Reconquista of Aztlan

[Shogun]

WASHINGTON TIMES?

Say, are you going to lunge to the NEW YORK POST next?

YOUR LINK, GENIUS.

The president did not spell out his preferred policy. A handful of options are floating around Capitol Hill, including one co-sponsored by several Republicans who propose giving legal residency to illegal immigrants through work.

Senior White House officials have expressed support for such a temporary-worker program that would let some workers become legal immigrants, but so far the administration has not backed any single piece of legislation.


After all.. WE SEE HOW FAR republicans managed to go with anti-illegal immigrant legislation while dominating government!





PWN

You present these quotes as if they prove that Bush wanted amnesty for illegals, yet theres nothing in there that says anything about it, in fact the word amnesty doesnt even appear anywhere in those quotes. You are also ignoring the opening statement of Bush NOT giving amnesty. I dont understand how you can be pleased with your rebuttal.

You are "rolling on the floor laughing"? Why? Are you laughing at your own stupidity? I know i am.

Dude, listen.. you've dug yourself a pretty deep hole here. 1) Bush was in power and republicans DOMINATED congress and.... they utterly failed to do anything about illegals. 2) Bush didn't do anything precisely BECAUSE of his outgoing comments about future voting demographics. Scroll up. 3) This was a CLEAR REPUBLICAN conflict between the WSJ arm of the GOP versus the Xenophobic arm of the GOP. SHOCKER, the money won. We still have those SAME millions of illegals despite 8 fucking years of YOUR control. I've literally posted example after example of Bush talking out of both sides of his mouth and, to be honest, the bottom line proof is in the fucking reality pudding: After 8 years of Bush sabre rattling one side of the GOP while soothing the other WE STILL HAVE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PROBLEM. Polish the turd if your ego and political self esteem needs it but...

 

[Godboy]

WASHINGTON TIMES?

Say, are you going to lunge to the NEW YORK POST next?

YOUR LINK, GENIUS.

The president did not spell out his preferred policy. A handful of options are floating around Capitol Hill, including one co-sponsored by several Republicans who propose giving legal residency to illegal immigrants through work.

Senior White House officials have expressed support for such a temporary-worker program that would let some workers become legal immigrants, but so far the administration has not backed any single piece of legislation.


After all.. WE SEE HOW FAR republicans managed to go with anti-illegal immigrant legislation while dominating government!





PWN

You present these quotes as if they prove that Bush wanted amnesty for illegals, yet theres nothing in there that says anything about it, in fact the word amnesty doesnt even appear anywhere in those quotes. You are also ignoring the opening statement of Bush NOT giving amnesty. I dont understand how you can be pleased with your rebuttal.

You are "rolling on the floor laughing"? Why? Are you laughing at your own stupidity? I know i am.

Dude, listen.. you've dug yourself a pretty deep hole here. 1) Bush was in power and republicans DOMINATED congress and.... they utterly failed to do anything about illegals. 2) Bush didn't do anything precisely BECAUSE of his outgoing comments about future voting demographics. Scroll up. 3) This was a CLEAR REPUBLICAN conflict between the WSJ arm of the GOP versus the Xenophobic arm of the GOP. SHOCKER, the money won. We still have those SAME millions of illegals despite 8 fucking years of YOUR control. I've literally posted example after example of Bush talking out of both sides of his mouth and, to be honest, the bottom line proof is in the fucking reality pudding: After 8 years of Bush sabre rattling one side of the GOP while soothing the other WE STILL HAVE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PROBLEM. Polish the turd if your ego and political self esteem needs it but...

No, you are the one in the deep hole, and you are trying hard to dig yourself out of it after you were proven wrong several times in a row now.


Theres that cuckoo emoticon again...

 

[del]

So what you are saying is, the republicans have been angry over the liberals stance on immigration, because the majority of them share the same beliefs? Yes, this makes total sense....in bizarro world.

ronald reagan called from beyond the grave- i think he said you're a moron, but it was hard to tell he was laughing so hard.

Nah, me and Ronny are old buddies. I actually shook his hand during the Reagan/Carter election. I just spoke with him though with my ouija board, and he says you are the moron. He also said he saw you yesterday, running around your house naked and covered in feces, with a bunch of tin foil on your head.

it's a hard life kid, but it's even harder when you're stupid. neither party has done anything positive about illegal immigration in 40 years.

 

[Ravi]

So what you are saying is, the republicans have been angry over the liberals stance on immigration, because the majority of them share the same beliefs? Yes, this makes total sense....in bizarro world.

I agree, it is bizarre...but it happens to be the truth. Wingers get ahold of something that isn't true and repeat it over and over until it becomes conventional wisdom.

You mean how the democrats were talking about pulling out of Iraq the entire time Bush was in office? Obama isnt going to pull out of Iraq, because that would be stupid to do, yet democrat voters have been convinced that the best choice IS to pull out. What does it say about the democrat voting block when they are unananimously united in this ignorant belief? You guys must feel pretty stupid right about now.

What about the success of the surge which you clowns repeatedly said wouldnt work. Democrats are the most ignorant voters out there, yet they are the ones who continually fall into the trap you claimed republicans had a problem with.

Well, I have to admit, I'm impressed. You've gone from one topic to another...tied them together...and made no sense at all.

Good boy, Goodboy!

 

[Godboy]

I agree, it is bizarre...but it happens to be the truth. Wingers get ahold of something that isn't true and repeat it over and over until it becomes conventional wisdom.

You mean how the democrats were talking about pulling out of Iraq the entire time Bush was in office? Obama isnt going to pull out of Iraq, because that would be stupid to do, yet democrat voters have been convinced that the best choice IS to pull out. What does it say about the democrat voting block when they are unananimously united in this ignorant belief? You guys must feel pretty stupid right about now.

What about the success of the surge which you clowns repeatedly said wouldnt work. Democrats are the most ignorant voters out there, yet they are the ones who continually fall into the trap you claimed republicans had a problem with.

Well, I have to admit, I'm impressed. You've gone from one topic to another...tied them together...and made no sense at all.

Good boy, Goodboy!

You started your post by saying you are impressed, yet you finished by saying it made no sense. You are impressed by things that make no sense? THAT makes no sense.

Anyway, the statement was made that said: "Wingers get ahold of something that isn't true and repeat it over and over until it becomes conventional wisdom"

I reponded by giving examples of democrats doing this. What is so confusing about that?

YOU dont make sense.

 

[Godboy]

ronald reagan called from beyond the grave- i think he said you're a moron, but it was hard to tell he was laughing so hard.

Nah, me and Ronny are old buddies. I actually shook his hand during the Reagan/Carter election. I just spoke with him though with my ouija board, and he says you are the moron. He also said he saw you yesterday, running around your house naked and covered in feces, with a bunch of tin foil on your head.

neither party has done anything positive about illegal immigration in 40 years.

Yes, thats true, but certainly the republicans have tried harder than the democrats. Denying this is absurd and it makes for a pointless debate. We could debate whether the earth is round or flat, but that would be a pointless debate too.

 

[del]

Nah, me and Ronny are old buddies. I actually shook his hand during the Reagan/Carter election. I just spoke with him though with my ouija board, and he says you are the moron. He also said he saw you yesterday, running around your house naked and covered in feces, with a bunch of tin foil on your head.

neither party has done anything positive about illegal immigration in 40 years.

Yes, thats true, but certainly the republicans have tried harder than the democrats. Denying this is absurd and it makes for a pointless debate. We could debate whether the earth is round or flat, but that would be a pointless debate too.

i suspect whatever subject we chose, debate would be pointless.
QED

 

[José]

Originally posted by Agnapostate
Reconquista of Aztlan
So how'd this one get started?

Anglo-american traitors and land grabbers perpetrating one of the biggest travesties of justice and fairness in the history of the American Continent... declaring "independence" on a territory they had inhabitated for 13 years.

 

[del]

Originally posted by Agnapostate
Reconquista of Aztlan
So how'd this one get started?

Anglo-american traitors and land grabbers perpetrating one of the biggest travesties of justice and fairness in the history of the American Continent... declaring "independence" on a territory they had inhabitated for 13 years.

tough break, huh?

 

[José]

Originally posted by Del
tough break, huh?

I appreciate your honest take on the historical events that cost Mexico more than half of its territory, Del. In a country so full of insane patriots like the US, such honesty is hard to come by.

But don't get me wrong. I fully support the right of the US to control its borders. My only problem is with those individuals who want me to rape the history of the american continent and call a landgrab an "independence movement". To them I say: "Eat shit and die!!"

American possession of those territories was eventually legitimised not because Austin and Houston led a legitimate independence movement (it was a naked land grab), but because Mexico eventually came to terms with the loss of its northern provinces.

This is what you get when Geography decides you must be next door neighbor to an 800 pound gorilla : )

 

[editec]

Yes, American settlers in places like Caifornia defninitely DID steal Cali.

Just as newly founded Republic of Mexico wanted to end any association with Spain the majority of Hispanic land owners in California (there were about 800 landed gentry families and maybe 10,000 Hispanics in the whole state) ALSO wanted to be free of their association with Mexico then, too, right?

I'm not trying to justify anything here... but I am hoping to piece the myth that Mexico was ever significantly in charge of running California.

It wasn't.

 

[DiveCon]

ronald reagan called from beyond the grave- i think he said you're a moron, but it was hard to tell he was laughing so hard.

Nah, me and Ronny are old buddies. I actually shook his hand during the Reagan/Carter election. I just spoke with him though with my ouija board, and he says you are the moron. He also said he saw you yesterday, running around your house naked and covered in feces, with a bunch of tin foil on your head.

it's a hard life kid, but it's even harder when you're stupid. neither party has done anything positive about illegal immigration in 40 years.

best thing to happen on immagration was the defeat of that amnesty bill because people from all spectrums on the political dial contacted their congress critters and senators and told them not to do it
other than that, aint nuffin been done

 

[José]

Get your facts straight.

The overwhelming majority of Californios bravely fought the anglo land grabbers. If anything, Californios are one of the reasons to call it a land grab.

But this is irrelevant.

Mexico had every right to secede from Spain because, in 1821, Mexicans already had a separate national identity, they did not consider themselves Spaniards.

Californios and Tejanos had ZERO right to secede from Mexico because they shared the same national identity with Mexicans in Veracruz and Jalisco.

Outside the US, political subunits cannot leave the Union just because they dislike the federal government (well, NOT EVEN in the US as the outcome of the American Civil War made clear).

They have to have a distinct national identity for that in addition to a historical presence in the land.

And I'll let History do the talking about Mexico's historical claim to its northern provinces (as the legitimate succesor of spanish rule) and America's:

Alonso Alvarez de Pineda (1519)

Stephen Austin (1823)

Case closed.

 

[DiveCon]

Get your facts straight.

The overwhelming majority of Californios bravely fought the anglo land grabbers. If anything, Californios are one of the reasons to call it a land grab.

But this is irrelevant.

Mexico had every right to secede from Spain because, in 1821, Mexicans already had a separate national identity, they did not consider themselves Spaniards.

Californios and Tejanos had ZERO right to secede from Mexico because they shared the same national identity with Mexicans in Veracruz and Jalisco.

Outside the US, political subunits cannot leave the Union just because they dislike the federal government (well, NOT EVEN in the US as the outcome of the American Civil War made clear).

They have to have a distinct national identity for that in addition to a historical presence in the land.

And I'll let History do the talking about Mexico's historical claim to its northern provinces (as the legitimate succesor of spanish rule) and America's:

Alonso Alvarez de Pineda (1519)

Stephen Austin (1823)

Case closed.

and Texas and California had every right to leave Mexico and join the USA
you just defeated your own claims

 

[José]

Tejanos and Californios had no valid claim to secede from Mexico since they all shared the same national identity as the rest of the country.

American born naturalized citizens, LIVING IN MEXICO FOR 13 YEARS, had NO right to betray their new country and destroy its territorial integrity BECAUSE MEXICO WAS NOT THEIR HISTORICAL HOMELAND.

The only "right" Austin & Cia had if they didn't want to live under Mexican rule was the right to pack up and leave.

 

[DiveCon]

Tejanos and Californios had no valid claim to secede from Mexico since they all shared the same national identity as the rest of the country.

American born naturalized citizens, LIVING IN MEXICO FOR 13 YEARS, had NO right to betray their new country and destroy its territorial integrity BECAUSE MEXICO WAS NOT THEIR HISTORICAL HOMELAND.

The only "right" Austin & Cia had if they didn't want to live under Mexican rule was the right to pack up and leave.

so?????????

life sucks, then you die

 

[editec]

Get your facts straight.

I'm always ready to rethink my understanding of history if there's good reason for me to do so

The overwhelming majority of Californios bravely fought the anglo land grabbers. If anything, Californios are one of the reasons to call it a land grab.

That is not my inderstanding of the event. In fact it is my understanding that the Landed gentry of California actively worked with the Anglos to become independent of Mexico.

But this is irrelevant.

No, as it pertains to the return the SW to Mexico movement it is very relevant.

Mexico had every right to secede from Spain because, in 1821, Mexicans already had a separate national identity, they did not consider themselves Spaniards.

As did Californians who likewise were fed up with the interference of the newly formed Mexican government.

Californios and Tejanos had ZERO right to secede from Mexico because they shared the same national identity with Mexicans in Veracruz and Jalisco.

You mean the same racial identity, don't you?

Outside the US, political subunits cannot leave the Union just because they dislike the federal government (well, NOT EVEN in the US as the outcome of the American Civil War made clear).

They can if they can manage it. That is the nature of geopolitics.

They have to have a distinct national identity for that in addition to a historical presence in the land.

Says you and whose army?

And I'll let History do the talking about Mexico's historical claim to its northern provinces (as the legitimate succesor of spanish rule) and America's:



Alonso Alvarez de Pineda (1519)

Stephen Austin (1823)

Case closed.

For you perhaps, yet I am unpersuaded.

 

[editec]

Tejanos and Californios had no valid claim to secede from Mexico since they all shared the same national identity as the rest of the country.

American born naturalized citizens, LIVING IN MEXICO FOR 13 YEARS, had NO right to betray their new country and destroy its territorial integrity BECAUSE MEXICO WAS NOT THEIR HISTORICAL HOMELAND.

The only "right" Austin & Cia had if they didn't want to live under Mexican rule was the right to pack up and leave.

You seem to be making your argument from some sort of "those are the rules" line of reasoning.

When have you EVER heard of any nation playing by those sort of rules, Jose?

Now, I can certainly understand that you can believe that according to your line of moral reasoning, the above is how it should be. ACtually that's how I'd like it to be, too.

There is no arguing with anyone's moral absolutes.

But that is not how the work works now, or worked then, or will work in the future either.

Nations are totally amoral.

We both may not like that, usually our national leaders attempt to tell us otherwise, but that is the fact as can be plainly evidenced by a long history of wars that are justified on the flimsiest arguments if the nations even bother to try to justify it at all!.

Now suppose that enough people of the Am SW decided that they wanted to break away from the USA and they started a revolution to make it so.

Are those people immoral?

I think that that question doesn't make any sense. One man's traitor is another man's liberator.

I have no doubt legal experts can argue that they have or don't have that RIGHT by law, but when it comes to nations and nation building MORALITY FLIES OUT THE WINDOW every time.

I'm not suggesting that the winners write the history, because good history is above making any considerations about morality, it merely attempts to accurately document what happened and it leaves the morality to other people to ponder..

But I am suggesting that ultimately -- and certainly in the case of geopolitics -- laws are nothing more than cautions and agreements of those in power.

Those "laws" have only as much validity as the power of those nations to enforce impose their will upon the world.

 

[catzmeow]

Jose's arguments here basically reveal that the "myth" of reconquista is no myth, at all, but a common pattern of thinking among many Mexicans and Chicanos.

 

[editec]

Jose's arguments here basically reveal that the "myth" of reconquista is no myth, at all, but a common pattern of thinking among many Mexicans and Chicanos.

No doubt.

Much like the apologists for the Southern secession think that there is some powerful legal argument that justifies their attempt to break away from the Union.

The Southern rebels didn't NEED a legal justification, they just needed a more persuasive military justification.

Areguing either legality or morality when it comes to what nations (or national wannbes) do is sort of missing the point.

I do it as much as the rest of you, of course, so I'm reminding myself about this obvious fact as much as any of you.