Comments:'No treaty withdrawal', says Lakota elder
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
plenty of good itentions...but then again they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...__21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)lakota woman
What now? PurplePerson 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not one who ever believed in that proverb. Good intentions create good results. Bad intentions line the road to hell. Raphael s 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree: it is an excellent proverb. It's very easy to do a great amount of damage while intending to do good. No matter how noble one's intentions are, if one doesn't fully consider the results of his/her actions, that person can make a situation far worse than it would have been if he/she had done nothing at all. –Gravinos 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. My ancestors came over to the North American continent nearly nearly 500 years ago, and yet I'm still European? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Very good point. –Gravinos 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Not Balanced News
Where is the other side of the of the story! This is more like opinion than news. The Republic of Lakotah was not allowed to answer said allegations.
At least give a link to another article telling the Freedom Delegations side. Here is a good one.
From what I have gleaned from the website provided in the preceding comment, the supporters of the Republic of Lakota are attempting to commit some (but not all) of the wrongs inflicted upon them in the 19th century upon other people. The non-Lakota people who occupy the area enclosed within the proposed borders of the Republic of Lakota are US citizens, and should not have to renounce their US citizenship in order to retain either their property or their rights (sound familiar?—it should...). The article (and the website) also seem to leave out the fact that the area encompassed by the Republic of Lakota includes a number of American towns and cities, such as: Omaha, Nebraska, Rapid City, South Dakota, Sturgis, South Dakota, among others. It also includes Mount Rushmore, as well as a significant stretch of I-90, a federally built and maintained highway which was constructed with funds provided by US taxpayers (a group which includes myself). For the Lakota people to simply annex all this land, no matter what the reason, is an act of imperialism—a wrong that was inflicted upon them over a century ago, and no matter what the circumstances two wrongs don't make a right. –Gravinos 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you actually read the information on the Republic of Lakotah website? "...the Lakotah hold no animosity toward the American people... we are only declaring liens on real estate held by governments foreign... not on real estate held by private parties." There is no wrong being commited here; it is an action of right, an action of correction. They are doing for themselves what the government will not do for them as it is deemed by the governments own laws! 22.214.171.124 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)WhiteButterflyWoman