Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DallasKevin who wrote (42539)	4/30/2013 12:25:40 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

If you don't want to give it back, why do you continually talk about something that existed in the early 1800's? What relevance does it have? just because there were only 80,000 people there did not give the US the right to simply seize the land...along with the resources. What are you talking about? People who owned land and became US citizens still owned their land (I realize there are a few disputes in s Tx, but mostly that is true). Some such folks became wealthy as US citizens. The US didn't "seize the land" ... most of it became US public domain when it became US soil. Re the depression era repatriation, the numbers are disputed, but FDR was the President at the time and koan has assured me he was a good liberal who wouldn't do anything bad to minorities.

To: DallasKevin who wrote (42539)	4/30/2013 5:08:41 PM
From: sm1th	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

did not give the US the right to simply seize the land...along with the resources Let me see if I follow your logic. It was wrong for the US to seize it from Mexico who seized it from Spain who seized it from the aboriginal inhabitants. What exactly is the distinction between good seizing and bad seizing?