THE ROD...the petition....

MIB529 wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
MIB529 wrote:

Get used to it. He blames missionaries for the fact that Indians
like myself don't have sex with our children. (And then he cites
missionaries as evidence that we once did!)
------------------------
They saw it, so did others.

But you can't cite a source you yourself don't respect, Steve.
--------------------------------------
If supported by others I do, yes I can.


What 'others'? These anonymous 'anthropologists' you love citing?
---------------------------------------
Far from anonymous, and one the native's side, therefore no ulterior
motive can be assumed. Theodore Rossevelt for one.
Steve

Steve outright admits to being a COMMUNIST.
Steve believes in community child rearing.

Steve wrote sick Fundy religious fables.
Greg wrote I'm a deliberate agnostic.

Steve wrote
Won't work, Rightists who pretend
atheism/agnosticism

pretend? I am what I am.

still rattle on with religious dogma

It must be tough to be such a raging atheist
that even the cultural ""religious dogma""
that an agnostic represents is such a terror to you.

disguised as secular politic. Transparent.

Perhaps your definition of secular is somewhat
extreme? You must be quite the raging atheist.
Most people would use the word "rabid" since
you are such an extremist in your intolerance.


Steve, Please READ this statement by you and
see if you can spot the Communist rhetoric!
This is YOUR STATEMENT!

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced,
abuse you, but the Democratic People's State
can and will protect you from the random bad
luck of being subjected to the idiots
in your "Family"! [ Exhibit A ]


In a fun-house mirror only.

Check the prescriptions on your glasses, Steve!


G: What you described is not Democratic Freedom,
S: Of course it is, you Ass. [Exhibit B]

G: but something even MORE intrusive than
G: Stalinist/Leninist Communism.
S: God, I hope so.

You just contradicted Exhibit B above.

G: And you sound like that's a good thing.
S: I want to live in what I describe.

G: Except that even the USSR at it's best/worst
G: never tried to do what you propose.

S: They were another Liar's Govt of Russia.
S: They did precisely NONE of what I promote,
S: and a bunch of things that OPPOSED what I promote!

G: Are you a Marxist, Steve? Or a Socialist?

S: Neither, I'm a Communist.

G: You actually wrote like the mother state
G: is SUPERIOR to parents.

S: ****, that's true HERE!

G: I can't WAIT to see what the moderate
G: non-spankers think about this!

S: Won't matter.

G: Maybe the moderates WILL revolt
G: against your extremism?

S: Moderates don't revolt, that's WHY
S: they're "moderate", you forgot that!


The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced,
abuse you, but the Democratic People's State
can and will protect you from the random bad
luck of being subjected to the idiots
in your "Family"! [ Exhibit A ]

G: Franz Kafka/
S: Unrelated.

How is totalitarianism and nightmarish bureaucracy
not related to your COMMUNIST theory?
Certainly if you don't address this issue, any
future attempts would end up like the failed past ones.


G: George Orwell/Creche Babies/STATE as parent/
S: Adults should raise the Society's children collectively.

Tell me, Mr. Communist, where has there EVER been
a model of Communism ever having actually WORKED?
And how do you propose that the power would not currupt?


G: Socialism/Socialist/rabid/kooky/Berkleyesque/PARENS PATRIAE
S: Verbal nonsense.

Even the Latin for what you propose?

Greg Hanson wrote:

Steve outright admits to being a COMMUNIST.
Steve believes in community child rearing.

Steve wrote sick Fundy religious fables.
Greg wrote I'm a deliberate agnostic.

Steve wrote
Won't work, Rightists who pretend
atheism/agnosticism

pretend? I am what I am.
------------------------
An agnostic cannot be a Rightist.
Not unless what he claims he doesn't know is the whole body
of human learning.


still rattle on with religious dogma

It must be tough to be such a raging atheist
that even the cultural ""religious dogma""
that an agnostic represents is such a terror to you.
------------------------------
Religious dogma is often propagated by misconceived imagined
atheists.


disguised as secular politic. Transparent.

Perhaps your definition of secular is somewhat
extreme? You must be quite the raging atheist.
Most people would use the word "rabid" since
you are such an extremist in your intolerance.
------------------------------
I'm not an atheist OR an agnostic regarding the Divine.
I KNOW the Truth, and that it's NOT YOURS EITHER!


Steve, Please READ this statement by you and
see if you can spot the Communist rhetoric!
This is YOUR STATEMENT!

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced,
abuse you, but the Democratic People's State
can and will protect you from the random bad
luck of being subjected to the idiots
in your "Family"! [ Exhibit A ]

In a fun-house mirror only.

Check the prescriptions on your glasses, Steve!
-----------------------------------
Finally the State protects children from their parents' insanity.


G: What you described is not Democratic Freedom,
S: Of course it is, you Ass. [Exhibit B]

G: but something even MORE intrusive than
G: Stalinist/Leninist Communism.
S: God, I hope so.

You just contradicted Exhibit B above.
-----------------
Read: 'Something Even MORE' once again,
and then you can shut the **** up.


G: And you sound like that's a good thing.
S: I want to live in what I describe.

G: Except that even the USSR at it's best/worst
G: never tried to do what you propose.

S: They were another Liar's Govt of Russia.
S: They did precisely NONE of what I promote,
S: and a bunch of things that OPPOSED what I promote!

G: Are you a Marxist, Steve? Or a Socialist?

S: Neither, I'm a Communist.

G: You actually wrote like the mother state
G: is SUPERIOR to parents.

S: ****, that's true HERE!

G: I can't WAIT to see what the moderate
G: non-spankers think about this!

S: Won't matter.

G: Maybe the moderates WILL revolt
G: against your extremism?

S: Moderates don't revolt, that's WHY
S: they're "moderate", you forgot that!
-----------
And?


The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced,
abuse you, but the Democratic People's State
can and will protect you from the random bad
luck of being subjected to the idiots
in your "Family"! [ Exhibit A ]

G: Franz Kafka/
S: Unrelated.

How is totalitarianism and nightmarish bureaucracy
not related to your COMMUNIST theory?
------------------------
The CURRENT LAW of EVERY NATION provides for the State's
obligation to protect children from their parents' insanity
in one or many forms, it needs nothing of MINE to make this
any MORE so.

My system is only slightly improved by specifics, nothing more.


Certainly if you don't address this issue, any
future attempts would end up like the failed past ones.
--------------------------
Because you're an ass and can't read or reason properly.


G: George Orwell/Creche Babies/STATE as parent/
S: Adults should raise the Society's children collectively.

Tell me, Mr. Communist, where has there EVER been
a model of Communism ever having actually WORKED?
---------------------------
Prehistoric times. Native American and aboriginal.
Present day tribalism, and to differing but notable
degrees in part in numerous modern Socialist societies.


And how do you propose that the power would not currupt?
-----------------------------
Democratic power cannot corrupt, only wealth can corrupt.
If you make wealth impossible and forbidden, you end all corruption.


G: Socialism/Socialist/rabid/kooky/Berkleyesque/PARENS PATRIAE
S: Verbal nonsense.

Even the Latin for what you propose?
------------------------------------
Parent of the Nation? George Washington?

Latinum tuum excrementum est.

You mean patria parente. Nation as Parent.
Idiot.
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
MIB529 wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
MIB529 wrote:

Get used to it. He blames missionaries for the fact that Indians
like myself don't have sex with our children. (And then he cites
missionaries as evidence that we once did!)
------------------------
They saw it, so did others.

But you can't cite a source you yourself don't respect, Steve.
--------------------------------------
If supported by others I do, yes I can.

Then name these 'others', Stevie-boy.

What 'others'? These anonymous 'anthropologists' you love citing?
---------------------------------------
Far from anonymous,

Until you name them, they are.

and one the native's side, therefore no ulterior
motive can be assumed. Theodore Rossevelt for one.

A well-known imperialist and eugenist. You'll have to do better than
that.

MIB529 wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
MIB529 wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
MIB529 wrote:

Get used to it. He blames missionaries for the fact that Indians
like myself don't have sex with our children. (And then he cites
missionaries as evidence that we once did!)
------------------------
They saw it, so did others.

But you can't cite a source you yourself don't respect, Steve.
--------------------------------------
If supported by others I do, yes I can.

Then name these 'others', Stevie-boy.
-------------------
Do your own homework, you'll learn a lot, and if I tell you you'll
just avoid it.


What 'others'? These anonymous 'anthropologists' you love citing?
---------------------------------------
Far from anonymous,

Until you name them, they are.
---------------
****ty little Rightist liar, deleting any Truth you can't handle!


and one the native's side, therefore no ulterior
motive can be assumed. Theodore Rossevelt for one.

A well-known imperialist and eugenist. You'll have to do better than
that.
---------------------------------
Nothing wrong with well-founded eugenics, we do a lot of it these
days via genetic counseling, the same that would scandalized the '20's.

As an imperialist, to suggest leaving them be, He was obviously
unprejudiced.
Steve

Steve wrote
An agnostic cannot be a Rightist.
Not unless what he claims he doesn't
know is the whole body of human learning.

Could you please diagram the logic of that
and explain why one precludes the other?

Your second sentence above is a non sequitur.
It doesn't follow.
Thinking error again, Steve.

By the way, I label myself a deliberate agnostic.

Religious dogma is often propagated by
misconceived imagined atheists.

Are going mumbltypeg Steve?
How could atheists create religious dogma?
Can you give an example?

S: disguised as secular politic. Transparent.

G: Perhaps your definition of secular is somewhat
G: extreme? You must be quite the raging atheist.
G: Most people would use the word "rabid" since
G: you are such an extremist in your intolerance.

S: I'm not an atheist OR an agnostic regarding the Divine.
S: I KNOW the Truth, and that it's NOT YOURS EITHER!

Steve, you have already claimed your atheism.
Are you now reversing yourself?
Are you being dishonest about your atheism
or have you changed since you posted about it?
Are you a COMMUNIST who doesn't follow the
party line about religion being an opiate?


Steve, Please READ this statement by you and
see if you can spot the Communist rhetoric!
This is YOUR STATEMENT!

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced,
abuse you, but the Democratic People's State
can and will protect you from the random bad
luck of being subjected to the idiots
in your "Family"! [ Exhibit A ]

S: In a fun-house mirror only.
G: Check the prescriptions on your glasses, Steve!
S Finally the State protects children from their parents' insanity.

Are you repeating a mantra?
Your answer seems disconnected.

G: What you described is not Democratic Freedom,
S: Of course it is, you Ass. [Exhibit B]

G: but something even MORE intrusive than
G: Stalinist/Leninist Communism.
S: God, I hope so.

You just contradicted Exhibit B above.

S: Read: 'Something Even MORE' once again,
S: and then you can shut the [e.d.] up.

Please diagram your logic.
You declared it is Democratic Freedom.
Then you lobby for ""EVEN MORE"" INTRUSION.

G: And you sound like that's a good thing.
S: I want to live in what I describe.

G: Except that even the USSR at it's best/worst
G: never tried to do what you propose.

S: They were another Liar's Govt of Russia.
S: They did precisely NONE of what I promote,
S: and a bunch of things that OPPOSED what I promote!

G: Are you a Marxist, Steve? Or a Socialist?

S: Neither, I'm a Communist.

G: You actually wrote like the mother state
G: is SUPERIOR to parents.

S: [e.d.], that's true HERE!

G: I can't WAIT to see what the moderate
G: non-spankers think about this!

S: Won't matter.

G: Maybe the moderates WILL revolt
G: against your extremism?

S: Moderates don't revolt, that's WHY
S: they're "moderate", you forgot that!

S: And?

I don't need to help you hang yourself.
You do a good job all by yourself.

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced,
abuse you, but the Democratic People's State
can and will protect you from the random bad
luck of being subjected to the idiots
in your "Family"! [ Exhibit A ]

G: Franz Kafka/
S: Unrelated.

How is totalitarianism and nightmarish bureaucracy
not related to your COMMUNIST theory?

The CURRENT LAW of EVERY NATION provides for the State's
obligation to protect children from their parents' insanity
in one or many forms, it needs nothing of MINE to make this
any MORE so.

My system is only slightly improved by specifics, nothing more.

In other words, you don't intend to have "your system"
become any smarter than any other system regarding
the abuses that bureaucracy, by nature, perpetrates?

This is a rather large specific for a proposed
government that would, by nature, be MUCH more
bureaucratic.

Certainly if you don't address this issue, any
future attempts would end up like the failed past ones.

Because you're an [e.d.] and can't read or reason properly.

Do you think your swearing indicates you are rational?
You have displayed several blatant thinking errors.

G: George Orwell/Creche Babies/STATE as parent/
S: Adults should raise the Society's children collectively.

Tell me, Mr. Communist, where has there EVER been
a model of Communism ever having actually WORKED?

Prehistoric times. Native American and aboriginal.
Present day tribalism, and to differing but notable
degrees in part in numerous modern Socialist societies.

Why do you claim Socialism?
Is that really your territory?

It's interesting you bring up Native Americans, because
they have a distinct advantage when it comes to
Child Protection agencies interfering. By LAW, CPS
can't really TOUCH Native American kids. If they find
out they have one, they have to hand them back to the
TRIBE ASAP. To a huge extent, Native Americans can
simply thumb their noses at state Child Protection.

Despite this legal situation, CPS in Iowa, where I am,
has been getting in trouble for apparently IGNORING
that kids are Native American, ignoring all of the
protocols and hoping to get grant money from the Feds
under circumstances where the Feds shouldn't pay.
They have held kids and even TPR'd where it was
totally illegal from the beginning!
I attribute this to ignorant and untrained caseworkers,
and a incompetent supervision (stooges) at Iowa DHS.

I find it interesting that you mention Native Americans
and their ""socialism"" in regard to Child Protection.

You probably forgot this thread is about Child Protection.

And how do you propose that the power would not currupt?

Democratic power cannot corrupt, only wealth can corrupt.
If you make wealth impossible and forbidden, you end all corruption.

You would also end all ambition, drive, incentive.
Why go to college for 8 years to be a doctor if
you don't see any benefit?
What makes you think Democratic power would not corrupt?

G: Socialism/Socialist/rabid/kooky/Berkleyesque/PARENS PATRIAE
S: Verbal nonsense.
G: Even the Latin for what you propose?
S: Parent of the Nation? George Washington?
S: Latinum tuum excrementum est.
poopyhead.

You mean patria parente. Nation as Parent.

I didn't contrive the legal doctrin's bad latin.
PARENS PATRIAE is a legal term that I did not create.

(Children of the State)

Greg Hanson wrote:

Steve wrote
An agnostic cannot be a Rightist.
Not unless what he claims he doesn't
know is the whole body of human learning.

Could you please diagram the logic of that
and explain why one precludes the other?
----------------------------
A Rightist presumes all sorts of things that have never been evidenced.
An "agnostic" literally "does not know".


Your second sentence above is a non sequitur.
It doesn't follow.
Thinking error again, Steve.
------------------------------
Your error.


By the way, I label myself a deliberate agnostic.
------------------------------
You're merely an erroneous agnostic.
You haven't the honesty or couth for agnosticism.


Religious dogma is often propagated by
misconceived imagined atheists.

Are going mumbltypeg Steve?
How could atheists create religious dogma?
Can you give an example?
------------------------------
Not "create", propagate, you idiot.

They having been raised in a religious state, believe that religion
is merely "normal" and of the state and don't recognize it for the
religious fraud that the state has been enlisted to defend and
propagate secularly. Such things as oppression of sexuality and
propagation of classism and racism are mostly of this kind.


S: disguised as secular politic. Transparent.

G: Perhaps your definition of secular is somewhat
G: extreme? You must be quite the raging atheist.
G: Most people would use the word "rabid" since
G: you are such an extremist in your intolerance.

S: I'm not an atheist OR an agnostic regarding the Divine.
S: I KNOW the Truth, and that it's NOT YOURS EITHER!

Steve, you have already claimed your atheism.
---------------
Nope. You're mistaken.


Are you now reversing yourself?
---------------------------
No.


Are you being dishonest about your atheism
or have you changed since you posted about it?
--------------------
I never claimed atheism.


Are you a COMMUNIST who doesn't follow the
party line about religion being an opiate?
-----------------------
I'm a Communist, not a Marxist, again you err.

But my "religion", a wrong name for what I have,
is none that has gone before.


Steve, Please READ this statement by you and
see if you can spot the Communist rhetoric!
This is YOUR STATEMENT!

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced,
abuse you, but the Democratic People's State
can and will protect you from the random bad
luck of being subjected to the idiots
in your "Family"! [ Exhibit A ]
------------------
Everybody knows what I say, nobody has the vaguest idea why you're
yelling, or why you think I've denied it.

I AM, afterall, a Communist!


S: In a fun-house mirror only.
G: Check the prescriptions on your glasses, Steve!
S Finally the State protects children from their parents' insanity.

Are you repeating a mantra?
Your answer seems disconnected.
--------------------------
See the whole text with what you deleted restored and all becomes
clear.


G: What you described is not Democratic Freedom,
S: Of course it is, you Ass. [Exhibit B]

G: but something even MORE intrusive than
G: Stalinist/Leninist Communism.
S: God, I hope so.

You just contradicted Exhibit B above.

S: Read: 'Something Even MORE' once again,
S: and then you can shut the [e.d.] up.

Please diagram your logic.
You declared it is Democratic Freedom.
Then you lobby for ""EVEN MORE"" INTRUSION.
--------------------------------
I do indeed wish for "something EVEN MORE intrusive" than
"Stalinist/Leninist Communism" since those are an oxymoron,
not Communist, NOT intrusive ENOUGH, OR in the manner *I*
want, and Lenin is unrelated to Stalin philosophically,
in fact they are near opposites.


[dishonestly elided pseudo-script deleted]

I don't need to help you hang yourself.
You do a good job all by yourself.
------------------
Your amateurish deletions might make a compleat idiot believe so.


The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced,
abuse you, but the Democratic People's State
can and will protect you from the random bad
luck of being subjected to the idiots
in your "Family"! [ Exhibit A ]

G: Franz Kafka/
S: Unrelated.

How is totalitarianism and nightmarish bureaucracy
not related to your COMMUNIST theory?

The CURRENT LAW of EVERY NATION provides for the State's
obligation to protect children from their parents' insanity
in one or many forms, it needs nothing of MINE to make this
any MORE so.

My system is only slightly improved by specifics, nothing more.

In other words, you don't intend to have "your system"
become any smarter than any other system regarding
the abuses that bureaucracy, by nature, perpetrates?
------------------------------
"Bureaucracy" is not the problem with this system or any system.
It's a phony position. The intelligence of the system is in its
principles, nothing else. With the right principles, the system
works, with the wrong ones, it fails and looks paralyzed and
corrupt.


This is a rather large specific for a proposed
government that would, by nature, be MUCH more
bureaucratic.
------------------------
Bureacracy as you grasp it is a result of leaky patches
for a leaky boat, without correcting the bad boat's design.
I promote a new boat in which corruption is nearly impossible
to effect because of its structure.


Certainly if you don't address this issue, any
future attempts would end up like the failed past ones.

Because you're an [e.d.] and can't read or reason properly.

Do you think your swearing indicates you are rational?
------------------------
Do you think that different colored ink affects what is written?


You have displayed several blatant thinking errors.
---------------------------
That's your assertion, however, you are unable to even repeat which
you think they are, and even MORE unable to argue with them rationally.


Tell me, Mr. Communist, where has there EVER been
a model of Communism ever having actually WORKED?

Prehistoric times. Native American and aboriginal.
Present day tribalism, and to differing but notable
degrees in part in numerous modern Socialist societies.

Why do you claim Socialism?
Is that really your territory?
---------------------------------
Communism procedes from Socialism.
Socialism is the principle of Communism.


It's interesting you bring up Native Americans, because
they have a distinct advantage when it comes to
Child Protection agencies interfering. By LAW, CPS
can't really TOUCH Native American kids. If they find
----------------
Irrelevant to this argument, a detail, unrelated.


You probably forgot this thread is about Child Protection.
--------------------------
No it isn't. It's about your child-abuse.


And how do you propose that the power would not currupt?

Democratic power cannot corrupt, only wealth can corrupt.
If you make wealth impossible and forbidden, you end all corruption.

You would also end all ambition, drive, incentive.
----------------------
Non-sequitur.

Only CORRUPT "ambition, drive, and incentive" procede from the
urge to wealth.

NO VIRTUOUS or socially important "ambition, drive, or incentive"
does so.


Why go to college for 8 years to be a doctor if
you don't see any benefit?
-----------------------
Because you enjoy the study and practice of medicine.


What makes you think Democratic power would not corrupt?
-----------------------
Democratic administration of power is egalitarian, and administers
power equally among its members, prohibiting corruption which arises
from striving for unequal benefit.


G: Socialism/Socialist/rabid/kooky/Berkleyesque/PARENS PATRIAE
S: Verbal nonsense.
G: Even the Latin for what you propose?
S: Parent of the Nation? George Washington?
S: Latinum tuum excrementum est.
poopyhead.
-----------------
Your Latin is crap.


You mean patria parente. Nation as Parent.

I didn't contrive the legal doctrin's bad latin.
PARENS PATRIAE is a legal term that I did not create.

(Children of the State)
--------------------------
That's NOT correct. Your Latin is crap.

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Ci...ensPatriae.htm

Steve

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Greg Hanson wrote:

Steve wrote

An agnostic cannot be a Rightist.
Not unless what he claims he doesn't
know is the whole body of human learning.

Could you please diagram the logic of that
and explain why one precludes the other?

----------------------------
A Rightist presumes all sorts of things that have never been evidenced.
An "agnostic" literally "does not know".



Your second sentence above is a non sequitur.
It doesn't follow.
Thinking error again, Steve.

------------------------------
Your error.



By the way, I label myself a deliberate agnostic.

------------------------------
You're merely an erroneous agnostic.
You haven't the honesty or couth for agnosticism.



Religious dogma is often propagated by
misconceived imagined atheists.

Are going mumbltypeg Steve?
How could atheists create religious dogma?
Can you give an example?

------------------------------
Not "create", propagate, you idiot.

They having been raised in a religious state, believe that religion
is merely "normal" and of the state and don't recognize it for the
religious fraud that the state has been enlisted to defend and
propagate secularly. Such things as oppression of sexuality and
propagation of classism and racism are mostly of this kind.



S: disguised as secular politic. Transparent.

G: Perhaps your definition of secular is somewhat
G: extreme? You must be quite the raging atheist.
G: Most people would use the word "rabid" since
G: you are such an extremist in your intolerance.

S: I'm not an atheist OR an agnostic regarding the Divine.
S: I KNOW the Truth, and that it's NOT YOURS EITHER!

Steve, you have already claimed your atheism.

---------------
Nope. You're mistaken.



Are you now reversing yourself?

---------------------------
No.



Are you being dishonest about your atheism
or have you changed since you posted about it?

--------------------
I never claimed atheism.



Are you a COMMUNIST who doesn't follow the
party line about religion being an opiate?

-----------------------
I'm a Communist, not a Marxist, again you err.

But my "religion", a wrong name for what I have,
is none that has gone before.

Ahh. How refreshing, alas, something new under the sun.

And I was getting bored.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Get used to it. He blames missionaries for the fact that Indians
like myself don't have sex with our children. (And then he cites
missionaries as evidence that we once did!)
------------------------
They saw it, so did others.

But you can't cite a source you yourself don't respect, Steve.
--------------------------------------
If supported by others I do, yes I can.

Then name these 'others', Stevie-boy.
-------------------
Do your own homework, you'll learn a lot, and if I tell you you'll
just avoid it.

In other words, you don't have any evidence.

What 'others'? These anonymous 'anthropologists' you love citing?
---------------------------------------
Far from anonymous,

Until you name them, they are.
---------------
****ty little Rightist liar, deleting any Truth you can't handle!

Rightist? Moi? Funny, someone on another froup called me a communist.

and one the native's side, therefore no ulterior
motive can be assumed. Theodore Rossevelt for one.

A well-known imperialist and eugenist. You'll have to do better than
that.
---------------------------------
Nothing wrong with well-founded eugenics, we do a lot of it these
days via genetic counseling, the same that would scandalized the '20's.

And what kind of eugenics do you think the Progressive Party favored, you
poor naive fool? The genetic counseling of today, or the 'sterilize all
the poor and nonwhites' of their own era?

As an imperialist, to suggest leaving them be, He was obviously
unprejudiced.

He transferred 2.5 million acres of Indian land to national forests. So
much for 'leaving them be'.

MIB529 wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Get used to it. He blames missionaries for the fact that Indians
like myself don't have sex with our children. (And then he cites
missionaries as evidence that we once did!)
------------------------
They saw it, so did others.

But you can't cite a source you yourself don't respect, Steve.
--------------------------------------
If supported by others I do, yes I can.

Then name these 'others', Stevie-boy.
-------------------
Do your own homework, you'll learn a lot, and if I tell you you'll
just avoid it.

In other words, you don't have any evidence.
-----------------------------
Erroneous conclusion. You're just being petulant that I won't
waste my time trying to inform you, when you won't permit that
anyway and seek thereby merely to hinder people like me.


What 'others'? These anonymous 'anthropologists' you love citing?
---------------------------------------
Far from anonymous,

Until you name them, they are.
---------------
****ty little Rightist liar, deleting any Truth you can't handle!

Rightist? Moi? Funny, someone on another froup called me a communist.
---------------------------
Yep. Liar.


and one the native's side, therefore no ulterior
motive can be assumed. Theodore Rossevelt for one.

A well-known imperialist and eugenist. You'll have to do better than
that.
---------------------------------
Nothing wrong with well-founded eugenics, we do a lot of it these
days via genetic counseling, the same that would scandalized the '20's.

And what kind of eugenics do you think the Progressive Party favored, you
poor naive fool? The genetic counseling of today, or the 'sterilize all
the poor and nonwhites' of their own era?
----------------------------------
Uninterested. That's unrelated to anything I've ever said, you're
tossing smoke bombs.


As an imperialist, to suggest leaving them be, He was obviously
unprejudiced.

He transferred 2.5 million acres of Indian land to national forests. So
much for 'leaving them be'.
-------------------------------
There was nobody there. He thereby saved them for later descendant
claims, but by no fault of his were never were permitted. Go read-up.
Steve