Like I stated, it's not as cut-dry as I made it sound.
The new Ron Paul game
- Thread starter davekc
- Start date
Like I stated, it's not as cut-dry as I made it sound.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Generally speaking, I don't think the native Americans had the view that they "owned" the land .... so it would be kind of hard to "give it back" to them ....
Having said that, I'm kind of open to others using the land my wife and I own:
It is not posted (with no tresspassing signs) .... and I don't get too concerned about others being on it ....
The kids in the area use the wooded north section to ride their dirt bikes and ATV's, where they have created a track.
Some of kids that walk to school cross our property to get to the local middle school. They and others (older kids) use it to get from here to there at various other times ....
Our one neighbor regularly walks his dog on on our property ....
On the northern section I have a 50' frontage on another road. The neighbor on the one side (west) of that frontage uses the driveway on the frontage as his driveway to his home. (He also cuts the grass on that frontage)
I have allowed people to hunt our land ....
I have about 15 neighbors whose lots abut the northern section of our property which is wooded. Their lawns generally run all the way back to the property line. Some of them dump their lawn waste (grass trimmings, leaves, branches) in our woods. As long as it is biodegradable, and not trash or junk, I really don't care .... in fact, I welcome it.
If some Native Americans wanted to have a pow-wow on our land, I'd say: come on down .... just make sure to clean up any mess you make .....
The local zoning dikwad would probably blow a gasket .... but that might be fun too ....
My point about Native Americans being the land comprising much of what is now the United States was taken from the Native Americans by conquest for the most part. There were exceptions of colonials buying land from the indigenous people, but mostly Europeans took this land by conquest. Until very recently, nation-states acquired land through conquest. It still happens in some regions.
Native Americans did not trek down to the local courthouse to record property deeds. Their civilization predated written records. Nor did they have a formalized structure of government comparable to European government. Nevertheless, the Native Americans were living here thousands of years before palefaces showed up to take their land. Aggrieved Native Americans might feel as though they have the same legitimate claims to their ancestral lands as do dispossessed peoples of the Middle East.
How are the claims of Palestinians different from the Native American scenario?
Native Americans did not trek down to the local courthouse to record property deeds. Their civilization predated written records. Nor did they have a formalized structure of government comparable to European government. Nevertheless, the Native Americans were living here thousands of years before palefaces showed up to take their land. Aggrieved Native Americans might feel as though they have the same legitimate claims to their ancestral lands as do dispossessed peoples of the Middle East.
How are the claims of Palestinians different from the Native American scenario?
I have seen the original document signed by Grant and a Native American, which is still owned by I THINK if is the Great great grandson of the signer, that ceeded the property I own to the Detroit region. The guys name is Lenard (don't know how to spell his last name) Manomsomb. He does NOT call himself a Native American either, he calls himself and Indian.
There is much evidence that non-pale faced people, of Japanese decent, ran off the ORIGINAL pale face population.
What about the German's who were ran off their land by the Russians when they took East Germany? There are HUGH problems there now.
Happens all the time, throughout history, and will happen again. That does not make it right, nor wrong, just how it is.
The Jewish people were once on that land and were driven off by others too.
And it is all it will every be, till the next comet wipes us out.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
There were Jews in Palestine prior to the state of Israel - probably all the way back to ancient times - apparently from the 16th century onward they comprised about 5% of the population:
Palestinian_Jews
Of course in the Biblical times of Moses the Jews came to the "promised land" (Canaan) from Egypt - and it certainly wasn't empty when they got there
- they committed war against those that were already there, and then occupied it ....
There were Jews in Palestine prior to the state of Israel - probably all the way back to ancient times - apparently from the 16th century onward they comprised about 5% of the population:
Palestinian_Jews
Of course in the Biblical times of Moses the Jews came to the "promised land" (Canaan) from Egypt - and it certainly wasn't empty when they got there
They were just doin what they were told to do.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
So they say ....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
IOW: .... theft ....
Actually, as I pointed out previously I believe, AFAIK, most Native Americans didn't consider they "owned" the land, at least not in the same sense as we understand "ownership" today.
I'd say they have a legitimate case to some extent (and most certainly when treaty violations are involved)
In fact, apparently the US government has, at various times, felt they did as well:
Indian_Claims_Commission
They are probably both similar and different in a variety of ways .... the substance of which might make for quite a scholarly tome ....
Given the late hour and my being tired from working outside almost all day, I'll personally pass .... but if you have a point you'd like to make in this regard please do so ....
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Yes, and definition 2 is the one in play. Electing Ron Paul to avoid the prospect of being cold & hungry doesn't automatically lead to dead & flowing. It's a false premise.
Four facts of political life:
Re-electing Obama will insure an acceleration of the garbage we have seen for the last few years.
Electing Romney will likely mean a minor slow down but continuation of the same.
Electing Paul will not insure that any change will take place.
None are qualified for the job, other than the bare minimum of Constitutional qualifications.
The end.
Re-electing Obama will insure an acceleration of the garbage we have seen for the last few years.
Electing Romney will likely mean a minor slow down but continuation of the same.
Electing Paul will not insure that any change will take place.
None are qualified for the job, other than the bare minimum of Constitutional qualifications.
The end.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Ahh... but at least you didn't say things would accelerate.
Remember two things:
1) They need someone to sign their budget. If Paul were president, he wouldn't.
2) Nothing is for certain but death and taxes.
He might not sign it, IF they ever pass one. Then again, they would override him anyway. The congress has the power, it is NOT going to change enough to allow Paul to do much of anything.
If this information, assuming that it is accurate, is any reflection of what Paul accomplished so far, I would have little hope for him in a presidential role. If he can't get a majority in Congress to support him on basically anything, there wouldn't be much confidence on anything past that.
Ron Paul's legislative successes (or rather lack of successes), page 1
Ron Paul's legislative successes (or rather lack of successes), page 1
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
If they override his veto, then it's all on them. But I think enough of them know when something is political suicide.
The best thing that would come out of a Paul presidency would be TOTAL gridlock. When the idiots in Washington cannot get anything done they can't do any more damage to us.