CdnFox

Pretty much what 'unless' always means. "except on the condition that : under any other circumstance than". I pretty much doubt you and that's pretty clear. You were wrong, unless you believe that the horrors that went on in the residential schools are good. In which case - if you believe that then you were right, Says the guy who got completely confused by the word "unless" ROFLMAO

How much you wanna bet a bunch of them knew she was "passing" and didn't say anything till she got caught, and are now making a show of how outraged they are. It's pretty fashionable these days it would seem for women (especially on the left) to claim first nations status. It has a lot of benefits for them to be thought of as 'first nations'. Pretty bad behavior - they're right to strip her of her degree.

So you're saying that when two groups are reconciling, only one group should ever be allowed to bring up issues in the past? I'm not sure you know what reconciliation is

Kinda looks like your attempts to explain all the things you've said you later regret. Anyway - like i said, hatred and racism are bad things, you should probably try to avoid them moving forward.

Sorry - are you calling them savages now? I sure didn't. Dude - you're starting to walk over a line So you're saying they were dumb to have their land taken? One has nothing to do with the other. I see you can't address the point. Obviously they were informed. No it doesn't - that's insane leftist claptrap. The fact that some things were "Ideal" as you phrase it does in no way take away from the horror of the atrocities. Why would it? If 80 percent of a person's life was great and then they were killed horribly by the nazis, would that some how make the holocaust any less of a horrible thing? Speaking the truth is always desirable. Whether it's convenient to your narrative or not. Fact is the first nations frequently visited teh schools, the kids went home in the summers and talked with their parents, there was plenty of information and this is something the first nations wanted. They made informed decisions. The fact there were some monsters lurking at some of these places is not an issue of 'informed' decisions.

It wasn't manditory till the 20's, and even then as you say could be excused. So the program was in place a long time, enough for several generations to get through the system, before they were 'forced' to. A friend of mine noted that when he grew up about 80 years ago in a catholic orphanage in quebec the discipline and conditions were about the same as described. I don't think it had much to do with first nations, i think that's just how they were. Compare that to the nazi-level food starvation experiments in sask residential schools. I have no idea why THAT's not the hot topic when it comes to residential schools.

Gotta do what you gotta do. Even here we have to put them down sometimes. I see what you did there

Yeah - that's not how law works. A CONVICTION might prove that. Charges don't. People are charged and found to be innocent all the time. But hey little guy - thanks for coming out and trying your best!

Riiiighhht. Really. And which action specifically of harper's made you 'jaded' like that? And why would that be some sort of reason to vote in FAVOR of actual corruption and bad governance, which you claimed the liberal voters were forced to because they didn't have an alternative? And if you're claiming that TRUDEAU is somehow transparent and accountable and therefore there's no other option then i think we can all agree you're either lying or insane. Although i suppose both could be true You know - you have a really bad habit of saying stuff that you later have to walk back and dance around. Maybe you should consider your position before speaking the first time. Liberal voters chose corruption, bad governance AND a severe lack of transparency ( and new laws to go with it) - pretending they didn't have an option is a little silly.

I did. I pointed it out when you attempted to change your tune. You're not one of those losers who just keeps asking people to point the same thing out again and again and again as some sort of pathetic failed debate technique are you?

You think they didn't? What, you think that first nations people are just too stupid to understand things? Too dumb to ask questions, and just let their kids go there without a single thought? Because they're first nations? That's a pretty racist question. Despite what you may think first nations people are not stupid. And many visited the schools, and of course most of the kids got to go home over summer and the parents could speak to them then. So they were as informed as anyone could be.

Actually still had it backwards And as we can see you were wrong. Unless you're saying the residential schools are a GOOD thing. They're a direct result of 'do unto others'. Wow. You really AREN'T very good at this are you.

How's this for timely?

I'm sure And mine as well. Athough we're more reluctant to kill bears out this way if we can avoid it - we constantly have bear issues in bc so you'd be killing a lot of bears. I think i read we have something like 25 percent of the world's populations of black bears. No grizzlies down this way. Yet. But some big cats and such as well. So far i've run the bears off with a paddling. (literally. I've got a paddle i throw at them.) but it's some nice to have the shotgun in hand when i do.

Virtually all of them except trudeau. Of course - i understand as a liberal supporter you might not notice a difference between a corrupt (bordering on criminal) person and one that isn't.

I haven't talked about me at all. This was about you. I can see why you'd want to change the subject tho. Far better than you it would seem At least i don't spout hatred and racist comments and then have to walk them back when i get called on it as you have. Do better. Hatred and racism don't help anything

Actually you've got it backwards. I think i said elsewhere the moral code of 'do unto others' is a problem . It was their adherence to that which caused the issue. Our forefathers ABSOLUTELY believed that if THEY were a bunch of buckskin wearing "Savages" that they would DESPERATELY want someone to come along and teach them the ways of civilized society. They HONESTLY believed everyone would want to be like the british if they could, if only someone would show them how. Many of them WENT to boarding school or catholic schools. They literally did unto others as they would want to have done unto themselves. And that's not always a good idea. Turns out what others want and need might be different than what you want or need. So - swing and a miss there.

Nope, it's what you said. Pretty straight forward. i can see why you'd try to gaslight your way out of it now, it was pretty disgusting, You should really think about what that says about you. Maybe you should re-evaluate some of your ideas if you don't like them when you look at them. Racism and hatred don't help anything.

Except it's a lie that their children were taken wasn't it. Until the 20's it was the parents choice. So those people we were discussing who came up with the schools didn't force anyone's children to do anything, And this is the kind of falsehood people are getting sick of. Except that bryce came along about 40 years after those people we were talking about. The schools had been up and running for a long time by that point, long long after the system was put in place, obviously. Soooooo - are you suggesting he had a time machine? How exactly are you saying that they had his report 40 years before he wrote it? I"m very curious. You wouldn't be trying to ... LIE.. about it would you? Naaaaaaaaahhh . The people who put it in place thought they were doing the right thing and didn't have bryce's report despite your bizarre attempt to claim otherwise. Sure - other gov'ts ignored the problems later on. Bryce reported his findings to wilfred laurier's gov't. A liberal. He did nothing, ALthough even there context is important. The gov't did not RUN the schools at that point, NOR WERE THEY MANDITORY at that point, the gov't just gave some funding to the churches on a per child basis. AND - to top it off, conditions on the reserves were about the same and so was the tuberculosis death rates. First nations people die at about 3 times the rate of other populations from it for some reason, even today the rate of infection for first nations is almost 50 TIMES higher than the gen pop for tuberculosis. Soooooooo - still no children "ripped from their homes", still no evidence that the founders did anything they didn't think was the right choice for the natives.

Dude - where'd you learn your firearms law. The gun and ammo can be in the safe without further locks. No need to also lock the ammo or bolt. I've practiced, it is 6 seconds for me to go from in front of my gun safe to loaded firearm. (practiced with snap caps ).

It may sound technical but you don't shoot them to kill them - you shoot them to stop the attack. Sure - they die. But that wasn't the goal, the goal was simply to stop them. If they HAPPEN to survive the shot as long as they're on the ground and not attacking you then you're fine with that right? That's the important distinction. IF you intend to kill them then it's not defense, it's murder. If you intend to stop them and prevent them from harming you, and that happens to mean they die as a result, that's not murder it's self defense. The law is odd No no - he is trying to kill you, and you are trying to stop his attack. By shooting him. Till he stops. The intent is important even though your actions may be the same in either case. Legally that's how it goes. The reality is he'll probably die but your goal is NOT to kill, your goal is to make sure you and those under your protection are safe, and if killing him happens to be the best way to achieve that then fine. And this is where many get in trouble. They shoot or injure the home invader, he goes down, then they administer a 'finishing blow' and kill him. Well at that point it's murder - once the attack is stopped and the bad guy can't attack further then you have to stop as well. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of cases where a homeowner shot in self defense and was not arrested. Or was arrested and released immediately while they investigated. Like i say, it depends a lot on the province and other factors. The most common times people get arrested is when they shoot someone running away or give that 'one last bullet to finish him'. You can shoot till the bad guy is not attacking and that's about it.

The liberal voters have been given the serious alternative of NOT voting in favour of corruption and lies. They chose to go with the corruption and lies, Simple fact. So - what does it take for a liberal voter to decide that corruption and lies are unacceptable? The Conservatives certainly know that - just ask the federal PC party. The ndp has proven they won't tolerate it provincially, we've seen them wiped out before. But liberals? They seem to actually REQUIRE it as a prerequiste. Whether it's brown envelopes of money under the table or interfering with the justice system for 'friends' or giving their buddies single source contracts worth millions, they're ALWAYS up for some good ole corruption and theft. What makes that so attractive to the liberals that they just can't say no to that kind of behavior?

Just to add to that - the first nations REQUIRED that the gov't provide education. This was included in the agreements at the time. So the gov't was going to have to provide schooling one way or another. Another thing that is often missed is that it wasn't manditory unit the 20's. People often speak as if they were arresting kids and dragging them away to school in 1890 - but that didn't happen. None of this changes the genuine horrors that did take place nor does it belittle the very real issues. But you are absolutely correct - when looking at what happened it's critical you look at ALL the circumstances that went into the decision making process. People are indeed getting sick of the over vilification and demonization of people in the past and pretending that somehow their sins are our responsibility. The gov't of the day had a legal requirement to provide education, the churches were already doing this and had a structure in place, it wasn't manditory, and they honestly believed that the best thing was for these kids to learn how to be 'proper english people' and then go back to their villages with this knowledge instead of just teaching them to read and write. "if you teach a 'savage' to read all you get is a savage who can read" and all that. Some of their thinking was very wrong but they woudln't have known that.

Well that's not what you said. Sounds like you're changing your tune after someone pointed out your racism. What is it with "the left" these days that they're so blatantly racist like that until you point it out? If you think it's wrong AFTER i pointed it out, don't you think you should have thought it was wrong BEFORE i pointed it out? And your 'new' position is that no no - you just like causing harm and suffering to others. Yeah - that's much better. Yeash, Don't let hatred run your life like that. It's a bad bad thing

You'll see it in court. Punishment by process. ."we can't find him guilty but we can hurt him plenty till hes' found innocent so lets do that'. Yep. Welcome to trudeau's canada. Things got better for many in this respect when the conservatives (and shockingly the ndp) helped pass the "lucky moose" laws for citizens arrest and self defense a ways back - but that doesnt' stop dishonest prosecutors from pursuing their own brand of "justice" against those who would DARE defend themselves. In other provinces this would never have gone to court.