Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on taking Cuba: "I think I'll have the honor of conquering Cuba. That wouldn't be bad. It would be a great honor. I can liberate it or conquer it, I think I can do what I want with it."pic.twitter.com/SkrAuUhCIK

— Robbi F (@robbi_fahey) September 26, 2026

---

The US does not Conquer. Liberate yes but conquer no.

---

You can't be serious.

---

The US does not go to war to conquer. Yes we have gained land after a war but we have never gone to war just to gain land.

Big difference.

---

It doesn't necessarily mean taking land, but of course we do that too (see Venezuela).

---

Yes it literally does mean that. The dictionary definition is to take control of a place. We did not do that in Venezuela.

Hamas Harry aka Sam Lousery loves terrorist regimes so he has the sadz maduro went down

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on taking Cuba: "I think I'll have the honor of conquering Cuba. That wouldn't be bad. It would be a great honor. I can liberate it or conquer it, I think I can do what I want with it."pic.twitter.com/SkrAuUhCIK

— Robbi F (@robbi_fahey) September 26, 2026

---

The US does not Conquer. Liberate yes but conquer no.

---

You can't be serious.

---

The US does not go to war to conquer. Yes we have gained land after a war but we have never gone to war just to gain land.

Big difference.

---

It doesn't necessarily mean taking land, but of course we do that too (see Venezuela).

---

Yes it literally does mean that. The dictionary definition is to take control of a place. We did not do that in Venezuela.

---

It doesn't, and we did.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on taking Cuba: "I think I'll have the honor of conquering Cuba. That wouldn't be bad. It would be a great honor. I can liberate it or conquer it, I think I can do what I want with it."pic.twitter.com/SkrAuUhCIK

— Robbi F (@robbi_fahey) September 26, 2026

---

The US does not Conquer. Liberate yes but conquer no.

---

You can't be serious.

---

The US does not go to war to conquer. Yes we have gained land after a war but we have never gone to war just to gain land.

Big difference.

---

It doesn't necessarily mean taking land, but of course we do that too (see Venezuela).

---

Yes it literally does mean that. The dictionary definition is to take control of a place. We did not do that in Venezuela.

---

It doesn't, and we did.

---

So now you are changing definitions of words in the dictionary???????

lololol Same Losery aka hamas Harry. Such a clown

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on taking Cuba: "I think I'll have the honor of conquering Cuba. That wouldn't be bad. It would be a great honor. I can liberate it or conquer it, I think I can do what I want with it."pic.twitter.com/SkrAuUhCIK

— Robbi F (@robbi_fahey) September 26, 2026

---

The US does not Conquer. Liberate yes but conquer no.

---

You can't be serious.

---

The US does not go to war to conquer. Yes we have gained land after a war but we have never gone to war just to gain land.

Big difference.

---

It doesn't necessarily mean taking land, but of course we do that too (see Venezuela).

---

Yes it literally does mean that. The dictionary definition is to take control of a place. We did not do that in Venezuela.

---

It doesn't, and we did.

---

So now you are changing definitions of words in the dictionary???????

---

It means taking control of a place or a people, not necessarily annexing territory.

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

lololol Same Losery aka hamas Harry. Such a clown

---

Time to unclutter these threads and put you on ignore...buh-bye.

william said:

---

>>
Florida deputies in St. Johns County arrested illegal migrant C****** M*******-A*** , 49, after a traffic stop.

The suspect is in the U.S. illegally, and the sheriff's office says he had no driver's license and was wanted on multiple felony warrants out of Brevard County, including for sexual battery on a minor, false imprisonment, and kidnapping.

M***** -A***** is being held without bond at the St. Johns County Jail. ICE has also lodged a detainer.

Across the U.S., leftists and some Democrats have violently rioted and even tried to kill in order to protect all illegal migrants from deportation.
<<

---

Prosecute him. No doubt.

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Give or take the millions who were exterminated. We've piled up a lot of nonexistent bodies in the course of history, haven't we?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

lololol Same Losery aka hamas Harry. Such a clown

---

Time to unclutter these threads and put you on ignore...buh-bye.

---

Ignore the lunatic leftist

Why are you so mad?

Why does calling you out on your bs offend you so much? Because that is what it is

Somali Sam now trying for So many Lies Sam

"millions"???
That's an absurd exaggeration. There were far too many massacres during the Indian Wars but they were on both sides. Little Big Horn did happen.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on taking Cuba: "I think I'll have the honor of conquering Cuba. That wouldn't be bad. It would be a great honor. I can liberate it or conquer it, I think I can do what I want with it."pic.twitter.com/SkrAuUhCIK

— Robbi F (@robbi_fahey) September 26, 2026

---

The US does not Conquer. Liberate yes but conquer no.

---

You can't be serious.

---

The US does not go to war to conquer. Yes we have gained land after a war but we have never gone to war just to gain land.

Big difference.

---

It doesn't necessarily mean taking land, but of course we do that too (see Venezuela).

---

Yes it literally does mean that. The dictionary definition is to take control of a place. We did not do that in Venezuela.

---

It doesn't, and we did.

---

So now you are changing definitions of words in the dictionary???????

---

It means taking control of a place or a people, not necessarily annexing territory.

---

Yes and we are not in control of another country.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on taking Cuba: "I think I'll have the honor of conquering Cuba. That wouldn't be bad. It would be a great honor. I can liberate it or conquer it, I think I can do what I want with it."pic.twitter.com/SkrAuUhCIK

— Robbi F (@robbi_fahey) September 26, 2026

---

The US does not Conquer. Liberate yes but conquer no.

---

You can't be serious.

---

The US does not go to war to conquer. Yes we have gained land after a war but we have never gone to war just to gain land.

Big difference.

---

It doesn't necessarily mean taking land, but of course we do that too (see Venezuela).

---

Yes it literally does mean that. The dictionary definition is to take control of a place. We did not do that in Venezuela.

---

It doesn't, and we did.

---

So now you are changing definitions of words in the dictionary???????

---

It means taking control of a place or a people, not necessarily annexing territory.

---

Yes and we are not in control of another country.

---

Sure we are. Just like we took control of Iraq and Afghanistan and tried to govern them as puppet states. You think Venezuela just gave us their oil because they like us so much? Their de facto ruler is Marco Rubio.

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

---

Historian is certainly a teacher more than you are in fact a Bear.

historian said:

---

"millions"???
That's an absurd exaggeration. There were far too many massacres during the Indian Wars but they were on both sides. Little Big Horn did happen.

---

Less than 270 (I think the official count was 268) US cavalry troopers were killed at little big horn.

It was used (in connection with the discovery of gold in the black hills and general westernist expansion desires) to justify ignoring/voiding the Ft. Laramie treaty and take hi dreads of thousands of square miles back from the Lakota and Cheyanne (among others). The killing a soldiers in a battle does not equate with the wholesale murder of villages of men, women and children, which happened more than a few times.

The various Indian wars between 1760 and ~1900 have a wide range of reasons and causes, but end of day they expanded European control over North America while effectively whipping out numerous civilizations. Any justification for that is, at its core, a might makes right argument. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it is something else.

" The various Indian wars between 1760 and ~1900 have a wide range of reasons and causes, but end of day they expanded European control over North America while effectively whipping out numerous civilizations. "

A fascinating statement.

It tacitly admits that there was conflict over the course of centuries, rather than a single coordinated and planned campaign.

It ignores the vital fact that many of the tribes had long been at war with each other, and that many tribes worked with British, French, and later US military against bloodthirsty tribes like the Comanches, Apaches, Lakota and the Iroquois.

It lumps British, French and American militaries into one 'plot to expand European control', demonstrating a very poor grasp of History, Politics and Logic.

It presumes the destruction of 'numerous civilizations' (I presume he meant 'wiping out', as the phrase he used was an accidental reference to Cleavon Little in 'Blazing Saddles'), on no evidence beyond his emotion.

It also ignores the fate of every nation which fails to advance in terms of technology, diplomacy and military arms to protect its interest in a world which is not known for tenderness.

With that said, the United States government did at times break treaties, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs was and is one of the most egregious examples of government caring not at all for the people it is charged to protect.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" The various Indian wars between 1760 and ~1900 have a wide range of reasons and causes, but end of day they expanded European control over North America while effectively whipping out numerous civilizations. "

A fascinating statement.

It tacitly admits that there was conflict over the course of centuries, rather than a single coordinated and planned campaign.

It ignores the vital fact that many of the tribes had long been at war with each other, and that many tribes worked with British, French, and later US military against bloodthirsty tribes like the Comanches, Apaches, Lakota and the Iroquois.

It lumps British, French and American militaries into one 'plot to expand European control', demonstrating a very poor grasp of History, Politics and Logic.

It presumes the destruction of 'numerous civilizations' (I presume he meant 'wiping out', as the phrase he used was an accidental reference to Cleavon Little in 'Blazing Saddles'), on no evidence beyond his emotion.

It also ignores the fate of every nation which fails to advance in terms of technology, diplomacy and military arms to protect its interest in a world which is not known for tenderness.

With that said, the United States government did at times break treaties, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs was and is one of the most egregious examples of government caring not at all for the people it is charged to protect.

---

Wow, your ChatGPT managed to read so many things into statements I didn't make. Congrats, you continue your undefeated streak of omnipotent destruction of strawmen.

And of course, you have to go to your stand by post hoc fallacy, because anyone you perceive to disagree with your vision of the world must only be doing so out of "emotion" and could never be based in any difference of genuine opinion or measured thought on an issue.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

---

Historian is certainly a teacher more than you are in fact a Bear.

---

So you agree, Manifest Destiny didnt conquer? Awful lot of people died occupying...

My student loans and diploma make me a Bear. Did you graduate from Baylor?

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" The various Indian wars between 1760 and ~1900 have a wide range of reasons and causes, but end of day they expanded European control over North America while effectively whipping out numerous civilizations. "

A fascinating statement.

It tacitly admits that there was conflict over the course of centuries, rather than a single coordinated and planned campaign.

It ignores the vital fact that many of the tribes had long been at war with each other, and that many tribes worked with British, French, and later US military against bloodthirsty tribes like the Comanches, Apaches, Lakota and the Iroquois.

It lumps British, French and American militaries into one 'plot to expand European control', demonstrating a very poor grasp of History, Politics and Logic.

It presumes the destruction of 'numerous civilizations' (I presume he meant 'wiping out', as the phrase he used was an accidental reference to Cleavon Little in 'Blazing Saddles'), on no evidence beyond his emotion.

It also ignores the fate of every nation which fails to advance in terms of technology, diplomacy and military arms to protect its interest in a world which is not known for tenderness.

With that said, the United States government did at times break treaties, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs was and is one of the most egregious examples of government caring not at all for the people it is charged to protect.

---

Wow, your ChatGPT managed to read so many things into statements I didn't make. Congrats, you continue your undefeated streak of omnipotent destruction of strawmen.

And of course, you have to go to your stand by post hoc fallacy, because anyone you perceive to disagree with your vision of the world must only be doing so out of "emotion" and could never be based in any difference of genuine opinion or measured thought on an issue.

---

1. I did not use AI at all. It may come as a shock to you latte based kids, but some of us are able to make do with the Mark 1 Cranium issued between our ears;

2. I simply observed the impetus of your statement. Apparently, you somehow missed it;

3. I also notice you did not refute, or even deny, any of my statements, but immediately channeled your inner-3rd-grader and launched a volley of rather weak attempts at insults;

4. No one is denying you are speaking from emotion. I simply challenged the rational base of your claim, which collapsed immediately upon inspection. I certainly sympathize with your embarrassment, but my point stands and need not be diluted just because yours cannot endure an effective response.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

---

Historian is certainly a teacher more than you are in fact a Bear.

---

So you agree, Manifest Destiny didnt conquer? Awful lot of people died occupying...

My student loans and diploma make me a Bear. Did you graduate from Baylor?

---

Your inability to manage the same cogency and civility in political discussions that you handle in discussing religion and faith is truly a mystery.

And for the record, student loans do not make you a Bear, only a debtor. And your diploma is just wall decoration if you abandon critical thought because it annoys you.

Attacking someone for applying proper historical context, and somehow deciding the accurate application of history disqualifies someone as an historian, is so absurd as to provoke chortling.

To your claim, 'Manifest Destiny' was in some ways the Make America Great Again of its time. That is, people were not using that phrase in normal conversation, and political leaders were not basing decisions on that slogan, Those who wanted to build a name as historians found it a useful label, especially given the left-of-center character of their nominal membership.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on taking Cuba: "I think I'll have the honor of conquering Cuba. That wouldn't be bad. It would be a great honor. I can liberate it or conquer it, I think I can do what I want with it."pic.twitter.com/SkrAuUhCIK

— Robbi F (@robbi_fahey) September 26, 2026

---

The US does not Conquer. Liberate yes but conquer no.

---

You can't be serious.

---

The US does not go to war to conquer. Yes we have gained land after a war but we have never gone to war just to gain land.

Big difference.

---

It doesn't necessarily mean taking land, but of course we do that too (see Venezuela).

---

Yes it literally does mean that. The dictionary definition is to take control of a place. We did not do that in Venezuela.

---

It doesn't, and we did.

---

So now you are changing definitions of words in the dictionary???????

---

It means taking control of a place or a people, not necessarily annexing territory.

---

Yes and we are not in control of another country.

---

Sure we are. Just like we took control of Iraq and Afghanistan and tried to govern them as puppet states. You think Venezuela just gave us their oil because they like us so much? Their de facto ruler is Marco Rubio.

---

Please provide evidence for this claim that he is the ruler

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

---

Yes much of the land of both the Americas had no one on it. The tribes tended to live in small areas. The nomadic ones lived in smaller groups that moved around but it still meant that most of the land was unoccupied.

Even the real Indians weren't the real Indians. Bill Maher would love you guys.

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

---

Yes much of the land of both the Americas had no one on it. The tribes tended to live in small areas. The nomadic ones lived in smaller groups that moved around but it still meant that most of the land was unoccupied.

---

Wow, Iowa, Alaska, Texas, the whole southwest is open for occupation... Just because they didnt have a US recognized legal system of meets and bounds doesnt mean they didnt exist as nations. Didnt they teach you any other cultures in Texas. In NY we learned the Iriqous in Jr High... But if you guys believe we didnt conquer the Native tribes or they didnt have legal systems? Cant help you. But the Alamo... We were right there too. No war with Mexico, occupation of vacant land.

You guys can really mold things to be morally right... This site is an education.

FLBear certainly has a freewheeling style,where no facts in context matter, only his manufactured outrage.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear certainly has a freewheeling style,where no facts in context matter, only his manufactured outrage.

---

Outrage? What outrage. Just find some of your "facts" interesting.

In this case, ever talk to people on a reservation? Ever do work on one? I have limited, but friend built roads for FHWA on reservations throughout the west, tell them they were not Nations or that there were not ancestorial lands they occupied.

You can be certain, if I post something it is from a source. Those that know their subject know I am on point. Those who don't, go off like you. Brother, you spent too many years doing accounting and reporting to talking heads not enough in the field. I don't put out info from my mind without checking, hobby from talking to too many Boards.

Still no facts on your side, guy.

Just spewage

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

---

Yes much of the land of both the Americas had no one on it. The tribes tended to live in small areas. The nomadic ones lived in smaller groups that moved around but it still meant that most of the land was unoccupied.

---

Wow, Iowa, Alaska, Texas, the whole southwest is open for occupation... Just because they didnt have a US recognized legal system of meets and bounds doesnt mean they didnt exist as nations. Didnt they teach you any other cultures in Texas. In NY we learned the Iriqous in Jr High... But if you guys believe we didnt conquer the Native tribes or they didnt have legal systems? Cant help you. But the Alamo... We were right there too. No war with Mexico, occupation of vacant land.

You guys can really mold things to be morally right... This site is an education.

---

Great job at taking what I said, taking a left turn, and going in a completely different direction. But that seems to be what you are good at.

I never said a word about legal system, boundaries, etc. Just that they didn't use the land or live on it. And of course you try to throw in digs at education.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

---

Historian is certainly a teacher more than you are in fact a Bear.

---

So you agree, Manifest Destiny didnt conquer? Awful lot of people died occupying...

My student loans and diploma make me a Bear. Did you graduate from Baylor?

---

Your inability to manage the same cogency and civility in political discussions that you handle in discussing religion and faith is truly a mystery.

And for the record, student loans do not make you a Bear, only a debtor. And your diploma is just wall decoration if you abandon critical thought because it annoys you.

Attacking someone for applying proper historical context, and somehow deciding the accurate application of history disqualifies someone as an historian, is so absurd as to provoke chortling.

To your claim, 'Manifest Destiny' was in some ways the Make America Great Again of its time. That is, people were not using that phrase in normal conversation, and political leaders were not basing decisions on that slogan, Those who wanted to build a name as historians found it a useful label, especially given the left-of-center character of their nominal membership.

---

Here we go with the moving goal posts. It'd not enough to graduate from Baylor, to be a bear? Now we have to audition for the privilege? Have you been watching too much American Idol?

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not exactly what I said. Even the expansion out west, Manifest Destiny, was not imperial conquest in the historical sense. It was often complicated and chaotic and the Native American people's often suffered horribly, although they dished it out too. The reality is that the Great Plains was a vast territory that the US owned (purchased from France) and sparsely populated by small groups of Stone Age nomads. Clashes were inevitable and it was impossible for the status quo to continue.

---

So it was conquest, just not in the "historical" sense of conquering other human persons with dignity more or less equal to our own. Kind of like Palestine, I guess.

---

There is a difference between settling a land and conquering it. One cannot conquer land that nobody occupies. Much of it was unoccupied.

---

Really? I think there were quite a few reservations filled with people that would disagree. The Seminole's motto to this day is "Unconquered".

You really are a teacher?

---

Historian is certainly a teacher more than you are in fact a Bear.

---

So you agree, Manifest Destiny didnt conquer? Awful lot of people died occupying...

My student loans and diploma make me a Bear. Did you graduate from Baylor?

---

Your inability to manage the same cogency and civility in political discussions that you handle in discussing religion and faith is truly a mystery.

And for the record, student loans do not make you a Bear, only a debtor. And your diploma is just wall decoration if you abandon critical thought because it annoys you.

Attacking someone for applying proper historical context, and somehow deciding the accurate application of history disqualifies someone as an historian, is so absurd as to provoke chortling.

To your claim, 'Manifest Destiny' was in some ways the Make America Great Again of its time. That is, people were not using that phrase in normal conversation, and political leaders were not basing decisions on that slogan, Those who wanted to build a name as historians found it a useful label, especially given the left-of-center character of their nominal membership.

---

Here we go with the moving goal posts. It'd not enough to graduate from Baylor, to be a bear? Now we have to audition for the privilege? Have you been watching too much American Idol?

---

He's not very bright, be patient with him.

It would make somewhat more sense if the Baylor degree were held as collateral, but it belongs to you whether you pay the loans or not.