Obama: "Mexicans" Were Here "Long Before America Was Even An Idea"

reply to post by neo96


I refuse to read your post when I find a logical fallacy in your first paragraph.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by justadood

That makes him a racist? I'd say it makes him sane, and representative of ALL of America, not just Fox's audience.

Fox's audience represents more of America than all the SCM (state controlled media) combined. You think any or many of that audience approve of what obama is doing - supposedly in their names? Check the polls to be re-educated if you do. Or wait until November and check those ressults.

That's very sad that you think this. Just because of how many viewers it has doesn't mean it represents that many people (I view it and in know way does it represent me). Fox news also puts shame upon the entire right wing party when so many lies are told on it. just do a google search on it. Many former employes have spoken out against fox news. Fox news is into making money, period.

If you think it represents you, that's fine, but then I consider you someone who is a liar & doesn't know how to debate.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...all politicians pander for votes - so pandering for the hispanic vote is no big deal unless you're one of those paranoid "oh my god, they're gonna take over" nitwits...

Two examples of liberal elitism here.

First, pandering to potential voters with lies is OK- because the ruling liberal philosophy is "anything goes". It used to be called "the ends justify the means" when Lenin and Marx made it infamous.

Second, an example of the classic liberal viewpoint that anyone who doesn't agree with them is stupid, retarded, or in this case a "nitwit". Name calling is juvenile behaviour ...

LOL! "name calling is juvenile behavior"- so you like to stereotype type huh?

Lenin and Marx made that quote infamous?

Anything goes??? I haven't said that in a long time.

Originally posted by lawlb0t
Presidents just follow orders (I am not 'excusing' his actions) This is just drama to get you sucked in and its apart of the social manipulation. Is getting your party in office really going to change things?

Presidents follow orders from who? The people, somewhat. Maybe they follow orders from their self, is that what you were getting at?

Social manipulation, drama to get you sucked into where?

Yes, getting your party into office is really going to change things, the healthcare bill is about to go into effect soon as promised, he is working on getting rid of DADT, the dream act is about to happen, he (Obama) has given tax cuts & many more.

Bush got the patriot act into action, lead us into wars, give the top 2% tax cuts.

So yes, when your party is in office stuff gets done. Sometimes it takes a while, but it gets done.

reply to post by rival


I would go back to where we came from.... but it was taken from us too. Our lands in Ireland were taken about 300 years ago, they put our family on 2 boats and sent us here.

By the way, we have Tuscarora and Okaneechee blood in our family now.

So like the punk/rock band The Clash sings..."should I stay or should I go?"

Originally posted by xiphias

Originally posted by centurion1211As I just pointed out to another member seemingly unsure of what year he's living in - Bush is no longer president, obama is. AND ... when Bush was president, plenty of people on ATS went after him for any mistake.

I understand that, but it seems like certain minds prefer to nitpick Obama the (hu)man and not Obama the president. In the case of Bush, there really wasn't any clearly distinguishable line between Bush the man and Bush the president. There's always an ulterior motive. With Bush, it seemed like he was always dragging his personal views and culture into the mix. I can tell that Obama tries, at least in part, to keep his personal opinions separate from his policies. Obama seems, to me anyway, to be more of a "patriot" (and by patriot: I mean defender of the American way) than any other president since JFK. Just my personal opinion; the guy could be green or orange for all I care.

edit on 21-9-2010 by xiphias because: (no reason given)

Wow!

What color are the lenses in your glasses? I say that because I am seeing a completely different picture than you are in President Obama.

He is defending the American way??? More like the 'Ole Soviet Way'. JMHO.

Originally posted by rival


Illegal immigrants have ruined this land. They have ruined the lifestyle.
They have taken from us who are here legally and they give nothing
in return. They just TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE!!!







ftw....I'm Native American Chickasaw




and I'm jk

Well, this does remind me of what my ancestors said. The took without asking. Looks like history repeats itself.

reply to post by justadood
From your earlier post:

Well, because they took enough hand-outs from big insurance companies. Is that really not painfully obvious ot you?

Considering the facts that the HCR tend to benefit big insurance companies and that the big insurance companies actually wrote the bill, big insurance companies paying legislators to vote against the bill would have been pretty STUPID. Don't you agree?

Here was my question....

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by centurion1211
Is Obama trying to justify amnesty by saying things like this?

BTW, what he said is factually incorrect. What is now called Mexico was called New Spain before the Mexicans gained independence almost 50 years after the U.S. did.

source

Obama said:

"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.

The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.

Of course, obama also thinks there are 57 states in the U.S.

edit on 9/21/2010 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

That is the most idiotic nit-picking in the world.

Are you taking issue with his use of the word Mexicans? Should we not refer to indigenous people of the Untied States pre-columbus as "Native Americans"...or would it be innacurate to call them that because the new world wasn't called "America" before Columbus?

Actually you are just confusing....WTF are you nit-picking about in his statement?

edit on 21-9-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

Here is your response Where you couldn't answer my question, but opted to change the subject to another thread. Derailing your own OP on page one. That tells me everything I need to know about this thread and it's author.

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Your guy gets caught either pandering for hispanic votes by spouting inaccurate information and/or he's showing his ignorance and it's "nit-picking".

Here's a similar recent thread showing obama (the constitutional scholar) also screwing up on the Declaration of Independence in a recent speech.

thread

In what sense did everyone else 'share' land with Indians.

and don't try and bs me, I've seen all the movies, and none of the Indians look at all happy about it.

Stopped reading after I realized OP's dumb ass didn't know Spain invaded and conquered the aztecs, mayans and olmecas, just to mention a few tribes, thus the rename to "New Spain".

reply to post by xiphias


But we don't really know Obama the man....he payed lots of money to hide his "manhood."

Originally posted by centurion1211
Is Obama trying to justify amnesty by saying things like this?

BTW, what he said is factually incorrect. What is now called Mexico was called New Spain before the Mexicans gained independence almost 50 years after the U.S. did.

source

Obama said:

"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.

The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.

Of course, obama also thinks there are 57 states in the U.S.

edit on 9/21/2010 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

Technically, since Mexico City has been in existence, with the same name, since long before America was dreamed of, and since many Spaniards born in the New World called the area Mexico and themselves Mexicans, the O man is technically correct. That's the best kind, according to beurocrats. I live in New Mexico, which was once New Spain, and have studied the history, muchas gracias.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Obama said:

"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land,"

What has this got to do with anything anyway? History is full of population movement - people settled in other countries, wars were fought, land was taken, boundaries redrawn. How far back do we want to go?

Originally posted by SirTFiedSkeptic

Originally posted by centurion1211
Is Obama trying to justify amnesty by saying things like this?

BTW, what he said is factually incorrect. What is now called Mexico was called New Spain before the Mexicans gained independence almost 50 years after the U.S. did.

source

Obama said:

"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.

The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.

Of course, obama also thinks there are 57 states in the U.S.

edit on 9/21/2010 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

Technically, since Mexico City has been in existence, with the same name, since long before America was dreamed of, and since many Spaniards born in the New World called the area Mexico and themselves Mexicans, the O man is technically correct. That's the best kind, according to beurocrats. I live in New Mexico, which was once New Spain, and have studied the history, muchas gracias.

Originally posted by SirTFiedSkeptic

Originally posted by SirTFiedSkeptic

Originally posted by centurion1211
Is Obama trying to justify amnesty by saying things like this?

BTW, what he said is factually incorrect. What is now called Mexico was called New Spain before the Mexicans gained independence almost 50 years after the U.S. did.

source

Obama said:

"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.

The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.

Of course, obama also thinks there are 57 states in the U.S.

edit on 9/21/2010 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

Technically, since Mexico City has been in existence, with the same name, since long before America was dreamed of, and since many Spaniards born in the New World called the area Mexico and themselves Mexicans, the O man is technically correct. That's the best kind, according to beurocrats. I live in New Mexico, which was once New Spain, and have studied the history, muchas gracias.

Don Juan de Oñate Salazar (1552–1626) was the first governor of the province of New Mexico, a part of New Spain. Even back in 1600, it was called 'New Mexico', which implies there is an 'Old Mexico'. And there is. It is the area south of New Mexico, which was called 'Mexico' by the Spanish. This is a ridiculous thread. The point is Hispanics have been here for a very long time.

regardless of who was here first, the problem that needs to be solved is Mexicans' no longer see living in there country as a good/viable option, this is the problem.... no amount of fences or amnesty will solve this problem

Originally posted by spartan1337
Stopped reading after I realized OP's dumb ass didn't know Spain invaded and conquered the aztecs, mayans and olmecas, just to mention a few tribes, thus the rename to "New Spain".

I won't resort to liberal-style name calling, but you are the one - along with obama - that needs to get your facts straight. Before Spain conquered their part of the new world, there were no "mexicans", just the tribes you mentioned. The area WAS renamed New Spain by the Spaniards, a name that stuck for a couple hundred years.

How does making an incorrect judgement and then the decision to stop reading deny ignorance in your case? Answer: it doesn't.

For you and a previous poster, I'll say it again. Name calling towards people that simply disagree with you is TOTALLY juvenile behavior. It exposes you as a sort of "one thought wonder", someone who can only come up with one idea (or did someone even give you that thought, too?) and then it's anger and name calling if it doesn't fly.

reply to post by centurion1211


I have to agree with you one point... Obama not being from the southwest often has no idea he's being racially insensitive...


Mexico didn't become a country until 1821 so there were no "Mexican's" Until after that date...
the native peoples of Mexico are many and would prefer you address them by that... Azteca is but one example...

I don't know that I would call Obama a racist... It's more like he's been so sheltered for real day to day life that when he makes a slip he doesn't know...

Originally posted by maybereal11
That tells me everything I need to know about this thread and it's author.

It only shows the rest of us that you cannot handle any criticism of obama whatsoever without taking it to a personal level. Is this possibly a co-dependency issue with you and obama? Do you view criticism of obama as criticism of yourself?

If so, take hope because you don't have to live with this condition, there is help available.

Now, since when did posting supporting text or evidence become "derailing one's own thread"? Would posting excerpts from Woodward's new book also showing obama acting clueless be "derailing one's own thread"? I don't think so. Here's another example of an out of touch obama.

source

Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

We're stronger??? Surely not economically. Surely not psychologically. Many have never recovered form the losses they suffered due to 9/11 even to this day. The least little hint of terrorism still sends the markets reeling. The country has spent and is spending trillions of dollars on wars when we could have spent the money domestically instead. With obama's "grasp" of the situation, no wonder things keep getting worse.

Leading up to the November elections, your political desperation is starting to show big time.

Starting to feel sorry for you, man ...