>
> 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).
>
Alright Mark, you tell me...without having to repeat all the facts, what do
YOU suggest?
1. Leave the current situation in place.
2. Change it to something else.
3. Eliminate it and leave the people to fend for themselves.
Please, if you choose to change it, HOW would you change it?
If you can not answer that, this conversation is simply a moor example of
mental masturbation.
On 6/25/06, mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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] <colowe%40iquest.net>> 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?
>
>
>
--
*****************************************
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
separately!" ...Ben Franklin
******************************************
Are YOU Preparing For The November '06 Elections NOW???
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/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/
