Dean Bullock

I'am an anglo american and my son is half mexican and half anglo and PROUD
OF HIM. I agree, there are certain illegals who display such undesireable
behavior, but that happens everywhere, no matter the race in this crazy
world, but did you think the native indian here, accepted the white anglo in
this country? So my question to you, is........who are you to judge others?
You and I do not belong here either, besides the mexican was here before the
united states annexed the western half of this country

Supernav

    >besides the mexican was here before the united states >annexed the
    >western half of this country



No they weren't. The Native American tribes extended all the way down
from northern canada to the texas/arizona borders. Please check your
tribal maps of indian nations from the 1200-1800's before making such
silly comments.



The white man came because they were no "immigration laws" back then.
So you really couldn't blame them (at least for the "coming" part). Now
we have immigration laws made by a democracy of people. It's a
different scenario.



-= nav =-

--=Cochise~|||~Guardian=--

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:12:11 -0500, "Dean Bullock" <> opined:

    >I'am an anglo american and my son is half mexican and half anglo and PROUD
    >OF HIM. I agree, there are certain illegals who display such undesireable
    >behavior, but that happens everywhere, no matter the race in this crazy
    >world, but did you think the native indian here, accepted the white anglo in
    >this country? So my question to you, is........who are you to judge others?
    >You and I do not belong here either, besides the mexican was here before the
    >united states annexed the western half of this country

The Mexican was too weak to hold onto anything significant, and is still to stupid or too corrupt to create a
decent society. The only good Mexican is either "en México," or "en carcerated." Of course there's one other
sort of "good Mexican", and that's "en terra," if you get my drift :-D

This is a nation of laws, pendejo. No wetbacks allowed.
-----------------------
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
California Proposition 187 - You Loved It - Most Voted For It
It's Baaaaack!!! http://www.tinyurl.com/xl5d
No Public Services for the Invading Hordes
PETITIONS NOW READY FOR DOWNLOADING
See: http://www.save187.com
////////////////////////

Dean Bullock

Thats right, no immigration laws, so that means that this land was
stolen...............I guess we are thieves, then. None of this is good
either way, you look at it, but again, the mexican (the topic) were already
existing in the weatern portion of this country, before the white man
possessed it. So what have you been doing during your educational years as a
youth, when this topic was mentioned?

Ken Pisichko

--=Cochise~|||~Guardian=-- wrote:

    > The Mexican was too weak to hold onto anything significant, and is still to stupid or too corrupt to create a
    > decent society. The only good Mexican is either "en México," or "en carcerated." Of course there's one other
    > sort of "good Mexican", and that's "en terra," if you get my drift :-D

Sounds like the rationale used by other nations in colonizing a free peoples and putting them into colonial
"slavery". Materialistic Bullies talk that talk. What is wrong with someone holding on to what is "theirs" -
unless a bully covets it?

    > This is a nation of laws, pendejo. No wetbacks allowed.

Nation of laws, eh? Whose laws? United nations Laws or your individual self-fulfilling (and thus perverse) laws.

Why is it OK to invade other nations half way around the world because of some threat (aka WMD)? Where are these
WMD? The 'guv'ment rationalized it, got the appropriate PR spin on it and won the "military" war. Big deal - how
many innocent kids (like your own who play ball beside some building) have been killed recently. Bullies should
wonder why there is such seething against them.

Don't give me that "stuff" about getting Hussein.... The USA supported him, just like they armed the precursor
of the Taliban (aka Mujahadeen). Which petty dictator will the USA knock off next? Zimbabwe's nut case? Nope - no
oil there. Castro? We can't but we've been trying for years. Why not Pinochet, and a host of others who kill
their own people - just like Saddam did before Gulf War II.

Inquiring minds want answers!

Dean Bullock

I agree, hijo de la chingada, the mexican is unorganized, has a very corrupt
political system, and without personnal or family responsibilities, but what
is worse a disgusting, filthy, useless mexican hombre here or an american
hating terrorist, ready to kill, here. But there are a few good mexican
people here, that does not think the same about white people as you do about
them. Furthermore they can serve as very important key allie to this
country, and those that are here suffer the same fate we do or will,
whatever that is. Remember this country was built by the immigrant, AND DONT
FORGET THAT PIECE OF IMPORTANT EDUCATION!

--=Cochise~|||~Guardian=--

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:23:13 -0600, Ken Pisichko <> opined:

    >--=Cochise~|||~Guardian=-- wrote:
    >> The Mexican was too weak to hold onto anything significant, and is still to stupid or too corrupt to create a
    >> decent society. The only good Mexican is either "en México," or "en carcerated." Of course there's one other
    >> sort of "good Mexican", and that's "en terra," if you get my drift :-D
    >Sounds like the rationale used by other nations in colonizing a free peoples and putting them into colonial
    >"slavery". Materialistic Bullies talk that talk. What is wrong with someone holding on to what is "theirs" -
    >unless a bully covets it?

Kindly provide proof that the lowly Mexican held the territory in question for more than about 25 years after
stealing said territory from Spain.

    >> This is a nation of laws, pendejo. No wetbacks allowed.
    >Nation of laws, eh? Whose laws?

U.S. immigration laws currently on the books.

    >United nations Laws or your individual self-fulfilling (and thus perverse) laws.

Screw the U.N.

    >Why is it OK to invade other nations half way around the world because of some threat (aka WMD)? Where are these
    >WMD? The 'guv'ment rationalized it, got the appropriate PR spin on it and won the "military" war. Big deal - how
    >many innocent kids (like your own who play ball beside some building) have been killed recently. Bullies should
    >wonder why there is such seething against them.

Bush is a slimeball who should be removed from office. But that's another issue that has nothing o do with all
these squatters.

    >Don't give me that "stuff" about getting Hussein.... The USA supported him, just like they armed the precursor
    >of the Taliban (aka Mujahadeen). Which petty dictator will the USA knock off next? Zimbabwe's nut case? Nope - no
    >oil there. Castro? We can't but we've been trying for years. Why not Pinochet, and a host of others who kill
    >their own people - just like Saddam did before Gulf War II.
    >Inquiring minds want answers!

OK. Get these parasitic spic hordes out of here, and stick that stinking Texican pendejo Bush in the bus with
them. Wonderful! We agree on something :-)

-----------------------
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
California Proposition 187 - You Loved It - Most Voted For It
It's Baaaaack!!! http://www.tinyurl.com/xl5d
No Public Services for the Invading Hordes
PETITIONS NOW READY FOR DOWNLOADING
See: http://www.save187.com
////////////////////////

H. Reader

"--=Cochise~|||~Guardian=--" <jay*--REMOVE--*@adnmail.com> wrote in message
news:...
    > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:23:13 -0600, Ken Pisichko <> opined:
    > >--=Cochise~|||~Guardian=-- wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> The Mexican was too weak to hold onto anything significant, and is
still to stupid or too corrupt to create a
    > >> decent society. The only good Mexican is either "en México," or "en
carcerated." Of course there's one other
    > >> sort of "good Mexican", and that's "en terra," if you get my drift :-D
    > >>
    > >
    > >Sounds like the rationale used by other nations in colonizing a free
peoples and putting them into colonial
    > >"slavery". Materialistic Bullies talk that talk. What is wrong with
someone holding on to what is "theirs" -
    > >unless a bully covets it?
    > Kindly provide proof that the lowly Mexican held the territory in question
for more than about 25 years after
    > stealing said territory from Spain.

The lowly Mexicans never did hold the territory; the Apaches and
Comanches did.

Dean Bullock

I was refering to territorial ownership, before general santa ana turned it
over. Yes there were no mexican living in the upper western northern half of
this country, but there were a few already residing in the most southern
areas from california to texas

Ken Pisichko

If you want to play THAT game, look at human "conquest" of any land. Some day
Nebraska and Texas and even New York will be held by a "nation" other than the
USA. Same goes for the other 49 states and for that Bay held by the US military
in Cuba, etc.... Nothing lasts forever. Read the poem "Ozymandeous of Egypt"
that is in some high school reading requirements. Same old story :-(

No point in making fun of some other group of people because they don't meet
your (i.e. the ridiculer's) standards. Differences is what makes this world so
rich. Is that not one of the reasons why the USA wanted immigration so many
years ago (aka "Give us your unwanted....... (people) ....."?

"H. Reader" wrote:

    > "--=Cochise~|||~Guardian=--" <jay*--REMOVE--*@adnmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:23:13 -0600, Ken Pisichko <> opined:
    > >
    > > >--=Cochise~|||~Guardian=-- wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>
    > > >> The Mexican was too weak to hold onto anything significant, and is
    > still to stupid or too corrupt to create a
    > > >> decent society. The only good Mexican is either "en México," or "en
    > carcerated." Of course there's one other
    > > >> sort of "good Mexican", and that's "en terra," if you get my drift :-D
    > > >>
    > > >
    > > >Sounds like the rationale used by other nations in colonizing a free
    > peoples and putting them into colonial
    > > >"slavery". Materialistic Bullies talk that talk. What is wrong with
    > someone holding on to what is "theirs" -
    > > >unless a bully covets it?
    > >
    > > Kindly provide proof that the lowly Mexican held the territory in question
    > for more than about 25 years after
    > > stealing said territory from Spain.
    > The lowly Mexicans never did hold the territory; the Apaches and
    > Comanches did.