Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Dude, He was an alien. You gotta read between the lines.

The sort with rights (green, from spacecraft) or the other?

[ltl/fb]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shape Shifter

Originally posted by sgtclub
Relevance? [/QUOTE

You tell me: can we use the National Guard to put down uprisings on Indian* reservations?

*Native American, whatever

Where is your "My way, or the highway" sig line quote from? Bush? DeLay? Frist?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Where is your "My way, or the highway" sig line quote from? Bush? DeLay? Frist?

W's victory speech.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Bad analogy. Indian reservations are on US soil. They are not sovereign nations.

Wrong, motherfucking jackass. Example:

http://www.cherokee.org/TribalGovernment/Government.asp

eta: huh. I thought you might find this interesting:

"In 1916, the Supreme Court in the case of the United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S.602 decided that two Sioux Indians committing adultery on an Indian reservation were not subject to prosecution, since questions involving domestic relations and sex crimes have always been left to tribal customs and laws. The courts recognize the validity of Indian custom marriage, divorce and adoption between members of a tribe living on a reservation even if the marriage is polygamous."

http://thorpe.ou.edu/cohen/tribalgovtpam2pt1&2.htm

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Wrong, motherfucking jackass. Example:

http://www.cherokee.org/TribalGovernment/Government.asp

eta: huh. I thought you might find this interesting:

"In 1916, the Supreme Court in the case of the United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S.602 decided that two Sioux Indians committing adultery on an Indian reservation were not subject to prosecution, since questions involving domestic relations and sex crimes have always been left to tribal customs and laws. The courts recognize the validity of Indian custom marriage, divorce and adoption between members of a tribe living on a reservation even if the marriage is polygamous."

http://thorpe.ou.edu/cohen/tribalgovtpam2pt1&2.htm

Ahh, Google. Somewhere, Not Me is furiously scanning through a google cache, griping like the fat loan officer in the DiTech commercials.

I'll leave the likelihood of physical resemblance between NM and the loan officer as an open question for the board to pnder.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fuck that. If you truly believe in natural selection, including sexual selection, can you offer even a strained theory as to why, a million years into the homonid lineage, a female that looks like Barbara Mikulski could be produced.

Two principles apply:

(1) Many men don't pay much attention to the face.

(2) Poor, ugly men need some too.

[eta: Arggh!, NM got there first!}

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Understood, but they are now sending in troops. When Saddam was firing on our air patrols, were we justified to send in additional troops without a UN mandate?

A couple points of distinction here:

1) The Ivory Coast has no government currently. Iraq had a government, albeit one unacceptable to the Bush administration. (It was also probably unacceptable to many people in Iraq, but they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand)

2) We didn't send in troops to support our air patrols. We sent in troops to topple the government and occupy the country.

3) Why are you continuing to be so disingenuous? You're smarter than that. The election's over. Your guy won. Why don't you try focusing the discussion on more productive topics?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ahh, Google. Somewhere, Not Me is furiously scanning through a google cache, griping like the fat loan officer in the DiTech commercials.

I'll leave the likelihood of physical resemblance between NM and the loan officer as an open question for the board to pnder.

And it is all just a distraction from club's smart-assedy question on relevance of France's historical conquest of IC. I assume club was trying to make a gratuitous dig at the UN Security Council, which has condemned France's actions.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Not Me
Bad analogy. Indian reservations are on US soil. They are not sovereign nations.

Bad analysis. Indian Reservations are sovereign nations. They are not US soil.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
What's Hank's point? I have no idea. Certainly, he's not fool enough to debate the ape-man linkage, as that can be proven by simply visiting your local zoo.

I hear retards like the zoo.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Why don't you try focusing the discussion on more productive topics?

Richard Nixon famously said that "Life is defined by the struggle." If they can't be angry and rail about something, they collapse. Its like runner's high. If you should suddenly stop for a moment, you probably aren't going to be able to keep going.

But what the hell did a liberal like Tricky Dick know, right?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I hear retards like the zoo.

If you think I'm googling "Bitchin Camaro"...





you're right.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Bad analysis. Indian Reservations are sovereign nations. They are not US soil.

His analysis sucks almost as bad as your timing.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
A couple points of distinction here:

1) The Ivory Coast has no government currently. Iraq had a government, albeit one unacceptable to the Bush administration. (It was also probably unacceptable to many people in Iraq, but they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand)

2) We didn't send in troops to support our air patrols. We sent in troops to topple the government and occupy the country.

3) Why are you continuing to be so disingenuous? You're smarter than that. The election's over. Your guy won. Why don't you try focusing the discussion on more productive topics?

1) Why is having a government relevant? Is a nation not sovereign without a government?

2) Understood, I was using it as a hypo to try to understand the principle here. When is it OK to undertake military action against another country?

3) I'm not. I am just trying to understand how the world works these days. It is not apparent to me.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Wrong, motherfucking jackass. Example:

http://www.cherokee.org/TribalGovernment/Government.asp

eta: huh. I thought you might find this interesting:

"In 1916, the Supreme Court in the case of the United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S.602 decided that two Sioux Indians committing adultery on an Indian reservation were not subject to prosecution, since questions involving domestic relations and sex crimes have always been left to tribal customs and laws. The courts recognize the validity of Indian custom marriage, divorce and adoption between members of a tribe living on a reservation even if the marriage is polygamous."

http://thorpe.ou.edu/cohen/tribalgovtpam2pt1&2.htm

This is such an asinine discussion I can't even believe I am responding to it.

Indian reservations are on US soil. Case in point, if someone is born to illegal aliens on an indian reservation, they are US citizens because they are born on US soil. Indian reservations may not be subject to the laws of the state within which the land lies, but they are subject to federal jursidiction because they are not sovereign.

What are you going to tell me next, that Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation.

What do you think the meaning of sovereign is?