Texas is evidence that climate change doesn't exist...

Ah yes, another of those wonderful irregularly conjugated verbs.
We liberate. They steal.

Tells me everything I need to know.

 

Ulysses S. Grant on the USA-Mexican War (in which he participated)

"Never was so unjust a war waged by a stronger against a weaker nation"

Yet the man insisted on winning at Champion Hill, which effectively retained TX (and the rest of the trans-Mississippi South) for American posterity.

Not sure what point I am making here, but this always seemed ironic to me.

 

5. liberate
To kill, torture, and rule imperially.
Nationalist: I'm so glad we liberated those Iraqis!
Socialist: Yeah, the more people we liberate the fewer hate us.
Nationalist: Isn't it great how that works out?
Socailist: If I'm ever liberated, I'm going to come back from the dead and liberate you back for not getting my sarcasm.

7. liberate
1. To kill someone.
"Guns don't kill people.. they liberate people."

On a lighter note...

"Liberate" is also an old military term for "Midnight Requisition".

Airman Smith: Jones, where did you get that framestat, supply was out of them.

Airman Jones: I liberated it from XYZ Squadron.

Or alternately

Airman Jones: I did a midnight requisition at XYZ Squadron.

 

Always thought "midnight requisition" had to do with procreative prowess of some kind...

As in "midnight snack" = aphrodisiac

 

Pretty damn easy to understand.

Colonial powers like Spain and England stole.

The Texas Revolution, like the American revolution were people fighting off the shackles of foreign rule. In the time of the texas revolution, many of militias in the various mexican states rebelled against santa anna revocation of rights. In Tejas it turned from battles to retain the constitutional rights of 1824, to a war of independence. The republic of texas was liberated from tyrants. Santa Anna did things like abolish the state millitias and legislatures. The army was used to collect tithes for the church. It is important to get the We versus they straight. It was liberated by tejanos and anglos that lived in Tejas, not the united states. One of the terms of the treaty with santa anna was it would not join the united states. Mexico later used armed conflict to take it back, and texas joined the us both for protection and the us taking of debt. Many believe that the US motives were to get into a war with Mexico, but that was not the Texans motive for joining the union.

The Mexican American war, on the other hand was a quite different matter, so your harsh terms should be spread on the US taking california and new mexico. Only a really ignorant reading of history can get you to your point. But Go ahead and make it. Do you think the US should take away the rights of california citizens and revoke their citizenship, and force them to be Mexican citizens. This is really an example of taken territory, unlike tejas/texas. Do you think people in other states should be able to decide the citizenship of foreign citizens? You are legitimately Mexican, we give you back and revoke your rights to self determination to live under your own laws. Remember California and Texas both could stand fairly well as independent countries, but your knee jerk talking points don't stand any historical or any other type of scrutiny.

That's what I thought. Empty and ignorant.

 

Whoa there Tex! I was merely commenting on the idea that one person's "theft" might be another persons's "liberation"! I made no comment on the merits of the argument that the SW should go back to Mexico or not, or whether it was legitamtely lost to (or gained by) the Us of A.

As to whether of not Texas "were to be out of the US" or not, I believe that we fought a very deadly, decisive Civil War over the issue, and we (as a UNION of states) decided that cessation was something that Daniel do indeed have "say" in. I know that notion can be quite hard for some to accept.

Icarus

 

But this is the context of the argument I was ambushed with. The claim that all of the heros of the texas revolution were literally traitors, and its current citizens forced to become mexican citizens. It is in this context with full historical understanding that I say texas was liberated, although the republic was short lived. You can either agree with me, or decide that all revolutions are illegal and illegitamete. Or it may be just the ones that you don't like. I hope this speech is plain enough for you, and you may have just missed the context of the comments.

This is the opposite case of what I was commenting on. Daniel was talking about throwing texas out of the union, a proposition that I don't think many would agree with. I was saying if this happened the US should have no say about what Texans do, and if it is to make a sovereign country he would indeed have no say. I hope you don't take his historically inept and politically inane point of view.

And clearly all this texas bashing has nothing to do with the environment.