Leaving the community

Jay Honeck wrote:

How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?


You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
possessed"? You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!


Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he may be coming at this
from this angle:

Native Americans, by their own beliefs, made no claim on the land, in fact
denying that it *could* be owned. It's hard to imagine "stealing" land from
people who make no claim on it.

The Indians were in a near constant state of war with each other over
land and other issues. Read Lewis and Clarks account of their trip. The
white man comes in and is better at war and outright deception. That's
life.



To which I would add this: Native Americans are still here, and are a
welcome part of American society. To say that they were all killed is, in
fact, wrong.

Now if the Indians would wake up and get rid of those stupid
reservations they could be as successful as the rest of us.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message
...
You are correct that the world isn't simple and you have to examine
mitigating circumstances when making a judgement. The point I was trying
to
make is this: to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
people who don't commit crimes.

IMHO, scandals like those regarding Enron, Worldcom, and the Iraq War are
proof enough that you don't need to be poor to be a criminal.

But to suggest that there's NO statistical correlation between poverty and
crime, and *especially* between poverty and property crimes (like theft),
is just plain incorrect.

Perhaps saying it out loud is an insult to the poor people who don't
commit crimes. But that's a matter for the PC police, not people who are
interested in factual statements.

Pete

Pete:

When I grow up, I want to be just like you (I just turned 48!). Would it be
possible that you put the cart in front of the horse? Would it be possible
that, say, the same factor or factors that cause poverty also cause crime?
This, in my opinion, would show up as an statistical correlation, wouldn't
it?

And one day I want to worship at the altar of the "facts", like you do now.
The big problem is: facts are sometimes in the eyes of the beholder. To wit,
special theory of relativity, not even the concept of simultaneity survives
different points of view.

Fidel

"Allen" wrote in message
om...
I know who the criminals are at Enron and Worldcom, who are the ones in
the Iraq War?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
The fact that you even have to ask the question makes it clear that you
are
in the "never to change one's mind pro-Bush" camp. I seriously doubt
you're
prepared to read my answer without prejudice.

However, it's clear to me that the President and his administration
committed fraud against Congress and the American people, in claiming to
have evidence that they did not, and in proceeding to war before
fulfilling
promises made by the President.

Last I checked, fraud was still a crime.

Pete


Pete,

I am forwarding this information to the Waco police department. President
Bush is due to arrive here in Waco tomorrow and with any luck they can nab
him as he gets off the plane! Thanks for the heads-up.

{:)

Allen

"Newps" wrote in message
news
The Indians were in a near constant state of war with each other over land
and other issues.

Yes, Native Americans (like Europeans, Asians, etc.) did fight wars among
themselves.

The white man comes in and is better at war and outright deception.
That's life.

When others attack and slaughter *us*, that's monstrous, incomprehensible
evil.

But when we do it to others--shrug, "that's life"; whether it's right or
wrong apparently isn't even worth thinking about.

Once you've internalized that double standard, you can rationalize
*anything*.

--Gary

" jls" wrote in message
.. .

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Matt,

How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?


You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
possessed"? You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas, you're arguing with nuts who believe their titles are from God,
who,
filled with the holy spirit, believe that ownership of this continent, and
perhaps even world domination, is manifest destiny ordained by gawd
awlmighty.

As an atheist, I find that to be a ROTFLMAO remark.


But be my guest, go ahead and argue with them. It's good theater worth
more than a few chuckles. Of course,they should be sentenced to
community
service as well as reading all those treaties with the Indians the USA
violated or declared to be null and void, again because of the express
will
of gawd.

So, nutbar, want to shove your foot even deeper into your mouth?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Fidel Perez" wrote in message
...

When I grow up, I want to be just like you (I just turned 48!). Would it
be
possible that you put the cart in front of the horse? Would it be possible
that, say, the same factor or factors that cause poverty also cause crime?

It would...but that would be putting the cart before the horse (in your
words).

Consider economic opportunities. Who would hire someone with a criminal
mindset to handle their economic transactions?

This, in my opinion, would show up as an statistical correlation, wouldn't
it?

It does. Now consider CAUSATION.



And one day I want to worship at the altar of the "facts", like you do
now.

Evidently, it would be a decisive change for you.

The big problem is: facts are sometimes in the eyes of the beholder.

How wonderfully postmodern. Thing is, PM denies that facts exist. It denies
reality exists. It's a modified form of schizophrenia.

To wit,
special theory of relativity, not even the concept of simultaneity
survives
different points of view.

Have a happy multiple lives.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Matt,

How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?


You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
possessed"?

How do namadc tribes "own" land that they inhabit for a few week or months
at a time? How do they "own" land that they took from prior "owners"? How
do they "own" huge tracts of land on which they occupy a few acres and only
for a season at a time?


You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!

Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of land
ownership at all.

Try looking at things from beyond the perspective of Hollywood.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Matt,

How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?


You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
possessed"?

How do namadc tribes "own" land that they inhabit for a few week or months
at a time? How do they "own" land that they took from prior "owners"? How
do they "own" huge tracts of land on which they occupy a few acres and
only
for a season at a time?


You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!

Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of land
ownership at all.

Try looking at things from beyond the perspective of Hollywood.

--
Matt

Ah, but my shallow manifest destinarian atheist, the natives were
territorial. They may have moved from place to place like the Floridians
who come here in summer, but always came back to their hunting grounds.
Until white eyes took them.

Using the logical extension of your rather simplistic argument, wouldn't I
be justified in confiscating a Floridian's land when he comes here in
summer?

Matt Barrow ) wrote:
:
: Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of
: land ownership at all.
:

Some had the concept of owning people...

http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/slave_rv.htm
CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842

"CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842

by Art T. Burton
Copyright 1996. Art T. Burton

Black slavery in America usually evokes images of the antebellum
South, but few realize that members of the Five Civilized Tribes--the
Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles--in Indian
Territory, today's Oklahoma, also had slaves. Like their counterparts
in the South, Indian slaveholders feared slave revolts. Those fears
came true in 1842 when slaves in the Cherokee Nation made a daring
dash for freedom.

In the 1830s and 1840s, initially at the insistence of President
Andrew Jackson, the United States government forcibly removed the Five
Civilized Tribes from their homes in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee,
North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to Indian Territory west of the
Mississippi River. Their removal opened the lands to white settlers
and planters..."


This defines the term "Five Civilized Tribes":

http://www.sff.net/people/Rion.Wilhelm/five_tribes.html
The Five Civilized Tribes

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

"Fidel Perez" wrote in message
...
When I grow up, I want to be just like you (I just turned 48!).

Whatever.

Would it be possible that you put the cart in front of the horse?

No.

Would it be possible that, say, the same factor or factors that cause
poverty also cause crime?

Yes.

This, in my opinion, would show up as an statistical correlation, wouldn't
it?

Yes.

I never said poverty was the ONLY cause of crime. But it's pretty dumb to
think that there's NO causal relationship.

Pete