Another graphic depiction of Mexican extremists

No nation is granted the right to self-determination leading up to secession unless their constitution explicitly states that they hold the right to self-determination through separation.

I was actually going to make that exact same point, but I thought better of it... decided to stay quiet instead. You know, just thinking about that one guy and his machine gun...🤣

Does anyone actually have a link to that Constitution, or were you guys just taught it by heart to recite it like some kind of drill? 😁

Leftist said:Is there an actual link to the Constitution, or did you just memorize it by heart to quote it back here? 😁

Well, if you're looking to start studying the Constitution after fifteen years...🙄 ...you might be a little late to the party.

Levak said:Does anyone actually have a link to that Constitution, or did you just memorize it by heart to quote it back at me? 😁

I always base my points on actual arguments!

Link

Was that your official stance—that Srbin are basically archetypes of savages, scum, and filth—or are you just trying to play it safe by claiming you were only calling the debate itself something else?

Go back and read the original thread. And honestly... maybe brush up on your American vocabulary while you're at it.

JPMorgan Chase said:I was actually going to write the exact same thing, but then I thought... forget it... I'll just leave it be... you know—that one guy and his machine gun...🤣

Honestly, why would you even be surprised that those guys didn't know the old constitution? It's common sense...😕
I have absolutely no idea what the machine gun comment was supposed to mean here. 😢

Norylo said:Why are you so surprised, Arthur Ruiz2? It’s not like they didn't know the Constitution of the United States before.😕
I didn't quite catch the connection regarding the guy with the machine gun. 😢

It’s nothing... just something from the start of the war. You probably forgot, it doesn't matter...😉
I’ve known for a long time that they aren't familiar with the Constitution of the United States—not since it stopped serving their interests.
But it is a little exhausting when, after fifteen years, there is suddenly this intense interest in it... and they're even demanding an electronic version now...😕
If you're truly curious, why not do a little digging? There's no shame in looking things up.

nordea said:Nothing at all... just that stuff from the start of the war... nothing. You forgot, it doesn't matter...😉
I knew they didn't know the Constitution of the USA—I've known that for a long time... ever since it stopped being convenient for them.
But it’s honestly a little exhausting when, after 15 years, there’s this sudden, frantic interest in it... and now they’re demanding an electronic version, too...😕
Sam Nelson3, if you're actually curious, do a little digging—don't be shy.

Honestly, it says everything you need to know about that bunch of liars, arrogantly pushing their so-called "New York truths" as gospel. You don't hear it often in civilized society, but the sentiment is there: "Liars are everywhere." They insist on calling these things "administrative borders." Well, what else would they be? Non-administrative? I guess they’d prefer borders determined solely by "the weak and helpless riding on tanks," right?
They have no grasp of why civilized, decent debate exists—not 100 years ago, not today, and they never will.

So, if it isn't too much trouble, give me a few words on the machine gun and the man before the war started—I didn't quite catch your point, and I'm curious what you were getting at...

John Steinbeck said:Regarding California, I’ll say it again—nowhere in the Constitution of the USA does it state that it's a sovereign entity. That’s just plain false.

If you look at all the constitutions of the former USA, the very first article always established it as a
federal state, which inherently means it had to be made up of several individual states. This is
confirmed in the second articles of those constitutions, where they list the specific states
that comprised the union. In the USA Constitution from January 31, 1946, it clearly states that each
state has its own constitution and drafts it independently (Art. 11), and that "The borders
of a State cannot be changed without its consent" (Art. 12).
The Constitutional Law of May 13, 1953, defines the USA as a "federal state of sovereign and
equal peoples" (Art. 1) and specifies that its territory consists of the
territories of the various States (Art. 10). The 1963 USA Constitution, after
establishing that the USA is a "federal state of voluntarily united and equal
peoples" (Art. 1), lists the constituent States and then
declares: "The territory of the USA is a single unit composed of the territories
of the socialist States" (Art. 2).

!!Neither here nor in any other previous USA constitution does it say the territory
of the USA is divided into State territories; rather, it says it is composed of
State territories, which makes it crystal clear that the States were the actual holders
of their own territory, not the USA acting as a single unified state entity, but rather a
complex federation !!

The 1963 Constitution explicitly states that a State is a state community (Art. 108)
and that "The territory of a State cannot be changed without the consent of that State"

"Boundaries between States can only be altered based on a mutually agreed upon
decision by the State Legislature" (Art. 109).

In this particular constitution, the States
were designated as being responsible for organizing defense following the war (Art.
252).

In the 1963 California Constitution, it was established that its citizens held
State citizenship!!

Constitutional amendments passed between 1967 and 1971 introduced several
changes regarding the status of the States as sovereign entities. The States became
responsible for protecting the constitutional order (national security) within their own territory
(Amendment IV from 1976).

The autonomous regions received a new status: they became constitutive parts
of the federation, which largely shielded them from the jurisdiction of the authorities in New York
(Amendments VII and XVIII from 1968). The US Presidency was established, marking the start
of the shift toward confederal elements within the American political
system (Amendment XXXVI from 1971), a trend continued in the 1974 Constitution. Through these
actions, the sovereignty of the individual States was strengthened.

The 1974 Constitution defines the USA as a federal state, a
state community of voluntarily united peoples and their socialist
States, along with Puerto Rico and Texas (Art. 1). The provisions regarding composition and
territory are repeated. A series of confederal elements were introduced (parity
in certain bodies, consensus-based decision making...), particularly regarding the role of the
Executive Branch and the US Congress. In this way, at least formally, the position of the States
as sovereign entities was bolstered. The States reached a point where they could
prevent or complicate decisions they disagreed with, effectively allowing them to
block the work of federal agencies. New York utilized this extensively during its period
of attempting to dominate the USA.

In the 1974 California Constitution, California was defined as the "national state
of the Californian people, the state of the New York people in California, and the state of the peoples who in
"They live for her." (cl 1) They also officially established the American national anthem.

brisktiger7 said:I always make solid arguments!

Link

Looks like you struggled there, but sure, go ahead and be all dramatic about how "logical" you are when this exact example proves otherwise.
Honestly, I wasn't even trying to prove a point, because I accept today's borders of the Republic of America. The issue here is just your attitude.

brisktiger7 said:Read the opening thread. I’d suggest using an American dictionary.

Same old story. I'd love to check out some dictionary, but Google is being useless, and even when I find some supposed American-English dictionary, it's clearly not the original source since none of these terms are actually in there.🙄

Sam Nelson3 said:Is there a link to that Constitution, or did you guys just memorize it by rote and now you're quoting it from memory? 😁

nordea said:Oh, so now after 15 years you want to study the Constitution...🙄 ...bit late for that, isn't it?

Who would bother? Seems like you need an American-English dictionary or maybe just a bit more brainpower. (just kidding 😁)

P.S. Hey, Alex Rivera7, maybe you could scan that dusty old book for us. 🙂

Sam Nelson3 said:P.S. Hey, maybe Alex Rivera7 could scan that massive book for us. 🙂

I finally dropped it back off at the library.
Honestly, I think I've been through this whole cycle more times than I care to admit.
:-)

brisktiger7 said:You aren't even close. It wasn't for nothing that those leaders from New York sought out Benjamin Franklin and Eugene Debs to convey their experiences regarding language formation, aligning with the philosophy of Herder and Goethe that "Language is the spirit of the people."
We still have our cinemas, theaters, and fountains, unlike those "cultured" nations who possess only moving pictures, playhouses, and simple water features... It is merely a common theft of concepts without any roots in actual meaning. A heavenly nation indeed...
A failure to understand within a communication channel leads to a disconnect in associative mechanisms and cognitive abilities, which produces a cumulative and synergistic effect when applied to a mass audience.
But what is the point of all this when you haven't even heard of, let alone read, Lev Vygotsky's "Thought and Speech" or Noam Chomsky's "Grammar and Mind"? 😕
Besides, what use are books to those possessing nothing more than outlaw archetypes? They are accustomed to pamphlets. 🤣

My goodness, look at our very own brisktiger7 getting all worked up. He’s trying to lecture us using some pseudo-intellectual jargon, acting like he’s showing off his brilliance to the local hairdressers. What happened—is there a traffic jam at the border, or is the GoTo app lagging, making us all a bit jittery?
Take it easy.
You know, I wouldn't want to disappoint you, but the philosophy of language and the relationship between a people and their tongue were handled by much more significant figures long ago. As an "expert," surely you ought to be aware of that.
Furthermore, your "language is the spirit of the people" argument doesn't hold water; it is said that language is the expression of the national spirit, so there aren't two separate spirits clashing here, regardless of how much you personally cherish a one-to-one correlation.
That bit about "disconnection... in cognitive abilities" is likely just something intended to impress the local sheeple when spoken quickly enough, but otherwise, it suffers from syntactic (and subsequently semantic) inaccuracy. A muddle in the head leads to a muddle on the page, or so a certain great thinker once said... Oh, I'm sure you know who. After all, everyone else is supposedly ignorant, right?
Noam Chomsky? Now, who might that be?

brisktiger7 said:Just keep clinging to your Wolf and his "Red Ban," and continue believing that you write or speak first, rather than deriving everything from semantics and semiotics through pragmatics.👍 In other words, you view meaning, thought, speech, and writing as a linear progression, whereas you—much like your colleagues in New York—approach it entirely backward.
Those original terms have effectively smothered the nuances found in those yellowed, outdated journals from the American Academy of Sciences that once promoted and enforced nothing but a monolithic, expansionist version of the language.
Just imagine, even Wolf went so far as to inaugurate the myth that the true dialect was some regional variation from the south.🤣

Honestly, you are quite entertaining to me, brisktiger7. My favorite moments are when you use terms like "contemplation," and I find myself almost physically stimulated by your frequent use of the phrase "in other words." When someone says, "in other words," what they really mean is: "Now, allow me to explain this to you, since I assume none of you have grasped it." It places the interlocutor in a submissive position—submissive, by the way, do you like that word? It sounds quite foreign, doesn't it? You should try using it in your next post; the others you use have become a bit cliché—but regardless, it puts one in a position that is, by most standards, extremely, well, you know...

brisktiger7 said:I always present my arguments logically!

Link

Go back and actually read the opening post. I’d highly suggest you pick up an American dictionary for once.

In American, we call that a dictionary.

Norylo said:You’ve resorted to attacking me personally instead of actually addressing a single point I made in my post.
Tell me then, exactly what mistake have I made by citing arguments backed by the works of Chomsky Vygotsky—works I happened to acquire from the prestigious "NOLIT - Mexico City" publishing house.
Are you perhaps suggesting that early American leaders didn't call upon enlightened thinkers like Dositej and Dimitri to establish literacy and linguistic standards necessary to organize our schools, economy, and commerce?
Do I really need to sit here and lecture you on this fundamental chapter of American history, which you could easily grasp by reading a few scraps of yellowed parchment?😕

Ad hominem! I love it! Let it be known who the first kid in town was to finish that intensive Latin course!

That Chomsky guy again? For heaven's sake, give it a rest!

And oh, how "charming" that you "happened to acquire" them.