Obama: U.S. must reverse course with Indians

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Essentially, belme made a point that you're trying to side step. No one is saying that Slick Willy was clean...but the dirt done by all who sailed with the Shrub & company is evident if you do the proper research.

Put it this way, you can't scream bloody murder about the injustices done to Native people by gov't for years, and then say something absurd like the Shrub "left you alone"....alluding to negligence in general. That, as Belme points out, is just not true.
Click to expand...

Good Luck said:
Let's put it this way:

People like Abramhoff were out scamming people. He got CAUGHT scamming NA tribes. Others have scammed NA tribes, and were either not been caught out, or it was not deemed worthy of wide publication. Undoubtedly Abramhoff & company scammed a whole bunch of others in addition to native American tribes. But those, too, were not worthy of high publicity because they lacked the political fodder found in the NA cases. I highly doubt Abramhoof specifically chose NA tribes as victims out of some sinister intent toward NAs. It was opportunity because the tribes wanted something from government and he was able to sell the tribes a bill of goods in their unbridled efforts to gain their desires.

As Belme pointed out, Abramhoff wasn't acting alone. And if you do the proper research, you'll see just how the Shrub administration went to protect and aide him. And what's this "unbridled" crap.....that implies greed on the part of NA. Wanting what is due from a gov't system that screwed you over is not greed or sloth.

Since people have been scamming tribes since some dough heads again with the negativity...it was for a little more than that and the whites didn't live up to the verbal agreement even then. sold Manhattan for a chest of cheesy beads, this particular "lack" of federal "protection" is meaningless to me. That's your story....others see the need for the fairness and what's due under the law. It has NOTHING to do with what I refer to when I mention federal government interference, (I mean "help") and how it affects Native Americans. When I say Bush pretty much left us alone, it means Bush did not push a bunch new federal policies, nor did he make any specific efforts to withdraw any federal policies. In short, he left us alone with regard to policy.

Again, you repeat what has been disproven regarding the Shrub. Do proper research and you'll see otherwise.

When the experience of federal assistance has repeatedly been it is not worth the price, being left alone is the better option. No, it means that the system should be corrected...because being "left alone" just leaves all the bad laws and system intact.
It does not mean I am implying by ANY stretch that Bush was some do-gooder for leaving us alone. It simply means that when it comes to federal policies aimed at Native Americans, being left alone is better than being made a bunch of costly promises.
Click to expand...


You keep repeating the same incorrect analogy....see above answers.
 
You believe whatever partisan propaganda makes you happy. Bushie's attempt to cover Abramhoffs ass had nothing to do with the NAs, it was trying to protect the republican party. He didn't give a plug nickle who Abramhof had scammed. (for that matter, Abramhoff didn;t give a plug nickle who he scammed either.)

I told you my point is Bush made no significant changes in federal policy. If cannot accpet that, to fucking bad for you. Being a mindless bleeding heart palefaced idiot, you are more dangerous to NA independence than Bush ever was in your wildest partisan hallucinations.

BTW: those "bad laws" he didn't change were policies inherited from CLINTON's reign. Clinton DID make several changes in federal policy toward NA reservations. Guess they were bad laws, huh? Guess we do agree on something.

Of course, during Bush's administration, several reservations did gain independence enough from federal regulations as well as state laws to instigate their casinos and such. While I personally am against using the recognition of NA independence from federal regulations for such inane activities as gambling, the fact that we DID gain such recognition was NOT the negative effect you seem to imply.

But that is neither here nor there with respect to Bush. Most of that action took place in congress, with Bush a drooling, cross-eyed bystander. yeah, he signed the legislation, but I doubt he cared one way or the other. Congress handed it to him, he put his signature on it, playing at being a leader. Bush himself neither proposed nor directly supported any significant changes in federal policy. You can claim what you want about Abramhoff and his little scam. It was not a part of federal policy, no matter how you clammor.

And the bottom line is Obama is now making promises to "change things". This is not the happy rhetoric you make it out to be, no matter what the previous administration did or did not do. (why is it you partisan little twits ALWAY come out with the "but Bush did bad things!" whenever someone criticizes Obama?)

We who desire maximum independence shudder when presidents want to help us, and silently give thanks when presidents ignore us. It's that simple.

Being you haven't a foggy fucking clue what it means to be an NA, let alone an NA living on a reservation, you have no comprehension of the way federal assistance is viewed by those of us who want nothing of the federal assistance trap. Being you also obviously admire and support big government assistance traps, it makes it more obvious that discussing this is even more useless than discussing science.
 
Good Luck said:
Same kinds of shit, not the same shit. As in lobbyists overcharging (not illegal), representing opposing clients simultaneously (not illegal if done carefully), etc. etc. etc.

And if you believe for one microsecond that every illegal "campaign contribution" is noticed and prosecuted by ANY congressional oversight committee, I have some swamp land you may be interested in.

Abramoff was probably no dirtier than average, just dumber than average.
Click to expand...

Abramoff was able to get away with it because of his ties to the GOP, Congress, and White House, and he brought Norquist and Reed along for additional party clout. Their motive was the common Party incentive, money. It didn't matter that it was the tribes that were being screwed in double dips. The fact that it was overlooked says volumes about The Party's concern for Native Americans.
In addition, the Abramoff connections to Rove, his associates, Mehlman, and the bush WH were evidenced by hundreds of emails to the White House. If it wasn't for an angry and disappointed Tom Davis (R-Va. and ultimately retiring), along with tribal whistleblowers, the affair would have waited for Waxman to take over the Committee because no one from the GOP WH or Congress would tackle it otherwise.
I see no redeeming factor in your defense that everybody does it, which makes it forgiveable.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
You believe whatever partisan propaganda makes you happy. What in the fuck are you on about now? I repeatedly stated that neither Slick Willy or the Shrub did right by the NA's...and stated that both political parties are equally guilty. Jeez, learn to read. Bushie's attempt to cover Abramhoffs ass had nothing to do with the NAs, it was trying to protect the republican party. He didn't give a plug nickle who Abramhof had scammed. (for that matter, Abramhoff didn;t give a plug nickle who he scammed either.) Stop---making---excuses! You cover for the crime, that makes you an accomplis. It's called aiding and abetting...your supposition and conjecture non-withstanding.

I told you my point is Bush made no significant changes in federal policy. If cannot accpet that, to fucking bad for you. Being a mindless bleeding heart palefaced idiot, you are more dangerous to NA independence than Bush ever was in your wildest partisan hallucinations.

I provided a link to PROOF that the Shrub & company ACTIVELY thwarted positive legislation towards NA's. A matter of fact & history that you are desperately ignoring to maintain your erroneous viewpoint. So that makes you either insipidly stubborn, willfully ignorant or one neocon ass kissing fool!

BTW: those "bad laws" he didn't change were policies inherited from CLINTON's reign. Clinton DID make several changes in federal policy toward NA reservations. Guess they were bad laws, huh? Guess we do agree on something.

No shit sherlock....if you had the ability to retain what previously transpired, you'll note that I INITIALLY pointed out that Slick Willy was no better than the Shrub. PAY ATTENTION, you neocon ass wiping apologist!

Of course, during Bush's administration, several reservations did gain independence enough from federal regulations as well as state laws to instigate their casinos and such. While I personally am against using the recognition of NA independence from federal regulations for such inane activities as gambling, the fact that we DID gain such recognition was NOT the negative effect you seem to imply.

And there you go, folks.....first this imbecile says the Shrub did nothing, and then he says he did in order to best the Clinton legacy. Pity that GL's conservative GOP bias prevents him from doing decent research. Observe and learn:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar...n_effects_of_a_presidency_pg3_pg3.html?cat=37

But that is neither here nor there with respect to Bush. Most of that action took place in congress, with Bush a drooling, cross-eyed bystander. yeah, he signed the legislation, but I doubt he cared one way or the other. Congress handed it to him, he put his signature on it, playing at being a leader. Bush himself neither proposed nor directly supported any significant changes in federal policy. You can claim what you want about Abramhoff and his little scam. It was not a part of federal policy, no matter how you clammor.Which STILL makes him an accomplis...because he sure as hell got off his ass to stump for what he considered important (i.e., abortion)

And the bottom line is Obama is now making promises to "change things". This is not the happy rhetoric you make it out to be, no matter what the previous administration did or did not do. (why is it you partisan little twits ALWAY come out with the "but Bush did bad things!" whenever someone criticizes Obama?) Why don't you pay attention to what has transpired before you type? I wrote at least TWICE that until Obama makes good on his words, it's just rhetoric. Once again, your neocon colored glasses distorts what you read and comprehend.

We who desire maximum independence shudder when presidents want to help us, and silently give thanks when presidents ignore us. It's that simple.

You're simple if you think anyone who reads your posts will swallow that bilge. Your "independence" doesn't mean squat unless there are laws that protect your rights and give you whats due under treaties and such. You and I both know the gov't dismal record on this aspect, but to offer this independent uptopia is the same unrealistic bullshit one hears from folks still fighting the Civil War or wanting to secede from the union. You made statements regarding the Shrub....they were wrong. Grow up and deal with it.

Being you haven't a foggy fucking clue what it means to be an NA, let alone an NA living on a reservation, you have no comprehension of the way federal assistance is viewed by those of us who want nothing of the federal assistance trap. Being you also obviously admire and support big government assistance traps, it makes it more obvious that discussing this is even more useless than discussing science.
Click to expand...

Newsflash chuckles, NA's can be wrong just like anyone else....you have no omnipotence because of your ethnic status. I logically and factually proved your contentions on this particular venue wrong, and you don't like it. TFB. Trying to generalize the topic to cover your ass won't play, because the chronological record shows EXACTLY what we were discussing.

As for you silly accusations about my political leanings.....all one has to do is read my posts on any subject on these boards to see what a desperate ploy that is of yours. In the same line, the boards show YOUR continuous advocation and defense of the neocon GOP and all they stand for. Good luck trying to deny months of your recorded words. When you can actually PROVE any of your accusations against me beyond your opinion, supposition and conjecture, let me know. If not, I'd say we're done here.
 
belme1201 said:
Abramoff was able to get away with it because of his ties to the GOP, Congress, and White House, and he brought Norquist and Reed along for additional party clout. Their motive was the common Party incentive, money. It didn't matter that it was the tribes that were being screwed in double dips. The fact that it was overlooked says volumes about The Party's concern for Native Americans.
In addition, the Abramoff connections to Rove, his associates, Mehlman, and the bush WH were evidenced by hundreds of emails to the White House. If it wasn't for an angry and disappointed Tom Davis (R-Va. and ultimately retiring), along with tribal whistleblowers, the affair would have waited for Waxman to take over the Committee because no one from the GOP WH or Congress would tackle it otherwise.
I see no redeeming factor in your defense that everybody does it, which makes it forgiveable.
Click to expand...

Good, logical points wasted on a stubborn mindset. GL excuses The Shrub claiming ignorance. Someone should clue him in that ignorance of the law is not a defense.
 
belme1201 said:
Abramoff was able to get away with it because of his ties to the GOP, Congress, and White House, and he brought Norquist and Reed along for additional party clout. Their motive was the common Party incentive, money. It didn't matter that it was the tribes that were being screwed in double dips. The fact that it was overlooked says volumes about The Party's concern for Native Americans.
In addition, the Abramoff connections to Rove, his associates, Mehlman, and the bush WH were evidenced by hundreds of emails to the White House. If it wasn't for an angry and disappointed Tom Davis (R-Va. and ultimately retiring), along with tribal whistleblowers, the affair would have waited for Waxman to take over the Committee because no one from the GOP WH or Congress would tackle it otherwise.
I see no redeeming factor in your defense that everybody does it, which makes it forgiveable.
Click to expand...
And again, in your partisan desire to go after Bush when the topic is Obama, you miss the entire point. The point is NOTHING having to do with Abramhoff's scam has ANYTHING to do with federal POLICY toward NA reservations. The scam itself wasn't even specifically targeted at NAs. He pulled the same scam on others who hired his lobbying agency. Bush's protect also had nothing to do with NA's but rather a lame attempt at minimizing the political harm to the republican party. That does not make Bush's actions forgivable, but in the grand scheme of things, it DOES make them irrelevant to the topic.

What was far more important is Bush did NOTHING with respect to federal policy. Some new laws were passed which sheltered (ie: finally acknowledged the treaties signed 150 years ago) the reservations from federal and state laws governing gambling. These protections have a wider reaching implication than just gambling, and though I personally disagree with the ways the newly acknowledged independence of reservations was and is being used, it was a good thing to happen for the reservations.

But Bush had nothing to do with it. He neither supported nor discouraged the changes. He literally had nothing at all to say about it. I don't think that during his 8 years in office, nor the year or so of his first campaign he mentioned NAs more times than can be counted using a single hand. He had nothing to do with the lobbying taking place, and he had nothing to do with certain politicians selling their support for the cause. Congress passed the bills, and Bush signed them into law, probably unaware of what the bills even said.

Now, back to the point. When presidents promise federal assistance, we get nervous because assistance always has a price. When presidents sit around drooling in their soup, barely cognizant of what reservations even mean, it is mostly better than when presidents decide to pay us some attention.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Newsflash chuckles, NA's can be wrong just like anyone else....you have no omnipotence because of your ethnic status. I logically and factually proved your contentions on this particular venue wrong, and you don't like it. TFB. Trying to generalize the topic to cover your ass won't play, because the chronological record shows EXACTLY what we were discussing.

As for you silly accusations about my political leanings.....all one has to do is read my posts on any subject on these boards to see what a desperate ploy that is of yours. In the same line, the boards show YOUR continuous advocation and defense of the neocon GOP and all they stand for. Good luck trying to deny months of your recorded words. When you can actually PROVE any of your accusations against me beyond your opinion, supposition and conjecture, let me know. If not, I'd say we're done here.
Click to expand...
You haven't PROVEN anything except you are the same mindless partisan dronebot no matter what the topic. I did nothing to excuse Bush's actions. I simply said they are irrelevant since the topic is federal policy and how presidents affect it.

You are pathetic beyond description.

And yes, we are through, as you once again prove you are nothing but a pathetic little twit.
 
Good Luck said:
You haven't PROVEN anything except you are the same mindless partisan dronebot no matter what the topic. I did nothing to excuse Bush's actions. I simply said they are irrelevant since the topic is federal policy and how presidents affect it.

You are pathetic beyond description.

And yes, we are through, as you once again prove you are nothing but a pathetic little twit.
Click to expand...

You should have asked earlier, about him.
You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Newsflash chuckles, NA's can be wrong just like anyone else....you have no omnipotence because of your ethnic status. I logically and factually proved your contentions on this particular venue wrong, and you don't like it. TFB. Trying to generalize the topic to cover your ass won't play, because the chronological record shows EXACTLY what we were discussing.

As for you silly accusations about my political leanings.....all one has to do is read my posts on any subject on these boards to see what a desperate ploy that is of yours. In the same line, the boards show YOUR continuous advocation and defense of the neocon GOP and all they stand for. Good luck trying to deny months of your recorded words. When you can actually PROVE any of your accusations against me beyond your opinion, supposition and conjecture, let me know. If not, I'd say we're done here.
Click to expand...

Good Luck said:
You haven't PROVEN anything except you are the same mindless partisan dronebot no matter what the topic. I did nothing to excuse Bush's actions. I simply said they are irrelevant since the topic is federal policy and how presidents affect it.

You are pathetic beyond description.

And yes, we are through, as you once again prove you are nothing but a pathetic little twit.
Click to expand...

I'm only responding because I detest liars...so either you didn't read through what I post, didn't comprehend what I posted or you just lie when you can't logically or factually prove what you say

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Obama: U.S. must reverse course with Indians

Say goodnight gracie....shows over for you.
 
Southern Man said:
Finally you admit the truth, Libby. Here's a summary of the Republican Civil Rights acts: The GOP passed their first Civil Rights Act in 1868, followed by the Acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. All were opposed by majorities of the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

Of course you leave out that in 1964 Johnson(Dem) signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By that time black folk were leaving the GOP and shifting to the Dems, thanks to the New Deal and Eleanor Roosevelt tireless work. Dixiecrats like Wallace were and still are remnants of the Dems past.....I'm momentarily at a loss to name any current GOPer who holds the spirit of the Radical Republicans of old, but they're out there.

Things change....unlike your mindset. Deal with it.

So back to the topic at hand...can you disprove anything I've posted here on this thread's topic?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Of course you leave out that in 1964 Johnson(Dem) signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By that time black folk were leaving the GOP and shifting to the Dems, thanks to the New Deal and Eleanor Roosevelt tireless work. Dixiecrats like Wallace were and still are remnants of the Dems past.....I'm momentarily at a loss to name any current GOPer who holds the spirit of the Radical Republicans of old, but they're out there.

Things change....unlike your mindset. Deal with it.

So back to the topic at hand...can you disprove anything I've posted here on this thread's topic?
Click to expand...

Johnson came from poverty so emphasized with the blacks. He was a minority in the Democrat Party for supporting GOP sponsored Civil Rights legislation. Blacks weren't leaving the GOP at that time, in fact the greatest black leader of that time, MLK Jr., was a Republican. Most blacks were, and still are, conservative so to say that they were leaving because of 1930's era socialist policies is absurd, at best.

It's called a conversation Libby. I'm not all that interested in disproving your comments on the OP, so deal with it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Essentially, belme made a point that you're trying to side step. No one is saying that Slick Willy was clean...but the dirt done by all who sailed with the Shrub & company is evident if you do the proper research.

Put it this way, you can't scream bloody murder about the injustices done to Native people by gov't for years, and then say something absurd like the Shrub "left you alone"....alluding to negligence in general. That, as Belme points out, is just not true.
Click to expand...
Negligence is by a long shot better than the slow death perpetrated on the native tribes by those who thought to bless them with government benevolence.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Of course you leave out that in 1964 Johnson(Dem) signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By that time black folk were leaving the GOP and shifting to the Dems, thanks to the New Deal and Eleanor Roosevelt tireless work. Dixiecrats like Wallace were and still are remnants of the Dems past.....I'm momentarily at a loss to name any current GOPer who holds the spirit of the Radical Republicans of old, but they're out there.

Things change....unlike your mindset. Deal with it.

So back to the topic at hand...can you disprove anything I've posted here on this thread's topic?
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Johnson came from poverty so emphasized with the blacks. He was a minority in the Democrat Party for supporting GOP sponsored Civil Rights legislation. And yet under his leadership, he past the 1964 Act which was opposed by Dixiecrats and the majority of the Republican party. Check the Congressional record. Sorry asshole, you can't rewrite history while I'm here. Blacks weren't leaving the GOP at that time, in fact the greatest black leader of that time, MLK Jr., was a Republican. Most Southern Blacks were, having to deal with Dixiecrats...who by the way are now the MINORITY in the Dem party and have been for some time...much like the Radical Republicans are in the current GOP Most blacks were, and still are, conservative so to say that they were leaving because of 1930's era socialist policies is absurd, at best. A clear display of your stubborn ignorance.....by 1964 the GOP was all about "states rights" which translated into perserving Jim Crow laws. Johnson and the Dems took the other path, and by 1968 the GOP was losing black voters Big Time....which leds to the situation today. A matter of fact, a matter history. Deal with it.

It's called a conversation Libby (proud to be one, in the spirit of our fore Fathers, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What are you neocons or wingnuts modeling after?). I'm not all that interested in disproving your comments on the OP, so deal with it.
Click to expand...

You're full of shit, Southie. You attack my statements, and then when proven wrong you try to change the subject....like you did here. The posts back me up, and prove you to be just a bitter neocon asshole with an axe to grind.

You've got nothing of worth to add about the original subject of this thread...but will continue to bray on.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Negligence is by a long shot better than the slow death perpetrated on the native tribes by those who thought to bless them with government benevolence.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out to GL in the exchange, the Shrub & company were active in preventing positive legislation in addition to shielding Abrahamoff. GL was wrong.

And sitting by to watch someone drown is no better than throwing a sand filled life saver to them....one is just quicker.
 
Damocles said:
Negligence is by a long shot better than the slow death perpetrated on the native tribes by those who thought to bless them with government benevolence.
Click to expand...




That, of course, is worse than the "benevolence" of graft, bribery, theft, and corruption by your "friends", charitably called negligence by some.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
As I pointed out to GL in the exchange, the Shrub & company were active in preventing positive legislation in addition to shielding Abrahamoff. GL was wrong.

And sitting by to watch someone drown is no better than throwing a sand filled life saver to them....one is just quicker.
Click to expand...
As I've pointed out, "positive legislation" is a description for more of that awesome "benevolent government help" that has been the slow death of the tribes now for centuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top