Once again, Larry. Having spent 20 years or so of listening carefully to
politicians at all levels, taken as a whole I'd rate Bush's answer on tribal
sovereignty comes out somewhere above average.
You've got no bloody idea what politicians sound like most of the time. What you
get are carefully selected sound bites and quotes -- most of which are designed
to make the politicians sound good, or at least coherent. Believe me, most of
those incisive responses you read in the newspaper sounded a at least as bad as
Bush did before the reporters and editors cleaned them up.
As such things go, I'd even rate the Bush reply moderately responsive.
Let me be clear on this. I do not like politicians. As a class they make me break
out in hives. I'm not real fond of George W. Bush. But I am astonished at the
lengths to which some people will go to bad-mouth him. In
rec.freaking.woodworking, no less.
--RC
Larry Jaques wrote:
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. -