"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
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.


He was asked a pretty open, generic question about the relationship between
sovereign tribes and the government. The answer was that the tribes are
sovereign with all that implies, yet the government has a duty to help out
with job programs, education and so on. I haven't read the question
recently but I don't remember this as a pointed question that needed
sidestepping. I don't think anybody really even started out calling this
controversial. It was just the first 10 seconds of fumbling around for the
right words that made the video.

dwhite