I would say that Stalin, the Kin Jong's, Various African Tribal Genocides, and Pol Pot might disagree with your account of wholesale slaughter being reserved for the 'white' Europeans and their descendants. That is just to name a few. Also, what is a 'white' European? I mean the southern Europeans have quite a bit of Moorish blood in them, do they still count as 'white'?

All sarcasm aside, your argument is extremely flawed. Conquerors tend to lay waste to the societies they conquer, not always in terms of total lives lost, but in terms of cultural death. The reason why 'white' people are vilified for this lately is because for the past several hundred years they have been the ones expanding and taking over the regions you speak of. This is not exclusive to a skin color or originating locale, it is absolutely a core of our human nature.

I gave some examples earlier of non-European conquerors, but they are fairly recent. If we look in history at other groups, we find the same meme. The Steppe Horse Tribes were BRUTAL to cities and countries that did not capitulate. Look up "Measuring against the linchpin". That saying came from the fact that if you resisted Mongol rule, they would slaughter every male taller than the linchpin of a wagon wheel. The Aztecs and Mayans ruled southern American empires through great brutality, including human sacrifice for 'religious' purposes. Recent discoveries even indicate that it was considered a good omen if the sacrifices were crying in pain before they were to die. Remains recently found showed "All shared one feature: serious cavities, abscesses or bone infections painful enough to make them cry."

Slavery originated as early as human recorded history, if not sooner. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations. Mass slavery requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Although slavery in some form or another existed in most European countries, it wasn't until after contact with the Arabic African slave traders that it soared in the 15th and 16th centuries.

tl;dr

You are referring to recent history to make an example while completely ignoring THOUSANDS of years of similar history. All humanity is flawed, narrowing it down to a singular group with cherry picked data is not going to persuade anyone with a brain.

That's right, you people didn't listen and the whole world, as always, has to deal with your shit. Maybe you should have listened, like, um, maybe 16 years ago when it became obvious to me and everyone else that your election system is fubar. And I don't even live in your stupid country.
Thanks a lot and enjoy your part of climate change disasters. It's not like that crap is gonna happen less anytime soon. Next time your southern coast get's fucked up by hurricanes you can go scream "We didn't listen!" in reference to that.

Your video, The Solar Power Towers of Southern Spain, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Here's an example of a project we'd have 2-weeks to finish:

A Space for 2 people to live out their life-cycle together.
Site: Desert (Southwest US)
Requirements:
- mass-based passive heating/cooling w/ profound southern views
- brise-soleil with morning privacy
- compost privy as hearth of house


about 3 years of projects like this, fast-fast-fast, with our Senior Thesis being a year-long self-initiated/directed exercise. Fluidity and broad gestures were rewarded...but not as we were discover in the "real world".

Lookee here now (to be read with a deep southern drawl....)

http://videosift.com/video/Liberal-Redneck-chimes-in-on-NFL-and-the-National-Anthem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
I admit I was wrong about the 8% figure, I got the columns crossed, recalculating, it was about 11% in 22, 17% in 31, and 32% in 47. That still sounds like a pretty huge influx by my standards, almost tripling the per capita population in 25 years (and more than tripling the actual population) compared to others in the region, mostly by imigration.

You said they stood along side the Nazis " upon the UN mandating a two state solution to the whole mess" (I think you've edited what you originally stated, that they then stood along side the Nazis, and clarified what you meant, that the leaders that turned down the 47 proposal had stood with the Nazis in the past, which I don't disagree with...too bad I erased the quotation for space). The U.N. mandated a two state solution in 74...in 47, they 'mandated' a 3 state solution that took massive territories from the Palestinians and handed it to Jewish immigrants, it turns out the Palestinians should have accepted because they've lost far more since then, but it sounded terrible at the time.

What points? Are these universal points? Can I redeem them for trips to the store by the universe...it owes me some milk.

In 48, when the illegal immigrants became land thieving invaders, the U.N.partition plan was to split the territory 3 ways, and for the U.N. to control Jerusalem. It would be like the U.N. agreeing today with illegal Mexicans in Texas and California that the southern 1/2 of all border states was now a new country because they are now a majority in many areas, with the U.N. taking control of the LA basin....we might say "no thanks" like the Palestinians did...at least I hope so.

The 37 British plan for Partition came before 47.
WIKI-The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

You said they stood with the Nazis when the two state solution was proposed...which was actually 74, but I'll give you leeway and say you meant 47, which is still ridiculous, the Nazis were long gone in 47.

They didn't seize it as payback for the holocaust, but many allies went along, seemingly out of guilt for not stopping it sooner (a valid complaint about the US, but no reason to help take Palestinian territory and hand it away).

Yes, there was Jewish hatred in Europe before the Nazis, that's one reason why they were able to grab so much power, they had a ready made scape goat. Your point?

No, not every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist, but enough of the 11% were that they tripled their presence in 25 years....and far more importantly, today it's near 100%, and they are violent, expansionist, ruthlessly inhuman, and zealous.

I refuse to call it a civil war when one side was made nearly completely of immigrants....that's called an invasion.

I do agree, the inability to assimilate is not 100% the immigrants fault, but it is 100% their responsibility. Refugees, that are not expected to stay, so not expected to assimilate, are kept in camps. These people did not go to camps, so they were, at best, illegal immigrants, and many were coming with the goal of stealing inhabited territory for their own, which makes them invaders. The VAST majority of them came after the war ended, so could not be war refugees. During the war, Jews had an incredibly hard time traveling in Europe.

The few actual refugees there that the axis created were absorbable by the Palestinians. It's their multitudinous militant expansionist friends that continue to immigrate there to this day that are the problem, IMO. I'll continue to call them violent invaders, you've said nothing to convince me otherwise.

Off the album Songs the Lord Taught Us, if you're interested in the Cramps. One of my favorite bands. They're obsessed with old rock n roll (southern American rock) and so they sound like the bands they're in love with and not the punk scene (CBGB's in New York) they came out of. Knowing that, the lyrics might make a whole lot more sense to you and not just be weird shit.

"One half hillbilly and one half punk.
The hottest thing from the north to come out of the south."

Wait, this earthquake wasnt from japan. The video says it was a 7.3 in Mexico. Devils hole is in southern california in death valley.

My experiences are in direct conflict with your worldview and opinion of the kindness of some Christians. Judged at my own wedding reception in beautiful, nonjudgmental southern california, I was called out and asked if I believed in Jesus and I said no. Why would I say otherwise if it was not true?

Not all of the Christians in our families objected, but many of them did. In fact, many of them refused to be a part of our marriage and begged my wife to leave me. Since then, no one speaks to me on a personal level. They might not have all openly judged me but I'm practically an exile. A thought criminal unfit to converse with on topics of church and state. All of the christians in my life are guilty of this shunning.

The sad thing is, I never make it a big deal (other than when I post my thoughts onto the internet -- where I dump all of my problems) and I don't challenge the beliefs of the people I love -- but they sure do.

You aren't wrong in your logic that not all xtians are judgmental, but you're wrong in your overemphasis of it. Christians need no defender of the faith because God is on their side.

In my own experience and social strata, almost all Christians commit some form of microaggression or judgement upon my lack of faith. Even my wife can't help but occasionally sprinkle a bit of the ol' christian guilt upon my head from time to time. And then she has the gall to talk to me about Christians being treated unfairly.

But that's my life, not yours. I'm sure your flavor of Christ worship is much less judgmental. I don't believe it, but maybe in time I will meet one of these majestic nonjudgemental Christians who don't constantly believe the rest of us will burn in hell for all eternity while they frolic in the basking glow of a jealous, hating God. Sorry, loving... I'm sure it's only love and not a pyschopath's Barbie playset made entirely of humans enslaved to an all powerful being capable of anything.

So much ridiculous misleading bullshit....one downvote is hardly enough.
Republicans are ignorant enough to buy it all, though.

Oops...forgot the "Southern Strategy" when Democrats dumped their racist ways and members and signed the civil rights bill into law, and Republicans gladly scooped them all up. Yes, when Lincoln was a Republican, the political positions of both parties were reversed.
It's hilarious that Republicans want to return to 1950's America...when the Democrats were the racists and Republicans (mostly) weren't...not realizing they would have to switch parties if they got their wish.

No *news and a complete misread of *history....needs a *fail and a *lies.

IBM Research? located in south SJ in 1952, 'cause of Stanford, Berkeley (HATE how he says it), UC Santa Cruz , & Moffett Field (NASA-Ames Research, but at the time was NACA).

Personally, I think Facebook is outside of Silicon Valley Proper, instead in AMPEX territory. Menlo Park (Stanford/HP) is the northern-most edge of Silicon Valley, whereas IBM marked the southern-most. and don't forget about Cisco & Silicon Graphics, whose machines were the bomb.

I grew up blocks from IBM and half my friends parents worked there (mine for NASA). I'm back here again in the Santa Cruz Mtns, Los Gatos.

Does anyone say Marin or Berkeley the way he does? How do you get Berkeley wrong? I can't imagine he's from the area or even heard anyone say those names before.

Also Id personally define Silicon Valley as Most of Santa Clara County(not all). Palo Alto to San Jose. I don't think of it as including the cities of Milpitas, Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Although, i think of it this way due to when it was first being used and the area in encompassed at that time. It's probably been ever changing depending on how the tech areas expand.

Wiki describes it "Geographically, it encompasses all of the Santa Clara Valley, the southern half of the San Francisco Peninsula, and southern portions of the East Bay. It includes parts or most of Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and Alameda County."

The UK has done a much better job in handling the situation than the US has, it seems, though it has had more time to do so than the southern US. I don't think they achieved it by implementing systemic racism in the opposite direction, though. And let's be clear, even though we may feel justified in kicking out higher achieving students to replace them with a quota-satisfying minority group, that is systemically racist, the very thing we are trying to abolish. It is a clear example of committing a wrong to hopefully achieve a right. And it will never feel like anything short of racism to the individual student that gets short changed.

So let's say that it works, and black folk begin to integrate more successfully into the encompassing community, and the encompassing communities don't end up resenting them for the racist laws that are helping them to do s . Will we ever be remove these racist rules? Or will we be arguing about an ever small statistical deviation somewhere? Furthermore, all of the people that are unjustly damaged by these new racist rules (ie. Ashley), won't they then be due reparations in the future too? Who would pay those? Where would it end? Would it end?

I just doubt that more racism is the cure for racism.

Shhh! The Southern Provinces haven't figured it all out yet.

Won't they be surprised when we veto Trump's election!