# Head on a pike...



## billc (Jun 13, 2012)

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt on the radio on the way to class tonight when he brought up the latest factoid about Game of thrones, the HBO series.  Hewitt is a big fan of the show and said that the scene where Sansa Starck is forced to look at her father's head on a pike contains a surprise.  Apparently, someone involved with the production put President Obama's head on the pike next to Ned Starck's....

O.k., just kidding, it is Hollywood after all, and we all know there is no way they would do that to "The One,"  The head was actually George Bush.  Hewitt said that the guys in charge of the production took the cowards way out and said that there was no political overtone to the use of George W. Bush's head on the pike.  They said it happened that they needed more heads on the pikes and, you know, they just had his head laying around.  Hewitt made the point that someone thought it would be funny and an inside joke that they could tell their liberal buddies about, but then word got out...and they denied doing it on purpose.  Cowards.

On a side note, imagine if this was a conservative show and they had actually used obama's head on the pike.  Besides a nice visit by friendly Secret Service agents, does anyone think there wouldn't be a 24/7 stink made on all the news casts and cable news shows about this?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/13/game-thrones-bush-head-spike



> The web site io9.com reports the first season DVD of "Thrones" finds the show's creators discussing a rather unusual prop used in one chilling episode.Show creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss explained in their DVD commentary (from Season 1, episode 10) that the decapitated head is actually George Bush."
> The last head on the left is George Bush. George Bush's head appears in a couple of beheading scenes. It's not a choice, it's not a political statement. We just had to use whatever head we had around."​The estimated budget for "Game of Thrones" according to The Hollywood Reporter? Between $50-60 million.



Yes, they just had it laying around.  If this is true, then they are cowards.  Take a stand in your hate, guys. Own it.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hewitt said that the guys in charge of the production took the cowards way out and said that there was no political overtone to the use of George W. Bush's head on the pike. They said it happened that they needed more heads on the pikes and, you know, they just had his head laying around. Hewitt made the point that someone thought it would be funny and an inside joke that they could tell their liberal buddies about, but then word got out...and they denied doing it on purpose. Cowards.




Really, billi...did you look at the picture? Do you watch the program? The head was hardly recognizable, and looks as though a fair effort was made to disguise it.


----------



## billc (Jun 13, 2012)

Here is another take on the issue...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/...me-of-thrones-puts-bushs-head-on-a-pike-post/



> On the one hand, given the heat they were bound to take for something like this, seems weird that they&#8217;d do it with blink-and-you&#8217;ll-miss-it brevity. If you&#8217;re going to put a president&#8217;s head on a pike, you might as well make sure people notice. On the other hand, they _are making sure that people notice, right? If they hadn&#8217;t mentioned it in the episode commentary, no one ever would have spotted it. Go figure that they&#8217;d make a high-profile political splash at a moment when they&#8217;re trying to drum up publicity for their DVDs._
> _Exit question: Innocent prop placement or no? After eight years ofinsanely hyperbolic Bush hatred, it&#8217;s hard to give anyone the benefit of the doubt anymore._



Wow, they put a wig on it.  They are masters of disguise aren't they...

The imbedded link to Bush hate is a nice catalog of the love showed to Bush during his presidency...


----------



## granfire (Jun 13, 2012)

I am sure HBO is rubbing it's hands with all the free publicity....


----------



## billc (Jun 13, 2012)

I do watch the show.  I think it would be a better show if it didn't resort to sex and nudity that isn't needed to make it a good show.  Of course the best character is Tyrion.  The show does have the problem of having so many stories going on that it can be hard to follow who is who outside of the main stories.

Free publicity, sure, but why offend your audience when you don't have to.  There will be quite a few people who won't watch the show now.  Is that necessary?  If they were real brave they would have done something like this in the first episode, when it could have really hurt the show.  Cowards.


----------



## granfire (Jun 13, 2012)

roflmao

If you are easily offended, HBO is probably not for you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 14, 2012)

Pretty disrespectful to use any us presidents likeness in that manner.  They say that had no political agenda just used what they had around the prop room.  I wouldn't want to see Obama's Washington's Nixon's or any other presidents head used like that.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 14, 2012)

Have you read the books?  Sex is part of the plotline.  There is also a viwer discretion warning before the show, right?

Context is everything.  If they meant to do it as a political joke, it is in very poor taste.  If that's what they had, and they took steps to disguise it so people would not recognise the face, I don't see an issue.


----------



## granfire (Jun 14, 2012)

It's a rubber head....
As if a president's head is any more sacred than any other head. If anything, they deserve it more to see their likeness jabbed and displayed.

At least he gets to keep his noggin in real life...

Why don't you wonder that they even have a rubber head of Bush laying around.


----------



## Steve (Jun 14, 2012)

According to the producers and directors, no political statement was intended.  Detailed, realistic body parts are expensive and time consuming to make.  Often, they are purchased in bulk or even rented.  I don't know for sure whether the Game of Thrones bought or rented the parts, but I'd bet dollars to donuts it was just a head among dozens of others that arrived in a box labeled "heads, disembodied/decapitated."   It's trivia, guys.  Both HBO and the producers of the series have apologized.

I just don't understand the objection.  What do they expect to be done?  I think that anyone who is offended should take the advice that the GOP often espouses, and vote with their pocket books.  If you don't like it, change the channel or cancel your subscription to HBO.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 14, 2012)

George Bush's head doesn't belong on a pike.  It belongs in prison.


----------



## granfire (Jun 14, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> George Bush's head doesn't belong on a pike.  It belongs in prison.








Sorry, seems like W was not important enough to be on Futurama...


----------



## Omar B (Jun 14, 2012)

There's a thread about this!  A thread about a prop department using a head because it needed one.  Ever read GRRM?  I can totally understand them running out of body parts.


----------



## billc (Jun 14, 2012)

More...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/14/Game-of-thrones-excuses-stink




> And have you noticed how these kinds of  mistakes only ever happen to Republicans? It's never Barack Obama or  Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, or Maya Angelou. It's always one of our  guys, never one of theirs.
> 
> But what I find most absurd is that no  one noticed until that moment when the head was the hardest to spot, and  that was after filming.
> A film company spends hours setting up  scenes like the movie-quality ones shot for "Game of Thrones." I  guarantee you that the director, cameraman, lighting people, prop and  make-up folks spent hours prepping the fake head, lighting the scene,  walking around the set, and ensuring everything was perfect.
> ...





> When the show's creators revisit the scene in the DVD commentary, they make sure viewers notice the former Head of State.
> 
> 'It's not a choice. It's not a political statement. It's just.. we had to use what heads we had lying around.'
> 'People may not have noticed this but back up...the last head on the left is George Bush,' one says.
> ...



They should just come out and say "We did it and we'd do it again," and have a little courage about it.  I don't mind that they did it, it is just funny how cowardly they are afterward.  Own it guys.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 14, 2012)

wow, I never ever would have recognized that head, if it is indeed Bush's.  Hey, I'm partisan.  If this is true, I love it.  Funny stuff.


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 14, 2012)

I'm not really sure which is truly more ridiculous ... the fact that they used his head and tried to deny it, or the fact that anybody cares enough to get upset about it. Of the millions of issues in the world to worry over, I would rank this one right there next to "is Bieber really working for the FBI?"


----------



## Master Dan (Jun 14, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Pretty disrespectful to use any us presidents likeness in that manner.  They say that had no political agenda just used what they had around the prop room.  I wouldn't want to see Obama's Washington's Nixon's or any other presidents head used like that.



I also hate the disrespect commentators will use directly or indirectly the current or past president first name or just his last name instead of Mr. President or President so and so?


----------



## Steve (Jun 14, 2012)

billcihak said:


> More...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/14/Game-of-thrones-excuses-stink
> 
> ...


This is particularly funny as this post and the one in which Granfire shared an image of Gore's disembodied head are separated by exactly one post.


----------



## Steve (Jun 14, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> I'm not really sure which is truly more ridiculous ... the fact that they used his head and tried to deny it, or the fact that anybody cares enough to get upset about it. Of the millions of issues in the world to worry over, I would rank this one right there next to "is Bieber really working for the FBI?"


They never denied it.  They mention it in the commentary, which is the only reason anyone noticed it.  They said in the commentary something to the effect that it wasn't a political statement, but that they needed a lot of heads and this one was in the bin so they used it.  Pretty much what I said before.  Quality fake body parts are expensive and so it just makes sense to recycle them.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 14, 2012)

Anyone else here in the entertainment business? Ever even BEEN to Universal Studios??  They'll use any head they have laying around that isn't busy - doesn't matter if it's Abe Lincoln's or even the sitting president's ... if it's already been made, they will use it if they can. And believe me, these people can.

I can't tell that's Bush's head ... looks like another old man to me. But then ... I don't swallow propaganda hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 14, 2012)

Hear tell that it's going to be removed from future dvd releases. I made damned sure I ordered a boxset before that happens.

Loathe that retard.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 14, 2012)

Scott T said:


> Loathe that retard.



Bush, you mean? :lol2:


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 14, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> George Bush's head doesn't belong on a pike.  It belongs in prison.



hear hear.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 14, 2012)

When an Obama mask was on a dummy hung in effigy, it was just wrong...


----------



## Steve (Jun 14, 2012)

That was a political statement.  Do you seriously not understand the difference?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Carol (Jun 14, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Anyone else here in the entertainment business? Ever even BEEN to Universal Studios??  They'll use any head they have laying around that isn't busy - doesn't matter if it's Abe Lincoln's or even the sitting president's ...



No new props, read my lips?


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 15, 2012)

Carol said:


> No new props, read my lips?



Be careful - the DHS will have your head on a pike for that one ... and NOT for a movie! Not that there's any difference, but HEY ....


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 15, 2012)

Steve said:


> That was a political statement.  Do you seriously not understand the difference?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


If it was just a prob then why did they tell everyone about it?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 15, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> If it was just a prob then why did they tell everyone about it?



Because directors are sometimes idiots. And the stupid director's comments on DVD means that they have to say something for every scene. I guess he thought just saying "here's a bunch of heads on pikes" wasn't insightful enough.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 15, 2012)

The fact that the head they used happens to be a George bush head is really only noteworthy because of the recycle factor that has always been a staple of the entertainment industry and the head they used just happens to be a George bush head. It could have been your ex wife or my son or Obama or Fidel Castro. The fact is they would have used any one of these heads because it's just what they do.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jun 15, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> If it was just a prob then why did they tell everyone about it?


Because it's trivia.  That's what the commentary tracks are for.  I seriously can't understand what the big deal is.  They brought it up because it's just the sort of quirky, behind the scenes thing you'd expect to find on a commentary.  Stories about practical jokes, things that the casual viewer might miss, Easter eggs put in by the team... that's what you get when you listen to the commentary.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 15, 2012)

I have to agree about the double standard though...if that had been "someone else's head" I think the reaction would be much different. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Jun 15, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I have to agree about the double standard though...if that had been "someone else's head" I think the reaction would be much different.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Different than what?  Do you think that some liberals would whine and carry on about nothing, trying to make it political?  Because from the outside looking in, that would be exactly the same reaction as what's going on now.  In order for it to be a different reaction, the reaction would have to be...  Different. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2012)

Aye, surely there are important things to get in a tizz about?  More important than a passing comment on a DVD commentary track about something that no-one in the entire world noticed otherwise?

How about giving your government a kick up the **** for not supporting us against Argentina's war-of-words sabre-rattling?  That's worth commenting on; well I think so at any rate.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 15, 2012)

This was not in effigy. This was not a political statement This was a Minimum wage worker Doing his job ...  Recycling.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 15, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> The fact that the head they used happens to be a George bush head is really only noteworthy because of the recycle factor that has always been a staple of the entertainment industry and the head they used just happens to be a George bush head. It could have been your ex wife or my son or Obama or Fidel Castro. The fact is they would have used any one of these heads because it's just what they do.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


Some how if it was Obama's head I doubt the they are just recycling so its OK would have cut it.


----------



## granfire (Jun 15, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Some how if it was Obama's head I doubt the they are just recycling so its OK would have cut it.



the same people who jeer now would be cheering. 

Anything else new?

Do they have moors in the story? I see a part for Obama's head right there.


----------



## Steve (Jun 15, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Some how if it was Obama's head I doubt the they are just recycling so its OK would have cut it.



But again, how would that be different than the whining and carrying in going on now?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 15, 2012)

Steve said:


> But again, how would that be different than the whining and carrying in going on now?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It wouldn't in my opinion no presidential likeness should be used in that way no matter who it is.  Or if you do "need" to recycle don't show his face and don't tell people about it just use the head.  I know why they did it even if it was non political it has given
them free publicity.  I've never even heard of the show until now so it worked it was a smart move I just don't agree with it.  Its my opinion.  I also don't believe people should be allowed to burn the flag but its protected speech I just don't agree with that either


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

How about we put all of the president's heads on pikes, just to be fair?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 16, 2012)

On the subject of being disrespectful to Presidents, how do people feel about the rudeness of the reporter who attempted to interrupt President Obama whilst he was making an address?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18466984


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> On the subject of being disrespectful to Presidents, how do people feel about the rudeness of the reporter who attempted to interrupt President Obama whilst he was making an address?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18466984



About the same as I did about this:






Wouldn't have done that if the President were _white_..... :lol:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 16, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> On the subject of being disrespectful to Presidents, how do people feel about the rudeness of the reporter who attempted to interrupt President Obama whilst he was making an address?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18466984



I believe he was totally out of line.  The president is still the president even if you don't respect the man you should respect the position.  You can disagree and voice your opinion but there is a time and place for it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 16, 2012)

Yeah if he were white the would have thrown a shoe at him.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah if he were white the would have thrown a shoe at him.


\

Or shot him.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> \
> 
> Or shot him.


Yeah I forgot about those guys


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 16, 2012)

Or cut off his head and put it on a spike.  See what I did there brought us full circle WINNING.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 16, 2012)

Oh dear, so I guess putting a model of Bush's decaying head in a jar would also be an unpopular move?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah if he were white the would have thrown a shoe at him.



He'd have to actually go to Iraq as well, wouldn't he?



Scott T said:


> Oh dear, so I guess putting a model of Bush's decaying head in a jar would also be an unpopular move?



Seriously?
View attachment $thumbnail.jpgView attachment $futurama_bill_clinton.gifView attachment $futurama_gerald_ford.gifView attachment $futurama_washimgton.gifView attachment $futurama_william_taft.gifView attachment $gore.jpgView attachment $lilbush.jpgView attachment $nixon.jpg
:lfao:

In all seriousness, no other President in the modern media age has been treated so egregiously by a member of the media or Congress. Why do you suppose either of those men thought that they could-or _should_-behave in such a manner, that so completely disrespects all sense of protocol, decorum, and the office of the Presidency itself? 

I mean, it's not like they're cartoonists.....just sayin'. :lol:


----------



## Scott T (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Seriously?
> View attachment 16922View attachment 16923View attachment 16924View attachment 16925View attachment 16926View attachment 16927View attachment 16928View attachment 16929
> :lfao:
> 
> ...



When I get a chance I intend to do a garage level internet spoof based on our dear leader Evil Stevie Harper. His chief advisor would be George Bush's career, as represented by the disembodied - frequently mumbling - head in a jar. :bangahead:

My main concern is how to zombify Harper's  cabinet members.  :lol:

As for the Game of Thrones situation, the Bush head cast was a spare part that came in handy for set dressing. If it were a political they probably wouldn't have mentioned it in the commentary, given the divisive nature of American politics


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> It wouldn't in my opinion no presidential likeness should be used in that way no matter who it is.  Or if you do "need" to recycle don't show his face and don't tell people about it just use the head.  I know why they did it even if it was non political it has given
> them free publicity.  I've never even heard of the show until now so it worked it was a smart move I just don't agree with it.  Its my opinion.  I also don't believe people should be allowed to burn the flag but its protected speech I just don't agree with that either



But it's not against the law.  It's not wrong because it's lawful.  At least according to you.  You made that very clear in an earlier thread.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 16, 2012)

Gawd ... this is just so stupid my brain is actually starting to hurt.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 16, 2012)

:chuckles:  I sympathise, dear lady.  I sometimes think that the politically enthusiastic members of the board do not always realise how poor a light they can cast themselves in when they stray too far from the path of common sense.

However, we have a phrase over here in Britain - "It keeps them off the streets" - which means that, no matter how silly something is that someone is doing, it keeps them out of more serious trouble.  It's only when things border on the fraudulent or outright (groundless) defamation that I get quite annoyed with our 'pundits'.  Because that steps from their posting being something informative (to those of us from far away at least) and enabling of debate to something corrosive and unpleasant.


----------



## billc (Jun 16, 2012)

> no other President in the modern media age has been treated so egregiously by a member of the media or Congress.



It starts from the top down.  Carter, Gore and Clinton have openly mocked George Bush.  Gore I understand, he was never the President, but both Carter and Clinton broke the tradition of former Presidents not commenting on the current President's term.  Then you have obama insulting the supreme court in front of the entire nation...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18759682/ns/politics/t/carter-says-comments-were-careless/#.T9y4cu0tWFI



> [h=1]Carter says comments were &#8216;careless&#8217;[/h][h=2]39th president had blasted Bush administration as &#8216;worst in history&#8217;[/h]


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...sed-if-supreme-court-doesnt-attend-next-year/



> A noted Supreme Court historian who &#8220;enthusiastically&#8221; voted for President Obama in November 2008 today called President Obama&#8217;s criticism of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address last night &#8220;really unusual&#8221; and said he wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if no Supreme Court Justices attend the speech next year.
> &#8220;It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,&#8221; said author and *Law Professor Lucas Powe*, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. &#8220;I&#8217;m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.&#8221;



And then obama personally invites  Rep. Paul Ryan to his budget speech...and insults him before congress and the nation...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachla...ails-tough-obama-insulting-paul-ryan-his-face



> As NB's Mark Finkelstein reported earlier, Time's Mark Halperin and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough expressed their bewilderment on Thursday's "Morning Joe" that President Obama would invite Rep. Paul Ryan to the unveiling of the president's budget, sit him in the front row, and then essential call him un-American on national television.



The guys above are not conservative partisans but left leaning pundits.

Add to that the sending back of the bust of Winston Churchhill, a hero of one of our closest allies for personal reasons.

And on top of that is obama's annoying habit of accepting being called "Mr. President," and then proceeding to not use the titles of the other people in the room, calling the senators and representatives by their first names.  He also does this to foreign leaders, for example, referring to the Chancellor of Germany not as Chancellor Merkel, but as Angela, in front of the press during their joint press conference.

The reason he gets this show of disrespect is because he goes out of his way to earn it.  As the saying goes, you have to give respect to get it.  He doesn't show respect to other people, as a President of a free people should, and so people have started to pick up on that and have reacted accordingly.  He disrespects the office and gets disrespect back.  We aren't his subjects, he is our employee.  The lack of respect started with Carter and has continued through the democratic party to this day.  Ted Kennedy is a great example as he went to the soviets to help them counter Reagan.  This disrespect of the head on a pike is just one in a long list of disrespect shown to republicans by democrats.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 16, 2012)

How da F**K did Obama get blamed for a goddamn rubber head on a f**king spike on a MOVIE SET????  

Real = effigy.  Special effects = FANTASY!!!

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jun 16, 2012)

He didn't get blamed, the post is in response to elder's post about obama.


----------



## billc (Jun 16, 2012)

For those interested, here is an interview and the explanation for the question by the Dailycaller reporter who asked the question of obama and got the nasty reponse...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/v...exchange-with-president-obama-in-rose-garden/



> I asked a question about that. Admittedly, it was in the middle of his speech. I thought he was ending his speech &#8212; his statement &#8212; but then I asked a question at the end and he turned his back on the reporters and walked away,&#8221; Munro said.
> &#8220;Timing these things is a little awkward. He speaks very well, very smoothly &#8212; very nice delivery. It&#8217;s hard to know when he&#8217;s about to end. I thought he was going to end today. I asked my question too early. He rebuked me. Fair enough.&#8221;
> Before coming to The Daily Caller, Munro worked at National Journal for over a decade. He has also reported for Defense News and Washington Technology. Judging from his experience, Munro says open press events at the White House are &#8220;well designed by the president and his staff.&#8221;
> &#8220;He comes out of the Rose Garden, gives a short statement and then turns his back and walks away very quickly without taking questions,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Sometimes he takes questions. He took a question on Trayvon Martin in March. Sometimes these shouted questions at the end work &#8212; not today: He refused to answer an obvious and conventional question about the impact of his policy on American workers at a time of record unemployment.&#8221;



The former white house correspondent Sam Donaldson was famous for doing the same thing to Ronald Reagan, all the time, and was applauded for it...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The former white house correspondent Sam Donaldson was famous for doing the same thing to Ronald Reagan, all the time, and was applauded for it...



We can deal with this second part first, right here:



> Donaldson said he was in an airport waiting lounge when he caught Munros confrontation with Obama on a TV there. He didnt approve.
> I never interrupted any president while he was making a formal presentation of any sort. You dont do that, do you? said Donaldson, who titled his 1987 memoir Hold On, Mr. President!
> Not that Donaldson ever let them slip away quietly. But he would wait until a president had finished his remarks, he said. And if the chief executive turned away without answering questions, Donaldson would fire away.



And as for this:



billcihak said:


> For those interested, here is an interview and the explanation for the question by the Dailycaller reporter who asked the question of obama and got the nasty reponse...



Reporters who were standing next to him-and all credible evidence-say his "explanation" is a *lie:
*


> But reporters near Munro during the outburst said, well, not so much to the whole "didn't mean to interrupt" the president thing. Many took to Twitter to share their doubts."I was two people over from Neil Munro. No one thought the president was wrapping up. I give that statement a great big Cow Pie Award," Brianna Keilar of CNN said on Twitter.
> "I was standing right behind Munro in the Rose Garden," said Todd Zwillich, Washington correspondent for The Takeaway from Public Radio International, on Twitter. "Idea he 'mistimed' his questions isn't credible. He purposely interrupted."
> "Munro told other reporters after Obama's statement, 'I'm asking questions. Because you people won't,'" Zwillich tweeted.
> The official White House transcript of the event records that, after a visibly irritated Obama told Munro "Excuse me, sir. It's not time for questions, sir," the journalist replied: "No, you have to take questions."
> "Not while I'm speaking," the president replied.


----------



## billc (Jun 16, 2012)

Here is part of the problem now facing HBO.  I am not someone who supports boycotts or any attempt to silence other peoples ability to state what they believe or to make jokes of politicians.  However, there  are a lot of conservatives in the country who won't watch shows that deliberately, intentionally, attack them and their values.  HBO is coming off of the attack on Sarah Palin, and now their top show has just insulted a republican president, just for fun.  HBO as a business is now trying to keep from being branded, in the minds of conservatives, as a channel unfriendly to republicans and conservatives.  That is a lot of subscription money to just insult away...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/16/HBO-Pulls-Beheaded-Bush



> After the utter debacle that was "Game Change," a purely dishonest hit-job against Sarah Palin and an obvious in-kind political contribution to Barack Obama's reelection campaign, HBO knows it is suffering a brand problem with those of us who are not radical leftists:The findings regarding HBO and Showtime appear to make sense when compared with a poll that Experian Simmons took for _The Hollywood Reporter_ two years ago, where HBO shows like _Entourage_ (which ended in September) and Showtime offerings like _Dexter_ were well-liked by Democrats but not by Republicans. HBO also recently took flak from the right for _Game Change_, a mostly unflattering look at *Sarah Palin*_, _so that also might have influenced the results.​Netflix Streaming, Redbox, and the like are very real threats to a network pretty much used to owning a large part of the entertainment all to itself. People have choices now, we're a very divided nation politically, and conservatives are up-to-here with Hollywood's insults and bullying.
> There's also New Media, which can make things like playing with the prosthetic head of a former president a very big story.



For emphasis



> we're a very divided nation politically, and conservatives are up-to-here with Hollywood's insults and bullying.



A good example of how to sell your product is Michael Jordan.  Jordan is a big time liberal.  He was once asked why he didn't comment more on politics and it is alleged that he simply said, "Republicans by shoes too."  A simple philosophy for someone trying to sell something.  HBO and Game of Thrones as well as the rest of hollywood might want to listen to that piece of wisdom...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2009/10/17/republicans_buy_shoes_too



> Basketball players have generally been considered the most left-leaning of all professional athletes. while professional players of all stripes (generally) stay out of politics, basketball players historically have gone out of their way to be apolitical. Michael Jordan famously said "Republicans buy shoes too" when asked about his refusal to make a formal political endorsement in a Senate race. This centrist attitude reflects a lot of basketball players' views on becoming a marketing figure.


----------



## billc (Jun 16, 2012)

> And it is routine for those reporters to ignore that admonition and call out a question anyway, though always after the president is finished speaking.



He says he thought he was done.  Believe him or not.  Obama isn't a king.

Hmmm...the same reporters who don't like conservative new media side against this guy.  Hmmm...

Here is "journalist," Juan Williams, going after Michelle Malkin and insulting her because he thinks she is just a "blogger,"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/14/Juan-Williams-Malkin-real-reporter

The embedded video is interesting to watch as Malkin takes apart Williams.  Here is some of Malkins history...



> Malkin began her journalism career at the _Los Angeles Daily News_, working as a columnist from 1992 to 1994. In 1995, she worked in Washington, D.C., as a journalism fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,[SUP][11][/SUP] a free-market, anti-government regulation, libertarian think tank.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] In 1996, she moved to Seattle, Washington, where she wrote columns for _The Seattle Times_. Malkin became a nationally-syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate in 1999.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP]


The regular media are taking a beating, losing ratings and revenue, so they will attack what they perceive as a threat to not only their livlihood but their influence in the political sphere.  They are losing their monopoly, or have lost it, and are going to pile on whenever they get the chance.  This dailycaller thing is just one example because the daily caller is covering stories they won't.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 16, 2012)

Yeah. I-i-i-i-i-i-i'mmm ... going to teach now. In a brick-and-mortar school. In the real world. Where we beat up on a bob. Gee, I hope the model for the Bob and his supporters don't get offended. Or anyone named Bob gets offended.  Or the manufacturer. Or breitbart.com. Or Sam Donaldson. Or Barack Obama. Or the Reagans. Or ...

... aw, screw it. They're all adults who can separate fact from fantasy, right?

Er ... right?

Hello?

*sigh*

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jun 16, 2012)

I wonder if MSNBC had a reporter there...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...zes-About-Romneys-Bus-Exploding-While-On-Tour


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2012)

billcihak said:


> It starts from the top down.  Carter, Gore and Clinton have openly mocked George Bush.  Gore I understand, he was never the President, but both Carter and Clinton broke the tradition of former Presidents not commenting on the current President's term.  Then you have obama insulting the supreme court in front of the entire nation...
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18759682/ns/politics/t/carter-says-comments-were-careless/#.T9y4cu0tWFI
> 
> ...



Criticizing and mocking are not synonymous.  And sincere criticism isn't necessarily disrespectful, although it can feel that way to someone who is insecure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 16, 2012)

I wouldn't say that the President was 'nasty' to the rude reporter, Bill.  He put him in his place, as well he should have done.  It's good that the reporter has taken the trouble to explain why he decided it was time for him to interrupt the President - bet it beats being fired .

If reporters want to ask questions then they should wait until they are told they can, should they not - or does it not work like that in America?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here is part of the problem now facing HBO. I am not someone who supports boycotts or any attempt to silence other peoples ability to state what they believe or to make jokes of politicians. However, there are a lot of conservatives in the country who won't watch shows that deliberately, intentionally, attack them and their values. HBO is coming off of the attack on Sarah Palin, and now their top show has just insulted a republican president, just for fun.




I'm pretty sure that _True Blood_ is still HBO's ratings leader.


As for the "attack" on Sarah Palin-a woman who had zero relevance, and whose presidential "candidacy," was, at best, a moneymaking scheme, at the time of the release of the movie, _Game Change_:



> Sarah Palin has called _Game Change_ a "false narrative," but a former top campaign adviser isn't so sure. Nicolle Wallace tells ABC News that the HBO film was "*true enough to make me squirm*." This "is a movie about the vast gray area where 99% of our politics actually takes place," Wallace says. "You&#8217;re just feeling your way though a gray area and doing your best, and that campaign was one of those instances for me."



Of course, other aides say differently, but they're just  protecting their resumes, I'll bet. :lol:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Yeah. I-i-i-i-i-i-i'mmm ... going to teach now. In a brick-and-mortar school. In the real world. Where we beat up on a bob. Gee, I hope the model for the Bob and his supporters don't get offended. Or anyone named Bob gets offended. Or the manufacturer. Or breitbart.com. Or Sam Donaldson. Or Barack Obama. Or the Reagans. Or ...
> 
> ... aw, screw it. They're all adults who can separate fact from fantasy, right?
> 
> ...



I want an _Alice_ to go with my BOB-I think just having a BOB is sexist....._seriously_-not about the 'sexist" part, but I definitely want a female counterpart....:lol:


----------



## billc (Jun 16, 2012)

Whenever the President speaks before the press they always call out questions to him as he ends his address and starts to leave.  Sometimes he will take a question, when it is something he wants to get out to the public, and other times he just leaves.  This President doesn't deal with the press as often as the others have...



> He comes out of the Rose Garden, gives a short statement and then turns his back and walks away very quickly without taking questions, he said. Sometimes he takes questions. He took a question on Trayvon Martin in March. Sometimes these shouted questions at the end work  not today: He refused to answer an obvious and conventional question about the impact of his policy on American workers at a time of record unemployment.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I want an _Alice_ to go with my BOB-I think just having a BOB is sexist....._seriously_-not about the 'sexist" part, but I definitely want a female counterpart....:lol:



I'm pretty sure Anne Counter and Sarah Paling and the YWCA will take offense to that. But I'll go out on a limb and say given that women commit offenses too that an Alice counterpart could be a productive and progressive training tool. But you know, we *can't* pay for her birth control.

And if she seeks an abortion, we'll have to probe her slutty tank.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 16, 2012)

*Coulter ... and *Palin, that is. #DYAC

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 16, 2012)

Steve said:


> But it's not against the law.  It's not wrong because it's lawful.  At least according to you.  You made that very clear in an earlier thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I never said if something is lawful its not wrong. The Law and whats right and wrong are 2 different things.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Whenever the President speaks before the press they always call out questions to him as he ends his address and starts to leave. Sometimes he will take a question, when it is something he wants to get out to the public, and other times he just leaves. This President doesn't deal with the press as often as the others have...



Obama's probably going to get that reporter's green-card revoked. :lol:



> In a ridiculous twist while considering the context of this story, it turns out that Munro isn't a United States citizen and actually holds a green card that allows him to work in The United States while maintaining his citizenship in Ireland. How does one critique the immigration policies of a country, while shamelessly benefiting from those very policies?



The continuing irony and farce of American political life is going to kill me.......at least I'll die laughing! :lfao:


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 17, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Whenever the President speaks before the press they always call out questions to him as he ends his address and starts to leave.  Sometimes he will take a question, when it is something he wants to get out to the public, and other times he just leaves.  This President doesn't deal with the press as often as the others have...





elder999 said:


> Obama's probably going to get that reporter's green-card revoked. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> The continuing irony and farce of American political life is going to kill me.......at least I'll die laughing! :lfao:


:-offtopic      :-offtopic      :-offtopic      :-offtopic ​


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> :-offtopic :-offtopic :-offtopic :-offtopic ​



Yeah, but it's at least a little less ridiculous than the topic........:lol:

I'll be good now, promise! :lfao:


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2012)

You mean the irony of attacking the guy who is working in the country...legally, vs. allowing people who came into the country...illegally to get work permits to help get votes in an election, violating the constitution while he is doing it?  You mean that irony?  If the reporter was here illegally, then you might have a point, otherwise...not so much...

I started the thread and as I have said many times before, I don't mind where they go once they are started.  If you really have an issue with thread drift, you should start one and then monitor it to prevent off topic discussions, which is your right.

As to wether the reporter lied about mistiming his question...I would have to ask, has he been to Obama pressers before?  Has he interrupted the president before?  If not then the evidence, at this point would show that he probably wasn't lying or that he has only been to one address by the president.  Which is it?


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2012)

Sooo...the problem is the reporter...hmmm...

The reporter has apparently followed the laws of our country and the process to work in our country LEGALLY.  The president, the chief law enforcement officer of the land has decided, for his own political needs, to ignore the laws created by the elected representatives of the citizens of this country that seek to create an orderly process to allow foreign citizens to become U.S. citizens, the laws created in the hopes that chaos and turmoil would be  reduced.  Since this reporter is following the laws and processes, and sort of has a stake in what the president just announced, and none of the other citizens, whose will is being ignored by the chief law enforcement officer of the land, are present at the press conference, I don't see the problem with what happened.  The reporter accidentally interrupted the president as he violated the law, and then the reporter  apologized, and the president ignored the laws created by the elected representatives of the people of this country, yeah, they are equal in their behavior.  Remember...we are citizens, not subjects.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 17, 2012)

Accidentally interupted the president my right eye.  I miiighhtt be able to accept that explanation if he did not interupt the prez in the middle of a sentence. That was a publicity stunt, showing great disrespect not only to the man, but the office he holds.  Obama actually handled it very well, and was more polite to the man than he deserved.  As far as not sending kids back to a country they've never known, because of thier parents' actions, he's doing the right thing.  That he gets a political bonus out of it as well just means he's playing the game well.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Accidentally interupted the president my right eye. I miiighhtt be able to accept that explanation if he did not interupt the prez in the middle of a sentence. That was a publicity stunt, showing great disrespect not only to the man, but the office he holds. Obama actually handled it very well, and was more polite to the man than he deserved. As far as not sending kids back to a country they've never known, because of thier parents' actions, he's doing the right thing. That he gets a political bonus out of it as well just means he's playing the game well.



But his heads not the one on the pike......:lol:


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2012)

I sympathize with the plight of these kids, their parents broke our laws, and continued to break them, understandably since mexico is such a mess of a place, as well as those who come from other countries as well.  Here is the problem.  Let's say you have an embezzler who gets caught.  His kids have done nothing wrong, but are in their second year of college, which is being paid for by stolen money.  Should they be allowed to continue in that school, paying for it with stolen money, because they didn't do anything wrong?

Here is another one.  These kids may have had no choice about coming here illegally.  At some point they knew they were here illegally.  The age range is 15 to 30, or something like that.  If these "kids" falsified legal documents, or admissions or loan applications, or any number of other legal paperwork knowing that they were illegal, should they be arrested for that?  

Will they receive preferential placement in college programs do to the fact that they are technically "foreign" students since they aren't citizens?  Should they be allowed to take the place in schools in front of "kids" who are here from other countries LEGALLY, or American "kids" whose parents didn't break the law?

Obama showed disrespect to his office and the laws he swore to uphold when he took his oath by deciding which laws he would enforce, due to his desire to get re-elected.  You should be more upset at that.  As some have been saying on the news sites, can Romney now decide to not arrest those taxpayers who pay less than what the law says they should pay in taxes, just because he wants their votes?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I sympathize with the plight of these kids, their parents broke our laws, and continued to break them, understandably since mexico is such a mess of a place, as well as those who come from other countries as well



You know, you're right. Things were so much simpler for those first illegal immigrants-I mean, _colonists_-to land on these shores.....



Of course, these days we don't put illegal alien's heads on pikes, so those kids at least don't have that to worry about. :lfao:


----------



## granfire (Jun 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> You know, you're right. Things were so much simpler for those first illegal immigrants-I mean, _colonists_-to land on these shores.....
> View attachment 16935
> 
> Of course,* these days we don't put illegal alien's heads on pikes*, so those kids at least don't have that to worry about. :lfao:



So far....


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 17, 2012)

Yay for false equelevencies!  No, they are not the same.  Also, if you truly felt for those children, you would see this is the proper thing to do.  For all intensive purposes they are American and they are contributing members of our society or they do not get the chance to get 2 year work visas or the chance to become us citizens.  I know this will be difficult, but maybe seperate your hate for Obama and the good of this decision.


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2012)

I don't hate anyone WC lun.  Here is a question.  You find a family of ILLEGAL immigrants.  Mom, Dad, and three kids.  Do mom and dad get deported but 2 of the three kids ages 15 and 16 get to stay?  How will they be cared for if they insist on staying?  This grab for votes has created a major problem that just made the situation more, not less complicated.


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2012)

Yes elder, they were truly a peaceful people...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101005045424AAsRWcF



> Of all the North American Indian tribes, the seventeenth-century Iroquois are the most renowned for their cruelty towards other human beings. Scholars know that they ruthlessly tortured war prisoners and that they were cannibals; in the Algonquin tongue the word Mohawk actually means "flesh-eater." There is even a story that the Indians in neighboring Iroquois territory would flee their homes upon sight of just a small band of Mohawks. Ironically, the Iroquois were not alone in these practices. There is ample evidence that most, if not all, of the Indians of northeastern America engaged in cannibalism and torture&#8212;there is documentation of the Huron, Neutral, and Algonquin tribes each exhibiting the same behavior. This paper will examine these atrocities, search through several possible explanations, and ultimately reveal that the practices of cannibalism and torture in the Iroquois were actually related.



Then there is this about the Iroquois...

http://www.ohio.edu/orgs/glass/vol/1/14.htm



> It is also important to establish that the practices of the Iroquois were more than the exaggeration and hearsay of excitable Frenchmen. The Iroquois surely performed torture upon war captives; many European settlers viewed first-hand the mutilated body-parts of war captives. However, there has been some doubt in the current century that cannibalism was really practiced by the Iroquois. Anthropologist W. Arens proposed in 1979 that there were no first-hand accounts of flesh eating among the Native Americans, and thus no solid proof for cannibalism. This controversial view has been refuted since, for there is indeed ample evidence in The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents alone to prove Arens&#8217;s thesis wrong. With this assertion in mind, it is now possible to inquire why the Native Americans performed these appalling acts.





> The death of family members had a profound psychological effect upon the Iroquois, thus they required strong measures to relieve themselves of sadness. Essentially, they felt that they needed restitution in some form or another for the dead relative. Grieving matriarchs petitioned the tribe&#8217;s warriors to retrieve captives from an offending tribe. The Iroquois warriors then established a raid solely to gather captives; scholars call this practice "mourning-wars." According to Anthony Wallace, the grieving Iroquois could find restitution in one of three ways. The first was for a warrior to bring back the scalp of an Indian from the killer&#8217;s tribe and to present it to the grieving person. Though the scalp represented a captive, live prisoners were preferred. The other two options involved a live captive: the Iroquois either vengefully tortured the prisoner to death or adopted him or her into the tribe. Since the Iroquois were a matriarchal society, the mourning woman would ultimately decide the fate of those captives that were brought to the village, mostly based upon the amount of grief that she felt for her dead relation.





> The Jesuits Relations, The Explorations of Radisson, and Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison offer other detailed descriptions of Iroquois atrocities, but generally the torture followed the same pattern. First the victorious Iroquois warriors would mangle the prisoners&#8217; hands; they did this by pulling out the captives&#8217; fingernails and/or cutting off some of their fingers. The victors usually subjected the prisoners to a heavy beating at the same time. Thereafter the Iroquois took the captives to their village and subjected the men to the gantlet (or gauntlet). They then humbled those who survived in a number of ways; for example the Iroquois might strip them naked in front of the village and force them to sing and dance. This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren&#8217;t adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.
> There are definitely reasons behind this torture that do not extend into metaphysical domains. The initial beating obviously broke the spirits of the captive and ensured submission. The act of battering prisoners to break their will is no isolated policy of the Iroquois alone, but of nearly every race throughout history. At this time the Iroquois also mangled a prisoner&#8217;s hands, a brutality performed so that the captive could no longer wield a weapon. After returning to their village, the Iroquois used the gantlet to further break the spirits of the captives and to serve as a test of endurance and physical tolerance. The Iroquois would execute without ceremony those captives who fell and did not get up, which indicates disdain for mental and physical weakness. Indeed, the Iroquois expected even those captives who underwent subsequent lethal torture to stand strong and not cry out&#8212;the warriors would disgustedly dispatch a captive who lost his composure. As the night went by and the prisoner remained silent, the entire tribe would become more and more frenzied until the sun came up and the prisoner was killed. Thus it seems that torturing captives to death was a ritualized act of vengeance that was truly fulfilled only when its objective (making the victim respond to the torture) failed!



Hmmm...at least they didn't have prison's...


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 17, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes elder, they were truly a peaceful people...
> 
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101005045424AAsRWcF
> 
> ...



You seriously want to take on Elder999 on things Native Americans???

opcorn::drinkbeer


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2012)

And there were these gentle native people...



> The practice of human sacrifice was widespread in the Mesoamerican and in the South American cultures during the Inca Empire.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Like all other known pre-Columbian civilizations of Mesoamerica, the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. The extant sources describe how the Aztecs sacrificed human victims on each of their eighteen festivities, one festivity for each of their 20-day months.[SUP][7][/SUP] It is unknown if the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice before they reached the Anahuac valley and started absorbing other cultural influences. The first human sacrifice reported in the sources was the sacrifice and skinning of the daughter of the king Cóxcox of Culhuacán;





> *The sacrifice ritual*
> 
> Most of the sacrificial rituals took more than two people to perform. In the usual procedure of the ritual, the sacrifice would be taken to the top of the temple.[SUP][36][/SUP] The sacrifice would then be laid on a stone slab by four priests, and his/her abdomen would be sliced open by a fifth priest with a ceremonial knife made of flint. The cut was made in the abdomen and went through the diaphragm. The priest would grab the heart and tear it out, still beating. It would be placed in a bowl held by a statue of the honored god, and the body thrown down the temple's stairs.[SUP][37][/SUP]
> Before and during the killing, priests and audience (who gathered in the plaza below) stabbed, pierced and bled themselves as autosacrifice (Sahagun, Bk. 2: 3: 8, 20: 49, 21: 47). Hymns, whistles, spectacular costumed dances and percussive music marked different phases of the rite.


And these gentle people...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081124013456AA7Kxv9

And apparently they did own some property...

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/history/indianslaves.htm



> Beginning with the Tlingit, slavery as an institution existed among all the northwest coast Indians as far as California. It practically ceased with south Oregon, although the Hupa, of Athapascan stock, and the Nozi (Yanan), both of northern California, practiced it to some extent, according to Powers. Among the former, a bastard became the slave for life of one of the male relatives of the mother and was compelled to perform menial service; nor could he or she marry a free person. Such slaves seem to have been entitled to purchase freedom, provided they could accumulate sufficient wealth. Both the Klamath and the Modoc seem to have had slavery in some form. The Klamath word for slave is _lugsh_, from _luktha_, 'to carry a load,' indicating that the slaves were the carriers of the tribe (Gatschet). The institution had found its way up Columbia River also, at least as far as Walla Walla River, where it was known to the Cayuse of Waiilatpuan, and to the Nez Percé of Shahaptian stock. From the west coast it appears to have passed far into the interior, where it was practiced, probably in a much modified form, by the Indians of the Mackenzie river region. It is said that the Etchareottine were called Awokànak, 'slaves', by their Cree neighbors, an epithet which in its French and Indian forms came to be the name (Slave or Slavey) under which they are best known.​



And these propertyless people seemed to have a whole system of ownership of property...



> The Aztec economy can be divided into a political sector, under the control of nobles and kings, and a commercial sector that operated independently of the political sector. The political sector of the economy centered on the control of land and labor by kings and nobles. Nobles owned all land, and commoners got access to farmland and other fields through a variety of arrangements, from rental through sharecropping to serf-like labor and slavery. These payments from commoners to nobles supported both the lavish lifestyles of the high nobility and the finances of city-states. Many luxury goods were produced for consumption by nobles. The producers of featherwork, sculptures, jewelry, and other luxury items were full-time commoner specialists who worked for noble patrons.



And back to the North East coast...


> After they captured a handful of Iroquois in battle, these "friendly" tribes proceeded to torture the captives to death. They burned the body of one captive Iroquois then poured water on him in cycles so that his flesh would fall off his body. When they had finally killed him and threw his innards into the river, the Indians told Champlain that this act was done in vengeance for their own mutilated tribesmen. There is mention in


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2012)

It appears that the Iroquios were a family oriented people as well...



> The warriors were not the only ones who conducted the torture, however; the women and children of the village had just as much of an active role as the men did. While the captives were perched upon the scaffold, the children of the tribe would jab at the prisoner&#8217;s feet with knives. In addition to this, every person in the village took turns with the burning torches during the night ritual. In fact, the rest of the tribe would scorn anyone who did not partake in the torture as a weak and lazy individual.



You were saying elder...



> Originally Posted by *elder999*
> 
> 
> You know, you're right. Things were so much simpler for those first illegal immigrants-I mean, _colonists_-to land on these shores.....



Except for the torture, raiding, slavery, human sacrifice and cannibalism, they were a peaceful people without prisons, theft, or private property...:angel:

Funny, that guy John Fire Lame Deer sort of sounds like that guy, Baghdad Bob from the Iraqi war, you know, the guy who said the Americans weren't anywhere around, as he was being surrounded by the Americans...

From wikipedia, apparently the Lakota had some problems with other gentle people, though finding particulars is very difficult...



> Conflicts withAnishnaabe and Cree peoples pushed the Lakota west onto the Great Plains in the mid- to late-17th century.[SUP][1][/SUP]



Conflicts...hmmm...but...but they were a peaceful people who didn't have property...what did they have "conflicts" about...


Apparently the Iroquois had a very liberal adoption policy as well...



> This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren&#8217;t adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2012)

Please, the early Americans were people.  They were prone to all the evils that people of that time period were prone to and no more or no less than that.  The deification of the early Americans isn't necessary.  See them as human beings and you'll understand them completely.  They may even have put heads on pikes.  (See how I brought this all back to the first post...)


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes elder, they were truly a peaceful people...




It's important to note that the founders based our government and its checks and balances on the Iroquois Confederacy, but who said anything about "peace?" Surely not *I*...:lol:

I have a Mohawk friend I haven't seen in years, Russell by name. Back in New York, a few of us were in a bar/restaurant, having drinks and appetizers, and Russell ordered steamed clams on the half shell-when they arrived they were liberally garnished with diced tomatoes and onions. Russell went red in the face, and was seriously ready to _murder_[ the waitress over the tomatoes and onions. I told him to calm down, and he was _ready to murder *me*: Don't tell me to calm down!_ he shouted. Then, as quickly as I could say, _Russell, you don't have to eat the tomatoes, you can just brush them off_-he said, _Oh, yeah_-and the red went out of his face, and he was completely calm.

"Mohawk," means "people of the flint," to Mohawks-to lots of other people in what became New York, it meant _people who eat people._

Dad always joked that my New York relatives were the reason natives got such a bad shake everywhere else: people would show up someplace new, and the natives would come over the hill to meet them, and they'd get all _INDIANS!!!! OMG!!_ :lol:

You know, this post reminded me of something; once, a whole school bus's worth of kids wound up on my lawn to see me fight. The fight was broken up by my dad arriving from work, and standing there in his clerical collar, with his briefcase in one hand, and a raincoat draped over his arm, my dad talked about fighting, and said,_I fight to kill_.

I took a lot of ribbing for that *for years*-think I was about 13 when it happened, maybe 12, but I think dad was saying it for *me*. 

Once, I killed-I've posted about it before. People always seem to think I should be bothered by it, when, the fact is.....

...._I *liked* it._ 

Oh, not enough to seek the experience again, or join the police department-I did try to join the service-I got into Annapolis, but they wouldn't have me because of my medical history, and maybe that was a blessing. There has never been a pleasure that was quite equal to killing that boy, though: some things, like the birth of my children, have been better, and some things don't quite measure up: if I were able to choose between sex and killing a person, I'd take sex. Pizza, though? If it meant never having pizza-or sushi, or pancakes, or ice cream again-_ever_, in order to kill someone-to have their blood splash my face and to watch all that they were go right out of their eyes, I'd gladly choose to eviscerate someone with a teaspoon, and never have the pleasure of pizza again..

My grandfather was some sort of proto-Rambo in WWI, though-and promptly entered seminary when he returned. My dad was a priest, my grandfather was a priest, and my _great_ grandfather was a minister, as well as a sailor. ANother ancestor was some sort of cavalry badaass in the Civil War, and wound up being a minister afterward.* I* could have been a priest-there's a very special provision in my family's trust for men who chose to join the clergy, and I have my own ideas as to _why_, and I think it has everything to do with avoiding taking life-or having anyone anger is enough to do so-but I chose another way-funny enough, I wound up being a sort of minister, but hey......


In any case, sure, my relatives and ancestors killed and tortured, and occasionally ate the organs of slain enemies, 
like Magua in _The Last of the Mohicans_. 

What that means, to me anyway, is that occasionally someone like *you* will make me angry, and I might just want to take their eyes out, and gobble them down with a beer chaser. Or take them out to the beach, and bury them up to the chin below the high tide mark at low tide. Or just bash their brains in. 

And, because I'm a peaceful person, I don't do any of those things-not because I fear the force of the law, or consequences, but because I simply choose not to follow the impulse-which is there. 

Torture? Sure, love to-not for information or something as trivial as that, but just for the pleasure of watching you suffer.Coat you with honey and stake you out on an anthill. Burn you alive. Shoot arrows at you so you bleed out slowly. Peel off your skin. Feed you to my dogs a little bit at a time. Draw and quarter you.

All just for the pleasure of watching you suffer.

Homicide? Sure, *love to*-not for financial gain, or property, or even self-defense. Just for the sheer pleasure of the cries of your pain, the smell of your blood and entrails-to reduce you to nothing but blood, sweat, screams and one last exhalation.

Carefully cut out your liver, and let you watch as I saute it with onions, and then eat it? Well, liver's an occasional pleasure, so I'd have to be in the mood for liver, but that's about it.....sure-I'm willing to bet that your liver would taste alot better than that pate I made a coupla weeks ago....

Put your head on a pike on my fence, or feed it to my dogs? Absolutely.

It's in my blood, after all......

What I've learned is anger management-but I wouldn't have to manage my anger if* some  people * would manage their stupidity.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 17, 2012)

:s393:


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 17, 2012)

... elder, elder, elder ...

Don't you know you're not allowed to like it unless you're fighting in the US military for a right wing cause?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> ... elder, elder, elder ...
> 
> Don't you know you're not allowed to like it unless you're fighting in the US military for a right wing cause?



Don't see as I have much choice in that regard, except to not get into that situation again, and I haven't.......if it ever comes up again, though............


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

If you have read the Federalist papers you know that the founding father's didn't need the example of the iroquois to create our system...http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24099

On their contribution to our founding...



> Those who support the theory that the First Peoples influenced the  drafting of the founding documents point to the words of founders such  as Benjamin Franklin, who in 1751 wrote to his printer colleague James  Parker that &#8220;It would be a strange thing if Six Nations of ignorant  savages should be capable of forming a scheme for such an union, and be  able to execute it in such a manner as that it has subsisted ages and  appears indissoluble; and yet that a like union should be impracticable  for ten or a dozen English colonies.&#8221;



You might want to reread the Federalist Papers and some of the European philosophers that the founders cited for which forms of governments worked and didn't work in the past...



> Other scholars are not convinced.  Anthropologist Elisabeth Tooker, for  example, argued that European political theory and precedent furnished  the models for American Founders, while evidence for Indian influence  was very thin. Although the concept of the Iroquoian Confederation may  have been similar to the United States&#8217; first efforts to unite alliance,  the Iroquois constructed their government under very different  principles. The member nations of the Iroquois League all lived under  matrilineal societies, in which they inherited status and possessions  through the mother&#8217;s line. Headmen were not elected, but rather clan  mothers chose them. Representation was not based on equality or on  population.  Instead, the number of Council members per nation was based  on the traditional hierarchy of nations within the confederation.    Moreover, the League of Six Nations did not have a centralized authority  like that of the federal system the Euro-Americans eventually adopted.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> You might want to reread the Federalist Papers and some of the European philosophers that the founders cited for which forms of governments worked and didn't work in the past...





_*You*_ might want to read the Congressional Record:



> *S. CON RES. 76
> Whereas, the original framers of the Constitution, including most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts, principles and governmental practices of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy; and, *
> *Whereas, the Confederation of the original thirteen colonies into one Republic was explicitly modeled upon the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself; *



:lfao:

Of course, for what it's worth, most of the Iroqouis fought beside the British, and against the colonies during our Revolution, but hey.....


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

Elder, that "congressional record," was from 1987 when they were recognizing some sort of native american legislation and were making nice and mouthing platitudes.  I thought you might have something from the actual debates and the actual time period involved.  Otherwise, I stand by the Federalist Papers and their discussion of the various forms of government the founders were familiar with from the history they had studied, from the romans, the Greeks and the other European forms of government that they discussed and debated.

from the 1987 congressional record...



> *Wednesday, September 16, 1987 100th Cong. 1st Sess.133 Cong Rec S 12214*
> REFERENCE: Vol. 133 No. 140
> 
> *TITLE: SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 76 -- TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY OF NATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND TO REAFFIRM THE CONTINUING GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIAN TRIBES AND THE UNITED STATES
> ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION*



Making nice and mouthing platitudes...

There is a list of the Senators in attendance at this senate session...hmmmm...I don't think any of them were at the debates on the creation of the Articles of Confederation or the creation of the United States Constitution.  Find me some records of  the constitutional convention where the founders name the Iroquois as there example for their form of government, as opposed to the Roman Republic, or the Greek City States, the Magna Charta, the Scottish clans, or the Holy Roman Empire or the Persian and Egyptian forms of governments, and I might cede the point to you.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

Hmmmm...from the 1987 congressional record...



> *example of a free association of independent Indian nations;*



I believe if you read some of my previous posts, the fact that the Iroquois were brutal to their enemies might have encouraged the "free" association of these early Americans, and point to the fact that they were making nice in 1987.

From the house resolution linked above...



> *Whereas an emphasis on freedom, justice, patriotism, and representative government have always been elements of Native American culture; *


.

You mean the Native American Cultures that engaged in slavery, human sacrifice, empire building (Aztec, Mayan, Incan ) or the war like Iroquois who so intimidated the other "native americans," that they developed stories of cannabalism about the Iroquois to go along with their actual practices of horribly torturing their captured prisoners.  Hmmmm...


Just asking.  Again...playing nice and mouthing platitudes...


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 18, 2012)

Aaaaand ... just how nice and welcoming are YOU to bandits in the night who step foot in your home with smiles on their faces and disease-ridden blankets in their arms?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

From another article...



> _The English colonists did not need the Indians to tell them about  federalism or self-government. The New England Confederation was  organized as early as 1643. The claim of influence is based on a very  strange idea of causality: Franklin at the Albany Conference in 1754  learned about federalism and self-government from the Iroquois and then  33 years later at Philadelphia passed on these ideas to his fellow  delegates at the Convention. Never mind that Franklin was very elderly  and scarcely spoke at the Convention. For discussion of the issue see  articles by Elisabeth Tooker in Ethnohistory vols 35 (1988) and 37  (1990).--Gordon Wood_


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 18, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Aaaaand ... just how nice and welcoming are YOU to bandits in the night who step foot in your home with smiles on their faces and disease-ridden blankets in their arms?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


OK, you went to far. There was a letter written, back in the day, suggesting giving disease ridden blankets to the Indians, but there are no documented cases.
Sean


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

The article...http://hnn.us/articles/12974.html



> > But what disappointed me about this piece is that it recapitulates  the tired and dubious argument about the purported Iroquois influence on  the Constitution, and the more general proposition that important  elements of Euro-American democratic culture have origins in "the  democratic, informal brashness of American Indian culture."





> > What's  wrong with the Iroquois influence hypothesis? There are two principal  and, I think, fatal objections to the idea that anything in the  Constitution can be explained with reference to the precedents of the  Haudenosaunee confederation.
> > The first is a simple evidentiary  matter. The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of  the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois. It is  of course possible that the framers and ratifiers went out of their way  to suppress the evidence, out of embarrassment that they were so  intellectually dependent on the indigenous sources of their political  ideas. But these kinds of arguments from silence or conspiratorial  suppression are difficult for historians to credit.







> But, it is objected, there were no real European antecedents and  sources for the institutions that Americans created, or for the  democratic mores by which they came to live. Again, this is a claim that  cannot escape serious scrutiny. All the key political concepts that  were the stuff of American political discourse before the Revolution and  after, had obvious European antecedents and referents: bicameralism,  separation of powers, confederations, and the like. Even on the  egalitarian side of the political ledger, 17th-century English society  did give rise, after all, to the radical sentiments and practices we  associate particularly with the period of the Civil War and  Commonwealth, the Levellers and the Putney debates, and the abolition of  the House of Lords and the monatchy. And on this side of the water, New  England colonists managed to set up town meetings before they had made  much progress creating vocabularies of Indian words. The same can of  course be said for the famous meeting of the Virginia assembly in 1619.
> 
> None  of this is to deny that prolonged contact between the aboriginal and  colonizing populations were important elements in the shaping of  colonial society and culture. Whether those contacts left a significant  political legacy, however, is a very different question.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I believe if you read some of my previous posts, the fact that the Iroquois were brutal to their enemies might have encouraged the "free" association of these early Americans, and point to the fact that they were making nice in 1987.



No, billi.

First, if you look at this post, made long before you got here:



> At the time of colonization, the European mind was still filled with notions of class and many felt this Indian belief in absolute liberty was dangerous to a well-ordered society. This prejudice was so deeply rooted that when the frontiersman Robert Rogers told a British audience that among the people who lived in these tribes, "Every man is free," and that they believe no one "has any right to deprive [anyone] else of his freedom," the audience was incredulous. Further north, the French tried to "educate" the Haudenosaunee and other Indians they met with the concept of deference to their social betters. The Indians, almost universally, flunked the course. Already free, already democratic, and already independent, they couldn&#8217;t see any advantages in changing.
> 
> To the Haudenosaunee, on the other hand, the way the white men split themselves into classes, with those in the lower classes having to defer to those in the upper classes, seemed an appalling way to live. They could not believe any man could or should bow to another and each regarded the most important person in the universe to be himself.
> 
> Gradually, this attitude of freedom rubbed off on many of the whites, and much to the chagrin of many of the colonial "leaders," many who felt oppressed went to live among the Indians, to breath the air of their freedom. Even creating laws with threats of "dire punishment" that forbade whites to go live among the Indians couldn&#8217;t stop them from fleeing. but few Indians ever came to live among the whites.



you'll see that the very idea of individual liberty, and a classless society so important to the founders-*and not part of any of the other previous models of government you cite*-is entirely native in origin.

Secondly, the natives are the reason that "life, liberty and *the pursuit of happiness*" were used by Jefferson, instead of "life, liberty and _property_"-because he saw that the natives were happy _without_ property-of the two, he saw happiness as the higher aspiration, and so he included a wholly native idea.

If you _really_ look to the work of Benjamin Franklin, you'll find that between 1736 and 1762, he printed and sold translations of the proceedings of Indian treaty councils-they sold quite well, for a guy who never really managed to keep much money, anyway...on the eve of the French and Indian War, in 1754, Franklin went to Albany, NY for a special congress to propose a union of the colonies-and the _Haudenosaunee_. "People of the Long House." Several iroquopis were in attendance, and the governor of New York, James De Lancey, invited an Iroquois sachem named Hedrick to address the congress and explain the structure of the Iroquois Confederacy. After Hedrick spoke, de Lancey said:



> &#8220;I hope that by this present Union, we shall grow up to a great height and be as powerful and famous as you were of old.&#8221;



What became Franklin's "Albany Plan" for uniting the colonies, was modeled on the Iroquois Confederacy. Years later, in 1775, when independence was being debated, Iroquois chiefs were invited to attend, and reminded of "_the advice that was given about thirty years ago, by your wise forefathers" _Lastly, if you look to the notes of Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress, you'll see he documents the visit by Iroquois dignitaries while framing the Articles of Confederacy, and that elements of the Iroquois Confederacy were incoroporated into the Articles of Confederacy-elements that would later become Articles I, VI and VII of our Constitution_.
_
So you have to look _before_ the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, back through the French and Indian War, to a democracy that had existed on this continent for more than 600 years for a thread of foundational and unique ideas that extends from that democracy, through the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation directly to our Constitution. 

But hey, it's no biggie-I get it-you want it all to just be the white guys' idea, without the stain of torture, brutality and slavery that is Iroquois history. Sorry.

The white guys had their own torture, brutality and slavery to stain history with.....:lfao:


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 18, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> OK, you went to far. There was a letter written, back in the day, suggesting giving disease ridden blankets to the Indians, but there are no documented cases.
> Sean



Ooookay, and ... how polite and welcoming would you be when bandits arrive in the day or night laying claim to your real estate with a smile on their faces until you ask them to leave?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> OK, you went to far. There was a letter written, back in the day, suggesting giving disease ridden blankets to the Indians, but there are no documented cases.
> Sean




Actually, this was done during the Seige of Fort Pitt, in 1763 the very incident you're speaking of, with _letter*s*_ written, and invoices extant that demonstrate that blankets and a handkerchief from the smallpox ward were, in fact, already given to the Delaware people at parley _before_ the letters were written, for this expressed purpose. How successful such an effort would have been is debatable-the Delaware were probably already infected with smallpox....

Here's a quote from an article from the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation:




> The Fort Pitt incident is the best documented case of deliberately spreading smallpox among unsuspecting populations, but it likely was not the first time such a stratagem was employed by military forces. It appears that Ecuyer and Amherst proposed the same idea independently at about the same time, suggesting that the practice was not unusual.



So, yeah-infected blankets, in spite of white guilt trying to revise the story. Sorry.

And, for what it's worth, I think they put a warrior's head on a pike at Fort Pitt.....:lfao:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 18, 2012)

Ladies and gentlemen, interesting tho' this Cherry-Picking-Ensemble-Orchestra historical operetta is (and it is), please bear in mind that, even if sometimes the thread has no right to be there, threads in the Study are expected to stay quite closely related to the topic of the OP.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor


----------



## granfire (Jun 18, 2012)

at least we are getting back to heads on pikes....

FOCUS, people!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, interesting tho' this Cherry-Picking-Ensemble-Orchestra historical operetta is (and it is), please bear in mind that, even if sometimes* the thread has no right to be there*, threads in the Study are expected to stay quite closely related to the topic of the OP.
> 
> Mark A. Beardmore
> MT Mentor



Hey, far be it from me to tell anyone how to moderate or mentor, but:



billcihak said:


> I started the thread and as I have said many times before, I don't mind where they go once they are started. If you really have an issue with thread drift, you should start one and then monitor it to prevent off topic discussions, which is your right.



Someone else already has....:lfao:

In any case, I'd dare say that I could find some none too flattering images of Obama on _bigpajamasheilbreitbart.*nut 
*_if I looked hard enough.


View attachment $hitler-obama.jpg

but that's free speech, isn't it? 

Not a pike in the lot, either........

Oooh, wait!

Here's a great big head, on a great big pike:

:lfao:


----------



## harlan (Jun 18, 2012)

Shocking, war-mongering, racist, tasteless, ignorant, disrespectful. Sorry I looked in.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 18, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Hey, far be it from me to tell anyone how to moderate or mentor, but:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else already has....:lfao:



Yes, we did. 



> [h=1]Forum: The Study[/h] 	For the serious discussion of non-martial arts  topics including world events, social and political issues, or other  items not covered in the other forums. Topics in here should stay  focused on their topic, with new threads created where topics split.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

From wikipedia on Franklin...



> *Iroquois Influence Thesis*
> 
> According to a controversial thesis rejected by many professional historians,[SUP][6][/SUP] Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan was inspired by the Iroquois Confederacy.[SUP][7][/SUP] He visited the Iroquois in 1744 and 1753, and, according to proponents of the thesis, held up the Iroquois Confederacy as a model for colonial government in a 1751 letter.[SUP][7][/SUP] According to historian Bruce Johansen, one of the primary advocates of the influence thesis, the visit in 1753 was at least partial inspiration for Franklin:A year later, at a joint meeting of Iroquois and colonial delegates in Albany, Franklin proposed his Albany Plan, the first attempt to unite the colonies, a combination of Iroquois and European elements. The Albany Plan failed to gain ratification by the colonies, but served as a rough draft for later federal designs of Franklin for the Articles of Confederation, as well as his part in debates over the Constitution.[SUP][7][/SUP]​Scholars of the Iroquois Confederacy who have rejected the influence thesis include William N. Fenton[SUP][6][/SUP] and Francis Jennings, who called it "absurd".[SUP][8][/SUP] In a book on the Albany Congress, historian Timothy J. Shannon writes that "no evidence exists of an Iroquois influence in the drafting of the Albany Plan of Union".[SUP][6][/SUP] According to historian Walter A. McDougall, "However fetching the notion of Native American contributions to federalism and democracy, there is little evidence Franklin studied the Iroquois. Evidence of British influence on his ideas abounds."[SUP][9][/SUP] Iroquois historian Elizabeth Tooker stated that it was unlikely the Iroquois confederation had an impact on the American political system, as there were substantial differences between the two. A single tribe determined what topics would be discussed, and decisions were made through consensus, with each of the 50 sachem chiefs having a theoretical veto. Leadership was inherited, and new leaders were determined by the women of the tribes, who were not permitted to occupy a seat on the council. Representation was not determined by population sizes but by the number of clans in each tribe.[SUP][10][/SUP]



For emphasis...



> Scholars of the Iroquois Confederacy who have rejected the influence thesis include William N. Fenton[SUP][6][/SUP] and Francis Jennings, who called it "absurd".[SUP][8][/SUP] In a book on the Albany Congress, historian Timothy J. Shannon writes that "no evidence exists of an Iroquois influence in the drafting of the Albany Plan of Union".[SUP][6][/SUP] According to historian Walter A. McDougall, "However fetching the notion of Native American contributions to federalism and democracy, there is little evidence Franklin studied the Iroquois. Evidence of British influence on his ideas abounds."[SUP][9][/SUP]


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 18, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Ooookay, and ... how polite and welcoming would you be when bandits arrive in the day or night laying claim to your real estate with a smile on their faces until you ask them to leave?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> From wikipedia on Franklin...
> 
> 
> 
> For emphasis...




So what you're saying, then, is that three "scholars" somehow missed the notes of the secretary of the Continental Congress, as well as the governor of New York.:lfao:


You can read governor de Lancey's memoirs., detailing the appearance of Hedrick at the Albany Congress.

You can read the Life of Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress and Translator of the Bible from the Greek, (as well as scholar of Indian culture and relations, and adopted member of the Delaware tribe)

Or you can read Wikipedia. :lfao:


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

Or you can listen to this historian...

*William N. Fenton*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*
William N. Fenton* (December 15, 1908  June 17, 2005) was an American scholar and writer known for his extensive studies of Iroquois history and culture. He started his studies of the Iroquois in the 1930s and published a number of significant works over the following decades. His final work was published in 2002. During his career, Fenton was director of the New York State Museum and a professor of anthropology at the State University of New York.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

I know it is difficult to get material from books onto the site, but you would need to quote specific passages from these guys to make your point.  Otherwise, they are just books which you claim support your side.  Not looking for a fight, just pointing out the difficulty that comes when material isn't readily available on the internet.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

Here you go elder...

http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0107/gaz09.html


----------



## granfire (Jun 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I know it is difficult to get material from books onto the site, but you would need to quote specific passages from these guys to make your point.  Otherwise, they are just books which you claim support your side.  Not looking for a fight, just pointing out the difficulty that comes when material isn't readily available on the internet.



:lfao:

It would help to quote the passage, or in lieu of that know the page and line number.

But in reality name and author of the book is quiet sufficient. 
Don't be lazy.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

Here are the Federalist Papers online...

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm

Yes, I have nothing better to do than read books recomended by elder.

Hmmm...I tried typing in Iroquois into the search function on the Federalist Papers to find the contribution to the founding of our government by the Iroquois confederation, and...it came up no result.  Hmmm...

7 hits came back for Rome...

10 hits for confederation, but not one hit on Iroquois...

2 hits on the magna charta...

And so it goes...

And again...

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24099



> Other scholars are not convinced. Anthropologist Elisabeth Tooker, for example, argued that European political theory and precedent furnished the models for American Founders, while evidence for Indian influence was very thin. Although the concept of the Iroquoian Confederation may have been similar to the United States&#8217; first efforts to unite alliance, the Iroquois constructed their government under very different principles. The member nations of the Iroquois League all lived under matrilineal societies, in which they inherited status and possessions through the mother&#8217;s line. Headmen were not elected, but rather clan mothers chose them. Representation was not based on equality or on population. Instead, the number of Council members per nation was based on the traditional hierarchy of nations within the confederation. Moreover, the League of Six Nations did not have a centralized authority like that of the federal system the Euro-Americans eventually adopted. These arguments are, however, intriguing. Curious to know more? Read the debate between Elisabeth Tooker and Bruce Johansen, and the articles in the _William and Mary Quarterly_Forum (1996) cited below.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here you go elder...
> 
> http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0107/gaz09.html




Here you go, billi


:lfao:


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

Well...the moderators should be happy that your post is on topic...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Or you can listen to this historian...



Or you can look at this British guy with a head on a pike:


_How........*civilized*._
 :lfao:


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

He looks like the guy from Braveheart.

Here are some things that actually helped create the U.S. Constitution...

http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/constitution.htm



> *Ancient Athens*





> *The Magna Carta*





> *English Bill of Rights*





> *Mayflower Compact*





> *Bible and ancient Israel*



And one of the big guys...



> *John Locke*
> 
> No other individual influenced the author of the Declaration of Independence more than Unitarian John Locke (1632-1704). He was a British philosopher who rejected the idea that Kings had a divine right to rule. Instead, Locke argued that people are the source of power, not kings.
> Locke argued that people are born with certain "natural" or "inalienable" rights. These include the right to "life, liberty and property." Government did not give people these rights; rather they are born with them and as such, no government can take them away.
> ...



In particular...

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/where-pursuit-happiness-phrase-originate



> Another theory is that Jefferson was influenced by his contemporary Dr. Samuel Johnson, who had used the exact phrase "pursuit of happiness" in an essay called the "The False Alarm." Johnson was a Tory, however, so it's more likely that Jefferson got the famous phrase in the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Locke.


----------



## granfire (Jun 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here are the Federalist Papers online...
> 
> http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm
> 
> ...




Reading a real book takes about as much time as reading stuff on the net. On the upside, you get out of mom's basement for a spell of fresh air on the way to the library.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2012)

Elder, you crossed the line.  I have notified the moderators.  Thanks.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Elder, you crossed the line. I have notified the moderators. Thanks.



Which line is that, billi? 

The "post a photo *you* put into the public domain line?"

The "post a decapitated faceless head on a pike-also completely in the public domain, and *on topic*-line?"

THe "post a music video line? "

I know-the "completely impatient with obtuseness" line. 

I confess, I have anger management issues. Of course, I wouldn't have them if _some people_ didn't have* stupidity management *issues....:lfao:

It's been *years* since I wore my hair this way, but he does kinda look like me, and this one is real! The guy was running from a cop, fell off a building, and decapitated himself on a fence!
View attachment 

Oh, and the music video? The theme from the series _True Blood_. Decapitations and gore galore! Love it!










You sleep well, now billi....:lfao:


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 19, 2012)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Asst. Admin.
*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 19, 2012)

Enough.

 Bill's been a good sport about the poems, digs, barbs, and outright BS thrown in his direction.  But it ends.

Now.

I will remind -everyone- that this isn't an insane asylum, and that this site has rules.

I strongly suggest reviewing Sections 1.9 and 9.5, re: Stalking and Harassment.



> *9.5 Harassment / Stalking*
> 
> Members may not harass other members. Harassing behavior directed  towards an individual or group with the intent of creating an  intimidating, offensive, or hostile environment on the boards, with or  without use of explicit or implicit threats is strictly prohibited.  Stalking is also not allowed. Stalking is defined here in part as  constantly searching for a user, following them around from thread to  thread and attempting to always be the next poster after them.
> 
> If anyone makes you feel uncomfortable, end the interaction and ignore  him or her if they persist in trying to contact you. If they won't stop,  if you are a teen, report them to your parents; if you are an adult,  report them to the police. Law enforcement is taking Internet  harassment, stalking, and exploitation very seriously and will take  action. If you feel that another member is being pushy or putting you in  an uncomfortable situation (such as pressing you into an email  exchange), please let our staff know and we investigate.



Bill's not as far as I am aware breaking any rules. His positions, views, and conclusions may not be in the realm of 'popular', or 'accepted', but I don't recall having a differing view as a rules violation.

So enough already.


As to the use of his photo here without his consent, let me remind everyone that posting a photo on Facebook does NOT place it in the public domain.  The regular number of Take Down notices, DMCA notices and invoices I send out for unauthorized theft of my own work makes that legally clear.

Sections 4.17, 7 & 8 of our TOS btw.



Since this threads degenerated into a mess, it's locked.  
Good night.


----------

