Tribal Leader Interview

Its good to know that you were there and can now set us straight. I was going to add to this but you aren’t worth the argument you’d bring in reply.

“There is a sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed”…
Mahatma Gandhi

Hey its throwback thursday so here is a question I always wondered.

Do the netters have a slot or does everything that hits the nets also hit the deck? Asking because I have seen floaters out there tangled in net material.

philtickelson wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>
they’re indigenous to North America

Indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

My understanding is we have scientifically proven we are all originated from the same place, regardless of whatever cultural, religious or geographical name we came to be known by later.

What exactly does this argument mean? That no one has any claim to anything? I don’t see how it’s relevant.

Treaty was signed by our government, don’t be mad at the Natives about it. They got screwed for generations by white people, I’m surprised they even put an effort in to make themselves look good in this situation.

I wouldn’t say the quotes by the tribal member was any attempt to make them look good to Minnesotans, quite the contrary imo.

But my post quoted here was to say we are all the same genetic makeup. We also know thru Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement that separate laws based on race are never equal. So if we really believe in “all men created equal”, we need to be equal under the same laws.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Its good to know that you were there and can now set us straight. I was going to add to this but you aren’t worth the argument you’d bring in reply.

I have the same privilege to give voice to an unpopular opinion here that anyone else does to make thread after thread on this and other dead-horse subjects. If people are intent on talking about this stuff and perpetuating their opinions as fact, I’ll continue to make it harder for the threads to be one-sided. Not gonna apologize for that.

If you guys would rather just sit around and pat each on the back and re-affirm your own opinions on controversial issues maybe you should get together and go bowling or start a nice little private Facebook group where no dissenting opinions are allowed.

I’m a pretty patient person who is ALWAYS open to the possibility that I might learn something new and unexpected. (Definitely expanded my knowledge on the Dakota-Ojibwe conflict today). In that spirit I will continue to ask honest questions even if mostly met with defensive and aggressive responses. No skin off my back. I’m still waiting for answers on most of them but won’t hold my breath. But when someone asks me a question, no matter how loaded or leading that question is, I will always give an honest answer and I will always attempt to do so without resorting to personal attacks.

Have a great night, Tom!

“If the roles were reversed, we would net the lake dry and lay the dead fish on the side of 169 as a visible middle finger to everyone.”

I think this comment is almost completely totally facts averse to the character of joe average US citizen, especially those of us here in the sportsman community. We indeed do give a damn about our natural resources. Getting defeated by someone in war, especially not by a power as historically benevolent as the United States could change that character. Your statement is completely absurd as far as I’m concerned.

BigWerm wrote:

But my post quoted here was to say we are all the same genetic makeup. We also know thru Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement that separate laws based on race are never equal. So if we really believe in “all men created equal”, we need to be equal under the same laws.

I appreciate and understand this perspective, to an extent. Moreso I appreciate that you’re willing to actually engage. In my opinion there is a lot more to being human than genetic code. Culture is important. I feel we should embrace and seek to understand our differences, not pretend we’re all the same because we share DNA. Every other shred of evidence points to the fact that he world is populated by a great variety of human cultures.

There are many ways in which the playing field is not level for various groups of people in this country, Mille lacs is far from an isolated case. I love the idea of euqlity for all, but it’s never happened in practice.

Holy moly…put you all in a room and let you try to tear each others hair out.
I have found myself on the Mille Lacs shore and then in for a meal of “ogaa” and mahnomen pilaf. Yippee… Peace out…?

Attachments:

1. 

   20171012_174054.jpg
   

2. 

   20171012_211033.jpg
   

How would everyone feel if the contract that allows the tribe to net on Mille Lacs was between the government and a corporation? There are plenty of contracts out there that allow businesses access to our natural resources that others don’t have. One of the key differences is that there aren’t a lot of examples (none that come to mind) where the contract was invalidated and then revalidated to the extent that the Mille Lacs treaty was.

If I were a resort I’d fight for my position, too. I like to think that I would not do it in the same way as the loudest ML resorts have, but I’d certainly feel like what I had was taken from me and I’d push back.

I guess that in my mind these days it comes down to a contract dispute as much as anything. If I were in the tribe’s position, I’d fight for that, too. Unfortunately for the resorts they aren’t a party to the treaty or any contract with the state that I’m aware of. Race has nothing to do with it. Parties to a contract virtually always have rights that others don’t have.

Also, some of the comments in this thread about race are really embarrassing. Yuk.

pool2fool wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
But my post quoted here was to say we are all the same genetic makeup. We also know thru Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement that separate laws based on race are never equal. So if we really believe in “all men created equal”, we need to be equal under the same laws.

I appreciate and understand this perspective, to an extent. Moreso I appreciate that you’re willing to actually engage. In my opinion there is a lot more to being human than genetic code. Culture is important. I feel we should embrace and seek to understand our differences, not pretend we’re all the same because we share DNA. Every other shred of evidence points to the fact that he world is populated by a great variety of human cultures.

There are many ways in which the playing field is not level for various groups of people in this country, Mille lacs is far from an isolated case. I love the idea of euqlity for all, but it’s never happened in practice.

Using the word “Always” as in your previous post is a very dangerous method of argument unless backed up by factual evidence. IMHO

Now your mentioning how “Culture is important” but not mentioning the difference from culture many years ago to todays culture……?

john23 wrote:

How would everyone feel if the contract that allows the tribe to net on Mille Lacs was between the government and a corporation? There are plenty of contracts out there that allow businesses access to our natural resources that others don’t have. One of the key differences is that there aren’t a lot of examples (none that come to mind) where the contract was invalidated and then revalidated to the extent that the Mille Lacs treaty

Lake winnipeg comes to mind.

But it seems to me they object to the treaty on the grounds they feel it’s “racist” since it gives one group of people different privileges. Then from the other side of that same mouth they say there’s no such thing as native Americans we’re all the same? It goes in circles.

Mocha wrote:

Using the word “Always” as in your previous post is a very dangerous method of argument unless backed up by factual evidence. IMHO

Now your mentioning how “Culture is important” but not mentioning the difference from culture many years ago to todays culture……?

How can I back up my intention to always have an open mind and give an honest answer without resorting to personal attacks in any other way than…. doing just that? I’m not perfect but you won’t find any of that garbage from me on this thread.

Of course I acknowledge that cultures change over generations. I thought that was an obvious given. I made those comments in direct response to the use of “genetic makeup” being used in an attempt to illegitimize the treaty, which I believe is a weak position.

john23 wrote:

How would everyone feel if the contract that allows the tribe to net on Mille Lacs was between the government and a corporation? There are plenty of contracts out there that allow businesses access to our natural resources that others don’t have. One of the key differences is that there aren’t a lot of examples (none that come to mind) where the contract was invalidated and then revalidated to the extent that the Mille Lacs treaty was.

I guess that in my mind these days it comes down to a contract dispute as much as anything. If I were in the tribe’s position, I’d fight for that, too.

I think this is a fair point, and if we are looking it from a purely business/contractual standpoint the State of Minnesota and it’s residents are long past due for a renegotiation. What does the state and it’s residents get from allowing the Casino monopoly, paying for all infrastructure leading to and within the tribe (BIA/GLIFWC etc), as well as all the tax-free land taken off the county property tax books? None of this was explicitly included in the treaty, and I’d be hard pressed to believe the Tribe would rather keep harvest rights over any one of these things.

pool2fool wrote:

Culture is important. I feel we should embrace and seek to understand our differences, not pretend we’re all the same because we share DNA. Every other shred of evidence points to the fact that he world is populated by a great variety of human cultures.

pool2fool wrote:

But it seems to me they object to the treaty on the grounds they feel it’s “racist” since it gives one group of people different privileges. Then from the other side of that same mouth they say there’s no such thing as native Americans we’re all the same? It goes in circles

First of all, I object to commercial netting. Period. And during the spawn on any lake anywhere is even worse, regardless of who’s doing it. This same battle is going on Lake Erie right now. I don’t know what you call laws that allow one group of people to take as many fish as they possibly can, and another group to only catch and release based off of racial demographics. To me that is racist, and it’s not a contradiction to believe we are still all one people. Maybe you have some examples of separate laws based off race working, I would love to hear them?

I agree that the state is long overdue for a renegotiation of the treaty. Totally. My understanding is that we were close prior to the Supreme Court decision, but now that that ship has sailed and given the current state of things I don’t know why the tribe would come back to the table.

I don’t think that race is the real issue, though. The treaty/contract/agreement that was negotiated between an exclusive group and the government so long ago is the real issue.

Ask yourself how you’d feel if a Mille Lacs resort association had an agreement with the government that said: 1) the association makes the rules about who can be an association resort; 2) only owners, employees and guests of association resorts can keep fish. My guess is that anglers would hate that (even if the resorts put a ton of $ into the lake and created jobs for the local residents), but we might be able to have a more honest debate about it simply because no one would talk about race.

Bass Pundit wrote:

“If the roles were reversed, we would net the lake dry and lay the dead fish on the side of 169 as a visible middle finger to everyone.”

I think this comment is almost completely totally facts averse to the character of joe average US citizen, especially those of us here in the sportsman community. We indeed do give a damn about our natural resources. Getting defeated by someone in war, especially not by a power as historically benevolent as the United States could change that character. Your statement is completely absurd as far as I’m concerned.

You could be right, I guess it’s impossible to know. It’s been a long time since Americans were forced into a corner and put under the bootheel of a another power. I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not surprised at all they continue to net and want that control/power.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the powers that be sit in a bar and laugh about all the upset whities. Not saying it’s right, just given the history between cultures I would not be surprised if any culture in there situation did what they could to ‘get back’ at their historical oppressors in some way.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>
they’re indigenous to North America

Indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

My understanding is we have scientifically proven we are all originated from the same place, regardless of whatever cultural, religious or geographical name we came to be known by later.

What exactly does this argument mean? That no one has any claim to anything? I don’t see how it’s relevant.

Treaty was signed by our government, don’t be mad at the Natives about it. They got screwed for generations by white people, I’m surprised they even put an effort in to make themselves look good in this situation.

I wouldn’t say the quotes by the tribal member was any attempt to make them look good to Minnesotans, quite the contrary imo.

But my post quoted here was to say we are all the same genetic makeup. We also know thru Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement that separate laws based on race are never equal. So if we really believe in “all men created equal”, we need to be equal under the same laws.

I suppose I meant more of ‘not blatantly inflammatory and aggressive’, though it didn’t come out that way. Basically, the tribe leaders could just laugh at the reporters and say, ‘check the treaty bro’ and walk away in a suit made completely out of walleye scales. Instead, they at least put a concerted effort to sound reasonable to someone not familiar with the situation.

The all men created equal thing is an interesting point, but I feel it’s tough to play that card AFTER you’ve committed genocide and banished the natives to, in a lot of cases, helpless reservations across the country. Reminiscent of redlining in my opinion.

That obviously opens up a different can of worms that we probably don’t need to discuss, but the Declaration of Independence saying all men are created equal does not mean that they are or have been treated equal or have equal opportunities in this country. Far from it. And if you stacked those opportunities on a scale, I think you’d find that scale is tilted heavily in favor of white people in this country.

That will be misinterpreted in some twisted fashion I’m sure, but I’m just a normal white guy who is comfortable admitting that. That doesn’t mean all white people are monsters or something, and every minority is a saint or anything like that. But given my situation, and what I’ve seen driving through reservations, for me to deny Natives their treaty rights on an ‘all men are created equal’ basis is pretty disingenuous. It comes off as entitled. I had access to so much growing up that I and many here probably take/took for granted, was there a law stopping Natives from accessing my education/health systems? No, but systematically it would be nearly impossible for them to take advantage of those things. They’d have to get a job with good health insurance, move into a upper middle class area, etc.

Could they? Sure, it’s not impossible. They’d just need to negate generations of poverty somehow?

john23 wrote:

I agree that the state is long overdue for a renegotiation of the treaty. Totally. My understanding is that we were close prior to the Supreme Court decision, but now that that ship has sailed and given the current state of things I don’t know why the tribe would come back to the table.

I don’t think that race is the real issue, though. The treaty/contract/agreement that was negotiated between an exclusive group and the government so long ago is the real issue.

Ask yourself how you’d feel if a Mille Lacs resort association had an agreement with the government that said: 1) the association makes the rules about who can be an association resort; 2) only owners, employees and guests of association resorts can keep fish. My guess is that anglers would hate that (even if the resorts put a ton of $ into the lake and created jobs for the local residents), but we might be able to have a more honest debate about it simply because no one would talk about race.

Totally agree John. However, I think the state could easily get the tribe back to the table, by threatening their Casino monopoly or infrastructure funding. We, the 1.4 million licensed anglers, would need to be organized enough to put significant pressure on politicians to do it. Until then the politicians will just keep cashing those checks from the tribe. The racial component is more philosophical to me, as well as a major factor in the public perception.

philtickelson wrote:

The all men created equal thing is an interesting point, but I feel it’s tough to play that card AFTER you’ve committed genocide and banished the natives to, in a lot of cases, helpless reservations across the country. Reminiscent of redlining in my opinion.

I have a hard time with this logic. First of all either you believe all men were created equal, and that is a valuable part of our countries values or you don’t. Second, no one alive committed genocide or banished anyone anywhere. Our gov’t has done a lot worse, in the time since the treaties were signed, to other minority groups, yet those minority groups have overcome those atrocities. Could it be that the treaties and reservation system are what’s holding the tribe back?

BigWerm wrote:

I don’t know what you call laws that allow one group of people to take as many fish as they possibly can, and another group to only catch and release based off of racial demographics.

In my opinion, that’s an oversimplification and a misrepresentation of the situation. The tribes are not allowed to take whatever they want, they have a quota just like anglers do. Second, I believe prolonged flawed management by the DNR (disastrous slots, etc), inaccurate creel surveys and data modeling, climate change, spiny water fleas, and zeebs all play a roles in the current mess. The DNR’s response to all of that has been to enact C&R regulations, temporary shut-downs, etc. It’s not all because of the treaty, it’s just an easy, convenient target.

BigWerm wrote:

To me that is racist, and it’s not a contradiction to believe we are still all one people.

We’ll just have to respectfully agree to disagree here since we obviously define Racism in different ways. Good ol’ Merriam-Webster is helpful here:

Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

BigWerm wrote:

Maybe you have some examples of separate laws based off race working, I would love to hear them?

First I want to clarify that I don’t believe ANYTHING is “working” at Mille Lacs right now. I hate the situation, I just don’t think it’s right or fair or realistic to place all the blame on one group who are abiding by their treaty with the United States government.

I can’t cite any race-based laws, and thank god for that. In my opinion that’s a testament to the unique situation of Native Americans. There is no parallel. No other group of people have the status of having been the first human beings to inhabit North America. No other group of people were methodically forced from their land and swept into the fringes of society by the US government. So to me it makes perfect sense that the US be held to the treaty.

BigWerm wrote:

What does the state and it’s residents get from allowing the Casino monopoly, paying for all infrastructure leading to and within the tribe (BIA/GLIFWC etc), as well as all the tax-free land taken off the county property tax books? None of this was explicitly included in the treaty, and I’d be hard pressed to believe the Tribe would rather keep harvest rights over any one of these things.

Native gambling is nationally regulated by the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Minnesota has negotiated tribal-state compacts with 11 Indian tribes, resulting in the establishment of casinos in the state. You are correct that none of this is included in the treaty, which is exactly why a renegotiated treaty cannot and will not change any of that. The state can’t say “we’re going to take away your casinos unless you renegotiate the treaty” because the state isn’t party to the treaty and has no power there. The treaty is between the US govt and the tribes and has been validated and upheld by the US Supreme Court. A little above the pay grade of the State of MN.

BigWerm wrote:

I have a hard time with this logic. First of all either you believe all men were created equal, and that is a valuable part of our countries values or you don’t.

I believe all men are created equal and I value that immensely. A lot of rotten stuff has been done AFTER that creation. When one group is exploited and killed and robbed, I believe it’s entirely appropriate that we continue to pay for the sins of our ancestors.

ah but don’t you believe them…

pool2fool wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
I have a hard time with this logic. First of all either you believe all men were created equal, and that is a valuable part of our countries values or you don’t.

I believe all men are created equal and I value that immensely. A lot of rotten stuff has been done AFTER that creation. When one group is exploited and killed and robbed, I believe it’s entirely appropriate that we continue to pay for the sins of our ancestors.

So how much $$$ and time have you been donating to these disadvantaged groups?

BigWerm wrote:

So how much $$$ and time have you been donating to these disadvantaged groups?

What do you want, receipts? I’m not here to pump myself up and I never called myself a saint or a philanthropist. I do the best I can in and out of my community. Don’t need to justify myself to you or anyone else beyond that.

EDIT: Removed two sentences about voting that could be interpreted as “political.” Don’t want this this thing locked down.

Do all tribes claiming sovereign nation status have the same rights as Cuba?

It’s not a complicted question demanding a 500 word explination. Yes or no will work.

Dutchboy wrote:

Do all tribes claiming sovereign nation status have the same rights as Cuba?

It’s not a complicted question demanding a 500 word explination. Yes or no will work.

I don’t have the answer to your leading question. I think you can probably find it on your own. Try Google.

If you want to ask a question, ask it. If you want to make a statement, make it.

Interested to see where this one goes.

I throw this curve ball also. How will Trump affect Indian relations. We will have to wait and see where the money falls.

Another good article on redlining with an education focus:

https://stephencoffin.wordpress.com/category/educational-redlining/

Fascinating topic!

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
The all men created equal thing is an interesting point, but I feel it’s tough to play that card AFTER you’ve committed genocide and banished the natives to, in a lot of cases, helpless reservations across the country. Reminiscent of redlining in my opinion.

I have a hard time with this logic. First of all either you believe all men were created equal, and that is a valuable part of our countries values or you don’t. Second, no one alive committed genocide or banished anyone anywhere. Our gov’t has done a lot worse, in the time since the treaties were signed, to other minority groups, yet those minority groups have overcome those atrocities. Could it be that the treaties and reservation system are what’s holding the tribe back?

What someone thinks and what is reality are two different things. I do believe all men were created equal, that has little bearing on how different races/ethnic groups are treated in this country though, so I’m probably missing your point. All men are created equal, but all men do not have the same opportunity to succeed in this country.

What is a comparable example to the Native Americans as far as ‘gov’t done a lot worse to other minority groups’. And what is your definition of ‘overcome those atrocities’?

Could it be that the treaty is what’s holding them back? Haha, yeah, I guess. Could it be honeybees that are holding them back? Anything is possible! I guess it’s more likely the generation after generation of poverty and lack of access to good education/healthcare, but I’m sure them netting walleyes out of Mille Lacs is what’s held just about every native american tribe in the US from being prosperous for the last 200 years.

You might be familiar with the topic, but read up on the impacts of redlining on minorities in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#Effect

One thing not covered super well in that article is the education aspect. A lot of public schools are funded primarily by property taxes, poor areas have low property values and low property taxes. Home values decrease, no ability to get loans to renovate an area, families can’t move away cause their homes aren’t worth anything/can’t get loans, schools get less and less funding, kids grow up with little education and litle chance to better themselves. The gap between poor areas and wealthy ones continues to grow generation after generation.

It’s a vicious cycle that exists in many areas, and a similar effect exists for Native Americans.

Am I saying that every white person is responsible for this? No. But the roots of this problem WERE intentional, and the impact is undeniable in my opinion.

I also recognize that there isn’t a clear way for people to change that system. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe it or that the problem doesn’t exist.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
I have a hard time with this logic. First of all either you believe all men were created equal, and that is a valuable part of our countries values or you don’t.

I believe all men are created equal and I value that immensely. A lot of rotten stuff has been done AFTER that creation. When one group is exploited and killed and robbed, I believe it’s entirely appropriate that we continue to pay for the sins of our ancestors.

So how much $$$ and time have you been donating to these disadvantaged groups?

Ugh, how much $$$ have you spent on every single thing you believe in?

“I believe that there are Puerto Ricans in dire need of help”
“WELL HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE YOU SENT THEM THEN HUH? YOU CAN’T ACTUALLY MEAN IT UNLESS YOU’VE DEVOTED HARD DOLLARS TO THE CAUSE.”

Donating money to a cause isn’t a requirement for someone to be a believer in said cause. Do you believe that there a children/families in poverty that could use money for food? WELL HAVE YOU GIVEN THEM ANY MONEY YOU LIAR! Do you believe that poor children with disabilities need help paying for medical care? WELL YOU CAN’T BELIEVE THAT UNLESS YOU’VE ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTED TO CHARITIES. And on and on.

How much money has everyone on here complaining spent trying to get the treaty overturned?

pool2fool wrote:

What do you want, receipts? I’m not here to pump myself up and I never called myself a saint or a philanthropist. I do the best I can in and out of my community. Don’t need to justify myself to you or anyone else beyond that.

philtickelson wrote:

Ugh, how much $$$ have you spent on every single thing you believe in?

Here’s the thing, boys, I’m not asking for any of your money or anyone else’s, whereas you are. What P2FOOL referred to is called reparations, and that is another discussion. It is a common flaw (imo) of your progressive ideology, that EVERYONE should pay for x, y, and z issue. Yet you don’t want to spend an extra $ out of your own pocket for such a supposedly important issue, instead spending hours researching one side of it, blaming others and ranting about it online.

As for my own actions, I have contributed to PERM many times, I continually call and email my legislators and news organizations, as well as try to convince anyone who will listen that it needs to change, even those beyond hope like you two. Hope everyone has a GREAT weekend!

im not remarking on either side of this but after reading this stuff for more than 5 years on this forum all I got to say is man this thread could use some diversity to add to these discussions! I mean how many white male opinions are needed before you get the feeling you are listening to one side of a broken record? Personally, when it comes to an issue as complex as this, involving race, culture, rights, natural inherent rights, treaties, socio-economic upbringing, genocide, education, government… i don’t think any discussion is worth much of anything without multiple races/cultures sitting at the table to share their perspective. JMO

BigWerm wrote:

Here’s the thing, boys, I’m not asking for any of your money or anyone else’s, whereas you are.

Im not asking for your money werm. But okie doke.

BigWerm wrote:

Yet you don’t want to spend an extra $ out of your own pocket for such a supposedly important issue

I chose not to try to impress you with my list of charitable contributions. It was a ridiculous question and you assumed by my answer that i must not be willing to put my money where my mouth is. You have no clue but feel free to keep making assumptions about me.

BigWerm wrote:

instead spending hours researching one side of it, blaming others and ranting about it online.

Because you on the other hand have clearly spent time in libraries and archives researching both sides of this issue?

BigWerm wrote:

As for my own actions, I have contributed to PERM many times, I continually call and email my legislators and news organizations, as well as try to convince anyone who will listen that it needs to change, even those beyond hope like you two.

good for you for shelling out your money to PERM. For the record I never asked, but here’s a nice big internet pat on the back just the same!

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>
What do you want, receipts? I’m not here to pump myself up and I never called myself a saint or a philanthropist. I do the best I can in and out of my community. Don’t need to justify myself to you or anyone else beyond that.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
Ugh, how much $$$ have you spent on every single thing you believe in?

Here’s the thing, boys, I’m not asking for any of your money or anyone else’s, whereas you are. What P2FOOL referred to is called reparations, and that is another discussion. It is a common flaw (imo) of your progressive ideology, that EVERYONE should pay for x, y, and z issue. Yet you don’t want to spend an extra $ out of your own pocket for such a supposedly important issue, instead spending hours researching one side of it, blaming others and ranting about it online.

As for my own actions, I have contributed to PERM many times, I continually call and email my legislators and news organizations, as well as try to convince anyone who will listen that it needs to change, even those beyond hope like you two. Hope everyone has a GREAT weekend!

Nice condescending reply, appreciate it! Almost as much as I appreciate the lack of response to 99% of my post, very good!

Can you please point out where I asked anyone to pay anything to native americans or minorities? I’ll wait here, boy.

I mean I can say that I contribute money to lots of things, just like you do, that has zero bearing on the argument of either sides. Just because some rich dude contributed $1MM to Trump/Hillary doesn’t make that campaign more right than the other.

As for my own actions, I give 50% of my paycheck to charities every 2 weeks. That is a bigger percentage than you give therefore I am right. I don’t know how many emails you have sent to legislators but I have sent 4 more than that, which makes me more right than you, nanna nanna boo boo. I win!

Beyond hope, .

“ Yet you don’t want to spend an extra $ out of your own pocket for such a supposedly important issue, instead spending hours researching one side of it, blaming others and ranting about it online.”

Hahahahaha, pot meet kettle. Have a GREAT weekend, boy. I am sorry that researching and an educated viewpoint makes you uncomfortable!

pool2fool wrote:

Here’s the thing, boys, I’m not asking for any of your money or anyone else’s, whereas you are.
Im not asking for your money werm. But okie doke.

But maintaining the status quo of billions in subsidies to a sovereign nation, is asking for my money, so is this in your own words:

pool2fool wrote:

I believe it’s entirely appropriate that we continue to pay for the sins of our ancestors.

As for the rest of it, if you are contributing your money and your time to the issues that are important to you, good work and I hope you keep it up! I plan to do the same, and only posted my actions bc PhilT asked. Have a GREAT weekend!