"Leaner" US military

[tombogan03884]

FWIW Rastus
You are stealing from me if you can work but don't, and expect me to pay for you. You aren't stealing when your land was taken and a treaty was made which entitles you to certain benefits. Thats not a handout, its not theft, its payment of a debt. Those are two wholly different animals.
FQ13

That is the same "White guilt liberal" BS that drives the foolishness of "black reparations" for slavery.
The thing you are missing is that Rastus never had an inch of land "stolen" from him.
That was history 100 years before he was born.
Besides, nothing was stolen from the Indians, and only a college indoctrinated fool would say other wise.
They did not have the concept of "Property rights". They were semi nomadic squatters.
You can't steal what is not owned, you can only move in and displace the current users.
Exactly the same thing the tribes did to each other.
You ever hear of the Sioux filing a claim against the Huron for driving them out of the Great Lakes area in the mid 1600's ?

Charity is the job of the Churches and communities, not Govt.
That is why Churches were granted the unconstitutional tax exemption.

[fightingquaker13]

No liberal guilt at all. Just treaty rights. We are obligated to honor them, just as our grandchildren will be obligated to honor any treaties we sign. Its the way the world works. No one would ever do business with another nation if they thought a treaty only lasted until the next administration.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Treaties are only valid between independent Nations. The Indians no longer are.
Or maybe you think we still owe obligations to South Vietnam ?

[fightingquaker13]

Treaties are only valid between independent Nations. The Indians no longer are.
Or maybe you think we still owe obligations to South Vietnam ?

Actually, under the law they still are. They are classified as "dependent domestic nations" and as such can enjoy limited soveriegnty. Its why they can operate casinos and set their own hunting regulations among other things.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Actually, under the law they still are. They are classified as "dependent domestic nations" and as such can enjoy limited sovereignty. Its why they can operate casinos and set their own hunting regulations among other things.
FQ13

Those are the words that preclude valid treaties with them, disputes with them are settled through the courts.
And they are, in fact, as well as practice, "Wards of the Federal govt."

[Sponsor]

[Rastus]

That is the same "White guilt liberal" BS that drives the foolishness of "black reparations" for slavery.
The thing you are missing is that Rastus never had an inch of land "stolen" from him.  EXACTLYThat was history 100 years before he was born.
Besides, nothing was stolen from the Indians, and only a college indoctrinated fool would say other wise.
They did not have the concept of "Property rights". They were semi nomadic squatters. 
You can't steal what is not owned, you can only move in and displace the current users.  Genocide?Exactly the same thing the tribes did to each other.
You ever hear of the Sioux filing a claim against the Huron for driving them out of the Great Lakes area in the mid 1600's ?

Charity is the job of the Churches and communities, not Govt.   EXACTLY
That is why Churches were granted the unconstitutional tax exemption.  Like to see backup.  Probably not entirely the reason.

Good post.  Today we have liberals, both those who have something and use law to increase it and those who have little or nothing waiting for a handout, telling the worker he has to give up the fruits of his labor for the common good.  The churches mostly abdicated their role in the 60's and let the government do it.  People who are young don't understand and cannot comprehend the job that was compassionately employed to help people by the church.  Liberals, for whatever reason, want to see their own human goodness employed at someone else's expense and, largely, to the detriment of the group receiving assistance.  It's like you can't miss ice cream if you've never eaten it....if you have only seen the government in action along with some church action not based in it's historical context you can't see the possibility of what worked in the past. 

This is severe thread drift.  But the North American Indian history is something to study to see how genocide was employed by certain tribes upon other ones and then to scale that up to cities, states and nations in history who have either employed or attempted to employ techniques to enforce genocide.  Genocide is something to defend from.  One thing you don't want to do is comply with a government request for identification, movement restriction, relocation....you can see those results in Europe in the 1930's and 1940's.  So, multi-level defense, from a personal level to a national level. 

[Solus]

I’ll respond because this may highlight a basic difference between us.  My concern is retaining the ability to access healthcare on my own by avoiding the government health program; not to look for a handout.  I’m driven to provide for my own as I can and to ensure their health and well being.  Over the last 20 years I’m out over $250k on reasonable and customary, etc. beyond insurance; my wife being on a heart transplant list for 10 years and after losing one nearly losing two of my other children when they 2 or less. 

It is enslavement to be “entitled” and forced into a government program.  I have not looked for handouts from the government.  I set about the business of being a man and sacrificing what need to be sacrificed to provide for my family in a fair and honest manner without stealing from other people.  I also give freely to honest people who are in bad situation who need help.

If you would be less concerned about taking an absurd offense about the possibility of someone being denied a handout as well as other assorted condescending liberal foolishness you may find your life more worthwhile. 

Are you voting for Obama again?  A question you need not respond to and my own 0.02.

Rastus, here is some more advice...

Over the years I've found it is not wise to forgo any options that you can secure.

Some you want to avoid using for many reasons...self reliance being a good one, but having the option does not require that you use it.

Let me use VA health care as an example. 

I've been eligible since I was discharged in 1968 but never looked into it because I preferred to use a benefit I did not need and take what ever resources were allocated from those who did  need it.

Well, times change and I found myself in need of health care coverage in the past few years.

I applied for the VA coverage and found the rules had changed about 2003.  Rather than being automatically accepted, guys in my "classification" now have a few more hoops to jump through than we did from 1968 to 2003. 

Not only that, the benefits we get come with higher co-pays than if we had enrolled pre-rule changes.

I would have been wise to enroll as early as possible, never use the benefit, thus not taking resources I did not need from those who did, and have them when I did need them.

It is always a wise move to keep and secure as many options as you can.  The more flexibility you have, the better you can deal with what comes.

[tombogan03884]

"That is why Churches were granted the unconstitutional tax exemption.  Like to see backup.  Probably not entirely the reason."

It is an assumption on my part based on attitudes of the time, I would like to see some confirmation as well.
Probably somewhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers or the Politicians who passed the income tax legislation.
However the Constitutionality is based on the 1st Amendment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However a law is required for tax exemption which grants undue favoritism to organized religions over simple groups of believers who worship together.

[Rastus]

The founders were clear in that the establishment of a religion meant establishing a state sponsored religion and not keeping the state free of religous influence or foundation.  Remember there was a state sponsored religion in England and an exodus of persons to Geneva occurred to escape that in the mid-late 1500's.  In fact the founders used the Geneva Bible and would not have been caught dead using the King James Bible....an oft overlooked fact.  Our three branchs are based to a large part on Leviticus and their are founder writings confirming that.  So on that accord I don't see a tax exemption as unconstitutional.  

I'll have to research further time permitting.

Solus, big difference.  You participated in something which grants you the privilege.  I did not by being part indian...that's all long and gone stuff.  No one owes me anything along those lines.  However, as our government continues to pervert our Constitution and twist and change the nation into something it was not then, no longer having a nation of laws, we become just like the rest of the world and I recognize that.  So if we utlimately lose for the lie of universal healthcare I am not exploiting an honest system by finding a way out....just like Europeans, etc. do.  Sheep have supported liberals/socialists/communists who have perverted our nation leaving us to find a way out just like in other countries....the dupes (sheep, liberals) will still be on the bottom of the bowl and less well off in their coming paradise.

[tombogan03884]

Considering how all us gun owners seem to get classed as "Red neck racists", it might be to your advantage to be considered a member of an "oppressed minority".