty are righteous.

I feel sorry for him.

"He sees threat everywhere, violence is the natural state of the world and believes the mighty are righteous."-roundhouse

You do not think that violence is the natural state of the world!?

Animals commit violent acts unto eachother, humans are renown to commit mass murder, nature is itself violent and destructive. So sorry, but the natural world does not conform to your naïve world view.

The mighty, while not righteous are the ones who survive. Those who were righteous did not last very long, and ultimately did not pass on their "righteous" culture.

I KNOW!!

I remember reading about those OTHER peaceful cultures that got totally wiped off the face of the earth because we are all a basically murderous, bloodthirsty bunch!  Who could ever forget the now-extinct tribes like the Amish, Menonites, Buddhists, Jainists, Wiccans, and so on.  Or those now destroyed countries such as Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Madagascar, Tibet, and so forth.

What a bunch of idealistic losers, eh, Fin? 

Wow.  Project much?  Your position is amoral.  You would fit in great in the Bush Administration.  Have you applied there lately?

Fin,

Are you a Christian?  If so, you must think that Jesus dude was a wussy, eh?

"And you know that how?" -Freidbergboy

Well, why don't you go and find out?

Rhino makes that conclusion based on the experience of others, take for example the identically naïve white girl who went to Africa to help the [still] tribalistic negroes and was stoned to death.

It is unlikely that this tribe has some sort of remarkably peaceful humanitarian culture, devoid of any violence.

'based on the experiences of others'.... with people NOBODY has EVER seen before!  What experience?  None.

Go and find out?  Are you suggesting I should go interfere with a tribe of people who are self-sufficient and don't want outside influence?  Why would I want to do that?

I know Christian missionaries who were murdered by a tribe similar to this one. They were simply trying to help them out, and the barbarians beheaded them for no reason at all.

I know Christain priests who have raped girls and boys before.  Does that mean the next time I see someone who wears black robes and has a white collar, I should kill him on the spot?

I never said that the savages should be killed. You have no point at all. I simply pointed out that they are savages.

And you were wrong.

As Tommy and Jeter pointed out over and over again, "savages" is the correct term for this tribe of people according to the dictionary. It's a proven fact.

Easy To Refute Far Left Moonbats

RH,

Under these definitions of Savage, Rush Limbaugh certain fits the bill

1. A person regarded as primitive or uncivilized.2. A person regarded as brutal, fierce, or vicious.3. A rude person; a boor.

Easy To Refute Far Left Moonbats

Even easier to show time and time again that Rino Hunter is an ignorant doofus that has no idea what he's talking about.

 I know Christian missionaries who were murdered (Rino)

You know dead people?

Sorry, I pulled an Obama there. I know of people who were murdered a long time ago by a tribe in Ecuador.

Wow, a guy who voted for Bush twice making fun of speaking gaffes ;).

Sorry, I pulled an Obama there.

You're not worthy to invoke the name of a good man like Barack Obama, Rino Hunter.  You're not even good enough to lick the soles of his shoes.

RH,

Were the missionaries in Brazil?  Did they ever think that the tribe didn't want or need their assistance?  I am not excusing murder, but tell me more about the situation.

The tribe was in Ecuador. And I didn't actually know the people personally. I just know of the story. A number of missionaries went to Ecuador and lived among the tribe there for a period of time, about 6 months or so I think. But then the leader of the tribe decided that they couldn't be trusted and ordered his tribe to behead them. And yes, they probably didn't want to be bothered, but don't you think that if they weren't savages they could've just asked them to leave rather than murder them? That's all this discussion is about anyway. No one is saying that these people should be killed. We have simply pointed out that these people are savages.

You are generalizing across country and tribes here, RH.  I don't think that's fair.

Then go visit that tribe and see what happens if they are really such nice people.

RH,

Excuse me?  Why not leave them be?  No need to stereotype.

RH,

Excuse me?  Why not leave them be?  No need to stereotype.

But stereotyping is Rino Hunter's only discernable skill.....  :-)

I figured as a conservative you would totally be down with the Ecuadorian tribe's get off our backs and leave us alone attitude. You're alright with pre-emptive military actions and torture but you draw the line at uninvited Christian missionaries being executed. I'm not condoning violence, I think violence is the opposite of power but you my friend are supporting a glaring double standard. Very typical conservative hypocricy.

And even if this tribe in Brazil is unfriendly, so what? Should they be removed from their home? It's their home, not ours.

I know Christian missionaries who were murdered by a tribe similar to this one. They were simply trying to help them out, and the barbarians beheaded them for no reason at all.

And I know someone who was robbed by a black man back in the '70s.  Using your "logic", do you expect me to believe that EACH AND EVERY black man I see wants to rob me?

As I see it, the true "barbarians" today are all members of the GOP.

And you know that how?

Rino Hunter doesn't know that.  We can add that to the virtually infinite list of things Rino Hunter knows nothing about.

Let's see, they paint themselves red and shoot arrows up at airplanes.

Sounds like a Brazilian chapter of the Amish to me.

http://goddrinksbeer.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/ap_tribe_080530_ssh.jpg 

 

 

Sounds more like Rambo II to me.

"apparently did not want to show you because is doesn't support his argument:" -Open_mind

Do you show all that does not support your argument?

I think not, simply because it is most often IRELEVANT.

You are just blubbering out generalizations.  Give an example of me doing what tommy was just caught doing or STFU.  Thanks.

: )

I agree! Rush was simply using a word from the dictionary correctly, just like when Woody Allen called his children "bastards."

<>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bastard 

 

Tommy,

As you have so eloquently pointed out at other occasions liberalism is a philosophy based on emotions.  The word "savage", as used by Limbaugh, is understood in it's correct context to a rational thinking person.  However in the land of the loony left adjectives are not judged by what they mean but by how they make a liberal feel.  In this case the word "savage" brings forth a totally negative impression as the word has been overused by the left to describe hateful, vengeful, thoughtless, bloodthirsty, reckless, murderous humans, also known around MMFA as conservatives. (i.e - Michael Savage) 

I know it is difficult for a thinking man to understand this contortion of the english language but it is becomming very common around here for people to throw adjectives around that in no way reflect their true meaning.  In fact, earlier this week I was arguing with a bunch of lefties who actually used the word "couragous" to describe Ted Kennedy.

Doublespeak is alive and well at MMFA.

Please. Rationalist?

The handbook of the cultural conservative as written by the early movement conservatives Richard Viguery, Paul Weyrich and Howard Phillips relies implicitly on the gut level manipulation of people as a way to change opinion and make way for easier electoral victtory.

Rush is a classic conservative emotional manipulater.

Nothing wrong with emotional appeals in as much as emotions are our first response to the world around us. Logic is how we try to make sense of our instinctual emotional reactions.

Just be honest about it.

Rush is a classic conservative emotional manipulater.

Not to mention, perhaps, impotent or otherwise afflicted with a Loathsome Social Disease. (And takes great pains to hide the news from his legions of poor, undereducated and easily-influenced listeners.)

liberalism is a philosophy based on emotions.(Dimsol)

Sorry, Dim, you've just swallowed more of the projection that Rush feeds you.Conservatism is dependent on fear, insecurity and hate. Abstract Evildoers,failure to wear flag pins and assaults on marriage don't bother rational people. Just Republican suckers.

Col - you regurgatation of the assertion that every criticism of liberalism or every staple of conservatisim comes through Rush Limbaugh verifys the one dimensional aspect of your cultural education.  As you so often reference what happens on Limaugh's show I suggest you turn off the program every once in awhile and look to other avenues of information.  You'll be surprised to learn how much happens outside of his show.

You'll be surprised to learn how much happens outside of his show.

And it's no surprise to anyone that the same topics that are discussed on Jeff Christie's show are discussed PRACTICALLY VERBATIM on Sean Hannity's show, Mark Levin's show, Maike Gallagher's show, Neal Boortz' show, Michael Savage's show, Laura Ingraham's show, etc, etc, etc.......

I'm impressed you have time to listen to all that stuff.  I hope it's in your job description.

Hey DS,  FYI regarding your assertion.

"The word "savage", as used by Limbaugh".....adjectives are not judged by what they mean..."

 

Limbaugh used the term as a noun not an adjective.  Go back and revisit the homeshooling book of basic grammar. 

JCH - Yes Limbaugh's use of "savage" as a noun is a correct application of the word.  However if you re-read my post it is the adjective form of the word that I contend has brought the story to the forefront here at MMFA. 

a person belonging to a primitive society

This also serves as a definition for the Republican Party.  :-)

gee tommy, you know for a fact that they're a primitive people? i haven't seen anything detailing that, perhaps your magic "tommy crystal ball" told you?

please, do share with the rest of the class.

Go to bed Tommy.

Brilliant debating style there 8 Homes McCain.

Maybe you should change your moniker to 5 Homes Kerry

Maybe you should change yours to zero thought Jeter2.

Maybe you should change yours to I'm a Far Left MoonBat.

Maybe you should change yours to I'm a Far Left MoonBat.

After you change yours to I'm a Blithering Idiot.

Tommy,

Those 'savages' are probably more civilized than we are....

This land that is ours now was full of these same kind of 'savages' back a few hundred years ago..... and ya know what.... these 'savages' had had a running democracy going for over 9,000 years before we showed up.....

Our own Constitution was based on the Iroquois Confederacy that stretched from New England to the eastern edge of the midwest.....

Rush is wrong for calling this tribe that, as you are for defending it..... just like the original Europeans that came here back 500 years ago were about those that were up here!

We understand that you hate America. That doesn't mean that the tribe that Rush mentioned isn't composed of savages. Did you miss the part that said that they were trying to shoot down the airplanes?

Maybe The Whitehouse contains savages since every plane that flies in their airspace will be shot down.  Or maybe anyone that shoots an intruder in their own home should be considered a savage (especially if there is no indictation that this intruder is intending to harm anyone).

In other words, you are confusing savagery with a human response to the fear of the unknown.

 

The fact that an airplane is "unknown" to them shows that they are savages. Not to mention the fact that they're too stupid to realize that bows and arrows won't even scratch a plane.

No, the fact is that an airplane is not in their domain of experience (neither is metal).  And it is possible that their bows and arrows could have brought down a small plane flying low enough (the fact that people in the plane saw them can attest to that). 

If they are ignorant, they are ignorant not stupid.  And having read some of the things you have posted, I could saw the same about you. 

 

 

Onionhead? Someone with onions in their head is telling me that I'm stupid? And arrows can knock down an airplane? Which brings me to my next point: DONT SMOKE CRACK!

Yeah, they're so stupid.I'd make a bet that as stupid as they are, Rush's fat ass wouldn't last 5 minutes in their shoes and neither would you.  Just because Rush and you happened to have been born in an industrialized country and not in the middle of the jungle does not make him or you any smarter than those people, you conceited jackass.

Rhino, you have to be kidding. With bows and arrows. Oooooh.

Unfortunately, I don't think he's kidding. I just hope an "unknown" intruder doesn't ring Rinopunter's doorbell to sell him a magazine subscription. If he's so stupid that the intruder is "unknown" to him, he may react savagely, and I bet he's smart enough to know how a gun works.

Only if I can tell for sure that it's a liberal Democrat.

Thanks, RH. A good demonstration of that conservative humor.

First, it makes no sense at all; The unknown must be something that you're sure of, and

It involves fatal consequences for somebody who doesn't agree with you politically.

I salute the Volunteer Eejits. They move everything beyond the hypothetical.

I guess he would have to have a Barack Obama shirt on. Or perhaps a shirt that shows an American flag being burned.

Just to be clear that's just a joke. I think that most Democrats are patriotic people who love their country. But if you're going to personally attack me for simply offering a different opinion, you can expect me to respond in kind. What goes around comes around.

if you're going to personally attack me for simply offering a different opinion  (Rinopunter)

Weak, in more than one way.

I merely inserted your logic into another situation. If you consider that a personal attack, you've only exposed your own flaws.

The feeble defense of"you just hate different opinions" might work if your lack of logic wasn't clearly exposed.Unfortunately, it was.Your response was just typical conservative crybaby deflection.

I didn't see any personal attack towards me, so don't bother explaining. You're unarmed, and incapable of an attack.

Yeah, I just felt a little guilty about claiming that liberals want to burn American flags. I thought you might take offense at that and that I might get banned, so I tried to clarify my comment.

And you failed miserably.

Yeah, I should have made it clear that it's only hateful far left zealots like yourself who burn American flags.

Aren't you the sensitive one? I thought you were so far above us that you didn't dally in the personal insult?

It is hi-lar-ious the way ultra-right-wing parrots preface untenable arguments with "I know you hate America." It's like a very strange verbal tic. Who knew that Tourette's had a political manifestation?

Also - er I know you hate America -- he is right. Our Constitution is based on the Iriquois Constitution. You should read it sometime; actually, you should read both of them. Sigh . . . those crazy, crazy savages.

The poster said that we are a nation of savages. If you want to defend his anti-American remarks, that's fine. But at least be truthful and admit that he's bashing his own country.

Allow me to ask a question.  Do you think the citizens of the Indian nations considered the European invaders savages?  Also, would they be anti-American for thinking that, even though they were the original inhabitants of America?

Jawill, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer to those questions.

You should have called RH's next of kin before asking, though. Just out of a sense of  decency.

Uh, no. Your far left views make no sense at all. The Europeans who came to America rightly viewed the indians as savages. They were primitive people who wasted the resources of a vast land. The Europeans founded America and turned it into an industrialized country. If they wouldn't have done that you wouldn't be here today. Your contention that America was illegitimately founded and that we are a country of savages is an extreme anti-American point of view. It's a big reason why many people hesitate to vote for Democrats, even though most Democrats don't have these kind of extreme anti-American views. People like you simply make the Democratic party look extreme. 

Thanks for answering my question, even though you aren't aware that you did.  With your answer, you've shown yourself to have zero higher-level cognitive ability coupled with a heavy dose of vainglory and unearned egotism.  

I'm not even going to ask what possible reason you have for thinking that the original inhabitants were savages and idiots because I no longer care what your ignorant opinion is on this topic.  

Well have a good day. And make sure that you get to visit all 57 states.

I'm so glad corporations don't waste our resources like those tree hugging Indians did.  Every time I see a strip mining operation turning a beautiful mountain into a gaping hole or rubble, I just get a tear in my eye (a happy tear because I know we are using those resources to make America beautiful!) 

So you agree with Rush that we are all better off painting

ourself red and shooting arrows at airplanes.

It is an open question.  A good conservative friend of mine often toyed with the idea of chucking it all to become a beach bum/subsistence fisherman in Mexico.  The appeal of the simple life isn't only for liberals.  The more bills I pay and the more debts I get make such a life look more attractive.

Well have a good day. And make sure that you get to visit all 57 states.

We know that the only state YOU ever visit is Stupidity, Rino Hunter.

Rino Hunter wrote:

>>Uh, no. Your far left views make no sense at all. The Europeans who came to America rightly viewed the indians as savages. They were primitive people who wasted the resources of a vast land. The Europeans founded America and turned it into an industrialized country

Wow! This is the same poster who wants to lecture us on the value of human life. Yet here he is outright supporting the ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans. You do realize, Rino, that when the Europeans made America an industrialized nation, they killed many, many Native Americans. But that killing is okay in your eyes. But then you criticized these who have abortions as murderes.

I should also point out that the amount of enviornmental damage done by the Europeans (not Americans) is far greater than that done by the Natives, so I don't know how you come to the conclusion that the Native Americans wasted more resources than the Europeans.

What a racist creep you are.  

Sponge Bob,

Never did I condone murder. I simply pointed out that the Europeans were civilized people while the indians were not. That's not hard to understand, unless you have the IQ of a 3 year old like yourself.

Yeah, it was so civilized of the Europeans to infest blankets with a fatal disease and distribute them to indians just to watch them die. But let an uninvited missionary get his head removed and the perpetrators are savages.

What a typical Republican hypocrite you are.

And also, the vast majority of the indians were killed off by diseases. That wasn't something the Europeans could control. Most tribes of indians were forced to go west and resettle there. Your contention that the Europeans simply came in and murdered all the indians is complete nonsense.

I wouldn't go so far as to say European diseases couldn't be controled.  There is at least one example that would seem to disprove that generalization such as the well-known polio-blankets that were given to some Indians in an intentional effort to spread disease.

That's one example. For you to hold that up as a example of some kind of policy of extermination is somewhat disingenious.

Yeah.  There was no policy of extermination of Native tribes in America.  I guess my liberal history books (all the ones that accurately depict history) told me wrong. 

O.K. then fine. Tell me the specific governmental policy which called for the mass murder of Native Americans.

Historian David Stannard is of the opinion that the indigenous peoples of America (including Hawaii)[21] were the victims of a "Euro-American genocidal war."[22] While conceding that the majority of the indigenous peoples fell victim to the ravages of European disease, he estimates that almost 100 million died in what he calls the American Holocaust.[

Straw man question - there wasn't one policy, but numerous small policites that gradually, steadily, and completely removed an entire race of indigenous people from the land they had lived on for thousands of years.

Historian David Stannard is of the opinion that the indigenous peoples of America (including Hawaii)[21] were the victims of a "Euro-American genocidal war."[22] While conceding that the majority of the indigenous peoples fell victim to the ravages of European disease, he estimates that almost 100 million died in what he calls the American Holocaust.[

Straw man question - there wasn't one policy, but numerous small policites that gradually, steadily, and completely removed an entire race of indigenous people from the land they had lived on for thousands of years.

Strawman question says you. That seems to be your calling sign. There is a big difference in small policies which removed people from land and small policies which called for mass murder. Can't you distinguish between the two? As for your David Stannard, well that is his opinion. The reality is that OPENMIND made the claim that his textbooks essentially taught him that there was a policy of murder. There wasn't. Period. No strawman there pal. Interestingly enough native cultures made it a practice of removing tribes from land they lived on for thousands of years, killing them, and enslaving their women and children. The sad reality which you conveniently ignore is that you seem to enjoy living in a nation which was founded in this manner. Frankly, the land you live one was forcibly taken form someone at one time or another. How do you sleep at night?

>>Did you miss the part that said that they were trying to shoot down the airplanes?

And we haven't started a unilateral pre emptive war against them? We can't allow them to aquire blow darts of mass destruction. 

 

And we haven't started a unilateral pre emptive war against them? We can't allow them to aquire blow darts of mass destruction. 

It's obvious that the hate us because of our airplanes.....  :-)

Wait a minute RINO. I admire your stance against the war and wanted to mention it to you the other day. I'm proud of you.

But when a primitive tribe, feels threatened and responds with the only weapons available to them, how does that differ from America responding to the supposed threat from Iraq in 2003?

But that reasoning, we are savages.

First of all, as Tommy and many other conservatives have pointed out, the correct dictionary definition for primitive people are savages. These are not civilized people. And the fact that they don't even know what an airplane is and believed that they could shoot it down with arrows shows that they have almost no knowledge at all. Perhaps it was wrong of me to call them stupid, because they are smart in certain areas. But the fact is that they are primitive people who can accurately be called savages. Rush simply used the correct term to describe them. It's a fact that other conservatives on this thread have already pointed out.

Do you call the Texas Polygamists "savages" as well?

No. I call them child molesters.

Good question avoid ;).  Don't they fit the definition of savages?

No, they're not primitive people. Why would they be called savages?

Polygamists who believe that children that age can have children are not primitive?  People who believe having more than one wife is ok are not primitive?  Living life like you were in the 1800s is not primitive?  Not allowing women to cut their hair isn't primitive?  Not allowing people to wear red isn't primitive?  Arranged marriages aren't primitive?  Women having 26 babies isn't primitive?

Hmmmmmm

Those kind of people are sick and disgusting. I'm not making excuses for them. I just don't thi