Nathan Phillips, the Native American from the Covington Kids viral video

Will somebody answer my 2 questions.
1: What tribe does he say he belongs to?
2: Does the tribe accept him as one of their own?
Because as far as I know native Americans do not look kindly on people pretending to be one of them.

That is one of the most shallow attempts to obfuscate I've seen recently.

A group of radicals assaulting a church and trespassing is not comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

So you don't believe in private property rights then, which explains a lot. Why exactly?

a reply to: Blaine91555

A group of radicals assaulting a church and trespassing is not comparable to the Boston Tea Party

Instead of just saying that, at least give your reasons why you don't think it's comparable.

Then we maybe able to discuss it.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blaine91555

Are you opposed to private property and private property rights? Why?

So by your premise, The Boston Tea Party should never have taken place.

Right ?

Swing and a miss, want to try again.

a reply to: crayzeed

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: crayzeed

Wow!
If that is real, that is CRAZY!
I had heard that they had disowned him, but you know how news is, sometimes it's real, and sometimes...

Thanks for posting that.

***Update to say that I just saw that this is actually true on their Facebook page.
I cannot for the life of me wonder how they can't see this guy for what he is, they are staking their entire reputation on his stupid lies.

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blaine91555

Are you opposed to private property and private property rights? Why?

So by your premise, The Boston Tea Party should never have taken place.

Right ?

Swing and a miss, want to try again.

Really?

I don't think so. Maybe the comparison is to uncomfortable for you.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blaine91555

Are you opposed to private property and private property rights? Why?

So by your premise, The Boston Tea Party should never have taken place.

Right ?

Swing and a miss, want to try again.

Really?

I don't think so. Maybe the comparison is to uncomfortable for you.

Uncomfortable, no.

Not even a close comparison.

a reply to: alldaylong

Philips was trespassing and disrupting a church meeting over an attempt to continue a lie about some children and his interaction with them. If you think that compares to what the Boston Tea Party was about, I can't help you.

He can protest on public land anytime he wishes with my blessings and support for his right to do so. I'd take a bullet to protect his right to do so. Trespass and disrupting church meetings though has zero to do with free speech and the right to assemble in a peaceful, lawful manner. Again, if you can't see that nobody can have rational conversation with you about this.

At this point you seem to just be arguing because you enjoy being a contrarian and have no interest in intelligent debate. Lets agree to disagree.

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blaine91555

Are you opposed to private property and private property rights? Why?

So by your premise, The Boston Tea Party should never have taken place.

Right ?

Swing and a miss, want to try again.

Really?

I don't think so. Maybe the comparison is to uncomfortable for you.

Uncomfortable, no.

Not even a close comparison.

Definition of the word " Protest "

a. To express a strong objection.
b. To participate in a public demonstration in opposition to something.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Phillips has a strong objection to the Catholic Church. Tick

Phillips demonstrated on private property ( a church ). Tick


The Boston Tea Party Protesters had an strong objection to the Tea Tax. Tick

The Boston Tea Party Protestors demonstrated on private property ( Ships owned by The East India Company ) and destroyed private property ( Chests Of Tea ). Tick.

Game set and match. Game over. Thanks for your input anyway.

a reply to: recrisp

What I can't wrap my head around is they chose to hang their hat on a nut trying to destroy the lives of children and disrupting a peaceful group of worshipers. I have no idea if that group even represents the tribe as a whole. They may claim to, but it's suspect.

a reply to: Blaine91555

"he put his wellbeing on the line between the two groups for peace and he did it through song..."

Jesus, it's like the Omaha tribe took Glee, Pitch Perfect, and Step Up into a blender, seasoned it with some Kevin Bacon and a garnish of Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, and then served it to the community.

What a collective of asshats and imbeciles.

a reply to: alldaylong

The congregation of the church is not taxing people, who receive no benefit from the tax imposed by a theocracy under dictatorial rule across an ocean. To try and compare the two is ludicrous.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: alldaylong

The congregation of the church is not taxing people, who receive no benefit from the tax imposed by a theocracy under dictatorial rule across an ocean. To try and compare the two is ludicrous.

Did you actually read what the definition of " Protest " is?

If you had, then you wouldn't even be making the statement you just did.

Just live with it.

a reply to: burdman30ott6



It's lucky there are no IQ requirements that go along with free speech.

There is no explaining it beyond the obvious goal of "give me money". Clearly there are people with low standards and a complete lack of critical thinking skills that will send them money. Crazy like a fox?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's lucky there are no IQ requirements that go along with free speech.

There is no explaining it beyond the obvious goal of "give me money". Clearly there are people with low standards and a complete lack of critical thinking skills that will send them money. Crazy like a fox?

I think you nailed the reason they are supporting him. They are looking to get some form of payout through his actions. Mark my words, if that falls through and they get sued for embracing his actions, they will drop him like a hot coal from the fire.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: recrisp

What I can't wrap my head around is they chose to hang their hat on a nut trying to destroy the lives of children and disrupting a peaceful group of worshipers. I have no idea if that group even represents the tribe as a whole. They may claim to, but it's suspect.

Exactly, everything about the entire ordeal on all sides is just as crazy as crazy gets.
There's proof of what happened, it's not hard to find out what happened, so, why'd they stick their collective necks out for him, that has yet to be seen, and understood.

I hope we read more about this, this part alone is interesting enough.

Thanks!

a reply to: Blaine91555

You know, the tribes in the Lesser 48 really should have followed the Alaska Native gameplan and formed individual corporations years ago. It adds a few complications, but overall I think it adds additional levels of responsibility and self-respect which is sorely lacking in Lesser 48 tribal councils. Had this jackwad idiot Phillips been an Alaska native and pulled this stunt, he'd have seen zero public support from whatever native corp he was a shareholder at. We've seen it play out thousands of times up here, native goes off the rails and makes an ass of himself, and the village kicks him out, followed by the village's parent corporation cutting said mental midget off from their corporate dividend and (sadly) making them entirely the problem of the taxpayers' at large.

a reply to: alldaylong



I'm still waiting for you to answer my simple question. Do you believe in private property rights?

We were discussing them trespassing on private property at a church and disrupting a meeting.

Again..

Three general first amendment principles guide departmental decision-making in controlling public protest:

First, political speech in traditional public forums, such as streets and parks, is afforded a very high level of first amendment protection, and blanket prohibitions of such speech are generally unconstitutional.
Second, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests, and leave ample alternative ways for the speech to occur.
Third, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.

LINK

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

That congregation is not the government and going after kids and lying about what happened is not honorable.

Be honest here. He's after money and media attention. He's a liar and conman.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

When I moved here almost 19 years ago that's one of the first things I noticed. Many if not most of the most successful people here are natives who embrace our system fully and are a part of it, not fighting against it. We happily coexist here and it's so much better.