dialamah

To whom should the FN leaders be accountable? If you said "To their own people", I would agree. And it's easy to say "Why don't they leave?", especially for people who have chosen to move far from their native land. I've never understood why my brothers, for instance, have never moved more than 10 miles from the home in which they grew up. But it takes all kinds to make up a world, and for most people, moving away from their home is not a decision taken lightly if at all. Especially when moving away means they are faced with people who do not understand where they've come from, and who look on them as being 'less' than. I believe there is less racism then when I was growing up, but just from this thread I can see that it is still alive and well; who wants to move from where they at least have acceptance, even if the living conditions are deplorable? The most likely people to leave the reserves are the young people, but because of the conditions under which they grew up, they face considerable challenges and many end up going back home, or ending up on the streets. I think Trudeau is on the right track when he talks about focusing on education for First Nations youth. That will give the upcoming generations the tools to know how to hold their leaders accountable, it will give them knowledge on how to make their communities better, and skills to help them navigate the 'white' world better. It's longer-term plan then 'move them off the reserve', but it's likely to result in a lot more long-term and overall success.

Gotta agree. Name-calling such as "Lieberal" and "Conservitard" should be just as unacceptable as 'troll' or 'stupid'. If the moderators here truly want civil discourse, they could try enforcing a more respectful tone, rather than accepting junior-high-school behavior.

Those answers aren't so much bad as ignorant of the reality of the history and current situation for Natives. I grew up in the Cariboo area of British Columbia. About 30 kids were bused into our elementary school from the residences where these kids were forced to stay, miles away from their families and community. Those kids hung together, and while a few of us tried to befriend them, they were too scared and traumatized to trust us, and who could blame them, especially hearing later about conditions in those residences. The adult Natives I saw downtown were generally pretty drunk, and stories were rampant about the living conditions on the local reserves, though the ones farther from town were said to be better. There was not any respect for them as people; they were widely regarded as lazy drunks and looked at with contempt. There was no opportunity for them; the only people I knew who would even consider hiring an Indian were ranchers sometimes. Even East Indians could get jobs in the sawmills, but not any Native Indians that I ever knew about. In my mid-20s, I happened to move up to Prince Rupert, where the Haida Gwai are; that was the first time I saw Native Indians the least bit 'integrated' - I saw them working in restaurants and bars, and one was a co-worker in a professional office. I was amazed that such a thing was possible - my racist upbringing had convinced me that the problem was the Indians themselves. Prince Rupert showed me that that wasn't necessarily true. There were still quite a few Natives who were drunk on the street, but compared to my hometown it was pretty minor. I was struck by the difference, and never got an answer why, really. I never made it over to Queen Charlotte Island, so no idea what conditions were like over there but it did seem that the less the Natives had to do with whites, the better off they were. I also have a friend who works in the Federal Government, as part of treaty negotiations. She tells me that the Indians have been treated extremely poorly by the Federal Government; while they had 'treaties', those treaties have been essentially ignored for 150 years and in many ways are still being ignored. The government of Canada has been breaking their own laws in regards to Natives, but most of (white) society doesn't know and/or doesn't care - it's a lot easier to pretend we 'whites' have done nothing wrong, it's all 'them'. In the 50s, the Government of Canada moved 87 Inuit to the high Arctic, claiming it was for their own good although there is evidence to suggest it was to bolster Canadian claim to Arctic sovereignty. So they uprooted an entire group and plopped them down in an inhospitable environment for which they were ill-equipped, failed to provide adequate supports and in the 80s, the Inuit took the Government to court over it. They eventually got a settlement, and some moved back to their original communities, but it took until 2010 for the Government to finally admit and apologize for what they'd done. So, yeah ... if I were a Native person in Canada, I'd sure as hell not trust the government one tiny little bit, and damn rights I'd feel entitled to any monetary support they offered. The behavior of the government, and by extension all Canadians, toward the Natives has been appalling. The whiners about how Native people get so many freebies, and don't want to work (yada yada yada) completely ignores the way in which we have destroyed their families and communities, broken our promises and denied it all for so many years.

Sometimes, when I read comments like some of what I've seen on this thread, I want the "Islam Invasion" to be real and successful, so that entitled white guys get a taste of what it really means to be the demographic that is systemically denied opportunity in favor of the power group. Of course, I'd be in an even worse situation - instead of being #2 (entitled white female) on the totem pole, I'd be at least #4 - maybe lower.

Do you mean, the posts calling conservative leaning commentators morons and whiners? Or, the ones calling left-leaning commentators libtards and hypocrites?

If you knew for a fact that the person speaking to you didn't care for you, your fashion, your lifestyle or your beliefs and they said "Hey, Junior", would you consider that an endearment?

Thanks for this.

Don't think so. "Allah told me to stab someone" is different from a person who says "Stabbing people will achieve a political end I/my group desires". If the only definition of terrorism is that a person attacks or kills another because God told them to, then a lot of former mere fruitcakes have graduated to terrorists. As much as I agree that killers of any kind are irrational at some level, terrorists possess some rationality: they don't attack because of direct communication with some Diety, but rather claim that the their actions are approved by some higher power or justified by the nobility of their ultimate goal.

Maybe men should learn to feel like men without the crutch of a young, nubile, semi-dressed female. Men are not entitled to use a woman's body to bolster their self-esteem, to make up for acrappy car, a bad day or a bad life. It's not that I don't understand the "business case" you are presenting, or that I doubt the restaurants believe they are providing a service in the way you suggest. But in my view this attitude is demeaning to both men and women. It assumes that men require a woman fauning over him to be happy or complete, or like some fictional movie character. It also assumes that it is a woman's responsibility to provide that for him, ensuring her body is "acceptable". As far as I'm concerned, you have made the best argument for imposing limits on companies that use women's bodies to pander to men's egos or their fantasies - even for such a benign activity as dinner.

Apparently those Islamaphobia threads that ran for 100s of pages actually worked in persuading people that we're not actually at imminent risk of destruction by Islamic terrorists.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but for me it would be ok, if they specified something like "You will be expected to wear a black cocktail dress, of moderate length, or less if you prefer. Cleavage is not required, but is at your preference. Dress shoes are required, but heel height is your decision." Then I'd provide pictures of the minimum expectation, for example.

Example of different ways of dealing with protesters and hecklers: The right way - reduces the likelihood of violence; and Donald Trump's way, which almost guarantees violence: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-obama-hecklers_us_56e74fb9e4b0b25c91830ed0

If that video (the video that you have since removed) was supposed to show protesters behaving like thugs, I did not see it. I saw them passively resisting removal, and I saw one attack the red-shirted Trump supporter, but after the supporter made some kind of contact, just off camera. The security people themselves behaved more or less as expected. In any case, I was talking about the Trump supporters who physically attacked supporters, and how Trump's words have inflamed and led to that, while he takes no responsibility. But you've got your hero, as white, violent and racist as he is, so I'll let you get on with ignoring the reality that most of the rest of the civilized counties have moved beyond the Donald Trumps of the world.

Seriously? People standing around quietly with signs, in a country where free speech is enshrined as a right, is disruptive enough that it's their fault if their attacked? That's ridiculous. Nonetheless, if peaceful sign-holding protesters are so unwelcome, then Trump can (and does) have them removed. There are two ways of doing this: Quietly, without any remarks by the leader. Or, Trump's preferred method: with insults and threats of violence, and regret that it's not acceptable to physically assault such people. Which probably would not have happened if Trump hadn't indulged in rabble-rousing through insults and expressing his desire for violence against these protesters. It is ridiculous for Trump to stand on the stage, rousing up his supporters, and then for he - and his supporters - declare he has no responsibility for the actions of the people he 'leads'. People who want to lead should expect their words and actions to be reflected in their followers - it would be ridiculous if leaders expected their followers to behave opposite to what the leaders present. Even if Trump didn't realize the effect of his words word have, then at the very least he should be out there - after the fact - letting his supporters know that violence is not acceptable. But he's not. He busily blaming the protesters and offering to pay legal bills. And you too. Trump's behavior on stage, in public, leads directly to the behavior of his followers and the violence they exhibit at his rallies toward *PEACEFUL* protesters. To claim anything else is denying the truth.

While your argument that people should attack policy, and not other people, has merit, you seem to want to use this to also avoid the fact that there are degrees of behavior, and to suggest that people should ignore what's happening because mentioning it is just as bad. Trump actively encourages his supporters to attack protesters, both in his actions and in his rhetoric - his security removes protesters, while Trump insults them on the way out; Trump expresses his desire to 'punch guys like that' in the face, and wishing for the good old days when those kind of people were taken out on a stretcher; he rewards his supporters who punch people by inviting them up on the stage and offering to pay their legal bills. How is that any kind of "policy", and not 'fomenting hatred' as well as violence? How is accurately commenting on what he is doing as equally "fomenting hatred"? I thought conservative-types (which I am assuming you are) didn't like political correctness, and yet here you seem to be using it as a way to bolster your argument: Don't say the truth, because that makes you the same as the person you are accusing.

Good answer, TimG, and I think it helps me understand where you are coming from. All political leaders criticize each other, publicly. So are Clinton and Sanders fomenting hate for each other?

Bullies also know how to fire people.

Out of all three responses not a one of you actually answered my question, so I'll rephrase with what I hope is a simpler example. If I said: "Republicans can't think their way out of a wet paper bag" and Cybercoma chastised me for being nasty and narrow-minded, those are both examples of equally fomenting hate?

Really? So if person A says, for example, "all people from this country are murderers, rapists and drug smugglers" and person B responds with "That's racist" then they are both equally fomenting hatred?

She said "All those cheaters who don't pay their fair share". How much more specific do you need? Or is this a case of selective reading?

Thought Topaz was referring specifically to the people who can afford to avoid paying their share of taxes, not just "everybody but me".Personally I would not have a problem with paying more taxes if it meant free post secondary education and a livable GAI, with a related decrease in substance abuse, crime and poverty-related health issues.

What about the savings related to a reduction in social problems ... Specifically, crime and health?

More difference: Trump is about hatred, racism, division and violence. JT is just the opposite. Funny how you completely ignored the most important aspects of both politicians.

I don't know that much about, just what I've read here and there - GAI looks like a feasible alternative. But I'm certainly willing to see another side, if you can provide some resources demonstrating why it's inefficient. As far as i can see, the 'targeted' programs aren't working worth a damn. My friend I mentioned above is stressed, depressed and barely making it. Many seniors are at or below poverty. Wages are stagnating, while prices of everything continue to rise - my daughter's generation is the first one that will earn LESS in their lifetime than their parents did. Surely there's a better solution?