# Let The Truth Be Told!!!



## 1stRambo (Apr 30, 2016)

Yo, thanks to this little illegal, we really know what the illegals want!!!



 
**Live Wire** California GOP Convention Chaos: Protesters Block Donald Trump's Motorcade - Breitbart

"GTP"


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 30, 2016)

Also referred to as "Aztlan"...


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 30, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


>




Yeah, the KBK (Ku Beaner Klan) also known as LA Raza (the race) calls that Aztlan.  So we aren't just dealing with people coming to make a better life for themselves, some of them want to make our lives suck as much as their's do in Shitsico.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 30, 2016)

Pete7469 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


It's payback time, and this is only part of it.
.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 30, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


> It's payback time, and this is only part of it.
> .



I don't believe these people will like the manner in which the checks are written. 

None of us owe them shit.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 30, 2016)

1stRambo said:


> Yo, thanks to this little illegal, we really know what the illegals want!!!
> View attachment 73440
> **Live Wire** California GOP Convention Chaos: Protesters Block Donald Trump's Motorcade - Breitbart
> 
> ...


so you backing trump now?....


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 30, 2016)

Harry Dresden said:


> so you backing trump now?....



Why would he do that? 

Seriously...

Dump is the world's richest professional clown. He is not going to unfuck this even in the highly unlikely scenario in which he defeats Hitlery.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 30, 2016)

Pete7469 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > so you backing trump now?....
> ...


*Why would he do that? *
thats what i am asking him.....he is showing something that shows what trump is talking about not his man cruz....hence the question...


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 4, 2016)

resaster said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...




We didn't "take," we won a war _the enemy started_ and *paid* for the territory acquired.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 4, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> resaster said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


..

To be perfectly realistic, the war was started in an area that both Mexico and Texas claimed and Mexico's claim to the land was actually better.  However, once Texas was annexed, the US had to honor the Texas claim.  But, let me remind you that when James K. Polk said in his speech asking for a Declaration of War that "American blood had been shed on American soil", Abraham Lincoln countered with "American blood has been shed in a Mexican cornfield."  Ultimately, James K. Polk even acknowledged that the land, though claimed by Texas was in Mexico's possession.  However, the US did win the war and did pay Mexico for the land, though Mexico did NOT want to sell it.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 4, 2016)

Tough shit what they did or did not want after losing a war they started. Texas won their independence and was sovereign for about a decade before applying for statehood.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 5, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> Tough shit what they did or did not want after losing a war they started. Texas won their independence and was sovereign for about a decade before applying for statehood.



Mexico had the better claim to the land between the Nueces River.  Polk and Taylor provoked the war, not Mexico.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 5, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Tough shit what they did or did not want after losing a war they started. Texas won their independence and was sovereign for about a decade before applying for statehood.
> ...






Mexico fired the first shots.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 5, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



From their perspective, they were firing on invaders into their nation who would not withdraw.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 5, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...






They were wrong


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 5, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




LOL!  Texas had no postal system in the area, that area was not represented in their legislature and the area had NEVER been part of Texas.  Their only claim was that the Treaty of Velasco required that the Mexican Army withdraw south of the Rio Grande after the Revolution.   If the US had acknowledge the border as the Nueces River instead of the Rio Grande, the Mexican War wouldn't have happened.  Of course, that wouldn't have advanced Manifest Destiny, so it didn't happen that way.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 6, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> ... the area had NEVER been part of Texas. .....




Your sympathy for the aggressors who lost the war they started is noted, but Texas WON their independence and they determined the boundaries of their nation, which would then become one of the great states of _our_ Union. Take up arms for La Raza if you want, but you won't be any more successful than Mexico was the last time around.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 6, 2016)

I don't blame the Mexicans.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 6, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Well, good luck with that.

Oh, and payback for what?

For Spain slaughtering and enslaving millions?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 6, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Tough shit what they did or did not want after losing a war they started. Texas won their independence and was sovereign for about a decade before applying for statehood.
> ...



You need to take a history class.


----------



## guno (Sep 6, 2016)

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas; "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population ... I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 6, 2016)

The same racist trolling over and over again. And after every 10,000th filthy racist comment, the vile racist tries to claim that he can't be racist. It's beyond absurd and spammfully repetitive.


----------



## Pete7469 (Sep 6, 2016)

guno said:


> Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas; "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population ... I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."



Actually we're boning down more than our share of latinas and asians. Eventually most people will be assimilated and victicrat racist bed wetters like guano and the pseudo intellectual jackass "professor" Gutierrez will have no audience.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 7, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > ... the area had NEVER been part of Texas. .....
> ...



I have sympathy for the truth.  The TRUTH is that James K. Polk and Zachary Taylor were the aggressors.  I agree that Texas WON, but they didn't get to unilaterally create new boundaries, anymore than England was able to create new boundaries for itself after WWII.  

I will ignore the La Raza comment as it is not pertinent to the conversation nor does it apply to my Anglo-Irish heritage.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 7, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Perhaps you would benefit from taking another class or two.  What do you call it when Taylor ordered Jacob Brown to fortify a hill opposite Matamoros in the disputed territory and raise the flag each day to as much pomp and circumstance as possible to tweak the Mexican General stationed in Matamoros?  A joke?


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 7, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> The TRUTH is that James K. Polk and Zachary Taylor were the aggressors.  ....




They didn't shoot first, the Mexicans did.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 7, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...




Are you one of those who calls the American Civil War the War of Northern Aggression? Are you one of those who blame the US for the war in the Pacific during WWII?


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 7, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > The TRUTH is that James K. Polk and Zachary Taylor were the aggressors.  ....
> ...



LOL!  That's your argument for saying the US wasn't aggressive in occupying disputed territory, trying to provoke conflict and pushing as far west as possible?  You amuse me.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 7, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...






No, that's a fact.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 7, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Actually, no.  At the worst, the American Civil War should be called the War between the States.  And the Japanese were clearly the aggressors in the Pacific.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 7, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Happening after Polk made a proposition to the Mexican government to purchase the disputed lands between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande.  When that offer was rejected, troops from the United States commanded by Major General Zachary Taylor moved into the disputed territory of Coahuila.  Obviously, Polk knew the Mexican claim was strong and was trying to avoid conflict, but he HAD to honor the Texas claim to the Rio Grande that came with the annexation of Texas and proceeded in a very aggressive manner to bring the issue to a head.  It does us no good to not acknowledge the truth.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 7, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> ..... Obviously, Polk knew the Mexican claim was strong and was trying to avoid conflict......




Trying so hard the Mexican military fired on US troops? Sorry Senior Raza, you've failed to alter history yet again.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 7, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > ..... Obviously, Polk knew the Mexican claim was strong and was trying to avoid conflict......
> ...



You are the one who is trying to alter history.  If Polk did not feel the Mexican claim was stronger, why did he offer to pay for the Neuces Strip?  If the Texas claim was stronger, wouldn't he just send Taylor down to drive out the Mexican Army, as he ultimately did when Mexico refused to sell?


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 8, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...








Now you're speculating. I cited the facts of the matter.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 8, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I'm trying to speak to you as an educated adult.  I am getting back the 7th grade version of events,  banality and name calling.  You're slipping from amusing to boring.  

If your neighbor claims your living room is part of his land, and enters it without your permission, what would you do?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 8, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Perhaps you would benefit from taking another class or two.



I actually read Howard Zinn's perversion of history. It was assigned to my son in high school. No doubt this is your idea of 'history."



> What do you call it when Taylor ordered Jacob Brown to fortify a hill opposite Matamoros in the disputed territory and raise the flag each day to as much pomp and circumstance as possible to tweak the Mexican General stationed in Matamoros?  A joke?



Grand standing.

What is your point?


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 8, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you would benefit from taking another class or two.
> ...



You would do yourself a real service by reading T.R. Farenbach's Lone Star:  A Story of Texas and the Texans to get a better foundation to understand the history of Texas and how its annexation led to the Mexican War.  

If you'd like to examine attitudes of that time, you might want to learn about John L. O'Sullivan.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 8, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you would benefit from taking another class or two.
> ...



What you want to minimize as "Grand standing" is actually an example of intentional provocation.  I'm not saying it was wrong to do it, because the issue had to come to a resolution; but to close your eyes to what really happened leads to a warped perception of what happened and make it impossible to understand the point of view of others.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 8, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...






No, you're not. You're trying to promote an anti-American version of events.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 8, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Don't be an idiot.  While I'm not willing to eliminate my understanding of the whole story, I haven't said anything remotely anti-American.   I don't advocate feeling bad that we won, nor do I want any of the land returned to Mexico.  Try to not be so myopic and instead realize there were 2 sides to the story and embrace the truth, so  you can speak to the issue in an intelligent way.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 8, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> ..... I haven't said anything remotely anti-American. ....




Bullshit. You are Zinning your damnedest to spin the event into making America the aggressor when the FACT is that Mexico started the war, lost the war, and got paid for territory that we would have been justified in simply taking if we chose. That their stupidity suited Polk's ambitions, so much the worse for them (and your La Raza buddies).


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 8, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > ..... I haven't said anything remotely anti-American. ....
> ...



LMAO.  You're a jingoistic idiot.  The United States annexed Texas and had to accept its claim to the Rio Grande, even though Mexico had the better claim to the Nueces Strip.  Polk attempted to purchase the Strip and Mexico refused, so he provoked a war and at its end, forced Mexico to sell not only the Nueces Strip but the entire Mexican Cession to the United States.  A decade later, the US purchased additional land on the southern border (The Gadsden Purchase) which set the southern border of the United States to its current location.  Those are the  FACTS.  If it doesn't fit whatever fantasy you are stuck in, that's too bad for you.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 10, 2016)

"Had the better claim" is, obviously, just your anti-American opinion/desire. Look how history hasn't changed for you.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 11, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> "Had the better claim" is, obviously, just your anti-American opinion/desire. Look how history hasn't changed for you.



You should stop posting because all you've done is show how stupid and unaware of the facts you are.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 11, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > "Had the better claim" is, obviously, just your anti-American opinion/desire. Look how history hasn't changed for you.
> ...




Another weak opinion based on nothing but a subjective interpretation of reality.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 11, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



No  your weak opinion is based on ignorance and jingoism.  If you were smarter, you'd be embarrassed.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 11, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...




I have only pointed out facts. _You_ have editorialized from an anti-American point of view.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 11, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You didn't point out facts.  You merely proved you don't know the events that you wanted to comment on and ended up showing your limited intelligence.  You can go.  I'm done wasting time on your ignorant self.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 11, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...




That is exactly and exclusively what I did. You might want to find another forum to try and pretend you're en expert.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 11, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I never claimed to be an expert.  I merely showed I know more on the subject than you do.  What you exclusively did was expose  your ignorance.   If you ever develop any sort of knowledge base, try gain.  Until then, adieu.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 11, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...





Wrong again.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 11, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Finally we agree.  You are wrong yet again.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 12, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...




It seems you just gave up some time ago.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 12, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



LOL!  I did give up trying to reason with you.  I am following the advice offered by George Carlin.  “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 12, 2016)

hunarcy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



You have to try before you can "give up."


----------

