John,
You have gone from calling me "ugly American" to "ignorant", to
claiming my position is based in "arrogance" and superiority", to
reiterating the insult. I don't see that as much progress.
[wel.fare: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in
need]
Treaty or not, the legal history of the aid does not make it
something other than welfare. Of course the Native Americans were
a savagely conquered people who were/are "in need", but that
obviously doesn't make welfare any less damaging or more helpful
to them.
You claim my position offers "no solutions or alternatives", but
that's only because it does not offer them in the form of
more/modified welfare handouts. You claim the paper is "all
bullshit" for the same reason: because it disagrees with your
notion that (modified?) welfare is the solution (to problems
caused by welfare). If welfare is the problem, it cannot be the
solution; the only solution is to stop it.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
---------------------
OK Mark...want a point by point?
On 6/24/06, mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
> > >
> > > You say I do not know what I am talking about.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
1. Correct. You do not. That makes you ignorant. You have not
been there. You
do not seem to realize it was the deal struck with the US
government and the
Ute that, if they gave up their traditional lands on which they
hunted, and
confined themselves to a 2 mile by 2 mile reservation with no
flowing water,
no grassland that could support cattle and no way farm, the
government would
provide their food.
It is not welfare, it is a treaty, a business deal.
This was signed in 1928, The Ute were the last group to be forced
on a
reservation.
There IS no 'work' in the area...it is the least densely
populated and
largest county in the continental USA. There is no industry, no
public
transportation...the largest employer in San Juan County is the
San Juan
School District. Period. It is also a tremendously strong LDS
stronghold.
Most family providers among the Anglo LDS have 2 or 3 part time
jobs because
there is no work. They do not 'hire out'. YOUR suggestion is
this: break
your treaty because we want to now call it 'welfare' and stop all
funding.
The average person on the reservation makes less than $400 a
month. So, in
the USA, you want to stop providing food to people who have no
means to
provide for themselves because the government placed them in a
county with
no work available. If in an place where people need to resort to
eating
flour oil and salt 3 meals a day NOW, you suggest even THAT be
stopped. and
your reason was....WHAT? WELFARE HURTS THEM? Chief, less than 100
years ago
these people flourished in a place that provided for their needs.
They were
stopped from doing that with the GUARANTEE that food and shelter
would be
made available for them. "Welfare' does nto exist...you are
referring to
government provided food and health care. Taking THAT away
without replacing
it with an ALTERNATIVE....THAT would surely *hurt* them. Indeed,
it wold
kill them very quickly.
> Do you mean you
> > disagree that welfare causes and maintains poverty?
> >
>
I *MEAN* that this is NOT welfare and that when Americans have NO
MEANS to
provide for their children and themselves, it is actually the
BEST thing for
them to HAVE it provided instead of starving or dieing from the
elements. If
poverty exists because the Government interfered with existing
systems and
did not see fit to locate these people where work and education
was
available, you do NOT cut them loose until you DO provide those
things.
You list more conditions that are likely by-products of
welfare.
>
>
\
No, these people provided for themselves quite well before they
were
arrested and detained on a small parcel of land with no water
supply and no
arid land. This was done by the government. When it was
protested, the
government assured the Ute that, if this did not work ,they would
not
starve, that shelter, food and medical care would be provided. It
has been
done inadequately at best.
The true dynamics of welfare have been widely established. For
> > some info specific to Native Americans, see this:
> > http://www.neoperspectives.com/NativeAmericans.htm
>
>
Pretty paper Mark. Good work by the sociologists. All bullshit of
course....causes and solutions are not mentioned. Perhaps you
might provide
them? See, without solutions you are simply putting forth the
idea that
these people be starved. Perhaps you might see where the 'Ugly
American'
term is appropriate.
> We agree about military spending but why are you not consistent
> when it comes to welfare spending?
Well Mark that would be because of a few reasons.
1. They are two different animals.
2. If there is not a reason we spend massive amounts of money on
military
spending, what would the reason be to end spending of this kind
without
providing another option for these people?
3. The Government guaranteed to provide the funds for food water
shelter and
medical care when this treaty, aka business agreement, was
struck. It is
legal and binding. Clear it up for ya?
>
>
>
If you really want to help
> > Native Americans on reservations, try to better understand
the
> > anti-solution called welfare.
>
>
No, *when*, not *'if'* I wanted to help Native Americans I closed
my
business in Cape May NJ, moved to their reservation in Utah,
signed on for
two 1-year contracts as a VISTA volunteer and set up an Education
Center,
developed programs to assist them with education, set up a
program for
business education, set up a 12 step program , set up tutoring
programs and
worked as a tutor....while being paid $700 a month. Unlike you, I
put my
money where my mouth is.
We do not agree that I am an example of an ugly American.
Please
> > stop the personal attacks
>
> No, *WE* do not agree on that. Anyone who puts money ahead of
the lives
> and wellbeing of the poorest Americans I have ever seen is
indeed a good
> example of this image of the *'Ugly American'*. It is not a
'personal
> attack'...an example of *that* would have been *your*
suggestion of
> throwing these people to the wolves.
>
YOU seem to have strong opinions that do not fit *reality*, You
speak about
things you seem to have learned from *READING* instead of
*DOING*. Your
suggestions hold no *solutions*. They are not based on *reality*
.They seem
motivated by *finances and theory. *They ignore *legally binding
agreements*.
You offer no *alternatives*. In fact, your entire argument is
steeped
in *arrogance,
superiority and ignorance*.
A question: what is your level of education and what state do you
reside in?
Care to rebut?
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
