CdnFox

Ahhh so it IS a comprehension problem on your part. Fair enough. When two parties reconcile it is VERY rare for only one party to be at 'fault' if you will. Reconciliation requires both parties to recognize their role in whatever brought them to the current situation and that includes all the wrongs and slights, real and perceived. Only then can you resolve them and set them aside and move forward. And of course it wouldn't affect legal actions. Why would it? I don't think you understand what reconciliation is I'm sure you delude yourself into being sure about a lot of things,

You were the one arguing it. I assumed you weren't - but then when i said that you kicked up a big fuss. I guess if j don't like your answer right now i can always wait 5 minutes and get your new answer then, you seem to change your mind pretty frequently.

You changed your tune about your goal when i pointed out your racism and hate based posting, And you seem to do that a fair bit, So i pointed out that hatred and racism are bad things for you and you shouldn't allow that into your thinking. And holy crap have you sure spent a lot of time arguing that point. Hatred and racism isn't healthy. You should not participate in that kind of thikning. If you don't agree then fine, i can't force you,

Ahhh. So you ARE the type who tries to cover their lack of intelligent argument by demanding people repeat the same things again and again. Kinda thought so. It was mostly your display of hatred and racism that lead me to think you needed to hear that, Hatred and racism is not healthy. You should avoid having those kinds of thoughts if you can. There's people who can help if you struggle

Ahhhh yes - the kind who tries to cover a lack of argument by making people repost stuff again and again. Then i repost it and a few posts later you demand it again. It's there in black and white easy enough for anyone to read (unless you're also the type to edit or delete posts)

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 ).