Support the Constitution - Support Ron Paul

[lowlux]

http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom

www.ronpaul2008.com

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

[othellobloke]

Lowlux...

He has never voted to raise taxes. - good and bad
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. - good
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. - good and bad
He has never voted to raise congressional pay. - good
He has never taken a government-paid junket. - good
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. - good and bad

He voted against the Patriot Act. EXCELLENT
He voted against regulating the Internet. - good and bad
He voted against the Iraq war. EXCELLENT

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

-------------------------------

If I was a Yank, I'd vote for Joe Biden without hesitation. He's the only one of your politicians that gets straight to the point. Sometimes in politics, you just have to do it without all the talk. He'd do that.

-------------------------------

Originally Posted by Serra

So, basically you are saying that Ron Paul is an anti-bush commie?

Serra...

as with all political systems, there are a LOT of good parts to communism. The problems happen when its taken to its extreme and it isn't applied equally or fairly which happens all the time.

Anyone with real intellect is a anti-bush. Good Republicans should be anti-bush. The entire world is anti-bush. The problem is HIM.

[othellobloke]

What America needs in a President is someone who:

• will use America's economic power better to serve poorer nations.
• isn't afraid to commit it's troops and military power to RIGHTEOUS conflicts in which America has no vested interest in.
• will stop acting like America doesn't need or care about any other nation's opinions.
• will erase the bigotry and predjudice in the police and judiciary.
• will fairly settle all land disputes with Native Americans and give them the back monies they are owed.
• will stop America's military acting like Russia and China are threats to America's security.
• will establish a National Health Service so everyone can get free health care.

[jojoyohan]

Better dead than red.

[slapshotw]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

What America needs in a President is someone who:

• will fairly settle all land disputes with Native Americans and give them the back monies they are owed.
• will establish a National Health Service so everyone can get free health care.

There are huge problems with both of these points. I don't necessarily agree with either of them, and certainly don't count Native American reparations (with all due respect to them) among my top 20 issues I care about in a president.

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by slapshotw

There are huge problems with both of these points. I don't necessarily agree with either of them, and certainly don't count Native American reparations (with all due respect to them) among my top 20 issues I care about in a president.

That should be surprising but sadly it's not at all. Americans like to think they're avidly against human rights abuses, but choose to have blinders/blinkers on when it comes to the bullcrap that happens daily in their own country.

I can guarantee that if the housing and health issues were applied to the same percentage of the non-native population you'd definitely have something to say about it.

It's the same in Australia, America and Canada. Nobody gives a shit about the blatant human rights abuses all three countries have been founded on, and no-one cares about the daily life of the indigenous folk because most people are too busy tending their typical american lawns, with their six litre SUV's, and their widescreen tv's and all the other crap you get in typical America.

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by slapshotw

There are huge problems with both of these points. I don't necessarily agree with either of them, and certainly don't count Native American reparations (with all due respect to them) among my top 20 issues I care about in a president.

I'm sorry but you just pissed me off. It's quite easy to be so blase when it comes to someone else's life, and someone else's problems isn't it.

I hope the government and the people one day owe you something - it'll be interesting to see if you act so nonchalantly then.

The U.S is part of the UN. Read it and weep:

And to this end Declares that:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

I can guarantee that if the housing and health issues were applied to the same percentage of the non-native population you'd definitely have something to say about it.

One of the problems with making generalizations is that inaccuracies creep in, weakening an overall position.

Yes, the U.S. federal government and white settlers have been treating indigenous North Americans unfairly for centuries. Yes, there are many, many problems that should be corrected.

But your statement about health and housing is a drastic simplification that is not totally accurate.

Health: yes, the native population in the U.S. suffers from statistically higher rates of some conditions than the non-native population. But unlike the non-native population (with the exceptions of the armed services, veterans and federal prisoners), every single registered native is guaranteed healthcare, regardless of income. The Indian Health Service, a branch of the U.S. Public Health Service, is the closest equivalent in the U.S. to the UK's National Health Service, in that it provides care--not coverage as the Canadian province-run systems do.

Yes, it may not be the best care. Yes, there are lots of problems with it. But it is a guaranteed minimum level of care, unlike all other segments of our population besides veterans, service members and federal prisoners (poor people, senior citizens and some disabled ones receive health coverage, not directly-provided care.)

Housing: this varies drastically by tribe. Yes, there are enormous problems with the reservation system. Yes, several hundred years of unfair treaties and settlements have resulted in terrible inequities concerning native lands.

But while the majority of our natives may be in tribal situations with housing problems, it is NOT accurate to say that all of them are. Wisconsin's Menominee, for example, emerged from a unique federal experiment between the 1920s and 1950s with a thriving tribal lumber enterprise and a government, land, and housing situation unlike any other U.S. tribe.

In the eastern U.S., some tribes are using gambling revenues to improve native housing. Other tribes have negotiated modern agreements with federal and state governments that have improved conditions.

I am not making one of those inane statements non-natives often spew (particularly in some rural areas where native and non-native populations are roughly equal numerically) about "how good" natives have it, or claiming that gambling revenues have fixed everything, or any other idiotic argument generalizing in the opposite direction from your generalizations.

[slapshotw]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

I'm sorry but you just pissed me off. It's quite easy to be so blase when it comes to someone else's life, and someone else's problems isn't it.

I hope the government and the people one day owe you something - it'll be interesting to see if you act so nonchalantly then.

The U.S is part of the UN. Read it and weep:

I'm sorry but you pissed me off. Besides everything that Gwyneth said, which by the way were SPECIFIC FACTS instead of overly sweeping generalizations, I don't remember saying I don't care about anybody else's problems. Wait, let me look over my post...nope, still not there. On a lower level, I obviously take enough time out of my day each day to help other people with their problems on this board. In fact, a great many of the highest-posting members of this board are Americans. Now is this board consequential in American politics? Obviously not, but it's an easy counter-example to your statement that nobody in America cares about others.

On a higher, and more important level, I said that Native American rights were not a huge priority in my choice for President. More importantly to me are issues like abortion. Do you know that though abortion is legally allowed in this country, many states make it or are making it so difficult for women to have them that they essentially become impossible? I'll take a strongly pro-choice candidate over one whose biggest stance is Native American rights any day. Disagree with me? That's fine, but notice I won't blatantly offend you or your entire country. Instead, I respect your right to have different opinions than me about different issues. Just because we disagree about what America's priorities should be doesn't mean I'm going to completely dismiss your opinion, like you just did.

I could name a lot of other issues that are more important to me than Native American rights. They all have something to do with people who are in some way, in my belief, being treated wrongly. So take your "holier-than-thou I-believe-it-so-it-must-be-the-most-important-thing" attitude elsewhere.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by slapshotw

Disagree with me? That's fine, but notice I won't blatantly offend you or your entire country. Instead, I respect your right to have different opinions than me about different issues. Just because we disagree about what America's priorities should be doesn't mean I'm going to completely dismiss your opinion, like you just did.

I could name a lot of other issues that are more important to me than Native American rights. They all have something to do with people who are in some way, in my belief, being treated wrongly. So take your "holier-than-thou I-believe-it-so-it-must-be-the-most-important-thing" attitude elsewhere.

To take Matt's point and amplify it...

Isn't your telling us what our political priorities ought to be contrary to the spirit of no. 2 in the U.N. list you quoted? Not our views, but our priorities.

And it seems to me that your sweeping generalizations are on the same slippery slope as the racism, prejudice, and bigotry you decry. While you could defend them on the grounds that they are motivated by justice and a desire for equality, they are still generalizations based on assumptions about entire classes, nationalities, and other groups of people.

Ah, but they're different, you might say. Yes, but the difference is of a degree. They remain generalizations based on opinions, and the other way around.

Our country has a lot of problems. But we are still allowed to decide which of these problems are our personal priorities and choose officials whose proposed solutions we believe might work.

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by Serra

Get over it and move on. Its not going to happen and that is the end of it. If Native Americas sit around and wait for reparations, they will just waste their time and their lives.

It may interest you to know that my family IS NATIVE AMERICAN! We are members of the Cherokee Nation. So this isn't, as you say, someone else's problem.

If that's true which I have doubts about it seems like you're what a lotta tribes call a 'hang-around-the-fort-indian'. I've been offered (in person) tribal enrollment in two different Cherokee tribes.

Matt... you said there's a lot more important things than Native rights like abortion. As I said... it's quite easy for you to be blase about human rights abuses so long as its not YOUR human rights abuses. You should try visiting a rez. Not one of the ones like the Menominee or the Coeur D'Alene's who've ingratiated and integrated themselves with the white folk... but the ones where the water is unfit to drink, where the houses have hazardous mould up the corners of the walls... where the illiteracy rate is higher than 50%... where the folk can't walk into the nearest town outside the rez for fear of being beaten by the fuzz (cops)... or where alcoholism is rampant causing misery for THOUSANDS and yet the government still grants a license for a white guy to open a liquor store in the middle of the rez.

I still have faith that if you experience these things first hand like I have MANY times, you'll change your views.

[othellobloke]

I did NOT say you were not indian enough. I said I have doubts. No native with any real regard for their people having understood what its like to live the way the majority of natives do would EVER say what you said.

Aside from that... many hundreds of thousands claim Cherokee ancestry. Everybody says 'my grandmother's father was cherokee'... most of them are dubious.

Do you have a CIB card?

EDIT: and whether your indian enough should depend on your blood quantum. It all depends on what the tribe accepts... there are some tribes in canada and the U.S where 90% on the rez are plainly white folk who have less than 1/16th native blood.

The approximate figure is around 1/4 native blood based upon many people I've spoken to - although this does vary from tribe to tribe.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

Matt... you said there's a lot more important things than Native rights like abortion. As I said... it's quite easy for you to be blase about human rights abuses so long as its not YOUR human rights abuses.

You are misquoting Matt, who did not say there were more important things but that his personal priorities in evaluating U.S. presidential candidates were different.

Originally Posted by othellobloke

You should try visiting a rez. Not one of the ones like the Menominee or the Coeur D'Alene's who've ingratiated and integrated themselves with the white folk... but the ones where the water is unfit to drink, where the houses have hazardous mould up the corners of the walls...

According to this statement, tribes who have achieved better conditions did it because they "ingratiated and integrated themselves with the white folk"; by inference, not doing this has resulted in squalorous conditions.

Aside from the rather patronizing way you are ignoring any effects of tribal and self determination and enterprise, you seem to be making an impossible tautology: tribes are living in terrible conditions because white society and government hasn't fixed them, but those who are not living in terrible conditions have come to unacceptable accommodations with white society and government.

In any case, your other statement about being offered enrollment by two different tribes would indicate that corruption also occurs at the tribal level (unless your ancestry qualified you, which was not clear from your post.)

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

You are misquoting Matt, who did not say there were more important things but that his personal priorities in evaluating U.S. presidential candidates were different.

Is there really any difference? His priorities are different he said. I'm trying to point out what's more important than basic human rights?

Originally Posted by gwyneth

According to this statement, tribes who have achieved better conditions did it because they "ingratiated and integrated themselves with the white folk"; by inference, not doing this has resulted in squalorous conditions.

Aside from the rather patronizing way you are ignoring any effects of tribal and self determination and enterprise, you seem to be making an impossible tautology: tribes are living in terrible conditions because white society and government hasn't fixed them, but those who are not living in terrible conditions have come to unacceptable accommodations with white society and government.

Sorry if you don't like it... but that's the way it is. I don't need to point out the differences between native traditional and cultural differences to the rest of us. Becoming commercially successful simply is NOT a traditional native value... they only get that by integrating and adopting the 'eurocentric' culture and way of life.

They ARE living in terrible conditions because the feds have not honoured their agreements.

When you invade a country - you make it right afterwards. You don't leave the indigenous folk living in squalor well below the poverty line with a suicide rate four times higher than the rest of the population. America's saying its doing that in Iraq... why can't America do it in America?

Originally Posted by gwyneth

In any case, your other statement about being offered enrollment by two different tribes would indicate that corruption also occurs at the tribal level (unless your ancestry qualified you, which was not clear from your post.)

Natives are subject to corruption too... although the effects have magnified tremendously since colonisation.

It's a fact that every single social problem natives in Canada, America and Australia have today... are a DIRECT result of colonisation. Sad considering the image all three like to portray across the world as the defenders of human rights. Even sadder that Cuba and Iran had to table a motion at the United Nations in May to censure Canada for its genocide of native people.

[othellobloke]

I think the problem natives have is the crap has been happening for so long and continues everyday - bearing in mind there'll ALWAYS be other problems such as troops fighting wars, environmental protection, healthcare etc. Native issues take a backburner to these issues as they're deemed not important enough to take precedence and so the cycle will go on forevermore.

It's cheaper for the three governments to just pay what they owe, settle the claims and put it to rest.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

Is there really any difference? His priorities are different he said. I'm trying to point out what's more important than basic human rights?

No, his priorities in choosing a candidate, not his overall priorities, and they're not the same.

Here I think we run into one of those political system differences that can really interfere with communication and understanding.

People from parliamentary systems (UK, Canada) may know intellectually that our electoral process is different, but comprehending the way we vote is almost impossible when you grow up voting for a party rather than a person. (Prime minister is leader of party with majority--if you want Cabbage party prime minister, you vote locally for Cabbage party candidate, no matter how much you might like and admire the local Broccoli party candidate or think him or her more suited.)

Even if, in presidential elections, many U.S. voters do end up choosing party rather than person, many don't. So each of us individually has to determine which issues are deal breakers and which are table stakes, as they say at the phone company. And weigh their relative importance.

Deal breakers for some voters would be table stakes for others--some voters would never vote for a candidate backing state distribution of marshmallows, while others would not even consider voting for a pro-marshmallow distribution.

So part of the voting decision is whether, say, marshmallow distribution, pro or con, is more important than subsidized Frisbee lessons, pro or con.

Originally Posted by othellobloke

Sorry if you don't like it... but that's the way it is.

Whether I like a situation has nothing to do with how well somebody describes it.

You are presenting a Prisoner's Dilemma. In your depiction there are only two unacceptable options: suck up or live in squalor.

Originally Posted by othellobloke

When you invade a country - you make it right afterwards. You don't leave the indigenous folk living in squalor well below the poverty line with a suicide rate four times higher than the rest of the population.

As your own country, England, did with Scotland?

Ironically, much of the colonization you decry in Canada was a result of displaced Scots trying to cope with the horrible results of English domination in the 17th and 18th centuries.

While the effect of this Scottish diaspora on the indigenous populations of North America is undeniably part of the bad bargain natives got, the Scots who stayed went to work improving their situation.

They realized that universal early education, hard work, and effective use of the resources they had would get them much further than waiting for the English to make things right and whining about the resources they (Scots) didn't have.

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

As your own country, England, did with Scotland?

Ironically, much of the colonization you decry in Canada was a result of displaced Scots trying to cope with the horrible results of English domination in the 17th and 18th centuries.

While the effect of this Scottish diaspora on the indigenous populations of North America is undeniably part of the bad bargain natives got, the Scots who stayed went to work improving their situation.

They realized that universal early education, hard work, and effective use of the resources they had would get them much further than waiting for the English to make things right and whining about the resources they (Scots) didn't have.

I'm not at all proud of England's history... especially it's military conquests (although I think America would be a far better place if independence hadn't happened). I'm well aware that England's exploits in Scotland were barbaric.

The difference between the English genocide in Scotland and the American genocide in America is that the cultures in the British Isles are VERY closely connected and very similar. After the English conquered Scotland and quelled the 'intifada' they left. Go to Scotland now and you'll find a TINY percentage of the four million are native English.

That's not so for America. You all haven't left, and the natives aren't free to pursue their destiny as defined by themselves.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

The difference between the English genocide in Scotland and the American genocide in America is that the cultures in the British Isles are VERY closely connected and very similar. After the English conquered Scotland and quelled the 'intifada' they left. Go to Scotland now and you'll find a TINY percentage of the four million are native English.

A little more accuracy, please.

When James VI/I found himself king of England at the beginning of the 17th century, the Scots spoke a different language, had a different culture, different societal organization, different language.

As late as the Highland Clearances at the end of the 18th century, most Scots still spoke Gaelic, not English. (There is so little overlap that only about a dozen words in English are of Gaelic/Celtic origin.)

The garrison of the English army stationed at Stirling Castle in 1745 to prevent native uprising did not leave until 1964.

[othellobloke]

Don't patronise me. I did not say they were the same. I said they're closely connected and similar. So a little more accuracy with you please.

Secondly... a garrison or even army bases aren't a population. They're a bunch of soldiers. You'd be lucky if you found 200,000 English people in Scotland. They've got their country - we've got ours. So what I said does ring true - the English domination physically left - the only reason Scotland is still part of the union is because the people voted to stay.

When your people (non-natives) got to America they murdered medicine men for dancing spiritual dances, kidnapped and imprisoned children for speaking their own language and eradicated their lifeline - the bison. After all the horrors committed and an estimated 140million natives across north america were eradicated your people are still there. That's the difference between the British in Scotland and the Yanks in America.

I'm not one of those who think we should all effoff back to Europe - colonisation was always meant to happen - the process was unavoidable. The problem is the way colonisation happened and the unwillingness on the oppressors to make amends with the oppressed.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

Don't patronise me. I did not say they were the same. I said they're closely connected and similar. So a little more accuracy with you please.

They were neither closely connected nor similar, although they had slightly more in common than the European conquerors and North American natives did.

Perhaps they now seem closely connected and similar because it is convenient for your argument to forget this is the result of almost 400 years of assimilation, the first two centuries of which were as forced and barbaric as anything you decry about the treatment of indigenous people in North America and Australia.

Contrary to your assertion, nothing about the way you present the English occupation of Scotland "rings true":

When your people (non-natives) got to America they murdered medicine men for dancing spiritual dances, kidnapped and imprisoned children for speaking their own language and eradicated their lifeline - the bison. After all the horrors committed and an estimated 140million natives across north america were eradicated your people are still there. That's the difference between the British in Scotland and the Yanks in America.

Every single thing you cite has a parallel in England's historic treatment of Scotland, and it's disingenuous to act as if the English pulled out of Scotland almost without a trace.

But here's what I think is offensive: the fact that in your posts about the Scots, Serra's native ancestry, and several of the U.S. native tribes you act as if you are qualified not only to interpret indigenous feelings and values, but to determine which are 'valid' and 'authentic'.

Your statement about the British army in Scotland, "a garrison or even army bases aren't a population. They're a bunch of soldiers" seems to be saying that it shouldn't be a big deal to the Scots.

You expressed doubt about whether Serra has native ancestry, apparently because his opinions don't conform to what you think they ought to be.

You say the way several U.S. tribes have chosen to organize their modern affairs is contrary to native values. That would be your interpretation of native values, not theirs.

It is one thing to say, accurately, that colonizers destroyed native values, obliterated customs, acquired the continent unscrupulously, slaughtered peoples, and failed to honor virtually every treaty they made, then express the opinion that fair reparation should be made today.

However, making pronouncements, as an outsider, about which native values are "authentic," "valid," or desirable, is not that different, philosophically, from the U.S. deciding that democracy is a value the Iraqis should treasure.

Of course, there's a huge difference in real world consequences. But although your position may seem more benign, being based on historic reality rather than a completely alien concept, it's still a form of outsider cultural determinism.

It's certainly not the full-fledged cultural imperialism of our current administration, but displays a similar unshakable conviction that the outsider is qualified to decide what people should want.

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

They were neither closely connected nor similar, although they had slightly more in common than the European conquerors and North American natives did.

On the first half of this we'll have to agree to disagree because I think you're wrong.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Perhaps they now seem closely connected and similar because it is convenient for your argument to forget this is the result of almost 400 years of assimilation, the first two centuries of which were as forced and barbaric as anything you decry about the treatment of indigenous people in North America and Australia.

I'm very well aware of the barbarity of England's history thank you.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Contrary to your assertion, nothing about the way you present the English occupation of Scotland "rings true":

Again - agree to disagree because you're wrong.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Every single thing you cite has a parallel in England's historic treatment of Scotland, and it's disingenuous to act as if the English pulled out of Scotland almost without a trace.

Take a holiday to Scotland. Don't only visit the major service centres, but go out in the Highlands. Take a notepad and pencil and start counting how many English people you meet.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

But here's what I think is offensive: the fact that in your posts about the Scots, Serra's native ancestry, and several of the U.S. native tribes you act as if you are qualified not only to interpret indigenous feelings and values, but to determine which are 'valid' and 'authentic'.

I am qualified to interpret indigenous feelings and values. More than most (NOT ALL) non-natives at least. I make it my business to find out and learn. I've lived on a rez in Canada for a long time. I've visited MANY reserves/reservations all the way from Arizona to Alberta - literally. I study the history of this continent in my free time, I talk to every elder I meet to hear their stories. I've been to about ten different historical sites in the U.S where massacres of natives happened. I talk to elders in McDonald's... I talk to young people at the supermarket... I talk to people in a lot of places to find out their experiences, opinions and stories. The town I live in has a HUGE population of native people with quite a number of reserves within an hour of town which I travel to frequently. I was studying the history of natives from London before I even flew to this side of the Atlantic.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Your statement about the British army in Scotland, "a garrison or even army bases aren't a population. They're a bunch of soldiers" seems to be saying that it shouldn't be a big deal to the Scots.

I'm aware that's how it may have looked - that's not the way I mean it. What I should have said is the military almost entirely did not prevent the Scots from doing as they please or practicing any part of their traditions.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

You expressed doubt about whether Serra has native ancestry, apparently because his opinions don't conform to what you think they ought to be.

When it comes to what Serra said about native ancestry... it's a commonly seen thing depending on which side you're arguing for. All too often when a conversation regarding native human rights comes up, you'll have someone on the opposite who'll ALWAYS say something to the effect of 'don't accuse me of being predjudice because my grandmother was a cherokee princess'... it happens ALL THE TIME! And I said before I thought it was dubious because nobody who had any respect or understanding of the lives native people have to deal with would ever say what Serra said unless they had a brain malfunction or were brought up away from their people not experiencing the life.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

You say the way several U.S. tribes have chosen to organize their modern affairs is contrary to native values. That would be your interpretation of native values, not theirs.

Not values - traditions. Obviously natives didn't have casinos or computers.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

It is one thing to say, accurately, that colonizers destroyed native values, obliterated customs, acquired the continent unscrupulously, slaughtered peoples, and failed to honor virtually every treaty they made, then express the opinion that fair reparation should be made today.

To me this has a double meaning. Could you rephrase this so I don't misunderstand your meaning please?

Originally Posted by gwyneth

However, making pronouncements, as an outsider, about which native values are "authentic," "valid," or desirable, is not that different, philosophically, from the U.S. deciding that democracy is a value the Iraqis should treasure.

I'm not entirely certain that's what I was doing... rather stating it like I see it from a 'learned' outsider's point of view of native issues.

To slapshot...

Correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't you saying that a woman's right to have an abortion after she was too horny to use a condom is more important than giving native people clean water to drink? (this is what I interpreted from you saying native issues wouldn't be a priority in your choice of candidate).

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by othellobloke

On the first half of this we'll have to agree to disagree because I think you're wrong.

(snip)

Again - agree to disagree because you're wrong.

The words after 'because' make the words before it meaningless. Totally.

Originally Posted by othellobloke

Take a holiday to Scotland. Don't only visit the major service centres, but go out in the Highlands. Take a notepad and pencil and start counting how many English people you meet.

I couldn't possibly impose more on my 9th and 10th cousins near Ft. William, Loch Ness, and Inverness than the month or two I already visit each year.

BTW, you should contact the General Register Office for Scotland and let it know that its 2001 census results are grossly inaccurate.

Clearly its claim that 8 percent of the 5,062,011 residents in Scotland on Census day were born in England is exaggerated, being more than double your estimate. Obviously its figure that in total, 12 percent of those 5 million were either born in England or had at least one English parent is way off, being about triple your estimate.

You may also want to let the Scottish parliament's task force on "anti-English bullying" know that there couldn't be a problem because the English presence is negligible.

Originally Posted by othellobloke

I am qualified to interpret indigenous feelings and values.

Hiberniores Hibernicis ipsis.

Originally Posted by othellobloke

To slapshot...

Correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't you saying that a woman's right to have an abortion after she was too horny to use a condom is more important than giving native people clean water to drink?

Aside from the thoroughly offensive way this is phrased and the willful mis-interpretation of Matt's statement, this argument contains a number of logical fallacies, a condition which, unfortunately, hasn't bothered you in many of your posts.

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Aside from the thoroughly offensive way this is phrased and the willful mis-interpretation of Matt's statement, this argument contains a number of logical fallacies, a condition which, unfortunately, hasn't bothered you in many of your posts.

If that's offensive, please let me know how else to phrase it. You can nitpick all you want about what he said but the 'boil it to the bone' phrase says that he puts abortion rights above native issues.

I just defined particulars. Offensive is putting native issues (which are about basic human rights) below a woman's right to use abortion as contraception.

A five year old child has more of a right to clean water free of e-coli, salmonella or foot and mouth diseases, than a 27 yr accounts executive at a bank who got intoxicated one night, committed a silly indiscretion and now wants someone else to solve the problem that might ruin her career.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

Hiberniores Hibernicis ipsis.

Convenient that you take it out of context.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

BTW, you should contact the General Register Office for Scotland and let it know that its 2001 census results are grossly inaccurate.

Firstly I wouldn't trust the Scots to count a pile of dog turds. Secondly I hate correcting myself.. but maybe I should have used the phrase 'consider themselves British' instead. The point I was making is that there aren't many people in Scotland that either consider themselves British, English or were born in England. So in effect... we HAVE left Scotland - nitpicking doesn't do anything.

Originally Posted by Serra

I don't want to be a total pain, but this whole Scotland thing is making my head spin. My wife is 50% Scotish and 50% English, her Mum is from Scotland and her Dad is English and grew up in Ireland. My wife grew up in England before she came to the US to live.

So while othellobloke may think he has cornered the market on being indigenous, clearly my family has closer and direct knowledge about Scotland and England than his ever will. Basically, everything he said is wrong.

I was born and lived in England my whole life. MANY of my family live in Scotland (they're from Ireland). I lived about an hour from the border for a number of years making trips sometimes once a day into Scotland. I've been visiting the highlands since I was 13. So I'm not sure how you can quantify 'closer and direct knowledge'.

You never did answer my question if you have a Certificate of Indian Blood.

[othellobloke]

gwyneth... in one sentence I can sum up the differences:

The Scots got their country and their land back. The indigenous Americans haven't.

[othellobloke]

Originally Posted by Serra

Nope, the rest of the family does, but I do not. Never bothered to get one, don't see the value in it, as my son is only 1/8, he doesn't qualify, so I have nothing to pass on.

Which Cherokee band if you don't mind me asking?