The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

You're assuming they're ignorant, they could also just not care.

(11-28-2017 12:47 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:58 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:46 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  so whats really getting under the left's skin then?

What on earth are you talking about? This was an absolute embarrassment for our country and we all should be in agreement on that. Using an important event honoring veterans that saved countless lives to again delve into junior high name calling. Don't we deserve more from our president?

so the President didnt honor the Veterans?

Yeah...I hear he showed them his doctor's excuse for his bone spurs.

at least he had an excuse... cant say the same about you.

Dude, you realize that sounds completely ridiculous, right? Besides, I was not old enough to get drafted. Like trump would have volunteered with no draft nor "bone spurs?" Puhleeeze! Try again.

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

I'm shocked anyone knew it was Jackson.

(11-28-2017 01:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

I'm shocked anyone knew it was Jackson.

The ignorance of this man and everyone on his staff is no longer shocking to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on purpose. I guarantee white nationalists know what Andrew Jackson is known for.

(11-28-2017 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

I'm shocked anyone knew it was Jackson.

The ignorance of this man and everyone on his staff is no longer shocking to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on purpose. I guarantee white nationalists know what Andrew Jackson is known for.

Nobody actually gives a sh!t that a Jackson painting was around other than folks just looking for something else to b!tch about Trump.

(11-28-2017 02:07 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

I'm shocked anyone knew it was Jackson.

The ignorance of this man and everyone on his staff is no longer shocking to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on purpose. I guarantee white nationalists know what Andrew Jackson is known for.

Nobody actually gives a sh!t that a Jackson painting was around other than folks just looking for something else to b!tch about Trump.

Tell that to the Native Americans who tuned in to see them get honored only to watch the baffoon make jokes about them with a portrate of the president who thousands of them to their death.

It's either done on purpose or this is the most incompetent administration to ever sit in the WH.

(11-28-2017 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 12:47 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:58 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What on earth are you talking about? This was an absolute embarrassment for our country and we all should be in agreement on that. Using an important event honoring veterans that saved countless lives to again delve into junior high name calling. Don't we deserve more from our president?

so the President didnt honor the Veterans?

Yeah...I hear he showed them his doctor's excuse for his bone spurs.

at least he had an excuse... cant say the same about you.

Dude, you realize that sounds completely ridiculous, right? Besides, I was not old enough to get drafted. Like trump would have volunteered with no draft nor "bone spurs?" Puhleeeze! Try again.

now that we can both agree thats a sorry ass point of discussion, whats really bothering the left?

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

(11-28-2017 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

What part of Native American don't you understand?

(11-28-2017 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

What part of Native American don't you understand?

I understand that Elizabeth Warren isn't one.

(11-28-2017 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

What part of Native American don't you understand?

Oh I understand plenty. I understand that much like I harbor no ill feelings towards Ghengis Khan and his Mongols for their invasion of eastern Europe because it holds no cultural significance for me it's probably the same as the Navajos feel towards the actions Jackson took against the Creeks and the Cherokees. Given the opportunity the Creeks and the Cherokees would have slaughtered the Navajos just like they slaughtered the tribes neighboring them like the Yuchi or Apalachee.

(11-28-2017 02:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

What part of Native American don't you understand?

Oh I understand plenty. I understand that much like I harbor no ill feelings towards Ghengis Khan and his Mongols for their invasion of eastern Europe because it holds no cultural significance for me it's probably the same as the Navajos feel towards the actions Jackson took against the Creeks and the Cherokees. Given the opportunity the Creeks and the Cherokees would have slaughtered the Navajos just like they slaughtered the tribes neighboring them like the Yuchi or Apalachee.

Fitbud thinks "native americans" were just one big happy family living in harmony with nature.

(11-28-2017 03:09 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

What part of Native American don't you understand?

Oh I understand plenty. I understand that much like I harbor no ill feelings towards Ghengis Khan and his Mongols for their invasion of eastern Europe because it holds no cultural significance for me it's probably the same as the Navajos feel towards the actions Jackson took against the Creeks and the Cherokees. Given the opportunity the Creeks and the Cherokees would have slaughtered the Navajos just like they slaughtered the tribes neighboring them like the Yuchi or Apalachee.

Fitbud thinks "native americans" were just one big happy family living in harmony with nature.

There is a reason they lost.

(11-28-2017 02:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

What part of Native American don't you understand?

Oh I understand plenty. I understand that much like I harbor no ill feelings towards Ghengis Khan and his Mongols for their invasion of eastern Europe because it holds no cultural significance for me it's probably the same as the Navajos feel towards the actions Jackson took against the Creeks and the Cherokees. Given the opportunity the Creeks and the Cherokees would have slaughtered the Navajos just like they slaughtered the tribes neighboring them like the Yuchi or Apalachee.

It speaks to the issue of United States policy towards that Native American.

The history of the United States and how they repeatedly broke the promises they made to all Native Americans.

If you think Jackson is of no significance to Navajo because they weren't the one's who died in the trail of tears then you are more naive than I originally thought.

(11-28-2017 01:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

I'm shocked anyone knew it was Jackson.

Yeah...how would anyone know what he looked like?

(11-28-2017 03:11 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:09 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

What part of Native American don't you understand?

Oh I understand plenty. I understand that much like I harbor no ill feelings towards Ghengis Khan and his Mongols for their invasion of eastern Europe because it holds no cultural significance for me it's probably the same as the Navajos feel towards the actions Jackson took against the Creeks and the Cherokees. Given the opportunity the Creeks and the Cherokees would have slaughtered the Navajos just like they slaughtered the tribes neighboring them like the Yuchi or Apalachee.

Fitbud thinks "native americans" were just one big happy family living in harmony with nature.

There is a reason they lost.

Yeah, waves of disease killing the overwhelming majority of your population will do that.

(11-28-2017 03:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:11 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:09 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What part of Native American don't you understand?

Oh I understand plenty. I understand that much like I harbor no ill feelings towards Ghengis Khan and his Mongols for their invasion of eastern Europe because it holds no cultural significance for me it's probably the same as the Navajos feel towards the actions Jackson took against the Creeks and the Cherokees. Given the opportunity the Creeks and the Cherokees would have slaughtered the Navajos just like they slaughtered the tribes neighboring them like the Yuchi or Apalachee.

Fitbud thinks "native americans" were just one big happy family living in harmony with nature.

There is a reason they lost.

Yeah, waves of disease killing the overwhelming majority of your population will do that.

So who won?

The issue is that in the long line of blood, there are some family history. I am 1/16th Cherokee blood. I am not qualify for Native American programs, but my DNA still get some of the Native American spinal diseases like what I have.

(11-28-2017 03:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  The dumber thing would be having it in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait. Someone on the staff hasn't taken history.

What kind of history did Andrew Jackson have with the Navajos?

What part of Native American don't you understand?

Oh I understand plenty. I understand that much like I harbor no ill feelings towards Ghengis Khan and his Mongols for their invasion of eastern Europe because it holds no cultural significance for me it's probably the same as the Navajos feel towards the actions Jackson took against the Creeks and the Cherokees. Given the opportunity the Creeks and the Cherokees would have slaughtered the Navajos just like they slaughtered the tribes neighboring them like the Yuchi or Apalachee.

It speaks to the issue of United States policy towards that Native American.

The history of the United States and how they repeatedly broke the promises they made to all Native Americans.

If you think Jackson is of no significance to Navajo because they weren't the one's who died in the trail of tears then you are more naive than I originally thought.

Ok. I'll indulge you.

Provide a link showing where Navajos hold a bad opinion of Andrew Jackson.
You made the claim now back it up.