Britain didn't really have an empire until the 1650s, and even then it only consisted of Jamaica, some territory in India and five plantations in North America. The Spanish and Portugese had been in South, Central and North America since the late 1400s and already had a well-established presence there.

The British did indeed have an interest in Central and South America; the Empire essentially began with privateers harassing Spanish ships and fortresses and looting their gold in the name of the Crown. Sir Walter Raleigh even led an expedition to find El Dorado in the early 1600s, which ended with his execution after his son Wat attacked the Spanish despite James I & VI expressly forbidding such an act.

By the time the British got into North America properly, they had an established presence in India which they were fighting over with both the fractured Indian government and the French as well as West Africa which allowed a lucrative slave trade. Really, North America was a secondary concern; Jamaica and the West Indies were considered the jewels of the Empire, as well as the exploding tea trade from India circa 1700. Our  main interest in America, at the time, was tobacco. Easy to grow, lots of land to attract settlers and indentured labour--as well as slaves--and a native population on the decline due to the introduction of disease.

Source: Niall Ferguson's Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World.

Why was the Caribbean considered as jewels when North America was a thousand times bigger with a million times the resources? I heard that since the Great Plains and the Mississippi Basin is the largest contiguous piece of arable land in the world and that the potential agricultural resources was enormous and maybe that was why the British and French were so interested? Even after the revolution Britain still seemed to have a big interest in the united states, specifically in the growing of cotton in the South.

But it still seems like the two empires cared little about South America though. And with Spain and Portugal on the decline, you'd think that the British and French would want to expand in South America but they never did.

Yet payed very little attention to South America? Sure they had those miniscule colonies of Guyana on the northern coast of South America but they were practically nothing compared to the huge settlements Britain had in Appalachia and the ones France had in Quebec. They even kicked out the other European empires that tried to build settlements on the continent. So why was North America so important to them and why were the two empires so competitive with each other on trying to take control of the continent, but didn't really seem to notice the existence of South America?

Quote from: Jagdtiger on December 20, 2015, 01:54:18 AM

Wouldn't that still be a bad thing as manufacturing has always been a huge part of the American economy?

Who cares? Outsourcing manufacturing jobs allows the economy to transition to high productivity jobs; we're in the middle of a skills transition.

I know America is transitioning to the service sector but doesn't a manufacturing economy generate more revenue than a service economy?

The 2nd top guy, Cruz, is even more dangerous than Trump because he's actually smart and composed about what he says and how he goes about it. He always looked like some evil fuck to me too. I don't know if it's shallow, but there are some people who just look bad.

Really? Tuco comes across as incredibly dumb to me. Or he at least panders to voters at the bottom of the barrel. Regardless, Cruz is just an awful, awful candidate. He's easily the worst person in the GOP today. I'd honestly rather vote for Dump over this lying sack of shit.

How is it that I've never seen you post anything of value on this site?

Didn't FDR reverse the Great Depression and revive the economy by massively increasing government spending which led to a booming economy even before the war?

Quote from: Jagdtiger on December 09, 2015, 11:47:54 AM

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on December 09, 2015, 11:43:19 AM

Please tell me this is a joke.

Why?

Because you literally can't sink a landmass unless you level a techtonic plate or you have enough explosives to blow through an entire mountain.

Is there anything we can do to combat rising sea levels other pump less carbon emissions into the air? Since the Chinks and India couldn't give two shits about the environment I don't think reducing emissions will be very effective.

Quote from: Jagdtiger on December 09, 2015, 11:49:47 AM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on December 09, 2015, 11:48:07 AM

When you get into a bathtub does the water level rise or lower?

So that's a no I take it?

Yes, but do you know why?

Yeah I understand as you put something underwater, the water levels rise. I just figured since the ocean is so big that the void would've counteracted that.

When you get into a bathtub does the water level rise or lower?

So that's a no I take it?

Please tell me this is a joke.

Why?

Do you think if we sunk a large landmass like the Arabian Peninsula for example counter rising sea levels? Because if a big chunk of land was sunk then wouldn't all the seawater rush in to fill the void? Just thinking of ways to counteract rising sea levels. If sinking a large landmass wouldn't work, what do you think would be alternative ways to combat rising sea levels and climate change other than (obviously) pumping less cancerous pollutants into the atmosphere.

I'm not going to go in detail again because I really can't be bothered to say the same things over again, but here's some general remarks.

Gun control needs to be a nation wide solution. Imposing stricter regulations in a single state or county while leaving its neighboring areas untouched does not work. This is backed up by both pretty common sense and actual evidence as brought forward by research and police reports. Looking at certain areas with stricter gun control measures like Chicago and NY, it's been demonstrated that up to 90% of all guns used in crimes are brought in from other states. Creating an island of stricter regulations while leaving it so that any person can drive over county or state borders, easily obtain a firearm and bring it back in without many issues is pretty ineffective.

Restrictions on things like magazine sizes can yield positive (albeit minor) results. If I remember correctly, in the wake of laws restricting the usage and sale of these magazines, law enforcement found significantly less of them being used in crimes. Additionally, shooters are often overcome by police or bystanders as they are reloading. Making it so that a person has to reload more often can provide more opportunities for people to flee, hide or take other actions against him. Furthermore, even small disincentives have been found to work.

And no, (mass) shootings do not "as always" take place in gun free zones. The idea that mass shooters seek out these areas because they'd face no resistance is more or less a myth and rarely ever takes place in reality. Furthermore, a large part of mass shootings do take place in people were legally allowed to carry firearms.

Also, on the topic of gun free zones, they are not supposed to exist as a countermeasure against a planned attack by a deliberate mass shooter. The people who support these zones generally do not believe that the gunman is simply going to turn around because a sign on the door says it's the policy that no guns are allowed on the grounds. These areas exist to stop other, more impulsive shootings and accidents. Every year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured by (accidental) gun fire, a lot of it taking place in public spaces. Accidents aside, it happens rather regularly that a conflict or misunderstanding devolves and leads to a fight or a situation where someone pulls out a firearm and potentially uses it in a dangerous and illegal fashion. Finally, many people agree that the presence of guns in an area might stifle productivity. The availability and carrying of such weapons in the office, government grounds or schools is likely to perceived as a threat or intimidating factor to some. The reason gun free zones exist is not to change the mind of a deliberate mass shooter, but to prevent accidents and impulsive gun use, and to try to ensure a safer environment as a whole.

Oh lol, I just now took the time to read the comments in this thread and saw that I said pretty much exactly what you said.

Might the Turkish situation persuade the Kurds to favor Russia over NATO?

No, because the West has far more to offer than third world Russia.

Quote from: Lemon x Naru on November 28, 2015, 05:40:02 PM

What even happened to Fat Marshal?

He made a fuss about how people were hurting his feelings by not all conforming to his "343 is Hitler" mindset and left and never came back

When was this? I remember the ultra-high levels of autism he would display but I don't remember when or even why he left. Did he even make an account here?

There's videos of ISIS using American weapons and vehicles.

To be fair, the vast majority of the American weapons and equipment they're using was captured from the pathetically hopeless Iraqi military.