Texas Nationalists Plan To Sue Mexico For Return Of Stolen Alamo Flag, Artifacts

[FrankRep]

Texas Nationalist Movement
http://www.TexasNationalist.com/


Texas Nationalists plan to sue Mexico for return of artifacts (http://www.examiner.com/x-24030-Texas-Nationalist-Examiner~y2010m6d24-Texas-Nationalists-plan-to-sue-Mexico-for-return-of-artifacts?cid=exrss-Texas-Nationalist-Examiner)


Texas Nationalist Examiner
June 24, 2010


NEDERLAND, Texas – The Texas Nationalist Movement is preparing for a lawsuit against Mexico for the return of artifacts returned to Mexico City during the Texas Revolution.

“It has been known for some time that the Mexican government is in possession of the true Alamo flag and many other artifacts captured during their invasion of Texas and we want them back,” TNM president Daniel Miller said. “We are going to initiate the suit in federal court and will appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague if necessary.”

The move is part of a longer-sought exchange of artifacts recovered by each side during the Texas Revolution of 1835-36.

An article in the Texas Observer relates the tale of a 1998 expedition by Texas officials to Mexico City, seeking to recover the flag of the First Company of Texan Volunteers from New Orleans, dubbed the “New Orleans Greys” because of their distinctive uniforms.

The two companies of riflemen were welcomed by the settlers of East Texas, who gifted them with, according to a Texas Observer article by Lucius Lomax (http://www.allempires.net/the-plot-to-hijack-the-alamo-flag_topic3978.html), “…a flag, made of blue silk, about the size of a bath towel, bordered by white fringe. The silk featured the likeness of an eagle, wings spread, and below the eagle the words, ‘First Company of Texan Volunteers from New Orleans.’"

The flag was captured at the Alamo and returned to Mexico City as war booty. In the years since its re-discovery in the archives of the National Museum of History at Chapultapec Castle, several different administrations in both Austin and in Washington have sought its return. At one point, former Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s administration offered to trade a number of artifacts captured by Gen. Sam Houston’s victorious army at the Battle of San Jacinto for the flag – but every effort has met with suspicion and disinterest by the Mexican government.

“Mexico has a history at thumbing their nose at Texas, as much as our own Federal Government,” Miller said. “This is proof that the TNM is as concerned with tyranny across the Rio Grand River as we are the Red River. This is about accountability to the Texan people.”

Miller added that this is the first in a series of planned actions to turn back the tide of encroachment from Washington, D.C. and Mexico City.

“Texans have always revered their unique culture and history, and we have two federal governments working against us, trying to erase it,” he said. “The Texas Nationalist Movement is committed to the preservation of the unique culture and history of Texas, and we’re going to do that.”

Lomax’s article concludes: “Probably one day the remains of the Alamo flag will make the long trip back across the Rio Grande. But before an exchange can take place two changes in consciousness will have to take place: the Mexicans will have to come to terms with what they did, and failed to do, during their time as sovereigns north of the river. (They will, in short, have to get over the loss of their northern territories.)”

The Texas Nationalist Movement is a grass-roots political organization unaffiliated with any political party which exists to secure and protect the political, cultural and economic independence of the nation of Texas and to restore and protect a constitutional Republic and the inherent rights of the people of Texas.


SOURCE:
http://www.examiner.com/x-24030-Texas-Nationalist-Examiner~y2010m6d24-Texas-Nationalists-plan-to-sue-Mexico-for-return-of-artifacts?cid=exrss-Texas-Nationalist-Examiner

[constituent]

These folks are just embarrassing.

[jmdrake]

So a group of Texas Nationalists is appealing to an illegitimate international body? And they think this actually helps give them an air of legitimacy?

[constituent]

So a group of Texas Nationalists is appealing to an illegitimate international body? And they think this actually helps give them an air of legitimacy?

Oh man... I could tell you some texas nationalist stories about appealing to international authorities that would make you shit your pants.

I'd do it too, but then you'd die laughing and we still need you around. :o

[FrankRep]

These folks are just embarrassing.

How so?

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul likes the idea of a Republic of Texas.


YouTube - Ron Paul - Republic of Texas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2lmwg4eQ2s)

[RileyE104]

Ron Paul likes the idea of a Republic of Texas.


YouTube - Ron Paul - Republic of Texas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2lmwg4eQ2s)

lol that joke he told was funny.
Ron would be a good comedian like George Carlin or something if he wasn't a politician...

[constituent]

How so?

I'm guessing you're not actually familiar with Larry Kilgore and the Texas Nationalist Movement, and you're just posting this 'cuz it sounds/looks cool or suits some perceived jBS agenda. I don't know... don't really care.

but maybe you should look into the sourcing of any "Texas Nationalist" news coming out of Nederwald. ;) :p :cool:

Think theocrat on steroids, srsly.

[FrankRep]

I'm guessing you're not actually familiar with Larry Kilgore and the Texas Nationalist Movement, and you're just posting this 'cuz it sounds/looks cool or suits some perceived jBS agenda. I don't know... don't really care.

but maybe you should look into the sourcing of any "Texas Nationalist" news coming out of Nederwald. ;) :p :cool:

Think theocrat on steroids, srsly.

I understand: You're against the Texas Nationalist Movement because they support Christian Morality like the Founding Fathers did. I got ya.

You would have Hated John Adams. :)

[constituent]

I understand: You're against the Texas Nationalist Movement because they support Christian Morality like the Founding Fathers did. I got ya.

So just to be clear, you really do know next to nothing about Larry Kilgore and the Texas Nationalist Movement. :)

Remind me where you're from again?

Edit: That's right, Columbus, Ohio. I see.

[FrankRep]

So just to be clear, you really do know next to nothing about Larry Kilgore and the Texas Nationalist Movement. :)

Okay, what's the dirt on Larry Kilgore?

[constituent]

Okay, what's the dirt on Larry Kilgore?

The "dirt?" Who said anything about "dirt?" Or are you just trying to spin this?

Don't take my word for it, watch his speech at the Texas Capitol (for starters).

[FrankRep]

The "dirt?" Who said anything about "dirt?" Or are you just trying to spin this?

Don't take my word for it, watch his speech at the Texas Capitol (for starters).

What's your issue with him? I don't get it.

YouTube - Texas Sovereignty or Secession Rally - Larry Kilgore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmqtNiy4lgc)

[John Taylor]

I say sue the hell out of the Mexican government. They take our tax-dollars, and sue our states, like they did to my state of Arizona this past week... and they deliberately make no effort to limit the criminal activity flowing into the United States (perhaps because they can't control and guarantee the rule of law in their own giant slum of Mexico City???).

[constituent]

What's your issue with him? I don't get it.

YouTube - Texas Sovereignty or Secession Rally - Larry Kilgore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmqtNiy4lgc)


Friend, if you see nothing wrong with what he's outlined then there is no hope.

Start with his "we got ahhhhhl 200 miles out in golf..." and just keep on going.

BTW, do you agree with Larry Kilgore as it concerns the American flag?

It's basically the first thing he says, "You see that flag... I HATE that flag."

Just wondering, is that the JBS' position on the American flag? One that you support?

[constituent]

I say sue the hell out of the Mexican government. They take our tax-dollars, and sue our states, like they did to my state of Arizona this past week... and they deliberately make no effort to limit the criminal activity flowing into the United States (perhaps because they can't control and guarantee the rule of law in their own giant slum of Mexico City???).

You're shorting yourself on experience if you've set yourself upon the notion that Mexico City (and by extension of your words, much if not most of Mexico) is just a "giant slum." You're free to feel how you want, but I'm just saying. :)

[John Taylor]

Friend, if you see nothing wrong with what he's outlined then there is no hope.

Start with his "we got ahhhhhl 200 miles out in golf..." and just keep on going.

BTW, do you agree with Larry Kilgore as it concerns the American flag?

It's basically the first thing he says, "You see that flag... I HATE that flag."

Just wondering, is that the JBS' position on the American flag? One that you support?

I couldn't really care less about a flag, I care much more about what it represents... and considering it represents a great many states I wish would drop into the oceans they respectably border, and additionally signifies a leviathan of a federal government which has for over a hundred years usurped the constitutionally reserved powers of the people and their states, I don't really have too much love for it.

As for territorial waters extending 200 miles into the gulf... why not? Texas should sell off the outward 150 miles to entrepreneurs!

[constituent]

I couldn't really care less about a flag, I care much more about what it represents... and considering it represents a great many states I wish would drop into the oceans they respectably border, and additionally signifies a leviathan of a federal government which has for over a hundred years usurped the constitutionally reserved powers of the people and their states, I don't really have too much love for it.

As for territorial waters extending 200 miles into the gulf... why not? Texas should sell off the outward 150 miles to entrepreneurs!

You'll get no argument from me on privatization, but that's not what Larry is suggesting is it?

[John Taylor]

You're shorting yourself on experience if you've set yourself upon the notion that Mexico City (and by extension of your words, much if not most of Mexico) is just a "giant slum." You're free to feel how you want, but I'm just saying. :)

Again, feel free to come down with me to Mexico City, and I'll be more than happy to show you around the slums there. I never suggested that "much if not most of Mexico is a giant slum". I suggested that large portions of Mexico City are. They are. :)

[John Taylor]

You'll get no argument from me on privatization, but that's not what Larry is suggesting is it?

Perhaps not, but this is a step in the right direction, national control instead of some nebulous international tragedy of the commons...

[FrankRep]

Friend, if you see nothing wrong with what he's outlined then there is no hope.

Start with his "we got ahhhhhl 200 miles out in golf..." and just keep on going.

BTW, do you agree with Larry Kilgore as it concerns the American flag?

It's basically the first thing he says, "You see that flag... I HATE that flag."

Just wondering, is that the JBS' position on the American flag? One that you support?

I support Texas Secession.

[South Park Fan]

Friend, if you see nothing wrong with what he's outlined then there is no hope.

Start with his "we got ahhhhhl 200 miles out in golf..." and just keep on going.

BTW, do you agree with Larry Kilgore as it concerns the American flag?

It's basically the first thing he says, "You see that flag... I HATE that flag."

Just wondering, is that the JBS' position on the American flag? One that you support?

That seems as relevant as the JBS's position on the British flag

[constituent]

That seems as relevant as the JBS's position on the British flag

Really? I just notice that he's got the JBS mission statement as the final lines of his sig. Is it that big a leap to think that FrankRep's position is not representative of the JBS? What else am I to take from an individual who links constantly to the JBS sites and publications, keeps the forum updated with JBS news, and signs his posts with the JBS mission statement?

FrankRep wants to know what's wrong with Larry Kilgore's speech... so... I'm wondering. Is that a position that the JBS shares.

BTW, do you have a position on the speech? Larry Kilgore? The Texas Nationalist Movement? Alamo artifacts? I'd be interested in your thoughts. :)

[MelissaWV]

Mexico City does have slums. It isn't exactly a condition unique to Mexico, though, is it? A nation without poor/slums is a nation I am incredibly suspicious of, as it must have some method of forcing the populace to pay for "the unfortunate." The nations with fewest bad neighborhoods often have incredibly high tax rates. It could be argued they get a lot more bang for their buck, but that's an argument for another thread.

We should really have a "Name that Slum" tournament. It would be interesting to see if a Mexico City slum expert would be able to pick out, out of these, which one was Mexico City without cheating. Sadly, the internet makes it too easy to cheat :(

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2001-05/214438.jpg
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/photography/afghanistan/graphics/afghanistan1.jpg
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/slums.jpg
http://www.pvv.org/~erikad/Themepages/Travel/Vietnam/Vietnam_bilder/Saigon_Slum.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_w1iq4z0Unjg/SrAAMSffONI/AAAAAAAAAQs/NWFUDtQmNCI/s400/Detroitghett2.jpg
http://www.kenyaaidsinstitute.org/images/soweto3.JPG
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Sports/images-2/haiti-slum.jpg
http://www.newsandreviews.in/media/blogs/insupedia//800px-Dharavi_Slum.jpg

[FrankRep]

Really? I just notice that he's got the JBS mission statement as the final lines of his sig. Is it that big a leap to think that FrankRep's position is not representative of the JBS? What else am I to take from an individual who links constantly to the JBS sites and publications, keeps the forum updated with JBS news, and signs his posts with the JBS mission statement?

FrankRep wants to know what's wrong with Larry Kilgore's speech... so... I'm wondering. Is that a position that the JBS shares.

BTW, do you have a position on the speech? Larry Kilgore? The Texas Nationalist Movement? Alamo artifacts? I'd be interested in your thoughts. :)

I support the John Birch Society and I love the Constitution, but realistically I don't see how Liberty can survive in the United States, plus this country is bankrupt. Texas Independence is the next best thing. Sometimes you must divorce your loved one if they are abusive.

This is a divorce from the United States.

[constituent]

I support Texas Secession.

Wait, what happened to "national sovereignty?" I'm just trying to understand the disconnect... even if it sounds like i'm being a smart ass, i'm only partially being a smart ass. I think it's an important issue to examine.

If the United States is this abusive lover that must be divorced, why should I be required to obtain permission to travel in and out of texas in the here and now? The two positions seem to conflict.

[John Taylor]

Wait, what happened to "national sovereignty?"

That naturally comes after Texas, or any other state secedes and reclaims those powers over several subjects which they delegated to the federal government.

[John Taylor]

Wait, what happened to "national sovereignty?" I'm just trying to understand the disconnect... even if it sounds like i'm being a smart ass, i'm only partially being a smart ass. I think it's an important issue to examine.

If the United States is this abusive lover that must be divorced, why should I be required to obtain permission to travel in and out of texas in the here and now? The two positions seem to conflict.

Merely because the United States government has been abusive in some areas of the relationship does not mean that in other areas, she is not caring her weight. To say it another way, just because a restraining order and a divorce may be the wisest course of action does not mean that until those are executed the marital relationship does not obligate the members.

[constituent]

That naturally comes after Texas, or any other state secedes and reclaims those powers over several subjects which they delegated to the federal government.

hahah, i'm starting to realize that maybe you're really really sarcastic, and that the post above is probably a shiny little nugget of dark humor. :D

[FrankRep]

Wait, what happened to "national sovereignty?"

What about it? I've been pushing US sovereignty and now Texas sovereignty.


I support the John Birch Society and I love the Constitution, but realistically I don't see how Liberty can survive in the United States, plus this country is bankrupt. Texas Independence is the next best thing. Sometimes you must divorce your loved one if they are abusive.

This is a divorce from the United States.

[constituent]

Merely because the United States government has been abusive in some areas of the realtionship does not mean that in other areas, she is not caring her weight. Just because a restraining order and a divorce may be the wisest course of action does not mean that until those are executed the marital relationship does not obligate the members.

Get it?

That analogy breaks down, because the marital relationship is founded on a specific document (the U.S. Constitution). The laws requiring me to obtain permission from the federal government to travel into and out of Texas step outside of the constraints set out by that document.

[constituent]

What about it? I've been pushing US sovereignty and now Texas sovereignty.

What about it? You serious? You do understand that the two conflict in this context, correct?

[FrankRep]

That analogy breaks down, because the marital relationship is founded on a specific document (the U.S. Constitution). The laws requiring me to obtain permission from the federal government to travel into and out of Texas step outside of the constraints set out by that document.
We have something called the Texas Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Constitution).

[constituent]

We have something called the Texas Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Constitution).

Which backs my assertion... what point are you trying to make?

[John Taylor]

That analogy breaks down, because the marital relationship is founded on a specific document (the U.S. Constitution). The laws requiring me to obtain permission from the federal government to travel into and out of Texas step outside of the constraints set out by that document.

That's true, but is there a lawful requirement that you bear a federal document to leave or enter Texas?

(I actually tend to think of the marriage as having been between the several states, and that the federal government is the rebellious spawn of that relationship, who at first allows himself to be used by one spouse in a conflict against the other, but who soon discovers his own power and begins to inflict heartache on both parents.)

[FrankRep]

What about it? You serious? You do understand that the two conflict in this context, correct?
Not at all. Texas is currently married to the United States. Texas wants the marriage to work, but the United States keeps abusing it's power. Texas tells the United States to either stop abusing it's power or Texas will demand a divorce.

Understand better now?

[constituent]

That's true, but is there a lawful requirement that you bear a federal document to leave or enter Texas?

Nope. In fact, the Texas Constitution makes it illegal to refuse any member of the "public" free, unhampered ingress or egress from all Texas beaches.

It is my thinking that the requirement of all citizens to enter the United States only through designated border crossings conflicts with this though. I'm not sure.

Any thoughts on it?



(I actually tend to think of the marriage as having been between the several states, and that the federal government is the rebellious spawn of that relationship, who at first allows himself to be used by one spouse in a conflict against the other, but who soon discovers his own power and begins to inflict heartache on both parents.)

I think that's a fair assessment of the situation. :D

[constituent]

Not at all. Texas is currently married to the United States. Texas wants the marriage to work, but the United States keeps abusing it's power. Texas tells the United States to either stop abusing it's power or Texas will demand a divorce.

Understand better now?

That's all well and good, but I don't remember reading a divorce clause in the constitution. If you could point me to it, I'd be interested in reading it though. :)

[John Taylor]

Nope. In fact, the Texas Constitution makes it illegal to refuse any member of the "public" free, unhampered ingress or egress from all Texas beaches.

It is my thinking that the requirement of all citizens to enter the United States only through designated border crossings conflicts with this though. I'm not sure.

Any thoughts on it?



It could very well be, although the question then which would need to be answered is, who is a member of the "public", and does that include those who criminally enter Texas from another country.

[constituent]

It could very well be, although the question then which would need to be answered is, who is a member of the "public", and does that include those who criminally enter Texas from another country.

How would you define criminally enter? If one is a member of the "public," and they have the right to an act outlined in their state constitution, is one obligated to obey a federal law limiting the exercise of that right?

Can the federal government criminalize a right guaranteed by a state constitution?

[John Taylor]

That's all well and good, but I don't remember reading a divorce clause in the constitution. If you could point me to it, I'd be interested in reading it though. :)

There's no divorce clause in most marriage licenses that I know of...

Article V allows for the complete abortion of the "federal" child, and implicitly allows for the separation of the parent states.

In any event, secession is a power, and it is not forbidden to the states. As such, it is retained by the states and their people.

[constituent]

There's no divorce clause in most marriage licenses that I know of...

Article V allows for the complete abortion of the "federal" child, and implicitly allows for the separation of the parent states.

In any event, secession is a power, and it is not forbidden to the states. As such, it is retained by the states and their people.

Ok, I can see that. :)

[FrankRep]

That's all well and good, but I don't remember reading a divorce clause in the constitution. If you could point me to it, I'd be interested in reading it though. :)

The founding fathers were actually criminals I guess. It was illegal for them to divorce from Great Britain.

[John Taylor]

How would you define criminally enter? If one is a member of the "public," and they have the right to an act outlined in their state constitution, is one obligated to obey a federal law limiting the exercise of that right.

Can the federal government criminalize a right guaranteed by a state constitution?

Unfortunately yes, though limited to some extent, under the supremacy clause.

To criminally enter, to enter in violation of the law? If one IS in fact a member of the public, and the federal government is not legislating in an area controlled by a constitutionally enumerated power, then the federal government would have no authority to act in that sphere to limit or prohibit the flow of individuals. That's my understanding...

[constituent]

Unfortunately yes, though limited to some extent, under the supremacy clause.

To criminally enter, to enter in violation of the law? If one IS in fact a member of the public, and the federal government is not legislating in an area controlled by a constitutionally enumerated power, then the federal government would have no authority to act in that sphere to limit or prohibit the flow of individuals. That's my understanding...

cool, thanks. :)

[Slutter McGee]

The founding fathers were actually criminals I guess. It was illegal for them to divorce from Great Britain.

The founding fathers were also intelligent and articulate. I live in West Texas. Thankfully, most of those nutcases are futher south. I sympathize with the notion of succession, but unless you live here, and are around these people, you can't quite understand. It was Republic of Texas not to long ago. They were also nuts.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[osan]

These folks are just embarrassing.

You'd think they'd have gotten over it by now. With all the real troubles to think about, this is what they occupy their time doing?

OhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhKayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

[puppetmaster]

[QUOTE=MelissaWV;2765576]Mexico City does have slums. It isn't exactly a condition unique to Mexico, though, is it? A nation without poor/slums is a nation I am incredibly suspicious of, as it must have some method of forcing the populace to pay for "the unfortunate." The nations with fewest bad neighborhoods often have incredibly high tax rates. It could be argued they get a lot more bang for their buck, but that's an argument for another thread.

We should really have a "Name that Slum" tournament. It would be interesting to see if a Mexico City slum expert would be able to pick out, out of these, which one was Mexico City without cheating. Sadly, the internet makes it too easy to cheat :(

None......:o

[libertarian4321]

I support Texas Secession.

So the guy from Ohio supports Texas secession? Gee, that's swell.

Why don't you whip up Ohio secession hysteria and leave Texas alone?

Most Texans don't support secession and neither do I.

The secessionist have been around for a long time. They quieted down after the "Republic of Texas" fiasco in the '90's, but nuts like Kilgore have crawled back out of the wood work after Governor Perry made an off hand comment about secession (later recanted) when he was trying to show his "conservative cred" during the primary election.

BTW, Kilgore is NOT libertarian- he's a religious extremist who would probably support a government closer to that of the Taliban than anything resembling freedom or liberty.

No thanks.

[ClayTrainor]

So the guy from Ohio supports Texas secession? Gee, that's swell.

Why don't you whip up Ohio secession hysteria and leave Texas alone?

Most Texans don't support secession and neither do I.


Out of curiosity, what are your reasons for not supporting Texas secession?

I honestly don't know too much about the subject, but the idea of decentralizing government power doesn't sound all that bad to me. I suppose the argument could be made that the state government could potentially be just as, or even more oppressive than the Feds.

I'd personally prefer if individuals could completely secede from any form of state, altogether. :o

Anyways, I'm just curious what your reasons are for opposing Texas secession.

[libertarian4321]

Out of curiosity, what are your reasons for not supporting Texas secession?

I honestly don't know too much about the subject, but the idea of decentralizing government power doesn't sound all that bad to me. I suppose the argument could be made that the state government could potentially be just as, or even more oppressive than the Feds.

I'd personally prefer if individuals could completely secede from any form of state, altogether. :o

Anyways, I'm just curious what your reasons are for opposing Texas secession.

Lots of reasons.

First off, I don't "hate the USA" like Kilgore and his fellow nuts.

Second, secession is not a "solution" to bad government. Our state government is a mess- maybe not as bad as the Federal government, but not a lot better, either.

"Secession" is a simplistic "solution" chanted by pissed off people who haven't really thought it through.

I won't even go into the mess that secession would create- it would likely result in war, death, and economic calamity for Texas (as well as hurting, to a lesser degree, the USA).

So I'll leave the simple minded solutions to guys like Larry Kilgore- I don't want any part of his brand of nuttery.

I'm going to work to make the USA a better place, I have no intention of destroying it.

[MelissaWV]

None......:o

Nope.

There are pictures there of Afghanistan, Baltimore, Detroit, India, Kenya, Mexico City, and Vietnam (not in that order).

They kind of all start to blur, don't they? :p

[jmdrake]

How so?

This part should embarrass you and the JBS. Unless you guys actually believe in the international court when it suits you.

“We are going to initiate the suit in federal court and will appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague if necessary.”

[jmdrake]

I say sue the hell out of the Mexican government. They take our tax-dollars, and sue our states, like they did to my state of Arizona this past week... and they deliberately make no effort to limit the criminal activity flowing into the United States (perhaps because they can't control and guarantee the rule of law in their own giant slum of Mexico City???).

I have no problem with anybody suing Mexico in our federal court system. I have a BIG problem with appealing such a decision to the International Court in the Hague and I would think you would too! The federal courts have jurisdiction to hear disputes between states and foreign governments as well as individuals and governments. The Hague has no such (legitimate) jurisdiction.

[FrankRep]

This part should embarrass you and the JBS. Unless you guys actually believe in the international court when it suits you.

“We are going to initiate the suit in federal court and will appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague if necessary.”

The John Birch Society, The Texas Nationalist Movement, and Myself are separate things. I don't agree 100% with any organization, but I support their cause.

[jmdrake]

Ok. I know this wasn't the reason you posted these pics, but I love the "wheel-barrel" picture as a sign of innovation even in the most depressing of circumstances. It looks like something someone might have dreamed up on "Junkyard wars" or "Destroy - build - destroy".


Mexico City does have slums. It isn't exactly a condition unique to Mexico, though, is it? A nation without poor/slums is a nation I am incredibly suspicious of, as it must have some method of forcing the populace to pay for "the unfortunate." The nations with fewest bad neighborhoods often have incredibly high tax rates. It could be argued they get a lot more bang for their buck, but that's an argument for another thread.

We should really have a "Name that Slum" tournament. It would be interesting to see if a Mexico City slum expert would be able to pick out, out of these, which one was Mexico City without cheating. Sadly, the internet makes it too easy to cheat :(

http://www.kenyaaidsinstitute.org/images/soweto3.JPG

[Anti Federalist]

Would you, directly or by proxy, shoot at people in another state who did decide to secede?


Lots of reasons.

First off, I don't "hate the USA" like Kilgore and his fellow nuts.

Second, secession is not a "solution" to bad government. Our state government is a mess- maybe not as bad as the Federal government, but not a lot better, either.

"Secession" is a simplistic "solution" chanted by pissed off people who haven't really thought it through.

I won't even go into the mess that secession would create- it would likely result in war, death, and economic calamity for Texas (as well as hurting, to a lesser degree, the USA).

So I'll leave the simple minded solutions to guys like Larry Kilgore- I don't want any part of his brand of nuttery.

I'm going to work to make the USA a better place, I have no intention of destroying it.