"Native Americans"??

[pocketfullofshells]

No insult intended PFOS.

Again, I recognize the differences between Libtard, Liberal, and liberal. You are a liberal (little "L"), and even though we may disagree on certain things, at least you're able to elucidate your arguments fairly succinctly. Liberals, on the other hand, generally fail in that regard and have to resort to twisting someones words in an attempt to save face when it's been pointed out to them that they haven't thought their position through (hence, Liberal with their thought process, and Liberal with their definitions). Libtards are an entirely different species, and are very similar to Rushbots in that they're utterly incapable of thinking for themselves, and can only regurgitate the pablum they've been spoon-fed by their masters. Frankly, if he's on "our" side, we have bigger problems than I realized.

Libs problem is that I took a stance in defense of Gen. Clark's Silver Star and Purple Heart, and he completely ignored the fact that I pointed out, quite clearly, that none of his Bronze Stars were awarded in keeping with the letter and spirit of the requirements for those Awards (it would appear that Clark's first CO was a bit "Liberal" with the definition of "heroic action", and managed to apply it to paperwork, in a comfy office, in Saigon). No, he took the fact that someone, with military experience, in a combat zone, might have a better comprehension of what does and does not meet the requirements for the Awards, as an affront and chose instead to turn his attack on me for having the temerity to disagree with his Limbaughesque "logic".

Did you notice that he failed, repeatedly, to produce even one member of then Lt. Clark's unit who was willing to testify that Clark DIDN'T deserve those awards? Seems kind of strange that when Kerry's Purple Hearts came into question, there was no shortage of former members of his units to come forward and say that they were bogus. When the question was raised about President Bush being "AWOL", several former members of his unit quickly came forward to denounce those slanders, and he immediately ordered the full release of his 214 file to prove the allegations were false, but when it comes to Clark's decorations, <chirp,chirp. chirp,chirp> NOTHING. Nobody has come forward to dispute his Awards at all, but Lib has fallen under the influence of the age old logical fallacy that "absence of proof is proof of absence".

Since then, he's taken every opportunity to be completely disagreeable with me, and therefore I am compelled to deal with him as I would a small annoying child. Try to explain something to him, but when he becomes willful, simply smack him on the butt and send him to his room. If he IS on "our" side, it would do him well to review some of our discussions, where even though we've disagreed, we've managed to keep it civil, or better yet, he might want to look at some of the discussions between Gen Sen and myself where we have disagreed, or had varying view points, and have still managed to keep it civil.

I hate to tell you this but yea, the Rushbots as you call them, realy have a major infestation on your party the last few years. The amount of times I have , or had others who agreed with the same position as me, as unamerican or something along those lines...its long, and yet when I question them on basic facts, they are often stumped. Attacking patriotism, seems to be one of the ways they know how to debate something. That or use of logic that a parent would use on a small child...the because I said so fact. Lib I believe suggested that the United States would basically leave Iran smoking ruins if we went to war and I believe said we would not even have to put many troops into Iran....Of course the fact that no one talking about any attack on Iran is talking about attacks where the goal would be to destroy the nation , so the point is not worth anything anyway. It seems to me that way way to many on the right are like Rush, Chicken Hawks. Think the Military is always the way to go, and always the patriots think we can just crush anyone at will with little hurt on out side...Never looking at the real data, and just willing in my view to just throw US troops into war, with little regard to their lives...but will wave that flag and think that makes them support the troops.

Personally, I have never served, but I am never one to say Military force is never justified. But when I do start saying we should use it, I take a long hard look at what is going on, a fav source is one I belive you know well, GlobalSecurity.org. And it just angers me to know end that the same people who often I see calling me and others on my side Unamerican, seem to care so very little to actually educate them-self before they call for war. I will admit I have seen it on the left as well, calling for Troops to go into places like Rwanda to stop the Genocide ...when in fact it would just be sending US troops to die and no US Security issues are at stake, nor is there any logical plan for what they could do, outside stand in the middle and get killed by all sides.

Sometimes I don't know what part of the Right I fear the most, the RushBots...or the Christian Right...who seems to care more about stopping gays, ( who I know you don't care for, but support equal right for though our view of equal differs) then about things like Iraq, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, the Economy, really alot of important issues.

I can just say, that god ( ok so I am a agnostic lol) that I live in MN, where the Independence Party still has some power ( formerly Reform Party) where we have about a perfect mix of aiming for good government, less wast, but liberal social ideas.

And on your Clark issue I agree 100% that he has no ground at all to attack his medals...I also dont believe that the swift boat people should have attacked Kerry's, even if they dont agree with if he should have got them personally. The Military made its judgement at the time, and I see no reason to try to take that away from him. He served, did a lot more then many of those on the right who attacked him the hardest for it, and it opens all vets up to questioning there medals as well. As for Bush, I if there is real reason to believe that someone running for office did not fill there duties in the guard that that should be looked at, and I still have not seen much to show that he did much of anything with the bulk of his time in the Guard. As for if he filled the legal requirements....the Military seems to think so, so I have to go with that...but he did not do anything in my view to make his time spend relevant me from a voting standpoint. I really stopped looking into it as he won anyway so would not change anything, so I never looked hard when he put out the papers after.


and you can say libtard, Liberal, or liberal....Im going to deffend them anyway. I always try to say some on the Right...but never lump them all as one, but your way of phrasing it still seems to cast a wide net. I may know what you mean, but I will still deffend there positions unless I compleatly dont agree with them myself lol.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So was mine......megabrain.

yes it is large and powerful, about time you noticed

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
No, you aren't sovereign nations. But wait - maybe I can declare my back yard a sovereign nation.

I've never lived on a reservation, mainly because my people REFUSED to go on the Trail of Tears. As to the sovereignty of the Reservations, tell that to the FBI the next time they have to ASK PERMISSION to enter. As for your back yard, well, if you can get the Federal Government to sign a treaty with you and have your back yard named a Reservation, then I guess you'll be able to have your own Casino too.

The indian reservations have local control - nothing else. Do they have indian passports? No. Do they have UN membership? No. Do they have an army? No. Did they get drafted into the US army in WWII? Yes. Are foreign embassies located on the reservation? No. Do they have their own currency? No.

Give it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
I agree, but this state is full of PC liberals who gave them the monopoly. While the poor, oppressed indians wear armani suits and drive lexuses, the state is drowning in red ink.

You're a Californicator? Then you must be part of the "PC liberal" problem! Don't cry to me about Californications problems. If you want Casino's, tell your Governator about it.

The majority are libs here - they felt sorry for the indians, so they made billionaires out of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
No, they'll all have "graduated" from Harvard - like Obama.

Great. Maybe then they'll actually be contributing to society instead of filling up the prisons.

Ya got me there - I'm all for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
In california, they run all the casinos. As everyone knows, that is a license to print money. California has gigantic political interests - the media, agriculture, aerospace. But you know what group gives the most campaign money to politicians? Those poor disposessed tee pee dwellers. Somehow, they manage to contribute tens of millions of dollars that they saved from hunting buffalos.

So what if they own and run the Casinos? If Californication was really worried about their red ink, they'd grow some brains and quit pissing away their money on every give away program in the world. Damn boy, you're just jealous because the NATIVE AMERICANS have shown that they're smarter than you poor dumb "round eyes".

As I've pointed out - the indians didn't do squat. The libs in this state, the REAL stupid ones, gave them a monopoly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
If people want to sit on their ass in the middle of nowhere and make beads for a living, what should they expect?

They didn't, so they built CASINO'S!

Again - the indians didn't do squat. Gambling interests came into the state and arranged an initiative for a gambling monopoly - which the libs here gave them. The indians didn't build the casinos, and obviously don't run them. Basically they supply some manpower for low level jobs, and take checks to the bank - that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
It's used >>>NOW<<< as a Pee See term of political manipulation.

And it has been for 90 YEARS. NOW all of a sudden you have a problem with it, and you're not even Native American.

Uh, no - for 90 years it would have been a very obscure term used by a few academics in that field. The lib media and establishment turned it into a widely used PC political term about 10 years ago.

 

[Federal Farmer]

The indian reservations have local control - nothing else.

You might want to read up on Montana v US 450 U.S. 544 (1981) in which Justice Potter Stewart (SCOTUS) declared in his writing of the majority opinion that "Relying on its purported ownership of the bed of the Big Horn River, on the treaties which created its reservation and on its inherent power as a sovereign, the Crow Tribe of Montana claims the authority to prohibit all hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe on non-Indian property within reservation boundaries."

Do they have indian passports? No.

No, and until the USAPATRIOT Act, Canadians didn't need passports to come here either, ergo STRAWMAN.

Do they have UN membership? No.

SO WHAT? Italy was denied admission until 1955, Japan until '56, Liechtenstein didn't join until 1990, neither of the Korea's until '91, Monaco didn't join until '93, and Switzerland didn't join the UN until 2002.

Do they have an army? No.

Every man in the various tribes is a member of their 'militia'.

Did they get drafted into the US army in WWII? Yes.

Only AFTER they VOLUNTARILY sought out and signed draft cards. Most simply volunteered though.

Are foreign embassies located on the reservation? No.

And we don't have an Embassy in Cuba either, or for that matter in Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Comoros, Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Kiribati, North Korea, Libya, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Monaco, Nauru, Saint Kitts and, Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Taiwan, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Sahara.

These countries have no Embassy in the US either: Aruba, Bhutan, Comoros, Cuba, Iran, Kiribati, North Korea, Libya, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands Antilles, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Taiwan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu ,Western Sahara

Do they have their own currency? No.

I guess you never heard of the Cherokee dollars that were used through the end of the Civil War? Besides, most Native American tribes still use BARTER, or as the "white man" calls it "wampum".

Give it up.

Why? I'm having a lot of fun destroying your urban legends and myths.

The majority are libs here - they felt sorry for the indians, so they made billionaires out of them.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, the poor "red man" can't do anything without help from the God-like "white man". Try again.

As I've pointed out - the indians didn't do squat. The libs in this state, the REAL stupid ones, gave them a monopoly.

GAVE them a monopoly? How did they "give" the tribes something that they already had the right to do themselves even WITHOUT Californications permission? The State didn't have ANY CHOICE but to acquiesce to the Casinos, or they'd have been in violation of the LAW.

Uh, no - for 90 years it would have been a very obscure term used by a few academics in that field. The lib media and establishment turned it into a widely used PC political term about 10 years ago.

Uh, no, the media finally picked up on the term that had been used in academic and anthropological circles for DECADES. Just because technical terms make it into the public lexicon doesn't mean that the "lib media" did it. I suppose the "lib media" is responsible for us knowing about terms like Quasar, Double Helix, Permian Extinction, or just about any other scientific term that the average joe on the street uses today.

 

[Libsmasher]

You might want to read up on Montana v US 450 U.S. 544 (1981) in which Justice Potter Stewart (SCOTUS) declared in his writing of the majority opinion that "Relying on its purported ownership of the bed of the Big Horn River, on the treaties which created its reservation and on its inherent power as a sovereign, the Crow Tribe of Montana claims the authority to prohibit all hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe on non-Indian property within reservation boundaries."

You're confusing a legal term of art that in this case means "controls locally the land they are on" - not that they are an independent country.

No, and until the USAPATRIOT Act, Canadians didn't need passports to come here either, ergo STRAWMAN.

The arrangements of convenience between the US and Canada certainly don't imply that Canada isn't a country, nor that the tribes are.

SO WHAT? Italy was denied admission until 1955, Japan until '56, Liechtenstein didn't join until 1990, neither of the Korea's until '91, Monaco didn't join until '93, and Switzerland didn't join the UN until 2002.

Why embarass yourself with this crapola? That countries choose when and where to recognize other countries has nothing to do with the fact that NOBODY recognizes indian reservations as nations.

Every man in the various tribes is a member of their 'militia'.

My gf and I constitute the "militia" in Libsmasherland.

Only AFTER they VOLUNTARILY sought out and signed draft cards. Most simply volunteered though.

It was that or go to jail.

And we don't have an Embassy in Cuba either, or for that matter in Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Comoros, Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Kiribati, North Korea, Libya, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Monaco, Nauru, Saint Kitts and, Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Taiwan, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Sahara.

blah blah blah

These countries have no Embassy in the US either: Aruba, Bhutan, Comoros, Cuba, Iran, Kiribati, North Korea, Libya, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands Antilles, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Taiwan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu ,Western Sahara

yakity yakity blabber

I guess you never heard of the Cherokee dollars that were used through the end of the Civil War? Besides, most Native American tribes still use BARTER, or as the "white man" calls it "wampum".

No, I use cherokee dollars all the time - bought my house with them.

Why? I'm having a lot of fun destroying your urban legends and myths.

Hee Hee! the mind boggles..........

Oh, that's right, I forgot, the poor "red man" can't do anything without help from the God-like "white man". Try again.

You are using the white man's computer and internet right now!

GAVE them a monopoly? How did they "give" the tribes something that they already had the right to do themselves even WITHOUT Californications permission? The State didn't have ANY CHOICE but to acquiesce to the Casinos, or they'd have been in violation of the LAW.

Uh, that's not how it happened. Not suffering from your hallucinations, they sought and won the legal right from California. They know otherwise they would be arrested and put in jail.

Uh, no, the media finally picked up on the term that had been used in academic and anthropological circles for DECADES. Just because technical terms make it into the public lexicon doesn't mean that the "lib media" did it. I suppose the "lib media" is responsible for us knowing about terms like Quasar, Double Helix, Permian Extinction, or just about any other scientific term that the average joe on the street uses today.

Get hold of yourself - you're getting far fetched!

The first sentence in wiki under "native american reservation" says:

A Native American reservation (also known as Indian reservation) is an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs. Because the land is federal territory and Native Americans have limited national sovereignty, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area.

Why do you let Bureau of Indian Affairs manage your land? Does France manage american land?

Bag it - it's over.

 

[Federal Farmer]

You're confusing a legal term of art that in this case means "controls locally the land they are on" - not that they are an independent country.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Now a ruling by SCOTUS declaring the lands controlled by the tribes is "a legal term of art"? Tell ya what, why don't you try that and see how far it gets you.

The arrangements of convenience between the US and Canada certainly don't imply that Canada isn't a country, nor that the tribes are.

You just contradicted yourself, would you care to try again?

Why embarass yourself with this crapola? That countries choose when and where to recognize other countries has nothing to do with the fact that NOBODY recognizes indian reservations as nations.

YOU'RE the one that brought up about the UN, I just shot your ass down in flames for making such an absurd assertion in the first place.

My gf and I constitute the "militia" in Libsmasherland.

I don't know about your grandfather, but according to Title 10 Section 311 and Title 32 Section 313 of the US Code, every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45, to age 64 if he has served in the military is in the militia.

It was that or go to jail.

No it wasn't. Native Americans living on the reservations are EXEMPT from the draft.

blah blah blah

yakity yakity blabber

Hey, don't get mad at me, YOU'RE the retard that brought up about Embassies. I just showed you exactly how stupid a point it was to bring up in the first place.

No, I use cherokee dollars all the time - bought my house with them.

If you had enough of them, I'm sure you did, especially since they're worth a bloody GOLD MINE to collectors.

Hee Hee! the mind boggles..........

And yours obviously is

You are using the white man's computer and internet right now!

Actually I'm using a YELLOW mans computer on a BLACK mans internet.

Uh, that's not how it happened. Not suffering from your hallucinations, they sought and won the legal right from California. They know otherwise they would be arrested and put in jail.

Oh REALLY? Would you care to cite the case number so that we can all see how the Judges in the case said that the Native Americans had EVERY RIGHT to do so, and there's wasn't DICK that Californication could do about it?

Why do you let Bureau of Indian Affairs manage your land? Does France manage american land?

Because that's what the Treaties stipulates. Perhaps you're not too familiar with the term Treaty, but Treaties exist between SOVEREIGN NATIONS. Does Californication have a "Treaty" with the US Government? NO? Then why do you let them tell you what to do?

Bag it - it's over.

You're right, it IS over, and YOU LOST.

 

[Libsmasher]

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.

You're grasp is fading as I use more three syllable words.

Now a ruling by SCOTUS declaring the lands controlled by the tribes is "a legal term of art"? Tell ya what, why don't you try that and see how far it gets you.

Why don't you and the other injuns try to set up diplomatic relations with another country?

You just contradicted yourself, would you care to try again?

No I didn't - your brain shorted out over the double negative.

YOU'RE the one that brought up about the UN, I just shot your ass down in flames for making such an absurd assertion in the first place.

YOU are the one who is absurd - you shot YOURSELF down.

I don't know about your grandfather, but according to Title 10 Section 311 and Title 32 Section 313 of the US Code, every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45, to age 64 if he has served in the military is in the militia.

Then why don't you and the "militia" (har har) attack the US? You'll win, because we'll all die laughing.

No it wasn't. Native Americans living on the reservations are EXEMPT from the draft.

You're just wrong. See eg this dissertation:

For the first time, Indians were subject to the draft.

http://academiccommons.columbia.edu:8080/ac/handle/10022/AC:P:1382

The indians had to leave their tomahawks and pick up the white man's rifle.

Hey, don't get mad at me, YOU'RE the retard that brought up about Embassies. I just showed you exactly how stupid a point it was to bring up in the first place.

You claim tribes are sovereign, and then when I point out they do nothing nation states do, you escape with incoherent blaBBER.

If you had enough of them, I'm sure you did, especially since they're worth a bloody GOLD MINE to collectors.

Do they take them at the grocery store? HEE HEE HEE!

Actually I'm using a YELLOW mans computer on a BLACK mans internet.

Uuuuuuuu, and here I thought white guys invented the computer and the internet.

Oh REALLY? Would you care to cite the case number so that we can all see how the Judges in the case said that the Native Americans had EVERY RIGHT to do so, and there's wasn't DICK that Californication could do about it?

You don't know what you're talking about. After spending a HUGE amount of money and working for years, gambling interests, in collaboration with california tribes, got the California Indian Gaming Compact passed by state initiative. There's no reason in the world they would do that if they didn't have to. The indians pay a large amount of revenue to the state taxing authority, as required by state law. Why would they do that if they were "sovereign"?

The basic court decision re indian "sovereignty" (there have been a few non-fundamental tweaks since then) is KAGAMA v. UNITED STATES.

From the federal court decision:

But these Indians are within the geographical limits of the United States. The soil and the people within these limits are under the political control of the government of the United States, or of the states of the Union.

http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/US_V_KAGAMA_1886.HTM

Game, set, match. Get off the court.