tapirrider is not a Marxist

[_tapirrider]

I was accused of being one, so I just wanted to publicly declare that droopy's allegation of me is a falsehood.

[_Cylon]

Sue him for libel.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I was accused of that, so I just wanted to publicly declare that it is a falsehood.

I'm a Zapatista.

[_DarkHelmet]

Prove it.

[_tapirrider]

Prove it.

Lol.

Marxists took the life of an American Indian in 1999. All she was doing was helping another indigenous group to preserve their culture. Here is more about her.

Her people's ties to Mormonism were through Apostle Richard G. Scott's father-in-law, Senator Arthur V. Watkins. He was the one that caused tribal termination of her nation.

About that inferior culture thing, Ingrid's great-niece was suspended from school this year for guess what offense? Simply speaking her own language!

[_Droopy]

Sue him for libel.

Unlike Scratch's distinct, empirical claims about me stated as historic and empirical facts, opinions, whether or not they are accurate or whether the person likes them or not, are not libelous.

If he says he's not a Marxist, then he's not (although, there are enough variations on that theme to make that statement problematic unless tarpirrider clarifies his meaning).

[_tapirrider]

If he says he's not a Marxist, then he's not (although, there are enough variations on that theme to make that statement problematic unless tarpirrider clarifies his meaning).

Let it go Droopy. Your allegations are wearing my patience thin. Supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States includes preserving indigenous rights. If you understand the Constitution you would know that the American Indian are something a wee bit more than just one of many minority groups.

In the words of Joe American Horse, The USA does not make treaties with ethnic minorities but only with other sovereigns.

[Guest]

Let it go Droopy. Your allegations are wearing my patience thin. Supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States includes preserving indigenous rights. If you understand the Constitution you would know that the American Indian are something a wee bit more than just one of many minority groups.

There is no such thing as "indigenous rights" above and beyond the individual unalienable rights and derivative civil liberties grounded in the Constitution and guaranteed by it through nature and nature's God.

In the same way, there is no such thing as black rights, women's rights, homosexual rights, Hispanic rights, worker's rights, gay black transsexual midget rights, or any other kind of "rights" outside the rights common to all human beings in a free, self governing, constitutional republic under the rule of law as the Founders desired to construct. It was exactly this kind of feudal, status based view of society - the fundamental view of society and the human condition of the Left - that the Founders were trying to move beyond.

This is why I assumed you to be pretty much a classic "progressive" who had, knowingly or not, deeply imbibed the concepts of cultural Marxism (critical theory) which is the academic/intellectual base of the popular manifestation of the ideas you are supporting here.

Secondly, I'm as much an indigenous American as any Amerindian in existence. The PC term "indigenous American" is an ideologically loaded therm that is just as meaningless, as an actual descriptive term, as all the other terms in the Left's arsenal of linguistic warfare.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Unlike Scratch's distinct, empirical claims about me stated as historic and empirical facts, opinions, whether or not they are accurate or whether the person likes them or not, are not libelous.

If he says he's not a Marxist, then he's not (although, there are enough variations on that theme to make that statement problematic unless tarpirrider clarifies his meaning).

Are you incapable of saying anything without sounding like a pretentious, empty blowhard?

This doesn't sound like Foucault, but more like Faulkner when he's shit-faced drunk.

[_Droopy]

Are you incapable of saying anything without sounding like a pretentious, empty blowhard?

This doesn't sound like Foucault, but more like Faulkner when he's shit-faced drunk.

I'm sorry, I keep having to remind myself regarding the 7th to 8th levels of reading comprehension and discourse around here.

Sorry for the lapse.