Don't Mess with Texas?

[OKTexas]

Average citizens won the Alamo?

Sure, if you consider everyone dying a "victory".

It was a delaying action to give Sam Houston time to get his troops in place, in that light, yes it was a victory.

 

[rightwinger]

What if we cut Texas off from the US like they want so that they lose all public assistance, Federal disaster relief funding, and have to fight murderous Mexican drug cartels entirely on their own?

It will take about two months for Texas to come begging for help.

We send more money to the feds than we get back, would be easy to take care of ourselves.

You couldn't do it the last time you tried

 

[OKTexas]

It all comes down to eminent domain.

There are many justifiable reason for a govenment to exercise eminent domain. Roads, Hospitals, schools. I also support using it to protect a fragile environment

I can't understand the State of Texas....you know.....Don't Mess with those fuckers, using eminent domain to give land so a Canadian Oil Company can make a profit

Where is the right wing outrage on this?

The federal government has no right of eminent domain over state land.

How did we get all of our military bases?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

Any more questions?

 

[OKTexas]

Average citizens won the Alamo?

Sure, if you consider everyone dying a "victory".

How about San Jacinto ? Texans made General Santa Anaa their bitch that day.
Little faggot tried to pretend to be a common soldier,his silk underwear and his own men gave him away.

Ultimately, you could say that the US "won" the Mexican-American war. We obtained nearly 50% of Mexico's territory with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Santa Anna was captured but that doesn't mean that the Alamo was a victory. Americans have been conditioned to accept that everything that we've ever done was a righteous victory. We even have people in this country still trying to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq.

"American exceptionalism" on the march. Selfish rich racists formed this country of, for and by selfish rich racists, and it even took a Civil War for society just to get this far. We obviously still have a long way to go since Cliven Bundy and his white trash "militia" prove that there are still racists today who want another Civil War.

Progress would come much sooner if people would stop being so Conservative.

Damn boy, you're mixing up your wars. Texas had already won independence from Mexico long before the Mexican-American war. Get your facts straight and try again.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm leery about this story. So much misinformation flew out about the Bundy situation in the beginning that a lot of people got sucked in without really understanding the whole story. So I tread carefully here.

But if the facts of this issue are that the people of the United States - by way of the Bureau of Land Management - want to take over control of property that is already owned by the State of Texas and/or private citizens - then I'll back the private citizens and/or State of Texas 100% on this one. If they want to claim "eminent domain" they better have a much better "public good" that turtles, beavers, wind farms, solar farms, or alibino duck-billed platypuses (platypi?).

I'll be listening and watching carefully.

The federal government does not have eminent domain rights, they can only purchase state land with the consent of the state legislature.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

Moot point: it appears now that the land under question is about 140 acres of federal land. NOT the amount or the specific property that was originally reported by the same people who screwed the pooch on the Bundy story.

I'm out of this one until I can sort things out a lot more reliably.

Moot, I think not, where do you see above where a court has the authority to designate state land as federal land, the feds had no claim until the court gave them one.

 

[OKTexas]

What if we cut Texas off from the US like they want so that they lose all public assistance, Federal disaster relief funding, and have to fight murderous Mexican drug cartels entirely on their own?

It will take about two months for Texas to come begging for help.

We send more money to the feds than we get back, would be easy to take care of ourselves.

You couldn't do it the last time you tried

Do tell.

 

[KNB]

How about San Jacinto ? Texans made General Santa Anaa their bitch that day.
Little faggot tried to pretend to be a common soldier,his silk underwear and his own men gave him away.

Ultimately, you could say that the US "won" the Mexican-American war. We obtained nearly 50% of Mexico's territory with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Santa Anna was captured but that doesn't mean that the Alamo was a victory. Americans have been conditioned to accept that everything that we've ever done was a righteous victory. We even have people in this country still trying to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq.

"American exceptionalism" on the march. Selfish rich racists formed this country of, for and by selfish rich racists, and it even took a Civil War for society just to get this far. We obviously still have a long way to go since Cliven Bundy and his white trash "militia" prove that there are still racists today who want another Civil War.

Progress would come much sooner if people would stop being so Conservative.

Damn boy, you're mixing up your wars. Texas had already won independence from Mexico long before the Mexican-American war. Get your facts straight and try again.

Texas signed its Declaration of Independence in 1836 but Mexico still tried to claim Texas territory until the 1848 treaty, unless all of history is wrong.

Under the terms of the treaty negotiated by Trist, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico. This was known as the Mexican Cession and included present-day Arizona and New Mexico and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Colorado (see Article V of the treaty). Mexico relinquished all claims to Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as the southern boundary with the United States (see Article V).
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

 

[rightwinger]

We send more money to the feds than we get back, would be easy to take care of ourselves.

You couldn't do it the last time you tried

Do tell.

You guys kind of were independent once before. Didn't they teach you that? The Republic of Texas was deep in debt and needed to beg to join the United States

 

[rdean]

It's impossible to mess with Texas. When you look at the uninsured, the dropout rate, the teen pregnancy rate, the drugs, the drinking, the suicides, the exploding businesses and the environmental catastrophes there is too much mess already. Adding more mess to mess doesn't cancel mess, it only creates even more mess.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No. The issue was never just one of grazing fees, that's just what the government is charging cause that's what gives the government the presumed authority to confiscate. The issue here has always been the government running the ranchers off by limiting the number of head they can have and by increasing the grazing fees to the point where no family could possibly live off ranching in this area.

see

When you hit the quote button the software on the web site "cuts" out all text three deep in quotes. I didn't do it, the software did.

My question was not moving the goal posts. The discussion you guys were having was on my goal post, they did not move one bit.

So your question about when the rules is the same as the question about when the people of the United States of America acquired ownership of the property?

Of course not.

 

[ogibillm]

Well..........lots of regurgitation going on with this one. Washington Times, Brietbart, Fox.

Lots of scary headlines.

The BLM says they are only looking to protect 140 acres....not 90,000. That is a big gap.

I am convinced that you have just recently become interested in "land grabs" and have been heavily influenced by the RW echo chamber when it comes to this particular issue. I think you don't know what it is even about. Your understanding of the case is no deeper than the WND opinion page. You have gone from never thinking about land grabs to a full fledged anti-BLM activist in the span of a week.

Did you get a woody when you heard the Texas gubernatorial candidate talk tough and suggest that "Come and Take It" flag? I'll bet you did.

Tell me, where does the BLM get the authority to "protect" even 1 acre of Texas land without the consent of the State Legislature? Pull out that pocket Constitution and give me a quote.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

 

[RKMBrown]

It's impossible to mess with Texas. When you look at the uninsured, the dropout rate, the teen pregnancy rate, the drugs, the drinking, the suicides, the exploding businesses and the environmental catastrophes there is too much mess already. Adding more mess to mess doesn't cancel mess, it only creates even more mess.

Uhmm.. yes you are right we also have libtards in TX who dropout of school, get pregnant to young, do drugs, drink, kill themselves, explode businesses, and cause environmental issues. Sadly it's not against the law to be a dumb ass democrat in TX.

 

[OKTexas]

You couldn't do it the last time you tried

Do tell.

You guys kind of were independent once before. Didn't they teach you that? The Republic of Texas was deep in debt and needed to beg to join the United States

Actually that was a day or two ago.

 

[ogibillm]

What this amounts to is state of texas politicians creating a problem so they can thump their chests and say things like "don't mess with texas." that plays well with the boobs down there that will eat it up and vote for them because by god states rights freedom the troops and constitution.

 

[RKMBrown]

see

When you hit the quote button the software on the web site "cuts" out all text three deep in quotes. I didn't do it, the software did.

My question was not moving the goal posts. The discussion you guys were having was on my goal post, they did not move one bit.

So your question about when the rules is the same as the question about when the people of the United States of America acquired ownership of the property?

Of course not.

The point of my question was to point out the silliness of disusing ownership of land when the real issue is rape of the people on the land. IOW my point was why are we letting these folks deflect from the real issue.

IMO moving the goal posts would be asking what right the government has to buy our land. Thus moving the issue to authorization to buy land for government uses, vs rights of the citizens to due process under the law for the use of our land for civil uses. The government is not using this land, they are prohibiting ranchers from doing so.

As to the Red River issue. The issue is similar. The feds are in a gambit to take ownership of all water ways, large and tiny. Not for using the water, but rather to stop the people from having access to water without having to pay the government for each drop. But it does not stop there. They are also trying to destroy all small farmers and ranchers by destroying their water tanks.

 

[OKTexas]

Well..........lots of regurgitation going on with this one. Washington Times, Brietbart, Fox.

Lots of scary headlines.

The BLM says they are only looking to protect 140 acres....not 90,000. That is a big gap.

I am convinced that you have just recently become interested in "land grabs" and have been heavily influenced by the RW echo chamber when it comes to this particular issue. I think you don't know what it is even about. Your understanding of the case is no deeper than the WND opinion page. You have gone from never thinking about land grabs to a full fledged anti-BLM activist in the span of a week.

Did you get a woody when you heard the Texas gubernatorial candidate talk tough and suggest that "Come and Take It" flag? I'll bet you did.

Tell me, where does the BLM get the authority to "protect" even 1 acre of Texas land without the consent of the State Legislature? Pull out that pocket Constitution and give me a quote.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

Has to already belong to the feds for that to apply.

 

[nodoginnafight]

When you hit the quote button the software on the web site "cuts" out all text three deep in quotes. I didn't do it, the software did.

My question was not moving the goal posts. The discussion you guys were having was on my goal post, they did not move one bit.

So your question about when the rules is the same as the question about when the people of the United States of America acquired ownership of the property?

Of course not.

The point of my question was to point out the silliness of disusing ownership of land when the real issue is rape of the people on the land. IOW my point was why are we letting these folks deflect from the real issue.

So you butted into a conversation between two other posters to interject an unrelated observation about how what they were discussing was not as important as what YOU wanted to discuss???

 

[nodoginnafight]

Tell me, where does the BLM get the authority to "protect" even 1 acre of Texas land without the consent of the State Legislature? Pull out that pocket Constitution and give me a quote.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

Has to already belong to the feds for that to apply.

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

 

[ogibillm]

Tell me, where does the BLM get the authority to "protect" even 1 acre of Texas land without the consent of the State Legislature? Pull out that pocket Constitution and give me a quote.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

Exactly how did they supposedly get title to that land? Did they purchase it with the consent of the state legislature? Constitutionally the court doesn't have the authority to designate it as federal land, does it?

i don't know the particulars of that piece of land. I do know that the courts ruled that the rightful owner of those 140 acres was the federal government. i assume the court did the proper title search. had they not i also assume somebody or even the state of Texas could have or would have brought suit with proof of their claim to get their land back.

now, that hasn't happened, has it? do you have any reason to believe the courts were in error?

 

[ogibillm]

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

Has to already belong to the feds for that to apply.

BLM says the 140 acres applicable to THIS issue - is federal land.

BLM doesn't say it - the courts do.