Sorry Matt but that's a ridiculous statement. I think users should be nice to everybody regardless of their gender and if you are going to be rude - don't decide who to be rude to based on gender.Matt Cross wrote:Bagira wrote: As for annexing Mexico, that's complete bullshit. Of course, it's a retarded question. First of all, English is dominant language throughout the US. Spanish is dominant in Mexico. TO A VAST DEGREE. Plus, we don't have the revenue to support the restructuring and renovation of the Mexican country in the case we get it. I can go on for hours. No idea why such an idea came up for you.
wow, dude... not nice at all.
In case you don't know, the general feeling of a lot of the girls on this forum is that they'd rather not involve themselves in any discussions whatsoever because they might receive a response like that, and a lot of them feel it's easier to not have to deal with it at all, than to put themselves in a situation where they might have to verbally fight back or defend themselves.
Please do not alienate our shreditas. We want more girls in the sport, not less.
Annexing Mexico
Jeremy,
too bad it's the truth. I believe your POV reflects how one should act in an ideal situation, and I think my POV reflects how one should act in this less than ideal situation if we want girls to be involved in the sport. We have to go extra easy on them, because if we don't,... well, read my post again.
Do you feel I've misrepresented the truth? I don't. My explanation of the situation is practically out of the mouths of those female players who choose to either not post at all or to only feel comfortable posting in the Shreditas forum.
Or maybe you'd prefer that everyone be rude to whoever they want and treat everyone equally, and the girls respond to that situation like they have in the past, which is by not fighting back and ceasing to post, or worse, never posting at all because the environment just plain isn't comfortable enough.
Of course, if more girls want to toughen up, and verbally stand up for themselves and their opinions, and occasionally snap back once in a while like Chrissy did, that would be preferable to what I've suggested.
Matt
too bad it's the truth. I believe your POV reflects how one should act in an ideal situation, and I think my POV reflects how one should act in this less than ideal situation if we want girls to be involved in the sport. We have to go extra easy on them, because if we don't,... well, read my post again.
Do you feel I've misrepresented the truth? I don't. My explanation of the situation is practically out of the mouths of those female players who choose to either not post at all or to only feel comfortable posting in the Shreditas forum.
Or maybe you'd prefer that everyone be rude to whoever they want and treat everyone equally, and the girls respond to that situation like they have in the past, which is by not fighting back and ceasing to post, or worse, never posting at all because the environment just plain isn't comfortable enough.
Of course, if more girls want to toughen up, and verbally stand up for themselves and their opinions, and occasionally snap back once in a while like Chrissy did, that would be preferable to what I've suggested.
Matt
BRICK!
rfa::never give up::
nyfa
rfa::never give up::
nyfa
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Annexation of Mexico is not an absurd idea. It's an idea that's already been thrown on the table.
Remember that the globalists want to have the "borderless" North American Trade community (among other goals).
Mushing mexico and the U.S. together would be a step toward that.
-----------------------------------------
The degree of annexation would separate whether it is advantageous for the U.S......... or is foolhardy national suicide.
And consider whether Mexico is going to be a willing particiant, or not.
Annexation is an act of war (mostly)
And if they ARE willing, then the U.S. is probably going to get screwed from the deal.
But If they ARE NOT willing, any provacation, MUST be preceeded with some type of U.S. military presence, on the border.
You would think, that if you go to war with your neighbor, you should be prepared to defend your nation from 30 or 50 thousand military troops that Mexico has stationed, right over YOUR border.
So you would need to be able to close the border, if necessary. And NO gelded American leadership has any will to do that, so it it will probably never happen.
-------------------
BUT, if it did happen................
A full annexation of Mexico, granting full citizenship, and free travel throughout the "conglomeration", would be the end as we know it.
That would be a foolhardy, suicide route.
What about just annexing a 2 mile wide strip that run along the Cali-AZ-NW-Texas border?
This would be easier, politically , and wiser, that stationing troops on U.S. soil.
Annexation because of lawlessness, anarchy, and lack of any authority whatsoever, has commonly been used throughout history to "claim" mostly empty territory like this.
Limited annexation like that , would be way more feasible than full annexation.
Taking over Mexico's oil production should be considered, in any annexation scenario.
But I suspect that if the border was closed, for even a year or so, Mexico would suffer a revolt, or civil war, which it probably needs.
-------------------------------------
This is all conjecture, the more likely scenario , is for the SW to be annexed by Mexico.
I don't like that scenario, because I live in Arizona right now.
-n
Remember that the globalists want to have the "borderless" North American Trade community (among other goals).
Mushing mexico and the U.S. together would be a step toward that.
-----------------------------------------
The degree of annexation would separate whether it is advantageous for the U.S......... or is foolhardy national suicide.
And consider whether Mexico is going to be a willing particiant, or not.
Annexation is an act of war (mostly)
And if they ARE willing, then the U.S. is probably going to get screwed from the deal.
But If they ARE NOT willing, any provacation, MUST be preceeded with some type of U.S. military presence, on the border.
You would think, that if you go to war with your neighbor, you should be prepared to defend your nation from 30 or 50 thousand military troops that Mexico has stationed, right over YOUR border.
So you would need to be able to close the border, if necessary. And NO gelded American leadership has any will to do that, so it it will probably never happen.
-------------------
BUT, if it did happen................
A full annexation of Mexico, granting full citizenship, and free travel throughout the "conglomeration", would be the end as we know it.
That would be a foolhardy, suicide route.
What about just annexing a 2 mile wide strip that run along the Cali-AZ-NW-Texas border?
This would be easier, politically , and wiser, that stationing troops on U.S. soil.
Annexation because of lawlessness, anarchy, and lack of any authority whatsoever, has commonly been used throughout history to "claim" mostly empty territory like this.
Limited annexation like that , would be way more feasible than full annexation.
Taking over Mexico's oil production should be considered, in any annexation scenario.
But I suspect that if the border was closed, for even a year or so, Mexico would suffer a revolt, or civil war, which it probably needs.
-------------------------------------
This is all conjecture, the more likely scenario , is for the SW to be annexed by Mexico.
I don't like that scenario, because I live in Arizona right now.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan