gc1765

Mexican Cession

I'm not sure I understand your point here, but if I do understand correctly... are you suggesting that Natives are not capable of looking after themselves and that it is therefore acceptable to forcibly remove Natives from their homes and bring them to residential schools where they are abused?? Are you saying Natives were better off at residential schools than if they had stayed at home with their familes? I am not familiar with the case you are referring to, but you did say that it happened in the not too distant past. Well for thousands of years it would appear that Natives did fine looking after eachother without White people coming in and saving them from themselves. Remember that abuse is a cycle. If a child suffered a head injury due to abuse, there is a good chance that the parents or their parents were abused (by residential schools for example) and that the abuse is part of that cycle (but again, I am not familiar with that particular case).

The government also subsidizes anyone living in the north, regardless of race. All, as in every single individual child? You state that everyone was kidnapped and mistreated. Everybody? Look, I am more than willing to discuss the issues but I will not do so without honesty. I offer you my honesty and request the same in return. I will not embellish a statement to prove my point and I will request that you act in like manner, okay? Yes, every single child was required to attend residential schools. I suppose you can consider that kidnapping because they would be taken against their will if necessary. Not all of them were sexually abused or murdered (though many were) but it's pretty fair to say that all were mistreated.

This is exactly what the purpose of residential schools was. Which happened with the blessing or cooperation of the natives. No. Where did you get this idea? Natives were forced to attend residential schools and were punished when they used their own language.

It is quite likely that North Korea is at least trying to make nukes, but so far, to my knowledge, they have not tested any. Let's just hope that if they do decide to test their nukes that it will go as well as their missile tests

This is exactly what the purpose of residential schools was.

Yes, and theoretically tomorrow's taxes will be cut much more if the debt is reduced, since interest is expensive. Look at what happened in the 80's, interest rates were very high and the debt climbed from 200 to 500 billion dollars (under Mulroney) due to high interest rates.

I don't think there were any federal laws against using Native language, but it was the law that Natives had to attend residential schools, and Native languages were forbidden at these schools: Link Read more into residential schools (as opposed to Canadian law) and you will find more information.

Charest is right...just because something is "viable" doesn't mean that it is ideal. For example, I could 'survive' out in the bush by myself (separate from everyone else), but it doesn't mean that it is in my best interest.

I agree that if a recount had occured, bush probably still would have won. However, the fact that he did not allow the recount to occur suggests that he is not as concerned about democracy in the U.S. as he is in the middle east. Not true. Link Now I'm no economist, but common sense would seem to indicate that reducing the deficit (or even paying down the debt) would be good for the future of the U.S. economy, and contrary to what you say that's what I would do if I had the option. Bush cut taxes for everybody...but much more so for high income people, not low income families. So? The people who pay the most into the IRS' coffers are paying a little less, which only makes sense. A tax break that cuts across the progressive board is by it's nature going to have a larger effect on thos who pay the most taxes. Besides which, those living under the poverty line already pay almost no federal income tax, and so handing them their own seperate tax break is largely meaningless. I wasn't arguing that bush should only cut taxes of low income families, I was simply pointing out to windyman that bush cut taxes mostly for the rich. I understand that the rich pay more taxes and will benefit more from the tax cuts, but I believe that his tax cuts disproportionately favour the rich. Here are some interesting links: Link Link I'm not making up my statistics. There is no way to know the exact number, but most estimates would put the number at over 100, 000 civilians dead. Link even bush acknowledges that at least 30,000 have died, and if anything bush is going to underestimate that number. Not to mention close to 3,000 american/coalition troops dead. Link There is no way to guarantee that civil war won't break out even with american troops in iraq... Link ...but that's not what I was arguing. What I meant is that there is no end in sight because of a possible civil war. As soon as america pulls out there is a much better chance of a civil war, and I don't see any solution to that problem. Should american troops stay there indefinately? If bush was a real humanitarian, he could have spent that 300 billion more effectively. For example, how about wiping out malaria and other diseases in africa?: Link Link I disagree. Even though I disagree with many of bush's domestic policies, a lot of his supporters probably enjoy all those tax cuts they've been getting. In terms of foreign policy, I think afghanistan may be helping his approval, but iraq is hurting it. I think you can agree that the iraq war is an important issue? And the majority of americans disagree with the war: Link Interestingly, the number of people who approve of the war is about the same as the number who approve of bush (not suggesting they are 100% linked).

By invading Iraq? By not allowing a re-count in Florida? That's democracy? In Canada, there would have been an automatic recount. With record-breaking deficits? Sure the economy is doing alright, but it's doing so on borrowed money. That money will have to be repaid, and that will hurt the economy. Bush cut taxes for everybody...but much more so for high income people, not low income families. And killed over 100,000 people at a cost of $300 billion? With no end in sight, and possible civil war? That same 300 billion dollars could have saved a lot more lives if spent effectively. I could write pages about how the iraq war was a bad idea, but I will keep in concise. Only if americans drastically change their opinions of bush, considering his approval rating is so low. Link

I just don't believe that MPs aren't influenced by the leader of their party (ie harper in this case). I think a lot of people will always vote with the party, perhaps so that they are favoured for a cabinet position, even if they disagree. Although I think that you are correct that more than one will vote for it, I guess I was exaggerating, maybe more like 4-5 will vote for it. Still I don't understand how only a few people in the party could be opposed to taking away rights.

No, I meant it's an issue of charter rights so the supreme court should decide, and has. A lot of people will argue that it's bad to leave the decision to unelected judges instead of the people, but so long as those judges uphold the rights given in the charter of rights then I disagree.

We have a charter of rights to prevent discrimination against minorities. Leaving every issue to the will of the people is not always the best answer. If over 50% of the population believed in.....let's say slavery as an extreme example, that would NOT make it right. If this comes to a vote, I'd be interested to see how "free" this vote is for conservatives as well. How many voted for SSM last time? And they are the ones accusing the liberals of not having a free vote even though many liberals voted against it? This time there will probably be one person from the conservatives voting for it, and that's it. There is no such thing as a "free vote".

Let's make Canada a member! We're a pretty sensible country. No war crimes that I can think of (except maybe what we did to the Natives).

World War II was over 60 years ago. Most people in Japan weren't even born when these things were going on, how can you possibly blame them for that? All of the countries on the UN security council have been at war at one point or another. Hell, the U.S. dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on Japan in WWII, but I don't hold that against them because it happened a long time ago.

No worries, and I apoligize if I was rude in my previous posts. In response to your argument about arriving at a conclusion based on scientific consensus, perhaps you could provide me with a link proving there was indeed widespread consensus on global cooling in the 70's. Now I admit I am much too young to remember first hand, however it seems that there were only a handful of scientists (and one newsweek article) who believed global cooling was a problem. I don't think there was the same kind of consensus that there is today about global warming. To jbg: I agree that these proposed 'futuristic' solutions will probably not be effective. If scientists want to combat global warming, any efforts should be aimed at the root of the problem (ie greenhouse gases) not some futuristic ways of dealing with it. However, it seems that the scientists who are proposing these 'futuristic' ideas are in the minority. Most scientists would probably agree that if we want to fight global warming, efforts should be focused on reducing greenhouse gases, not some new technologies to fight it. I can't help but remember what happened when they tried to get rid of cane beetles in australia using cane toads and what a disaster that was. If people had tried using carbon on ice to warm the planet in the 70's I could only imagine a similar scenario would occur, where what seemed like a good idea at the time would probably result in disaster. At least if we reduce CO2 emissions, the worst that could happen is that we save some oil for future generations. I don't think scientists have any political agenda. Perhaps I am a bit biased as I am somewhat of a scientist myself, however I think most scientists are dedicated only to finding the truth. If you want to put the blame on anyone, why not blame politicians? They are the ones who have done nothing but propose ineffective solutions (ie kyoto) to please the masses.

I agree, anything above and beyond the cost of the convention should be considered a donation and therefore should be reported. Anything up to the cost should not be considered a donation. However, if that cost is not a donation, then they should not be getting tax credits for them! It seems like the conservatives are trying to get the best of both worlds, they want the money to not be considered as a donation so they don't have to report it, yet they want to count it as a donation so that they can get a tax credit! So that is taking money from the taxpayers of Canada. The difference is that this is the current conservative party that is engaged in these unethical practices, not some former members of the liberal party, therefore any comparison with the sponsorship scandal doesn't make sense. I don't see the liberal party bringing up the airbus affair any chance they get. Link

I disagree here. Moral and ethical values are not necessarily a product of religion. Non-religious people still have morals, like for example believing that you should not kill people, steal etc... These are values that are pretty much universal across all religions, including no religion at all. Therefore, I see no problem making murder illegal even though the bible says "thou shalt not kill". That is not promoting Christianity or any other religion. I think this is what you are trying to say in this quote below, so I agree with that.

I agree that natives should have a say in development next to their lands as well. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Ok, fair enough.

If peope living next to a piece of land that could be turned into a reserve have the right to have a say in how that land is developed, then shouldn't Natives have a say in how land adjacent to their reserves are developed? Aamjiwnaang Link 1 Link 2

Your reasoning here is faulty, and your comparison is inapt. Your seeming suggestion is that pointing out that an older hypothesis was incorrect, is seen by your opponent to be a valid argument that newer hypothesis concerning the same phenomenon must also be incorrect. This is illogical and that's not the point jbg or anyone else is making. What he's attacking isn' the conclusion but the method of arriving at that conclusion, which in this case is "scientific concensus". Which, as you've pointed out (rather rudely I thought, as if strict discipline was a defining feature of conversations on a political webforum), is the topic of this thread. Maybe I misinterpreted jbg's point, but my interpretation was that pointing out how scientists once believed in global cooling somehow discredits scientists from now saying that it is warming. I have seen that exact same argument on other threads, and I assumed that was jbg's point (since he/she didn't make any mention of "scientific consensus", or any other explanation for bringing it up). I shouldn't have made that assumption, but I'll him him/her explain the purpose before I reply further. BTW: What did I say that was so rude?

I guess you missed the point of this link. In 636 articles from the MSM on global warming, over half (52.7) give conflicting viewpoints, which leads to the common mistake that people think scientists are in conflict over global warming. While there may be a few scientists questioning global warming, the vast majority agree that it is occuring and that it is due to human activity. That is reflected in the fact that in 928 scientific articles, none of those disagree with the consensus. It is because of the MSM that people believe there is no consensus. Re-read the first paragraph: This is irrelevant. The topic of this thread is about the consensus on global warming, not some 'futuristic' ways of dealing with it. I personally remember articles in Time Magazine around the time of my High School graduation discussing this idea, back in 1975. This is not just some internet crank reminding us of the throught of stopping global cooling by blacking the ice caps. I love it when anti-global warming people bring up global cooling as if it is some way to argue that global warming doesn't exist because some people thought it was cooling in the past. I guess you don't believe that the earth goes around the sun? Since the ancient greeks up until the 16th century, the geocentric model was the widely held view. It was gradually replaced by the heliocentric model of the solar system (yes, some scientists still clung onto the geocentric model, suprised?). But I guess since scientists used to believe in the geocentric model, the heliocentric model can't possibly be true.

Link

If it's 'legal' for the conservatives, then it's legal for the liberals. You can't apply different standards to each party: Link and Link