On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:13:16 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Let me rephrase: Forget you saw the video, read what he said, and then tell
me it isn't reasonable. It is certainly a pretty pat political answer, but
it is still the facts.

Relying on memory of a quick read of the previously quoted site, King
George _didn't_answer_the_question_. He mentioned US gov't programs
and political crap but said nothing about tribal sovereignty.

Without further clarification, especially after all he's done in
recent times, I'd think the Prez meant that the tribes -didn't-
have any, could not self-rule, and were being taken over by King
George as yet another part of his quest for global domination.

Bottom line: It isn't reasonable.

If I missed something, please quote his actual answer to the
question. I think it was a complete sidestep and the King's
handlers are rolling over in their (wished for) graves.

--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -