U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-26-2015, 11:58 PM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,759,789 times
Reputation: 5197

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
[/b]

African tribes were not here at the time but native american tribes were. Your republic was to slaughter native americans in order to enact your constitution and your way of life

funny, name me 1 country that didn't take land from the original natives from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas.

you better take a long course on World History and learn how each country in the world was formed.


didn't Native tribes from the Americas (North, Central, South America and the Caribbean) slaughtered other tribes for land and slavery ?....or all the natives shared their lands peacefully with all the tribes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2015, 12:02 AM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,759,789 times
Reputation: 5197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post

is there a copy of the constitution of the Five Nations of the Iroquois? or we have to take the word of a college professor and opinions in the New York Times?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 12:39 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,090 posts, read 7,811,960 times
Reputation: 6971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
is there a copy of the constitution of the Five Nations of the Iroquois? or we have to take the word of a college professor and opinions in the New York Times?
Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee

Hope this helps.

Last edited by mohawkx; 05-27-2015 at 12:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 01:12 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,809 posts, read 5,484,484 times
Reputation: 8378
Yeah! I am (proud of US History).

Sure, there were things done which if they were my current decision, I probably wouldn't do myself. But a thing or two.

First of all, one has to appreciate the different attitudes people had over time. After all for example, for the very longest time, children were seen as nothing more but "little adults".

Secondly, something I learned back in NROTC when they gave us a demo, that we didn't know was a demo, about "brain washing". Know, be very sure about your history, good and bad. Otherwise, an interrogator might use your lack of knowledge of what things really are as a way to turn you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 01:39 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,383 posts, read 27,577,777 times
Reputation: 6540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
4) Japan surrendered because of the 2 A bombs Truman dropped on Japan and we basically destroyed most of their Naval fleet and cut off their war supplies not because of the Soviets.......the Soviets hadn't developed an A bomb at the time and no way would the U.S. let the Soviets take over Japan after the U.S. had done most of the fighting in the Pacific.....that's just your opinion based on non-facts.

I know its hard to admit for liberals like you who dislike our military but the American soldiers has freed millions of people from tyranny in Europe and Southeast Asia.
Good points.

I should also point out that my father was one of the many U.S. soldiers scheduled for the Nov., 1945 invasion of Japan had the A-bombs not been used.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 03:05 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,714,592 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
1) you write a lot. You are basically saying people in Europe weren't more FREE because the Nazis lost and communism didn't take over. Basically you are saying if the Nazis under Hitler or Communism under Stalin would have won, Europe would enjoy more freedoms and liberties.
No, I said that Communism only took over as much as it did, because the United States(and Britain) helped the Soviets take, or just flat-out gave away, most of Europe.

Now, lets put this history in some context. Because this is kind of a simplistic way for me to present the facts.


What actually happened is this, FDR truly did want peace and Democracy to reign across the world. And FDR did believe that Stalin was actually a friend. And so he basically gave away Eastern Europe on the basis that Stalin could be reasoned with.

FDR said... "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he's not and that he doesn't want anything but security for his country, and I think if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...article02.html

Now, obviously FDR was naive to Stalin's scheming and intentions. And FDR didn't so much intend to give away Eastern Europe. He thought he could trust Stalin to leave Europe after the Nazis were defeated. Of course, he was wrong. Though FDR died before all of this became truly apparent.

Truman was a little tougher a character than FDR. Truman rushed to take as much of Germany as he could, and created the German bases that are still there today, to prevent the Soviets from marching across Europe. Truman was quite the tough-talker to the Japanese as well(and obviously didn't mind nuking them to get his point across). The problem was, much of the damage had already been done. The Soviets had taken Eastern Europe with the help of FDR, and nothing short of going to war against the Soviet Union was going to dislodge them.

Truman at that point did want to guarantee communism didn't take all of Europe, and did push through the Marshall plan. But it was merely a response to the bumbling shortsightedness of his predecessor. Truman nuked Japan when he did, because he knew the Soviets were going to enter the war, and wanted to cut Stalin completely out of East Asia, if he could, by ending the war before the Soviets could get rolling.

Truman also ultimately set up the circumstances for the eventual Korean War, by doing everything he could to make sure Korea didn't fall to communism as well. But as I said, most of the damage had already been done before Truman even became president.

My only criticism of Truman, was that he refused to listen to George Patton. He should have marched on the Soviet Union in 1945. Instead, the United States, under the leadership of one of the worst presidents in US History(FDR), helped the Soviets cast hundreds of millions of people under the tyranny of communism for decades, and in some places, it still continues.


Lets understand, Hitler was nothing but a "National Socialist". To the extent that Hitler hated the Jews, he hated them primarily because he thought they were a bunch of foreigners, who held inordinate power in Germany. And that the Jews used that power for their benefit alone, at the expense of the German people(by buying up all the land and controlling big-business and thus politics).

Hitler was trying to evoke "Nationalism", by creating a state purged of all foreigners. And his state was also to be "Socialist"(although his Socialist state was only partially Socialist). He would have things like "free healthcare, free education, welfare assistance, etc". Hitler's greatest ally, was Sweden. Who were also effectively "National Socialist".

What Hitler really wanted, was a Europe of Nation-states. Where each state was basically completely one nationality. Germany would be "for the Germans". France would be for the French. Hungary would be for the Hungarians(all with basically zero immigration, and all purged of Jews and the international bankers).

Where Hitler went wrong, was his obsession with "Lebensraum"(which means, "Living room"). What Lebensraum actually was, was a desire for Germany to be completely independent of the world markets, especially in food. During WWI, the British had blockaded Germany, which caused hundreds of thousands of Germans to effectively "starve to death". And Britain even held this blockade(and thus the starvation) in place until long after Germany surrendered, to coerce Germany to sign the "Treaty of Versailles"(which they hated).

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler felt like, unless Germany was completely self-sufficient, then it would always be at the mercy of foreign nations. So Hitler wanted to reclaim the parts of other European nations with German majorities(especially those which had previously belonged to Germany), to make sure it was powerful enough, and self-sufficient enough, to compete with the growing Superpowers of the Soviet Union, the United States, the British Empire, etc. Though his self-sufficiency plan would have also required taking parts of the Soviet Union(which is the primary reason Hitler invaded the Soviet Union).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-2q-QMUIgY


I don't necessarily like Hitler, but if we have to pick between Hitler and Stalin, I would take Hitler any day of the week. Had Hitler won, Eastern Europe would have been more free, more independent, and more prosperous. Hitler never actually wanted to "conquer the world". It is a myth. He wanted German independence and self-sufficiency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
2) 6 millions Jews and millions of others were gassed for fun under the Nazis's freedom regime as you call it.....so you are saying the U.S. defeating Hitler and later defeating the Soviets in the cold war isn't a GREAT accomplishment of the past century?
You don't know what you are talking about. Everyone who understands the subject realizes that the six million number is completely made-up. Also, whatever number that they purport died, includes all deaths for all reasons. If a Jew was killed in allied bombing raids, he is included in the holocaust statistic. If a Jew was killed fighting against the Nazis, he is included in the holocaust statistic.

Even if six million Jews actually died during WWII(which is highly unlikely), they didn't all die from being gassed. Most Jews who died in WWII, died of disease(Typhus), or other causes related to a war that killed upwards of 60 million people(you know, violence from war).

This is David Cole, a Jew, he explains the situation far better than I ever could.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx9G4zmpKv0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLJnHGAfqdc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
3) Of course capitalism and free trade under the Marshall plan was the only option to get Europe who was broke and in shambles after WW 2 out of the hole....or you still believe communism behind the Iron Curtain was the better choice?....it didn't work out in China, Soviet Union, North Korea or Cuba.....again the U.S. fought the right war and won and was a great accomplishment of the past century that a large part of the world benefited from this day generation to generation....that is a fact!
You keep ignoring the fact that had the United States not intervened in WWII, Hitler might have defeated the Soviet Union. Thus, your narrative whereby the United States had to fight WII to defeat the Nazis and stop the Soviet advance across Europe, is a completely false narrative.

Had the United States stayed completely out of WWII(including things like the lend-lease act and other monetary and military aid) there wouldn't have been a Cold War. Had the United States not fought in WWII, communism probably would have been wiped off the world map in 1942. And unlike what people believe, the Nazis did not want war with Britain, or France for that matter. Germany only had eyes on communism and the Soviet Union, and it is plain for everyone to see by listening to anything Hitler ever said.

Hitler's invasion of France, was because France and England had declared war on Germany, not the other way around(and on the basis that Hitler invaded Poland, even though the Soviets also invaded Poland). Hitler only invaded France, because after eight months of the "phony war", Britain, under Churchill, began bringing in troops and equipment to France.

Phoney War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler invaded France, pushed the British back at Dunkirk, and let them go. Hitler did order the assault of British military targets in Britain, in the "Battle of Britain". But his goal was actually for Britain to agree to a negotiated peace between Germany and Britain, not an invasion(which was basically impossible).

Ultimately, it was Churchill who began indiscriminately bombing civilians in Germany(although no one ever teaches you that).

Hitler didn't start indiscriminate bombings

21st July 1942: Churchill: severe, ruthless bombing of Germany needed

Rudolf Hess(basically the second highest ranking official in Nazi Germany) even flew to England hoping to achieve peace between Germany and Britain.

Rudolf Hess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The point is, I'm not a fan by Socialism by any means, but most of what you are taught about Hitler and the Nazis is an absolute lie. I mean, if we are going to rank the countries in WWII by the "nicest" to the "most dickish". I would put United States as being the nicest(FDR was definitely nice, even if a bit naive), but I would put Hitler above the scumbag Winston Churchill(who was the head of the "British Empire", a pretty ruthless/dickish empire). And the biggest douches in WWII were easily the Soviet Union and Japan, by a mile. The French wanted to be douches(IE Treaty of Versailles/occupation of the Ruhr), the Nazis just gangbanged them so hard, they never got the chance.

I still rofl a bit seeing a picture of Hitler forcing the French to sign the Armistice in the same place the Germans were forced to sign the treaty of Versailles.

Armistice of 22 June 1940 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wish you would read some "Pat Buchanan"(a pretty reliable source), on WWII, instead of the history most of us are taught in our crappy, propaganda-filled schools. Or on our propaganda-filled TV's.

Did Hitler Want War?

Looking Back at ‘The Good War’

Katyn and ‘The Good War’

The ‘Good War’ and the Terrible Peace

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
4) Japan surrendered because of the 2 A bombs Truman dropped on Japan and we basically destroyed most of their Naval fleet and cut off their war supplies not because of the Soviets.......the Soviets hadn't developed an A bomb at the time and no way would the U.S. let the Soviets take over Japan after the U.S. had done most of the fighting in the Pacific.....that's just your opinion based on non-facts.
The Japanese wanted to surrender regardless, but didn't want an unconditional surrender. Japan didn't surrender until nearly a week and a half after we bombed Hiroshima. In fact, more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than in the atomic bombing of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really need to read more.

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
I know its hard to admit for liberals like you who dislike our military but the American soldiers has freed millions of people from tyranny in Europe and Southeast Asia.
First, I'm definitely NOT a liberal, I despise liberals with a fiery passion. And secondly, if America was really out to free anyone, it could have freed the entire world from communism in 1945, it didn't. Because freeing people was never part of the plan. Making lots of money for corporations was the plan.

Low-wage Communist China is useful to American capitalists/corporations. Communism was useful in "rapidly industrializing" undeveloped countries. Wall Street and the international bankers loved communism(at least, from a distance). Why do you think so many communists were Jews?

Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-27-2015 at 03:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 03:48 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 13,007,752 times
Reputation: 5905
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
[/b]

African tribes were not here at the time but native american tribes were. Your republic was to slaughter native americans in order to enact your constitution and your way of life
The American Indians were probably NO better; they had their share of nasty donnybrooks too with the losing tribe many times being murdered although sometimes the young women and a few of the kids were allowed to live.

Besides; this is 2015. What happened 500 or even 150 years doesn't mean a thing in 2015 except as a part of history.

Another thing: most AI culture wasn't all that great to being with, otherwise the beaten tribes would've bounced back. KInda how the Japanese did before our Civil War. When the US visited Japan then; the Japanese people saw they were probably were going to be treated like LatAm 300 years ago, US or Canada 200 years age or Africa 50 years later and realized their culture NEEDED to change and fast by studying how Europe rolled in doing things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 04:24 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,714,592 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
Your false argument is that every country the U.S. has invested and has open trade its because the U.S. exploits their natural resources and its a 1 sided deal, both sides never benefits and its all American capitalism's fault.
Look, I'm not even mad at "capitalism". I just don't like "state capitalism". The United States is not a "free market". In fact, the United States is about as far from a free-market as there can be, short of full-blown communism.

What we have in America is "corporatism", and most people in America realize it(especially the people on this forum). But no one seems to be able to do anything about it.

I am a massive fan of the free-market. More so than most people on the political right. In fact, you could basically call me an anarcho-capitalist, though I'm actually more of a minarchist(based on a periodically expiring Constitution). And I absolutely adore Thomas Jefferson. Easily the greatest American ever. The only people who even come close, are Lysander Spooner and Ron Paul.

My criticism of US policy, is that, for the most part, the countries the United States is supposedly making deals with, are effectively illegitimate governments, who only exist through coercion and violence. And while we pretend to be supporters of freedom and justice. We seem to turn a blind eye to the actions of dictators and other tyrants when there is money to be made.


To understand the situation, you need to imagine there is some undeveloped country, lets call it, Afrasia.

Lets say that, in Afrasia, there are lots of diamonds and gold. But, most of the country is inhabited by indigenous tribes, who live as subsistence farmers. Britain has just pulled out of this country, and its borders have been drawn, but the borders are largely arbitrary, and there is no clear majority group in Afrasia, so Democracy really wouldn't work. And the indigenous tribes basically want to be left alone, but they are sitting on some of the most productive diamond and gold mines.

What happens in Afrasia, is that some ambitious faction in the country, who for whatever reason wants to rule the country(whether it be for more virtuous reasons, or simply because of the desire for power and wealth), ends up taking power in the country, most likely as some form of dictatorship. But this dictatorship can only rise to power, or only stay in power if it has weapons and soldiers to defend itself. And maybe one of the neighboring countries, which is also an artificial state, wants to take control of parts of Afrasia, because it to wants control of the diamond and gold mines that are near the border.

So this faction who will rule Afrasia, goes to the Western Nations and says "I need money and weapons, can you give them to me"?

These Western Nations, and especially the international bankers, are no fools. They aren't just going to give loans and weapons away. They need to guarantee a return on their investment. They will only loan money to people who can actually pay them back, and so they will put stipulations on these loans.

So, the banker tells the leaders of Afrasia "We will loan you the money, but you have to spend part of it in building infrastructure, for the purposes of extracting more of your gold and diamonds, and you have to sell them to us, at a discounted rate, and we will give you a better deal on the loan". In some cases, these loans will also be to build things like dams for electricity, or other infrastructure projects. But, to build these dams, and roads, and power lines. And to exploit these gold mines, and diamond mines. The indigenous people need to be moved out of the way. So they either kick the tribal people off the land entirely, or they forcefully relocate them to different land(IE trail of tears). Of course, they never get to keep even this new land. As soon as this new land is needed to sell to foreign companies who will use it for farming, the indigenous people will be kicked off of it again.

In some cases, the governments are at least somewhat benevolent, and they will begin building houses with the money. They might say "We can lease the 10,000 acres that these indigenous people had lived on to China for $50 million a year. Then we can take $10 million of that and build cheaply-made housing(IE slums) and basic stipends for these people, and we will come out $40 million richer. The indigenous people pay no taxes, and produce nothing which can be sold to international markets. Thus they are functionally useless to "the state".


Even more, these bankers might tell Afrasia, "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we will just loan the money to someone else, some other faction in your country, or outside your country, who could easily topple this government if they had the right weapons, and more money". And so, what other choice does the leadership of Afrasia have, except to do with the international financiers tell them to do?


There is a great quote from Lysander Spooner's "No Treason", that explains this a little bit....

"Thus it is evident that all these men, who call themselves by the high-sounding names of Emperors, Kings, Sovereigns, Monarchs, Most Christian Majesties, Most Catholic Majesties, High Mightinesses, Most Serene and Potent Princes, and the like, and who claim to rule “by the grace of God,” by “Divine Right” – that is, by special authority from Heaven – are intrinsically not only the merest miscreants and wretches, engaged solely in plundering, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, but that they are also the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like the Rothschilds, laugh in their sleeves, and say to themselves: These despicable creatures, who call themselves emperors, and kings, and majesties, and most serene and potent princes; who profess to wear crowns, and sit on thrones; who deck themselves with ribbons, and feathers, and jewels; and surround themselves with hired flatterers and lickspittles; and whom we suffer to strut around, and palm themselves off, upon fools and slaves, as sovereigns and lawgivers specially appointed by Almighty God; and to hold themselves out as the sole fountains of honors, and dignities, and wealth, and power – all these miscreants and imposters know that we make them, and use them; that in us they live, move, and have their being; that we require them (as the price of their positions) to take upon themselves all the labor, all the danger, and all the odium of all the crimes they commit for our profit; and that we will unmake them, strip them of their gewgaws, and send them out into the world as beggars, or give them over to the vengeance of the people they have enslaved, the moment they refuse to commit any crime we require of them, or to pay over to us such share of the proceeds of their robberies as we see fit to demand."

Lysander Spooner – No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority


This is why China has recently created the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. China understands how "finance" rules the world.

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
We still take them at a higher number than any other country........name me 1 country that takes over 20 million poor and uneducated foreign workers who are not supposed to be in the country....name 1 country? China? Russia? Central or South America?.....and don't tell me the U.S. exploits them because they get paid by the American dollar which is 6 to 10 times higher than the currency of their native countries so they do get a great benefit that they don't get if they stayed in their countries.
The question here is, do you honestly believe that America is taking in these immigrants out of the kindness of our hearts?

The singular goal of all governments is "economic growth". It doesn't matter if its a national government, a state government, or a local government. All you ever hear is "economic growth".

The United States is one of the least densely-populated countries on Earth. What gives the United States sway in the world, is the "size of our economy". China is only relevant, because it has 1.35 billion people. China isn't rich, the people there are pretty poor. It is the size of its economy that matters. If the United States had a population the size of Ireland, it would be as important as Ireland.

The immigrants coming here are coming, not to make our economy better, but merely to make our economy larger. Their first role, especially going back to the 1970's, was to crush "labor". Prior to the 1970's, the United States was ruled by labor(IE Unions). To defeat labor, we brought in large numbers of immigrants, and we began outsourcing jobs to places like Vietnam, China, Mexico, etc.

Later, Reagan would thoroughly crush labor once and for all. Allowing huge economic growth in the 1980's(which went mostly to corporations, trickle-down economic).

The immigrants coming, are either legally coming for the sake of economic growth in certain high-skill industries(part of it is intentional "brain-drain" from other countries). Or they are coming illegally, to help make certain industries more economically competitive(IE certain kinds of farming), as well as to generally depress wages(a continuation of an old policy to defeat labor/unions).

Wages, in comparison to productivity and inflation, are incredibly low today. Helping to precipitate a massive increase in the "gap between rich and poor". If you want to narrow the gap between rich and poor, you really have to slow or stop immigration. What built the "middle-class" in this country, was that between the late 20's, all the way into the late 60's, immigration was practically shut off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
is there a copy of the constitution of the Five Nations of the Iroquois? or we have to take the word of a college professor and opinions in the New York Times?
Well, lets understand that, the US Constitution(and the Declaration of Independence), comes from the enlightenment era. The enlightenment was obsessed "with nature". And their obsession with nature came directly as a consequence of their contact with the indigenous tribes of "The New World".

John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property", which became the Declaration of Independence's "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Is based on something called "Natural rights", or "Natural law". Natural law is based on observations of people who were "living in the state of nature". And the state of nature means the indigenous tribes.

So in effect, natural law(and thus the modern concept of liberty), is derived from basically the indigenous tribes, especially of North America(IE British colonies).


Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State of nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-27-2015 at 04:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 06:54 AM
 
36,820 posts, read 16,368,917 times
Reputation: 9906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
funny, name me 1 country that didn't take land from the original natives from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas.

you better take a long course on World History and learn how each country in the world was formed.


didn't Native tribes from the Americas (North, Central, South America and the Caribbean) slaughtered other tribes for land and slavery ?....or all the natives shared their lands peacefully with all the tribes?
All good points. The only thing I would add is that no one's ancestors were native to this country/continent. They all migrated here from somewhere else and this was a wide open frontier ripe for the taking by anyone. It's all irrelevant in this day and age anyway. Those people are all dead now and no one alive today is responsible for what dead people did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2015, 07:29 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,714,592 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
All good points. The only thing I would add is that no one's ancestors were native to this country/continent. They all migrated here from somewhere else and this was a wide open frontier ripe for the taking by anyone. It's all irrelevant in this day and age anyway. Those people are all dead now and no one alive today is responsible for what dead people did.
Based on that logic, then the only continent anyone's ancestors were native to, would be Africa. And more specifically, East Africa. Does that mean East Africa should be shared by all humans, and everywhere else in the world is forever a grab-bag for the most powerful?


I will say this, I don't necessarily agree with the concept of reparations. But, its difficult for me to accept that the simple passing-of-time makes up for all the crimes committed(especially because of the magnitude of the crimes committed).


It is difficult to really come up with a good solution to this problem. Especially because I hate government so much, and find any intervention by government to do far more harm than any good.

Of course, I'm a huge fan of "independence". So if given the choice, I would probably demand a right to "Cherokee independence". But, not only has the US government offered independence/sovereignty and then taken it away, multiple times. Property rights have become completely convoluted(especially "mineral rights") in my state of Oklahoma. Plus, the national debt is now like ~$57,000 per person.


But hell, if you could be granted independence for simply being part native. I would even be tempted to learn the Cherokee language.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top