Violent Pacifism
- Thread starter Matt Stone
- Start date
K
Kirk
Guest
Is Heinlein a scientologist? Or were you thinkin' of Hubbard?
Hey Bob, any relation?
We didn't annex Texas from Mexico. We annexed California and New Mexico and Arizona after the Mexican American War. The Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo ended the war and gave the US the territory.
Below is some info if you're interested:
As with all major events, historical interpretations concerning the causes of the Mexican War vary. Simply stated, a dictatorial Centralist government in Mexico began the war because of the U.S. annexation (1845) of Texas, which Mexico continued to claim despite the establishment of the independent republic of Texas 10 years before. Some historians have argued, however, that the United States provoked the war by annexing Texas and, more deliberately, by stationing an army at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Another, related, interpretation maintains that the administration of U.S. President James K. Polk forced Mexico to war in order to seize California and the Southwest. A minority believes the war arose simply out of Mexico's failure to pay claims for losses sustained by U.S. citizens during the Mexican War of Independence.
The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and , New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico (including Arizona) and recognized U.S. claims over Texas, with the Rio Grande as its southern boundary.
Below is some info if you're interested:
As with all major events, historical interpretations concerning the causes of the Mexican War vary. Simply stated, a dictatorial Centralist government in Mexico began the war because of the U.S. annexation (1845) of Texas, which Mexico continued to claim despite the establishment of the independent republic of Texas 10 years before. Some historians have argued, however, that the United States provoked the war by annexing Texas and, more deliberately, by stationing an army at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Another, related, interpretation maintains that the administration of U.S. President James K. Polk forced Mexico to war in order to seize California and the Southwest. A minority believes the war arose simply out of Mexico's failure to pay claims for losses sustained by U.S. citizens during the Mexican War of Independence.
The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and , New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico (including Arizona) and recognized U.S. claims over Texas, with the Rio Grande as its southern boundary.
Originally posted by Kirk
Is Heinlein a scientologist? Or were you thinkin' of Hubbard?
Hey Bob, any relation?
If I was, you think I'd still be driving a 90' Tarus?
(or watching it rust since its undrivable right now..heh)
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Actually, the connection between Heinlein and Hubbard comes through John W. Campbell, sci-fi writer and editor of "Analog," who loved pseudo-science and power of positive thinking claptrap--apparently, to get your stories published, it helped to buy into John W.'s latest, "How to Become A Superman In Your Spare Time," scheme...so scientology, Van Vogt's "World of Null-A," books, Heinlein's :"Lost Legacy," etc., all come out of the same set of fantasies.
What's particularly interesting to me is the way that a lot of libertarianism and extreme right-wing nutcake ideology traces back into science fiction...including loons like Edward Teller (still with us! must be those monkey glands) who sold Reagan on SDI, another sf idea that we're being stuck with once again. I'd recommend reading H. Bruce Franklin, another commierat English professor: "Robert A. Heinlein: American as Science Fiction," and "War Stars," or going through some back issues of "Science Fiction Studies."
What's particularly interesting to me is the way that a lot of libertarianism and extreme right-wing nutcake ideology traces back into science fiction...including loons like Edward Teller (still with us! must be those monkey glands) who sold Reagan on SDI, another sf idea that we're being stuck with once again. I'd recommend reading H. Bruce Franklin, another commierat English professor: "Robert A. Heinlein: American as Science Fiction," and "War Stars," or going through some back issues of "Science Fiction Studies."
Johnathan Napalm
Black Belt
The loon, Edward Teller, Father of American's nuclear deterrence (so ingrates like you can mouth off in the warmth and safety of your living room, and not dying in some Soviet/Cuban mental wards or gulags) brought forth to Reagan, the SDI which got the evil empire into a bankrupting armrace, which resulted in the overthrown of the barbaric communist totalitarian regime in Moscow.
Thankyou for revealing your level of objectivity and grasp of reality. lol
Thankyou for revealing your level of objectivity and grasp of reality. lol
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Yes, yes. The old, "If it weren't for..., ingrates like you would be dying in a gulag now." Reminds me of the old "Sat. Night Live" sketch about the kid who didn't wanna go to school, so Bill Murray announced that he just wouldn't go to work either, so his boss didn't, then the Russians invaded their breakfast nook...
Why not just argue facts and ideas and theories, and skip the silly name-calling?
Why not just argue facts and ideas and theories, and skip the silly name-calling?
K
Kirk
Guest
When people use the first amendment to solely speak out
against everything the constitution represents, against the
government, any actions they do, and those executing the orders
given to them, it makes me, and apparently many others,
just plain disgusted. You should hold some of these freedoms
to heart. In the case of this war, how many Iraqi citizens have
the right to publicly protest Sadam? And we all know what
happens to those protesting against communism in Russia.
When people solely use the first amendment to talk about how
much they hate America, then the obvious question, even though
you love to poke fun at those who ask it, is "then why not
leave?". To those of us who value ALL the liberties we have, we
get a bit temperamental at you, who despises our economic
system, and democracy in general. IMO, people like this only
have those ideals are full of themselves. They think that they're
soooooo special, and so apart from the crowd, that they'd
somehow be in power in a communist/socialist/marxist form of
government. How quickly they'd change thier tune if they had to
personally witness thier own child being gunned down in a
public town square, for speaking her/his own mind. Again, IMO,
the blood shed by our own brethren in this war is on YOUR hands,
because of your attempts at deystroying thier morality, thier
mindset, and thier conscience. Where as you just feel, protestors
are simply exercising the right that they abhore so much, free
speech.
the first ammendment exists PRECICELY for people to speak out against the government. That's what its there for. The folks writing the bill of rights remembered what it was like when you couldn't speak out against the crown, and decided that wasn't what they wanted for the new government.
K
Kirk
Guest
Yes ... but to speak out against the liberties provided to you by
that amendment is ignorant. It wasn't JUST "the crown" that the
amendment exists for. It's not like they said "Here's the right to
free speech, please use it to put down everything American".
The fact remains that without war, the right to bash your fellow
Americans to high heaven, to put down your government and your
very way of life wouldn't exist. You're also not given the right to
incite riot, which is what a LOT (no, mr mcrobertson not a teeny
tiny one or two amongst peace loving pacifists protesting the war)
of current war protestors are doing. When law enforcement
officials and other Americans innocently get violent acts committed
upon them, then it is NOT YOUR RIGHT.
Johnathan Napalm
Black Belt
I suppose all the people in California, New Mexico and Arizona must have been dying to rejoin Mexico, huh? LOL
Yeah, all these years, they must have been dying by the hundreds of thousands to fight against this imperialistic invader called the USA!
As for Hawaii, if the US didn't take over, it would remain the private property of the corrupt and defunct royal family. And for the enrichment of the royal court, not the commoners. The Hawaii people are better off within the Union.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Thanks for the truisms and cliches.
I still haven't read any arguments with my facts, interpretations, or underlying theory. Just yadayada about being a disloyal American, about love it or leave it, about how I'd feel if my mom got shot by commies, about subverting democracy (here's a good line from, "The Patriot," "Your sense of liberty is as pale as your skin"), about despising capitalism (guilty as charged) etc. etc. etc.
That's it? That's all ya got? If this were a composition class, I'd hand the papers back with notes about the necessity of providing fact, footnoting sources, arguing logically. (Can't wait for the posts about people like me being what's wrong with the commierat educational system, what with the way we commierat teachers keep asking students to think through their arguments and provide evidence for their claims...disloyal, disloyal, disloyal.)
Welllp, guess I can get back to subverting democracy, putting florides in water, advocating those contributions to UNICEF, and generally preparing for the coming takeover by lesbians, one-worlders, commies, trade unionists, ACLU members, tree-huggers, and all us other un-Americans.
I still haven't read any arguments with my facts, interpretations, or underlying theory. Just yadayada about being a disloyal American, about love it or leave it, about how I'd feel if my mom got shot by commies, about subverting democracy (here's a good line from, "The Patriot," "Your sense of liberty is as pale as your skin"), about despising capitalism (guilty as charged) etc. etc. etc.
That's it? That's all ya got? If this were a composition class, I'd hand the papers back with notes about the necessity of providing fact, footnoting sources, arguing logically. (Can't wait for the posts about people like me being what's wrong with the commierat educational system, what with the way we commierat teachers keep asking students to think through their arguments and provide evidence for their claims...disloyal, disloyal, disloyal.)
Welllp, guess I can get back to subverting democracy, putting florides in water, advocating those contributions to UNICEF, and generally preparing for the coming takeover by lesbians, one-worlders, commies, trade unionists, ACLU members, tree-huggers, and all us other un-Americans.
Johnathan Napalm
Black Belt
Originally posted by Kirk
Yes ... but to speak out against the liberties provided to you by
that amendment is ignorant. It wasn't JUST "the crown" that the
amendment exists for. It's not like they said "Here's the right to
free speech, please use it to put down everything American".
The fact remains that without war, the right to bash your fellow
Americans to high heaven, to put down your government and your
very way of life wouldn't exist. You're also not given the right to
incite riot, which is what a LOT (no, mr mcrobertson not a teeny
tiny one or two amongst peace loving pacifists protesting the war)
of current war protestors are doing. When law enforcement
officials and other Americans innocently get violent acts committed
upon them, then it is NOT YOUR RIGHT.
Nothing wrong with people speaking their mind, even if that only demonstrates their degree of ignorance.... Good men and women have gave their lives to ensure that this right remains in this country. It is also your right and my right to say that these people are wrong (or worse,
ignorant or full of horse manure). Granted, that does not necessary mean they are of menace or illwill. People with good intention can also be misguided. [I am sure the feeling is probably mutual in many cases. lol ]Johnathan Napalm
Black Belt
What are you whining about?
I think some folks need a nap.
Less snippy folks....less snippy....
Less snippy folks....less snippy....
Johnathan Napalm
Black Belt
Ok. Allow me to rephrase that then.
"Forgive my ignorance and inattention. Would you kindly restate what it is that you would like me to address?"
[note to admin: lol, is this better?]
"Forgive my ignorance and inattention. Would you kindly restate what it is that you would like me to address?"
[note to admin: lol, is this better?]
Much better. Now I dont have to hit myself in the head with my mouse to simulate a cyber butt-kicking. 
Johnathan Napalm
Black Belt
LOL. Actually I was at a loss as to what he was asking me to address, as my post he quoted was mean to be a humours jab at Nightingale's post regarding the annexation of CA, NM and AZ. I got carried away in my blasting off my mouth. In verbal commnunication, there are more cues one can convey one's attitude. But, that is lost in text communication.
