19
   

What Do Modern Secessionists Want?

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:43 am
@Grayman,
Quote:
Land is often seized in war. It is part of the process. Offence to defend.


So you would have no problem if Mexico invade the border states that would have let the union and take back their lands I would assume?

As I said I would find that highly amusing myself and it just part of war after all by your own words.

Hmm let go further let start a petition on the White house website to kick out the state of Arizona as it had been acting like it would like to be a nation free to deal with Mexicans who cross their borders as they wish to without the Federal government interfering.

After kicking them out we could then tell the Mexican government that they are free to interact with Arizona in any way they care to as Arizona is no longer a concern of the US.

Grayman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 04:59 pm
@BillRM,
I would have a problem with anyone starting a war but to win a war you have to take key areas to gain strength and protect further invasion of your land. Mexico attacked the US or in their view they tried to quel a rebelion and the US sided with the rebelion. The reality is that it was an independant country since Mexico could not hold it and the country split from mexico.

Anyways, starting a war is not a good thing but winning the war is necessary for survival and I would not have a problem with anyone defending themselves in order to survive.

Arizona has the right to defend its territory and no overpowering government can stop a state from protecting its lands. A state does not have the power to attack other lands or do foreign relations.

The reason Texas was lost to mexico was that Mexico mistakenly did not control immigration into their country and when they waited too long they tried to change all the rules at once on the colony and outlaw immigration and increase taxes, create tarifs, and control trade.

The US is starting to make some of the same mistakes with immigration and the states at the border see this and are trying to protect themselves.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 07:34 pm
@Grayman,
Yes sir taking half of a nation that is far weaker then you are over a few miles border dispute is call for under any moral code ever hear of.

Maybe it you within your moral code however both President Grant and I have a little problem with it.

If memory serve me correctly the Germany claimed they was attack first by Poland also and used that as an excused to overrun that country.

So in the scheme of things if Mexico ever found itself in the situation that would allow it to take back some of the land that was stolen from it I see little moral problem in them doing so.

So if Arizona or any other border state wish to be an independent nation and handle it own borders I am all for it.

Good luck to them.

footnote the people that are threatening to leave the union can not at the same time pretend be be superpatriots Americans either........LOL
Grayman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 09:47 pm
@BillRM,
"footnote the people that are threatening to leave the union can not at the same time pretend be be superpatriots Americans either........LOL"

No but they maintian the original american ideals which state that you fight for your freedom even to a oppressive nation. Smile


It was not right for the US to take so much from mexico. It is also would not be right for Mexico to go and take Arizona now that the people of past no longer reside there. It would just be mass murder now that these people have been born there and/or lived there for many years.


Land belongs to the people who reside there and not governements.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 10:30 pm
@Grayman,
Grayman wrote:
It would just be mass murder now that these people have been born there and/or lived there for many years.

Land belongs to the people who reside there and not governements.



I hope that you mean that you support the return of the United States to the native North American population.

If not, I hope you realize that your comments are meaningless.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 10:45 pm
@Grayman,
Quote:
was not right for the US to take so much from mexico. It is also would not be right for Mexico to go and take Arizona now that the people of past no longer reside there. It would just be mass murder now that these people have been born there and/or lived there for many years.


You mean you do not think it was right to had killed 70,000 Mexicans is the course of taking their lands away from them? By the way is 70,000 in 1840s with a must smaller population base enough to trigger the mass murders classification in your opinion?

Quote:
No but they maintian the original american ideals which state that you fight for your freedom even to a oppressive nation.


I am assuming you mean the US Federal government that limit their abilities to treat people that are American citizens for example that are descendants of the Mexicans that had there national lands seized and yet due to their skin color and the remains of their Mexican culture are treated like second class citizens in the border states.
Grayman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 10:48 pm
@ehBeth,
BillRM supports that type of logic not I.

I am simply stating that the curring residents own the land, and not the past residents and not the future residents. "Current" I support that it is wrong to uproot the 'individuals' that have been and are currently living there.

BillRM is supporting that the land belongs to the mexicans because their ancestors owned it.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 10:53 pm
@Grayman,
What gives the current residents rights that were not afforded to the people who were the current residents in the past?

Do the current residents think they have more value than those other people or descendants of those people?

If they do think that, they are wrong.

It is a despicable, unChristian way of thinking.

Despicable.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:02 pm
@Grayman,
My opinion basically that if the teabaggers wish to leave the union and can talk the population of any of the border states to go along with doing so that is fine with me.

Next if the Mexican government then would wish to invade them and take back the lands seized in 1846 that is also fine with me.

Then the tea baggers can get a taste of being treated like the Mexican Americans are treated now by them.

Oh we will need to move the border fence to keep the ex-Americans out if they do not care for their new overlords.
Grayman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:05 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
"What gives the current residents rights that were not afforded to the people who were the current residents in the past?"


In the past it was the rights of the individuals who lived their. It was wrong to take away land from them, just as it is wrong now to take land from the current residence. Fear not, I am consistent. Smile
Quote:

"Do the current residents think they have more value than those other people or descendants of those people?"


The current residents have more right to the land then the decendants of those who lived there in the past. The decendants have the rights to the land that they currently have, regardless of who's decendants owned it.

Their value as human beings is equal and as great as the other. To risk their lives and others, in order to claim land they do not currently own for any reason like "it was my ancestors" is a insuffient reason as to uproot, kill, and destroy lives. That has been my arguement.
Quote:

"It is a despicable, unChristian way of thinking.

Despicable. "


That seems illogical to me. Please elaberate on what is dispicable.

I am not a chirstian but am curious why you think that. Smile


***

Finally learned how to make quotes. Going back to simplify my past quotes with this same format.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:06 pm
@BillRM,
this is about registering disgust with Washington...normally the political system handles this function but as so many are finally learning our political system is fundamentally broken.
Grayman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:14 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
"You mean you do not think it was right to had killed 70,000 Mexicans is the course of taking their lands away from them? By the way is 70,000 in 1840s with a must smaller population base enough to trigger the mass murders classification in your opinion?"


I said it was wrong for the US to take their lands and yes they did commit murder by killing the residents of those lands. Defending Texas was not wrong but when Mexico attacked Texas that was wrong. When US took more lands taht was wrong.

Quote:
I am assuming you mean the US Federal government that limit their abilities to treat people that are American citizens for example that are descendants of the Mexicans that had there national lands seized and yet due to their skin color and the remains of their Mexican culture are treated like second class citizens in the border states.


Perhaps you have an example so that you can enlightmen my ignorance. I mean that wiht no disrespect.
Grayman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:20 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
"Next if the Mexican government then would wish to invade them and take back the lands seized in 1846 that is also fine with me."

That is your opinion. I suggest you don't overlook the death and destruction of what you would be okay with and ask yourself..."is that sadistic?"
If you find that it is and that you do not approve of such types of thinking then maybe you should reavaluate your opinion.


BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
this is about registering disgust with Washington...normally the political system handles this function but as so many are finally learning our political system is fundamentally broken.


An I am registering my disgust with a movement that had taken control of one of the two major parties by controlling the primaries of that party so only far far far right candidates or those you pretend to be can run under that party label and then when they do not get their way due to slightly over 50 percents of the American people having working brains cells they then threaten to have the red states leave the union.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:27 pm
@Grayman,
Quote:
suggest you don't overlook the death and destruction of what you would be okay with and ask yourself..."is that sadistic?"


If they as in the tea party/far far right wing GOP can talk the border states populations to leave the union no I would not care what happen to them afterward.

In fact I would think that they both deserve and earn the results.
Grayman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:32 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
If they as in the tea party/far far right wing GOP can talk the border states populations to leave the union no I would not care what happen to them afterward.


What the people of the state decide to do is not the responsiblity of the tea party. The fact that they could not get Romney as president is proof of that.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:36 pm
@Grayman,
Quote:
Perhaps you have an example so that you can enlightmen my ignorance. I mean that wiht no disrespect


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/17/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-faces-civil-racial-profiling-suit/

The plaintiffs in the case are not seeking damages but are seeking an injunction to stop what they claim is harassment and discrimination against them.

One plaintiff, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a legal visitor to the United States with a valid visa, was arrested by Arpaio’s deputies in 2007, when they pulled over a car he was travelling in. He provided identification but was jailed for four hours before being released. The driver, who was white, was not given a citation or taken into custody. Another plaintiff, Manuel Nieto, was thrown against his car, and he and his sister, Velia Meraz, were held at gunpoint in front of their family business during a sweep in which they were stopped. They are both US citizens. Another woman, who is not a plaintiff but a declarant in the case, is Diane Solis. Solis, a US citizen, was travelling with her young son and three other children back from trip to the Grand Canyon in March 2009 when she and children were detained.

The case will begin on Thursday and is expected to last until 2 August.

Grayman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:57 pm
@BillRM,
I cannot accuse Arizona for abusing mexican citizens just because Joe Arpaio broke the law and holds legal immigrants regardless of proper identity. He will be removed, I am sure.

The profiling is a mixed issue because the undocumented aliens in that area will most likely be mexican since they come from mexico at that border state. It is logical in that respect, but the other side of the issue is that the profiling will cause resentment and hate between the groups and that is not a good thing.
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2012 12:02 am
@Grayman,
Quote:
I cannot accuse Arizona for abusing mexican citizens just because Joe Arpaio broke the law and holds legal immigrants regardless of proper identity. He will be removed, I am sure.



Sorry that is just one example and the good sheriff get re-elected so at least the voting population in his county support profiling anyone with a brown skin or who dare to speak Spanish in public.

Only the evil Federal government is limiting such people freedoms of actions therefore the calls to leave the union.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2012 07:41 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Grayman wrote:
It would just be mass murder now that these people have been born there and/or lived there for many years.

Land belongs to the people who reside there and not governements.



I hope that you mean that you support the return of the United States to the native North American population.

If not, I hope you realize that your comments are meaningless.


Any comment about who "owns" the land is meaningless.

I really have to laugh at BillRM's indignation concerning Americans taking land from "Mexicans."

This same sort of nonsense appeared in another thread on the same subject wherein folks announced they looked forward to the Mexicans taking back the land that was "stolen" from them by Americans.

Who do you people think are "Mexicans?"

It is the height of irony to see people who decry American imperialism categorize Mexicans as innocent victims.

The chances are excellent that there would be no Mexico without Spanish imperialism.

Given quite a lot of years, the Aztec empire never moved North to California, Texas, New Mexico et al, and so even if you limit your definition of imperialism to forces that possess guns, the exchange of Southwestern territories between Mexico and America was simply a matter of warring imperialists. Mexico deserves no special status as native victim. Ask the Yuccas.

As respects the specious claim of so-called natives to lands later seized by others: The Serengetti is probably the only place on earth that can be said to be the home of natives.

Everywhere else was colonized and went through a natural process wherein one group or another held on to their colony or lost it to another.

The "Native" Americans who established lives and even cultures in North and South America were not native to these lands. They were the first humans to inhabit them, but why should that give them some special ownership rights in a world where, for hundreds of thousands of years, such rights meant nothing?

And, by the way, the native Americans were also imperialists. The Comanches conquered an enormous swath of Southwest North America from other less war-like tribes. The same is true as repects all of the tribes with which we are most familiar.

The notion that we can select one link in a chain that has stretched throughout human history for scorn and derision is based entirely on political ideology and has no grounding in sense or history.


 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 05:31:38