the rich will always be among us

Everything is better for the rich, better education, better food, better housing, etcetera.  Well there is the church, where you get eternal life.  There were the kings of olden days who didn't have all that much money themselves, and were always cajoling and threatening the rich nobles around them.  I suppose there were fiery speaking revolutionaries, but those guys never lasted very long.  There was, there was, Abraham Lincoln!  How about him?  Born in a log cabin, and all, and I don't think even when he rose to power he ever had much money, unlike two recent guys, off the top of my head, Dick Nixon, and Bill Clinton who were born pretty poor, but lined their pockets along the path to power.

But your point is well taken, here in the United States, and probably elsewhere, but we are mostly always talking about the US, it's mostly rich people who run things.  Of course not all rich people are alike, there are many progressives among them, if you walk along the north shore at election time you will see posters in every window for the democratic president.

I may sound like I am against rich people, and probably sometimes when I get all het up on my revolutionary rhetoric (while sitting in my condo tower with a cat in my lap), I may say something intemperate about the silver spoon suckers, but it's not all rich people that I am against.  Just the Koch brothers and their ilk.

You seem to think that if you give money to the poor it will just evaporate and then nobody will have it.  They will buy food, and that will help the farmers, they will move to nicer places and that will help the construction industry, some of them will get an education, better jobs etc.  Your ilk tends to think that they are all welfare queens driving Cadillacs from their mansions to the grocery store to buy steaks and lobsters from the grocery store to take along on their luxury cruises.  It's not so.

And my people, my progressive ilk, are not spending somebody else's money when they pass bills to help the poor.  They are spending tax money and they paid their fair share of taxes and so did the people who voted them in to do their good work who must have been the majority or else the guy would not have gotten into office. 

I think before you can continue with your Indian research you will have to come up with a definition for Indian.  Likely your definition will have something to do with how many of one's ancestors were Indians going back what, three hundred, four hundred years, and I don't see how you are going to determine that.  Why not except my definition?  Everybody who tells the census taker that they are an Indian is an Indian and everybody who says they aren't, aren't Indians.  What different does it make if you county has four or ten percent Indians anyway?

So you are finally admitting that gay marriage is no sweat off your nose.  On the other hand it will bring a good deal of happiness and stability to what, a few percent of the people in this country, who work and pay taxes just like you, and yet you are agin it, and your full panoply of reasons you are agin it, is because you just don't like it.  And you call yourself an American?