China makes their presents known in Tulsa

[Conan71]

Chinese presents:

[shadows]

Quoted shadows:
The ownership of any group of citizens of a foreign country can be construed to be no more than foreign ownership in eight grade language
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted CF
Translation needed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The translation of foreign ownership could be available from the principal chief of the creek nation, who the claim of your nation circumvented the ownership of those who were assigned here by some unknown source.  Then removed to the present location and now prohibited by your city and county from claiming jurisdiction over the land your government assigned to them.

Governments to you have become superficial persons taking on a image of their own which overshadows the rights of the people.   Governments are a creation of the people.  Governments cannot exist without citizens.  Therefore foreign ownership by the citizens cannot be excluded from the fact that they represent the makeup of the superficial person of which they are attached and in time only to dominate the citizens.

As you are aware the eighth grade language level was established as a standard.   

[cannon_fodder]

I was not aware an eight grade education has been adopted anywhere as a standard.

What I think you are trying to say is:

Foreign corporations are not own by foreign governments, but they are often owned by citizens of that government.  Since government are fictitious bodies given power by their citizens, the effect is the same.  The Thus, the result is the control of U.S. assets by citizens of a foreign nation, which can be construed as effective ownership by that nation.
- - -

However, your analysis fails for three main reasons:

#1) Citizen action is not indicative of governmental action.  Citizens lack many powers granted to a sovereign.  Thus, their control of assets is less ominous.

#2) Control is not necessarily vested in foreign citizens.  In many, if not most instances the foreign corporation is subject to US jurisdiction and reporting laws.  Often the corporation is held largely by US interests since they are publicly traded.    The notion that GM is an "American company" is largely illusory as the nationality of owners is immaterial for their common purpose of stock ownership - making money.  (to wit:  the national pride thing is a joke as all the auto makers were positioned in WWII to profit if either the allies or the axis power won the war.   Ford sold vehicles to the Axis and to the Allies and then received reparations from the allies for damage to their German plants.  In the end of the day, business exist to make money, like it or not).

#3) Individual actors rarely have a single mind.  It is highly unlikely that you would convince a majority of Japanese/Chinese/Middle Eastern owners of [insert whatever asset here] to do something detrimental to themselves in an united effort to screw the United States.  While China may be willing as a single sovereign to take a loss on US T-Bills to prove a point it is unlikely a multitude of individuals would be willing to make such a personal sacrifice.


Thus, given my current translation of your prose, I remain unconcerned.  I also remain confused as to what the Creek Nation has to do with anything.

[Conan71]

I dunno, something about the Creek Nation being a sovereign nation and they are buying up south Tulsa, or essentially buying back the land we gave them then renegged on the deal and claimed it for our own when we figured out there was this thingy called oil under said land?

(sorry for the run-on)

[shadows]

I was not aware an eight grade education has been adopted anywhere as a standard.

What I think you are trying to say is:

Foreign corporations are not own by foreign governments, but they are often owned by citizens of that government.  Since government are fictitious bodies given power by their citizens, the effect is the same.  The Thus, the result is the control of U.S. assets by citizens of a foreign nation, which can be construed as effective ownership by that nation.
- - -

However, your analysis fails for three main reasons:

#1) Citizen action is not indicative of governmental action.  Citizens lack many powers granted to a sovereign.  Thus, their control of assets is less ominous.

#2) Control is not necessarily vested in foreign citizens.  In many, if not most instances the foreign corporation is subject to US jurisdiction and reporting laws.  Often the corporation is held largely by US interests since they are publicly traded.    The notion that GM is an "American company" is largely illusory as the nationality of owners is immaterial for their common purpose of stock ownership - making money.  (to wit:  the national pride thing is a joke as all the auto makers were positioned in WWII to profit if either the allies or the axis power won the war.   Ford sold vehicles to the Axis and to the Allies and then received reparations from the allies for damage to their German plants.  In the end of the day, business exist to make money, like it or not).

#3) Individual actors rarely have a single mind.  It is highly unlikely that you would convince a majority of Japanese/Chinese/Middle Eastern owners of [insert whatever asset here] to do something detrimental to themselves in an united effort to screw the United States.  While China may be willing as a single sovereign to take a loss on US T-Bills to prove a point it is unlikely a multitude of individuals would be willing to make such a personal sacrifice.


Thus, given my current translation of your prose, I remain unconcerned.  I also remain confused as to what the Creek Nation has to do with anything.

No, I am trying to say that "governments just powers are derived from the people."

I understood you were an attorney.  You should go back to the TU law library and do a little research on the eighth grade level requirements.

Conan 71, even in semi-jest makes the point.

[FOTD]

China Racing Ahead of America in the Drive to Go Solar
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/business/energy-environment/25solar.html?_r=2&hp

Tribal disputes ruining America's competitive advantage!