Author Topic: adidas campaigns "Create Positivity", immediately backfires  (Read 43417 times)

immigration is entering someone's country illegally unless if you're implying a bunch of native americans count as a country...
okay there are other historical inaccuracies here, but first and foremost, that is literally not the definition of immigration.

Quote
the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.

okay there are other historical inaccuracies here, but first and foremost, that is literally not the definition of immigration.


i need to edit that

so actually tell me then, this is what i was saying, actually refute me. i don't understand why this argument is used.

iirc some tribes had councils and stuff but not really anything to hold sovereignty over the continent

okay there are other historical inaccuracies here, but first and foremost, that is literally not the definition of immigration.

what, did you get that definition off of wikipedia? we all know about that website's liberal slant and easy editing. smh, google better sources next time

b-b-b-b-b-b-but Annoying Orange is controlled by RUSSIA?

but... his tax returns!

what, did you get that definition off of wikipedia? we all know about that website's liberal slant and easy editing. smh, google better sources next time
In all seriousness I don't know how it's possible to confuse illegal immigration with regular immigration. If the word 'immigration' inherently meant traveling somewhere illegally, then there would be no use for the term 'illegal immigrant' because that would just be stupid and redundant.

okay there are other historical inaccuracies here, but first and foremost, that is literally not the definition of immigration.
Quote
the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.

America wasn't even known as a country when the Natives had it. It wasn't even on the loving map. The loving natives weren't even aware of how big America even was.

In all seriousness I don't know how it's possible to confuse illegal immigration with regular immigration. If the word 'immigration' inherently meant traveling somewhere illegally, then there would be no use for the term 'illegal immigrant' because that would just be stupid and redundant.

i edited that and i did not mean to say illegally in case you didn't read what i said.

i need to edit that

so actually tell me then, this is what i was saying, actually refute me. i don't understand why this argument is used.
The argument stems from the fact that our nation's founders colonized America in the pursuit of religious/economic freedom and to get away from the oppression of British Parliament. If our founders were able to, why can't others? This argument doesn't excuse illegal immigration, though. There are also some logical flaws in the argument such as the fact that there wasn't really an existing government to "stop" our founders from migrating to America, but in general it kind of makes sense.

they weren't waving a flag that represented their country, they didn't form any government system type, and they certainly don't have an economy or anything else.
All three of these points are bullstuff. Native American societies had complex, stratified governments with trade and warfare. The main reason that they were so successfully conquered was because they had far less people, no horses, no immunity to smallpox, and no guns.

i edited that and i did not mean to say illegally in case you didn't read what i said.
No, you did mean to say illegally because you were confused about immigration versus illegal immigration.

America back when the Natives had it was known as a continent, not a country.

Antarctica had loving eskimos but that doesn't mean it's a country, it's still a continent to this day.


These dumb ass indians don't know how to claim ownership, now they sit in their casino reservations drinking listerine and making money off the white man. They're fine.

No, you did mean to say illegally because you were confused about immigration versus illegal immigration.

no i didn't, i have actually and accidentally added illegally. the dictionary definition i provided out otherwise would contradict me. good try though trying to use that against me.

All three of these points are bullstuff. Native American societies had complex, stratified governments with trade and warfare.

the only thing i've seen so far are tribes in north america in my US history but can you give me a source otherwise?
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 09:08:45 PM by Timestamp »

the only thing i've seen so far are tribes but can you give me a source otherwise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire (suspected to be the largest human empire in the 16th century, including Europe)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire (suspected to be the largest human empire in the 16th century, including Europe)


The only empire that existed in North America during 15th-16th century was the Aztecs, and they were basically destroyed by Spaniards. You could count the Iroquois, Chickasaw, Cherokee and a few others as civilizations but they were mostly tribes.

The only empire that existed in North America during 15th-16th century was the Aztecs, and they were basically destroyed by Spaniards. You could count the Iroquois, Chickasaw, Cherokee and a few others as civilizations but they were mostly tribes.
Early American settlers were tribes by the same metric. I don't understand this philosophy whereby people think Native Americans had no concept of sovereignty just because they had smaller populations with less technology. There are records of tribes fighting over land, which inherently implies that they had a concept of land sovereignty, which basically means they were a country.