thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EPGAH
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
ORIGINAL: EPGAH
Are you saying this whole thing started because it's a dog-eat-dog world, and the media's been dogging "The Dog", looking for a reason to send him to the doghouse, and his son was such a doggone idiot, he rolled over on'im?
EPGAH:
No that is not what we are saying.
What appears to be the general consensus is that you seem to be the perfect example of your claimed "dumbing down" of our schools.
Had you studied history you may have noticed that the U.S. attacked Mexico and not the other way around.
You seem to think that because Tesla was living in the U.S. that somehow changed where he was born and educated.
I noticed you also failed to mention how Edison fucked him out of the money he had been promised for fixing Edison's "fuck ups"
Perhaps you just have a need to be publicly humiliated when people on this forum repeatedly point out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of your posts and of course your unvarnished bigotry.
When challenged on your inconsistencies and inaccuracies you dance,dodge and two step your way into more inconsistencies and obfuscations.
If public humiliation is your goal then success is easily within your grasp.
thompson
Tesla was from Russia...But who cares?
Wrong again...Tesla was from Serbia which was part of the Austrian empire.
He did his research and inventions in the Name of America,
Wrong again... he did his research in the name of financial gain.
if he had any national affiliations. (Similarly, we claim Columbus discovered America in the Name of Spain, but he was born in Italy, so wouldn't that make him Italian? Same concept)
Wrong again...Columbus did not discover America...Nor did Columbus ever set foot on American soil.
Edison was later revealed to have fucked a lot of inventors out of their credit, but how is that news? The inventor of Post-Its didn't get anything extra from it, the invention and royalties went to 3M! Valve has made a mint off packaging and selling previously free expansions for their games...And Microsoft Vista incorporates an assload of improvements that were previously free or cheap third-party mods...It's not who invents it, it's who gets to the Patent Office first! (And sometimes not even then, it might be who has the best lawyers? Witness the flap over Blackberry's E-Mail system...)
And even personally: I'm a computer-repairman, without armed guards, do you not think I've been stiffed on the bill a few times? One particularly "clever" one closed her whole checking account and moved out of state just so I wouldn't get the money!
As to Mexico:
In a previous post you mention that your boss does not pay you very well. Now you seem to be saying that you work for your self and got stiffed on a bill....which is it?????Or are you just making this up as you go along?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wikipedia, but most of this is from almost carbon-copied from my old history tome, so...
It would appear that Wiki is using your old sixth grade history book. To call this article inaccurate would be the kindest thing one could possibly say about it.
Most of Texas was immediately claimed by Spain as part of the Spanish dominions of New Spain.[13] However, France took advantage of Spain's failure to settle the land and in 1685 established Fort St. Louis and claimed most of Texas.
Robert Cavelier, while trying to find the Mississippi river to travel up, in order to give France a better claim to the Louisiana territory, missed the Mississippi by over four hundred miles and founded Ft. St. Louis quite by accident in what is now Texas. It took him a year to realize he was in the wrong place so he left and abandoned the fort.
The first Spanish colonization did not come until a few years after Fort St. Louis, as Spain was spurred by France to enforce its claims. The French claim was inherited by the United States as they bought the Louisiana Purchase in 1803
Wrong again...The document that conveys the Louisiana Purchase to the United States clearly disassociates Texas from the Louisiana Purchase.
and the Spanish claim was later inherited by Mexico during the Mexican War of Independence of 1821, setting the stage for the Mexican–American War.
Had you actually studied American history you would know that the fact that Mexico would not sell California to the U.S. was what set the stage for the Mexican-American war.
The French settlement was massacred by American Indians,
It was not a settlement, it was the approximately 20 women,children and sick men that Robert Caveliar abandoned who were massacred by the native Americans.
and Spain only started sparse settlements, so most permanent settlements by Europeans didn't start until long after the first explorer arrived in 1521.
In the 1800s, two main ethnic groups settled the land: Tejanos and eventually Anglo Americans. By 1830, the 30,000 Anglo settlers in Texas outnumbered the Tejanos two to one. Smaller numbers of Europeans also came. Moses Austin bought 200,000 acres (810 km²) of land of his choice, and moved to San Antonio in August of 1821.[14] His son, Stephen F. Austin, joined him. In 1821, Texas became part of the newly independent Republic of Mexico
Wrong again...Texas did not become part of Mexico it always was part of New Spain (which became Mexico)
On 3 January 1823, Stephen F. Austin began a colony of 300 Anglo American families known as the "Old Three Hundred" along the Brazos River, after Austin was authorized to do so by Governor Antonio María Martínez and then successive Mexican officials as Mexico went through tumultuous political regime changes. Austin soon organized even more groups of immigrants,
What you seem not to recognize is that these immigrants were not American citizens. They became Mexican citizens when they immigrated to Texas (A state/province in Mexico). In order to migrate to Texas they had to renounce their American citizenship to become Mexican citizens.
The "Conventions" of 1832 and 1833 were a response to rising unrest at the policies of the ruling Mexican government, which included the end of duty free imports from the United States and the potential end to the special allowance for slavery in the state.
Wrong again....There were no special allowances for slavery in Mexico. Part of the immigration stipulation was that slavery was not allowed. Many slave owning Anglos did bring their slaves and swore on their honor that they were not slaves, but rather indentured servants.
Slavery had been abolished in Mexico with the independence.[14] Spain's policy of allowing only full-blooded Spaniards to settle Texas also ended with independence. In 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna, President of Mexico, proclaimed a unified constitution for all Mexican territories, including Texas.[14] The new Constitution ended the republic and the federation, imposed a central style of government with power concentrated in the President, and turned states into provinces with governors appointed from Mexico City. Some states around Mexico rebelled against this imposition, including Chihuahua, Zacatecas and Yucatan. Texans were also irritated by other policies including the forcible disarmament of Texan settlers, and the expulsion of immigrants and legal land owners originally from the United States. The example of the Centralista forces' suppression of dissidents in Zacatecas also inspired fear of the Mexican government.
On 2 March 1836, the Convention of 1836 signed a Declaration of Independence,[16] declaring Texas an independent nation.[17] On 21 April 1836, the Texans—led by General Sam Houston—won their independence when they defeated the Mexican forces of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. Santa Anna was captured and signed the Treaties of Velasco, which gave Texas firm boundaries; Mexico repudiated the treaties, considered Texas a breakaway province, and vowed to reconquer it.
What this means is that the Mexican president cannot sign away any part of Mexico any more than the U.S. president could sign away part of the United States.
Imagine if Bush were to be captured by Al kaida on one of his trips to Iraq....could he sign a treaty with them that would give them Missouri or any other part of America?
Later in 1836, the Texans adopted a constitution that formally legalized slavery in Texas. The Republic of Texas included the area of the present state of Texas, and additional unoccupied territory to the west and northwest.[15]
Texans wanted annexation to the United States. Texas was fast-growing, but still poor and had great difficulty maintaining self-defense. Events such as the Dawson Massacre and two recaptures of Béxar in Texas of 1842 helped add momentum to the desire for statehood.[18] However, American politics intruded; strong Northern opposition to adding another slave state blocked annexation until the election of 1844 was won on a pro-annexation platform by James K. Polk. On 29 December 1845, Texas was admitted to the U.S. as a constituent state of the Union.[19] The Mexican–American War followed, with decisive American victories.[20] Soon after, Texas grew rapidly as migrants poured into the cotton lands.[21]
So basically, Spain "claimed" Texas, didn't enforce it, France jumped in, Spain decided to enforce it after all, then invited Americans in for easy money, then tried to control Americans...Americans didn't take too kindly to that, and demonstrated our strong, even vicious, independent streak. They decided not to respect American self-rule, and quickly found themselves on the losing end!
Why do you continue to believe that the Anglos living in Texas were still American citizens?
Do you realize the flag that flew over the Alamo was the Mexican flag. That those fighting inside the Alamo were fighting for their rights as Mexican citizens.
Now we're too gentle and/or genteel (The latter is NOT a misspelling, it's a whole different--archaic--word!) to kill invaders...Maybe "we" as a nation deserve what's coming to us, but we as individuals do not.
Umm, why didn't you make a whole separate thread for this? "Hating on EPGAH" or "Arguing Ancient History with EPGAH", perhaps?
But thanks for derailing my attempt to get this thread back to its original subject!
You are the only one on this thread that is splashing hate filled ink. My purpose here is to disabuse you of your appalling ignorance of history.
< Message edited by thompsonx -- 11/5/2007 7:57:17 PM >
|
RE: Dog the Bounty Hunter & the "N" word - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread