Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It seems to work ok for the ordinary people in Venezuela.To nationalize the oil fields currently in production, they would be breaking the contracts that the international corporations hold - in effect, Louisiana would have to steal the oil from its current owners. If they tried to sell this confiscated crude on the open international market, they would be sued.
How would the ordinary Louisianians benefit? By redistributing the profits from nationalized resources?
All of which they pay for in federal taxation. Washington D. C. does not have a magic money tree - despite all the well-wishing of the left
Red states are generally more welfare states than blue states, which is particularly ironic given their penchant for complaining about socialism. So as someone living in a blue state, by all means, go away and stop mooching. More money/less taxes for the rest of us.
Actually, maybe that explains the US political system! Those living in the blue states rightfully feel like they don't get enough from the government, which is why they want more government spending (on them), whereas those living in red states actually see people getting way too much money from the government all around them, which is why they want to cut government spending (and we should, on those states)
Easy G (G²);61759163 said:Yes sirWe do have a problem...
And with Mexico, they'd be more than justified in getting it back on a myriad of fronts when considering the ways it was aquired as other states were.
Really? When texas was made part of the union it was an independent country.
Actually, there is a large amount of ghetto communities that cause many red states to have far lower economies and education. The people that cause red states to be poor in many areas vote blue, not red.
Interesting
I don't dispute that there are probably many ghetto communities in red states though, but those who are poor tend to also have lower voting turnouts and thus less influence than you think in elections. If *everyone* actually voted in Texas, it would be a blue state.
Texas, prior to being independent, also had a lot of issues in the background that as it concerns double-dealings in order to aquire it as a state and make it a part of the U.S....and the history was never beneficial for First Nations groups when studying history. Internal politics of the Republic were based on the conflict between two factions. The nationalist faction, led by Lamar, advocated the continued independence of Texas, the expulsion of the Native Americans, and the expansion of Texas to the Pacific Ocean. Their opponents, led by Houston, advocated the annexation of Texas to the United States and peaceful coexistence with Native Americans. The Texas Congress even passed a resolution over Houston's veto claiming the Californias for Texas. The 1844 presidential election split dramatically, with the newer western regions of the Republic preferring the nationalist candidate Edward Burleson, while the cotton country, particularly east of the Trinity River, went for Anson Jones. Although Texas governed itself, Mexico refused to recognize its independenceReally? When texas was made part of the union it was an independent country.
As it concerns using history badly, indeed...there needs to be a ceasing of that on the part of the poster talking of Texas being independent as if that makes a lick of difference in the concept of having land stolen from Hispanics.Stop using history like that!
I'm not from the South, but southerns have separate culture, traditions, and civilization then the North.
Easy G (G²);61763233 said:Texas, prior to being independent, also had a lot of issues in the background that as it concerns double-dealings in order to aquire it as a state and make it a part of the U.S....and the history was never beneficial for First Nations groups when studying history. Internal politics of the Republic were based on the conflict between two factions. The nationalist faction, led by Lamar, advocated the continued independence of Texas, the expulsion of the Native Americans, and the expansion of Texas to the Pacific Ocean. Their opponents, led by Houston, advocated the annexation of Texas to the United States and peaceful coexistence with Native Americans. The Texas Congress even passed a resolution over Houston's veto claiming the Californias for Texas. The 1844 presidential election split dramatically, with the newer western regions of the Republic preferring the nationalist candidate Edward Burleson, while the cotton country, particularly east of the Trinity River, went for Anson Jones. Although Texas governed itself, Mexico refused to recognize its independence
Interesting
I don't dispute that there are probably many ghetto communities in red states though, but those who are poor tend to also have lower voting turnouts and thus less influence than you think in elections. If *everyone* actually voted in Texas, it would be a blue state.
a. There is no discernible intelligence difference between Bush voters and Kerry voters.
b. Kerry supporters who insist that Bush voters are "dumb," and who point out as evidence state-by-state IQ scores, are engaging in behavior that could be construed as racially inflammatory.
So? Minus the fact that your independence came at the expense of Native Americans whose sovereignty wasn't recognized when genocide was enacted upon them by settlers colonizing the land and removing them in order to set up what England wanted to take, Englanad is not something that was annexed to the U.S. Texas was, with many of the dealings for making it independent never being just....and? England refused to recognize our independence.
Mexico lost much of its territory in the war, leaving it with a lasting bitterness towards the United States. Santa Anna fled to exile in Venezuela. General Porfirio Díaz, President of Mexico from 1877–1911, would later lament: "¡Pobre México! Tan lejos de Dios, y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos." ("Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States."). In the United States, victory in the war brought a surge in patriotism as the acquisition of new western lands – the country had also acquired the southern half of the Oregon Country in 1846 – seemed to fulfill citizens' belief in their country's Manifest Destiny. While Ralph Waldo Emerson rejected war "as a means of achieving America's destiny," he accepted that "most of the great results of history are brought about by discreditable means." The war made a national hero of Zachary Taylor, a Southern Whig, who was elected president in the election of 1848.
However, this period of national euphoria would not last long. The war had been widely supported in the southern states but largely opposed in the northern states. This division largely developed from expectations of how the expansion of the United States would affect the issue of slavery. At the time, Texas recognized the institution of slavery, but Mexico did not. Many Northern abolitionists viewed the war as an attempt by the slave-owners to expand slavery and assure their continued influence in the federal government. Henry David Thoreau wrote his essay Civil Disobedience and refused to pay taxes because of this war.
The main issue which furthered sectionalism was the expansion of slavery into the national territories. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 banned slavery in national territories north of 36 degrees, 30 minutes (roughly the southern border of Missouri, although that state had been exempted). Also, the Senate was constructed to give equal balance to slave and free states. The Missouri Compromise, however, left room for more free states than slave states and, if continued, would upset the balance of power within the Senate. Thus, many Southerners supported the war to provide more room for slavery to expand (believing that if slavery were not allowed to continue to expand, it would ultimately die out). There were proposals during this time to split Texas (which was easily the largest state in the Union geographically) into multiple slave states, but this did not come to pass.
There'd really be a myriad of problems with Louisiana trying to do its own thing with that which doesn't belong to them..To nationalize the oil fields currently in production, they would be breaking the contracts that the international corporations hold - in effect, Louisiana would have to steal the oil from its current owners. If they tried to sell this confiscated crude on the open international market, they would be sued.
Easy G (G²);61764161 said:So? Englanad is not something that was annexed to the U.S. Texas was, with many of the dealings for making it independent never being just. Period.
Nothing purposefully done, as if you know intent. And you obfusticated and ignored the context of what was said when it came to avoiding history. For Texas being "independent" has nothing remotely to do with showing that land was not stolen from Mexico or taken justly when the U.S took it...unless, of course, one advocates for the mindset that Manifest Destiny advocated in saying all things regarding aggressive land policy (alongside settlers from the U.S colonies going into the SOuthwestern territory of Mexico/taking it over to become independent before assimilating was not a big deal). There was also the reality of how many slaves also went southwest at one point to escape slavery in the South and they wanted to live in peace since it was territory they didn't get harrassed in...but many of the Southern States had others wanting to go into it/make it a territory for themselves even though the slaves (alongside Native Americans sent there amongst the Mexicans) were present already.You purposefully miss the point.
.
Incorrect--and one would have to ignore where other U.S presidents already spoke out on the issue to say otherwise. Again, if one wishes to support the error of Manifest Destiny, they're free to do so....but again, it's an insult to Hispanics as well as Native Americans who were considered to be in the crossfire/collateral damage to the cause of gaining land and saying it was "independent"...It doesn't matter that Mexico didn't recognize our independence. TO recognize our independence is to say were free of them and they naturally didn't want that
I think the majority are just trolling the WH with their stupid petition page. When it was first started, a lot of people used it for crazy things. *shrug*
Easy G (G²);61764195 said:Nothing purposefully done, as if you know intent. And you obfusticated and ignored the context of what was said when it came to avoiding history.
Texans were becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Mexican government. Many of the Mexican soldiers garrisoned in Texas were convicted criminals who were given the choice of prison or serving in the army in Texas. Many Texians were also unhappy with the location of their state capital, which moved periodically between Saltillo and Monclova, both of which were in southern Coahuila, some 500 miles (800 km) away; they wanted Texas to be a separate state from Coahuila (but not independent from Mexico) and to have its own capital.[15]
The other interest of the Texans was representation of their interests in the government. They believed a closer location for the capital would help to stem corruption and facilitate other matters of government.[citation needed] Texans continued to lobby to overturn the laws of 1830. In April 1833, settlers called a convention to discuss proposed changes in immigration, judicial, and other political policies. The delegates also advocated separate statehood for Texas and elected Austin to carry a proposed state constitution to Mexico City. The new Mexican President, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, approved many of the proposals, but refused to agree to separate statehood; Austin was jailed when he wrote a letter advocating that Texans act unilaterally on statehood.[16]
In 1834, because of perceived troubles within the Mexican government, Santa Anna went through a process of dissolving state legislatures, disarming state militias, and abolishing the Constitution of 1824. He also imprisoned some cotton plantation owners who refused to raise their assigned crops, which were intended to be redistributed within Mexico instead of being exported.
In the words of historian James G. Randall: "No president has carried the power of presidential edict and executive order (independently of Congress) so far as [Lincoln] did.... It would not be easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the limit of his powers."5 In the 80 days that elapsed between Abraham Lincoln's April 1861 call for troops--the beginning of the Civil War--and the official convening of Congress in special session on July 4, 1861, Lincoln performed a whole series of important acts by sheer assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia to "suppress said combinations,"6 which he ordered "to disperse and retire peacefully" to their homes.7 He increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade--an act of war--and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.
Make up my mind? I feel regions like the South are being dictated to by people with a whole different culture and world view. Progressives claim that they are being held back, while conservatives claim that we are falling off a cliff. Why not just leave the Union and make everyone happy?
It is very possible that the cohesive forces that brought people together in the last centuries are on the wane now. The USSR is dissolving Czechs and Slovaks nave disbanded, Scotland is becoming more autonomous, the Balkans have become Balkanized. Likewise, the forces that made a large America seem like a good idea at the time are starting to fray at the seams.
it is not inconceivable that something like this could catch on soon enough.
Considering the fact that anyone can read if they want, it's inconsequential just as it's a moot point if someone goes back/adds something in and I complain on "well you added more" - as that has nothing to do with addressing information.Considering how many times you edited your post, yeah I wasn't able to comment on stuff you went back later and added.
.
Wrong...and telling of the lack of actual understanding on history/historians, as William Katz is well known as it concerns historical research. Same with Henry Louis Gates and many others- and if you can't deal with that much, you're really about reinvisionment of U.S history and one can do that alone.I do find it telling that neither of your article is written by an actual historian
Had you read what was given, you would not have made a moot point about Hispanics fighting for Texan independence since it was already pointed out earlier where the Hispanics did their part as well. For those slaves of the colonists of the South, many were forced to fight by their owners and NOTED it, alongside the many who fought for independence so that they could be FREE from colonization/pro-slavery groups that came to dominante in Texas alongside other SOuthern States. And with Mexicans, they had their own reasons. By 1810, boldened by the American Revolution and the French Revolution, Mexicans sought their own revolution...but it'd take time. 1810-1821, the War of Independence, was very big...I also find it curious that with all the wailing about the stolen birthright ignored the hispanics who fought for Texan independence also
Incorrect, as more was already addressed...and sadly, you behave as if you don't read with real understanding. If you're gonna use resources, one can do better than going to a secondary source such as Wikipedia. And on the issue, it'd behoove you to actually study the history of Blacks who moved to the West and their actions in the entire affair. Many, alongside Hispanics and Native Americans, were content with the Mexican government since they had refuge there from what was happening in the other U.S colonies and the aggressive expansionist ideology.You behave as if the Texan revolution was done for no reason.
Texas Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yep...and so did President Grant and many others when it came to noting the actions of James Polk.Wow Lincoln called a war unconsitutional?
By the logic you just tried to use when pointing out Lincoln in what he did in wartime, one comes off as if they justify the Confederacy/South in their reaction and as if Lincoln did not need to do as he did during the Civil War to address the issue of states succedding from the Union over a host of issues (slavery being prominent).I find that given Lincolns actions I put about as much stock in his constitutional knowledge as I do our current president.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?