Rue

Shakey I know the CPC is after me. But thanks for the heads up.

Then what? Youd on't need to do testing to know now that in high schools students are able to get their hands on any drug they want and teachers know who the stoners are, who is on crack, etc. They aint stupid. So you test them. Now you know the obvious, this one smokes dope, this one is doing some smack, this one is on steroids, this one does Ectasy, this one likes amphetamines, so now what? You want to expel them? See you have to think through the policy and ask what is the point of the drug testing-what do you want to do with the drug report? Jail people? Rehab. them? Let them stay at home and miss school so they can get into even more trouble? What? To me we don't need drug testing to state what is obvious. What we need to work on is ways to get guns out of schools and ways to get young Canadians to channel their energy into positive alternatives so they don't feel drugs is their only option. Someone who feels positive about themselves and in control of their life is less likely to lean to drugs as an escape hatch and crutch.

The Noble Savage stereotype comes from non aboriginals not aboriginals. Aboriginals never claimed to be noble savages or flower children. It also does not make one a believer in the Noble Savage stereotype because they speak using a respectful tone for aboriginal traditions and customs. That said I think you are dead on when you say we all have our cultural shit. Show me a human I will show you baggage and shit. On that we agree. Every society has its shit and shits. That said my respect for aboriginal traditions and customs is not a blanket one based on guilt or the concept they are all flower children. Its based on the simple premises that I treat them the way I want people to treat me. No more, no less. All the rest is just me telling Keng he can't burn his cross on my lawn and telling you my only rule for you coming on my lawn is that you don't urinate on my bushes or try sell me something. Other then that I am easy.

What is "it"? How do you know "its: is "contrived"? You do not define what "it" is or the method from which you were able to determine "it" was contrived. So in the absence of such references,all you do is utter a personal feeling with no basis of reference for anyone to understand. You stated " (its contrived) to make ot look as though Indians (sic) at one with nature and all loving and respectful about Life and each other." The above remark again shows you continue to use a derogatory term of reference (Indians) which you know is racist and ignorant and then make the assumption that "Indians" sit around deliberately lying to make themselves look loving and respectful. That Sir is a hate comment. Its a comment not based on any reference or fact, just you stating "Indians" are savage liars. That is all you said. "Indians" are lying savages. You could have stated it that simply. You stated; "if you look at ethnographical accounts of ceremonial practices when "Indians" still maintained their "traditiona;" lifestyles, the spirituality was more gruesome". Again you make a statement with no reference. You do not provide reference for the account you claim to be repeating. This Sir, again is a deliberate continued exercise you have used since you have come on this forum, to refer to alleged sources for your opinions, but never provide a reference for them. Again Sir I state, in the absence of a reference and because of your continuous decision to not provide references anyone reading your remarks has the right to assume you fabricate them, i.e., you make them up as you go along and simply couch your subjective hatred with references to alleged sources to make them sound as if they have a basis when they do not. What is your source Keng. What I find interesting is that if a cultural anthropologist would have in fact done an ethnographic study, it would have been based on a specific local and community and so could not as you are now doing use it to negatively generalize against all aboriginal communities. So right off the bat you appear to be fabricating because a specific field study would not be a basis to form a generalization about a society and if anything would simply be a field report as to what the anthropoligist witnessed-no more, no less. As well Keng, if you actually knew what an ethnographer does you would know they are are participant observers. They actually make it a point to take part in events they study to help them understand the behavior they are observing. So Keng you would have us believe the ethnographers you quote engaged in violence and savagery. This is why Keng I will make it a point each and every time you come on this forum to post hatred to challenge you. Either provide the reference or admit you are fabricating.

I appreciate your blunt honesty and ability to be honest about your anger and not couch it but also remain logical and level-headed with such a personal incident. You are a far better man than me for being able to write as you did with dettached perspective. I really regret your daughter had that happen to her in your presence. You are clearly someone with intelligence to be able to control your anger and not use it to retaliate. I applaud that. I wish there was some way for someone from the aboriginal community to speak with you and your daughter directly as to what happened.

American my comments were not directed specifically at you-just rhetorical. Sorry. Should have clarified that. None of my comments were directed at what you said or challenged what you said. In fact I probably agreed with 99% of what you stated earlier. You stated; "From the time he was born, this is what was instilled in him. It's all he knew. They definitely recruit children. Evidently orphans are particularly targeted. " That of couse AmercGal is one crucial point. It could be quite rightly argued children terrorists must be treated with a different standard because their capacity to form decisions is defective. The problem of course is does anyone know how to define when a child becomes old enough to know right from wrong and that terrorism is wrong? Its a tough one with no answer. You stated; "But there's a huge difference between trying someone and giving them a sentence under humane prison conditions, and what he and so many others have been enduring at Gitmo." Now I personally (slight difference of opinion here) do not think his conditions are inhumane in Gitmo but I fully concede leaving him in prison with no legal process and in isolation(which you are technically right can be considered inhumane under some conventions) indefinitely as did happen is legally unacceptable. The failure to me (this is my personal opinion only) is that I believe he should have been placed in a military prison as a prisoner of war and he was tried by a military tribunal and given a fair trial. You stated; Is it effective to create foreign programs to channel the frustration and anger of poverty and help use it to buold nations-of course. Now how will you and I though convince the Int. Monetary Fund that its policies deliberately prevent this from happening? I personally think we have to pursue such alternatives to try channel people away from violence and terror to peaceful options through non profit organizations. I have no confidence in governments. again I applaud your sentiments but I am just not sure how we get around these corupt regimes and terror groups that will compete directly for the same peoples' hearts and minds. You stated; "I don't think they go around "screwing" western girls." My comment was not meant towards you. I said it seriously though. Many many people feel "child" terrorists should not be in school with their children let alone dating their daughters. They don't differentiate minorities from terrorists and when they see a young terrorist let out it causes back-lash and fuels tension. That was my point. Sory I could have been more clear on that. It was not directed at you at all, just as rhetoric. You stated; "And no, I wouldn't want them in my neighborhood." Again I apologize. This was not meant as a question to you. It was a rhetorical question, i.e., none of us want a rehabilitated criminal in our neighbourhoods including me. So its a practical problem is what I mean. Say we do release Kadr back into society-where does he live? Who hires him? Do we think he will simply vanish into our society and be a good boy? These are all questions with no absolute answers we are faced with if we want to take him back. Sorry Amerk. It sounded like I was questioning what you said. No just general issues with it. On one level I of course I follow FTA on the legal issues. On a very practical level, I am just not sure how some of these issues can and will be resolved. I personally do not think this is just an American issue. I think it is a world issue, and it is on the US's lap at this point, because many other nations find it easier to sit, and let the US take the brunt of the criticism and sit back and are relieved they do not have to deal with him. Amerc it may not be the answer but for me for now, I believe Bush was dead wrong interfering with the US Military's JAG office and creating this parallel legal administration for suspected terrorists. I believe it should have bee handled by the JAG and then proper international courts and I believe Bush should have stayed out of it. I also believe in this specific matter Kadr if anything should be tried in an international court with Judges who have no direct political interest that could influence them and based on the procedures and guidelines of a convention soveriegn nations agree to follow. Therein lies the challenge. The trials we saw at Nurmeberg will not work with terrorists. We have a lot to re-write and lol, you YankeeFemale don't need to defend your views to me! I respect them a lot. I only wish I had proper answers for you as to legal solutions to address some of your sentiments.

Yes I do not doubt if you read Lorne Gunter's articles he will provide opinion columns as to the opinions you believe in but what does this prove other then that he has political views (conservative, libertarian) similiar to yours? You really think some columnist from the Edmonton Journal is an authority on global warming simply because he writes columns you agree with? Everyone has their messiah. Mine is Halle Berry.

Who is we? Speak for yourself. The vast majority of the world's scientific community believes human activity is contributing to what is happening. Your need to get into an arguement as to how much human activity contributes to it, reminds me of someone who asks how many cigarettes will he need to smoke to get lung cancer. You want to stick your head in the sand and deny, then speak for thine self and not "we". Thanks.

Is it coincidence that you, Ron Paul, Lyndon Larouche, Stormfront, the KKK, advocate the exact same theories as to the above? Do you own weapons? By any chance do you have a pit-bull?

The legal process as to how he is being detained is seriously flawed but I do not think he is being tortured. One could argue his detention and trial process is legallly defective but to say someone is standing there physically torturing him directly I believe is a misrepresentation. I also think one of the legal issues which is not necessarily age specific is how one defines a terrorist. Since terrorists are not conventional soldiers who want to be treated as such I think we have to understand all the conventional legal laws as to war (conventions) were drafted assuming people were soldiers in uniforms. Today's terrorist wants both worlds. They want to act like criminals and violate all laws, but then when caught demand they be protected by any and all laws. Seems to me while we do not want to become the terrorists we are detaining we also have to have up-dated laws that specifically state who tries a terrorist and what standards we use. I personally do not believe a 15 year old gets a pass on terrorism simply because they are 15. I think in this case some are arguing he was 15 so he was brain-washed and he didn't have full capacity to understand what he was doing since he was young and brain washed. While I appreciate such sentiment from a practical point of view terrorists recruit children and we have to ask ourselves what do we do with them when they are caught. You want to release them back into society? Do you? Want them in your neighbourhood going to school with your children? Want one screwing your daughter? The sentiment of wanting to save and rehabilitate such people is noble but the practical realities bring in a host of problems. From what I gather this "child" terrorists family is still quite unrepentant and will continue to be an influence on him.

Psst Buffy take a look; http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread...388512p326.html (pictures of him with Don Black head of StormFront) http://www.ronpaulexposed.com/ http://www.knightskkk.com/mainpage.html (supported as the candidate of the KKK) Yer latest messiah takes donations and poses for pictures with the head of Stormfront, is against abortion and wants creationism taught in public schools. You know Buffy there is a reason why the KKK and David Duke and Storefront endorse him as their candidate. There's a reason he didn't give back their money or will publically denounce them. Gee wiz Buffy could it be that is what attracts you to this man-cuz he tells you want you want to hear on a particular topic? Nah.

Well Jerry I must agree. Its easy to manipulate when your audience is too lazy to research whose band-wagon it is they are jumping on. The Ron Pauls of the world exist precisely because their supporters are in desperate need of a short-cut from having to read and research-they want their messiah now, and they don't want to have to think about anything-they want it all delivered in nice easy 5 second sound bites. Man you would think if Ronny Paul was gonna stick his hand up one's butt to do a prostate exam one would at least want to check the length of his finger-nails. Regards, NEWMAN.

He is far from leftist. He is against any state involvement and refers to any government initiative as a welfare initiative. This man's political views are extreme right wing and right out of Lyndon Larouche's play-book word for word. For those who are enamoured with him, its time they find out who Lyndon Larouche is and try find out where his ideas come from and what his real agenda is. They might be a tad disappointed.

Its clear some of the youngsters on this forum are not aware of the Code; CODE OF HETERO-SEXUALITY-MALE-Edition 2008, Revised Volume XVII Section 89-437A A hetero-sexual male when in the position of being able to have sexual relations with a beautiful woman has an obligation on behalf of all hetero-sexuals to to pursue said opportunity without regards to race, culture, etnicity or religion provided it is consensual. Section 967-QB The standard of beauty in regards to the determination as to whether a hetero-sexual male finds a woman beautiful in regards to Section 89-437A or any other references is not to be limited to any one category and all hetero-sexual males are to be forgiven for one misdiscretion as to judgement in this regard as a result of alcohol provided they do not drive and are not married. Section Z679-2RF4 All women are objects of desire no matter how improbable this may seem to certain hetero-sexuals as a result of the biological imperative within all heterosexuals that can not be properly defined or controlled and at best can be referred to as a compulsion which might be contained with marriage and/or tasers.

Me assume something? Moi? Of course not. I was only trying to clarify a definition and make sure people spell coy with a c and not a g.

Keng you stated: "..but it eventually became apparent that many (aboriginals) stubbornly clung to their old ways and were thus keeping themselves down." Your above comment reflects your own bias that your cultural and religious values are superior and if a people were not willing to abandon their own and follow yours, it necessarily was a negative decision. Did it ever occur to you Keng, that your cultural and religions values are flawed and not superior and what caused aboriginals problems was not as you say because they "stubbornly clung to their old ways" but because people like you stubbornly cling to your assumption that your ways are superior and you should be able to impose them on others who you see as inferior? Maybe Keng the problem is not with aboriginals but with people like you who assume their superiority and want to force it on everyone? Tell me Keng, is it possible you could respect aboriginal customs and traditions as valid as yours? To date you have made it clear you tolerate no one's right to have values if they are different then yours. You stated; " This "forced assimilation" through "residential schools" only came about well after it was realized that the Indians were not going to doing anything for themselves." Again you express a subjective opinion predicated on your racist assumption that aboriginals were inferior to you and unless they were forced to be like you they would continue to be inferior. The residential schools came about because there was no seperation between church and state and Christians used the government and school system as an attempt to force religious conversion on aboriginals. Plain and simple it was a deliberate, premeditated attempt to impose Christianity on aboriginals because the people at that time like you still do today, felt they were morally superior to aboriginals and like you refer to them in a patronizing manner which assumes negative characteristics. Its precisely that kind of smug moral superiority that leads to genocides. Its precisely your kind of belief process that assumes you are superior and others are inferior that caused the residential school fiasco. Tell me Keng, how would you feel if suddenly your children were taken from you and placed in non-Christian schools 11 months a year where they were sodomized, raped, beaten, starved, and deliberately exposed to tuberculosis in the name of God? You stated; "The fact that you can often deal with Indians in a rational and civilized manner is because they were "assimilated". You again make a blatantly racist statement that assumes aboriginals are uncivilized unless they adapt your cultural and religious values. The fact you keep using the word "Indian" simply reinforces that contempt and ignorance of a people you make no effort to understand just label with negative characteristics based on your subjective feelings that you are superior and everyone should have your beliefs. You stated; "My guess is that were you to be able to go back in time and interact with pre-assimilated Indians, you wouldn't be all that impressed by them." The above remark again is intended to insult aboriginal customs and beliefs and show you disrespect them and have contempt for them-so what else is new. You have yet to come on this post and say anything positive about anyone. It is what you do Keng, express hatred for anyone you think is different from you and its why I challenge you each and every time you make such statements. You "guess"? The word "guess" is simply another word for you speaking without any objective reference, i.e., you once again being subjective based on your feelings that you are better then who you think you refer to. Here is the point Keng-your guessing is meaningless. What you guess in the entire scheme of life is meaningless. what is meaningful is the fact that all of us of all cultures and beliefs have positive things we offer and some of us choose to dwell on that and ask what others can teach us. Your constant need to deconstruct and put down anything you do not understand proves what Keng? You want me to guess, I would say, many of us do not need to go back in time to an era where many more hold your kind of value system and we are not impressed with such past events nor you continuing to try promulgate this intolerance today. Imagine that Keng. Some people may not be impressed with your views either.

The first point reminds us how self-centered American politicians can be. The second point of course flows from the first phenomena and yes his past record (as brief as it is federally) has been leaning to the anti NAFTA side but who is kidding who any President, repub or dem is gonna put US trade interests first and challenge us on Northern soveriegnty and going to want to continue accessing our natural gas, oil and water and resources with the lowest prices possible. Such is life and allowing 80-90% of your economy to be dependent on US markets. Unless we diversify our trade any US President and US business interests will dominate trading given our dependence. Now let us talk trash. The real prize dummy of them all has to be in my opinion that goof Mitt Romney. The guy comes right out of the Lawrence Welk show. Talk about a creepy hair sprayed pervert. My favourite is that Law and Order former Tennessee Senator. Its like now and then during the debate Saturday he would wake up as sp,epme increased his medication and would say something right out of a Law and Order script he must have stolen, then he would go back to sleep. Got to love a man on the circuit who can hide his urine bag and and i.v. drip like that. Mayor Guiliani looks like a rat. Its like watching movuie director Martin Scorsese in politics. I was expecting him to nibble on some cheese during the debate. Look from a purely cosmetic point of view they are all butt ugly except Mitt Romney who looks like Bob Eubank from the Newly Wed Show and probably is all wax. I mean Hilary has a smile that is so pained and fake it would make a great add for Preperation H.I mean John Edwards has good hair but he sounds like Jimmy Carter which is a kiss of death. Obama with due respect looks like a cross between Curious George and the Joker from Batman. My favourite is Gov. Richardson. He looks like someone from the Sopranos. John McCain looks like the football coach of a doomed team like the Miami Dolphins. Ron Paul looks like the kind of guy that saves body parts in his fridge for dinner. He has that deranged cannibal serial killer look as far as I can tell. Someone should check his back yard.

Oh Keng, you have yet to provide one reference for anything you have said and I am waiting just like I have been waiting for the name of the Christian sect you claim you are a member of and you claim to represent. Now you stated birds don't live in marshes but by near or on them. You see Keng in your attempt to try mock you do what? You prove the point birds live in marshes because when one uses the word "in" it can refer to by, near or on or besides. A marsh is a region Keng and so when you live in it it does not necessarily mean you crawl inside it. SO KENG IF SOMEONE SAYS THEY LIVE IN TORONTO it does not mean they live under the ground in the sewer system necessarily although it could be a possibility. But its a start Keng. I am glad at least we are working on understanding the English language and how it doesn' have one just the one meaning you may want it to have. Yes Keng its possible words have more then one meaning or context. Think about that one and get back to me on it. For example the word OY. When used in regards to responding to you by me if I respond with OY it could mean one of many things depending on the context. Now then, let us do get back to the real issue that led to my last response to you. You see Keng, you made the statement that the problem with aboriginals is they believe in things from outer space and you find their belief in the mystical and such references by you which I would suggest are not accurate a problem. That Keng is interesting coming from a man who professes he is an expert on the New Testament and spreads the belief that Mary was impregnanted from a non human being divinity which then created a son of this divinity to temporarily reside in a human body to save we humans from ourselves. On the one hand you yourself believe in things from outside our world impregnating a human to create a son of a God to save the world but if anyone else might have a belief that consists of something supernatural, you dismiss it as a problem. Tad bit selective are we Keng? Morally judging again? Its o.k. as long as the tale meets your approval right Keng? Also do not worry Keng. The aliens and demons I know are not interested in meeting you. Trust me. Neitherwould the birds that live in the marshes you refer to. How do I know this? A little birdy told me so Keng. Oy. And a second oy.

I knew Israel would get blamed for it sooner or later.

I think its fair to say that Canadians identify with Democracts more then they do Republican politicians. From a practical point of view Gerarld Ford was the most helpful to us and he was a Republican. Ge hot us in the G-8. While I think Obama would be more appealing to Canadians then any of the others, he is by no means going to be any different then anyone else, i.e., if the congress wants to give in to protectionism, he ain't gonna stop that, no US President will. I personally believe Obama becoming the Prez would by default cause huge changes in all foreign relations and it would indirectly be good for Canada in the sense of anything at this point would be better then Bush's ignorance of the world with his foreign policy and more to the point if Obama is in it really puts pressue on Stephen Harper to steer towards the middle on certain policies.

Here let me help you with the Yahoo dictionary and please note the reference to stagant waters; ADJECTIVE: smug·ger , smug·gest Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent: "the smug look of a toad breakfasting on fat marsh flies" (William Pearson). Also this reference from the garden web-site can help as it I believe captures what you and White Doors are trying to share-I hope it helps too; http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/be...2531713.html?13 "Smokey, you profess to be friendly, then are smug and sarcastic. Instead of the PETA website, or this website, perhaps you should limit yourself to Joke-of-the-Day websites, and websites that educate. Bald-face Paper Wasps are not, not, not (emphasis for your benefit) at all agressive if you don't approach them with chemicals etc. I have experience, you have irrational fears. Getting suited up and spraying a neurotoxin around the yard is poor parenting. Maybe you should also visit a parenting site to help you with your problems."

Here turn to this radio station-I hope it helps. http://www.last.fm/tag/smugness-free+christian+music Oy another Vanilla Ice.

Sorry I forgot to respond at the bottom JBG and say LOL! Put a smile on my face.

I again appreciate your comments but mine only came in direct response to other comments as part of an on-going debate as to whether when discussing the role of Islam in this equation it can be used to make generalizations about all Muslims or whether it should be specified in relation to this one incident and if it is to be used in discussion how relevant is it to make comments that make assumptions about all Muslims. Its a germaine issue as to what role and how religion and in this case Islam is to be referred and used. I did not initiate the actual point as to this portion of the discussion. As well I do not presume to know what your views are as to any issue unless you tell me what they are. As for my being PC, you may want to confer with Buffy or Keng on that one. I have never claime dto be PC just a virgin or divine.

In response to Keng; 1-you claim you present facts where? 2-where are these contemporary accounts of Iroquoian societies you claim come from Jesuits? 4-who are the people you refer to who claim aboriginals are sexist? You stated Keng; "Personally, I don't think anyone has the moral authority in this matter, and the only way current problems can be solved is if people stop dredging up the past in order to instigate present day political actions." But that is of course exactly what you did. More to the point Keng you have rendered yourself an absurdity. You come on this forum precisely to proseltyze and exploit the memory of Jesus and yet you tell others they can not engage in what you constantly do. Just who gives you the right to use the past Keng for your agenda but to forbid others to do the same? Can people only refer to legal treaties and contracts and past injustices and oppression if it suits Keng? Well? You stated; "Using your logical, wouldn't factual statements about the Holocaust be "deliberate" attempts to "incite hatred" towards Germans?" The word is logic and no you are not using my reasoning. Factual statements do not incite hatred people using them to justify hatred do. The context in which a fact is used Keng determines whether it achieves a negative or positive purpose. In your case Keng you do not even take the time to make the effort to use facts. You simply state subjective feelings and then claim they are facts. So Keng why do you deliberately bait aboriginals by referring to them as Indians? Tell me Keng would it not dawn on you India is in Asia? If you have so much hate and contempt you can not even acknowledge them with some basic basis courtesy and dignity you really believe anyone sees you as a true Christian let alone anything but a racist trying to bait people? Keng you stated; "How many times are you going to be allowed to label people as racist just because they present facts that shatter your naive beliefs?" As long as you deliberately use the word "Indian" to bait people knowing its derogatory, as long as you continue to utter remarks and claim they are facts but provide no reference for them, as long as you assign negative general characteristics to an entire group of people and as long as you show your hatred and contempt for others with comments such as; "I can think of one group of Indians that valued women based on how much weight they could carry. Yawn... So what?" and this one; "I'm aware of an Ojibway story in which beings from the moon came to Earth on a large bowl made from white brich bark--does that mean UFOs exist(ed)? So what? These "mystical traditions" are not legitimate, in my opinion, and are part of the problem." All such remarks do keng is indicate you are intolerant of people and have contempt for them. That Sir makes you in my opinion in this case a racist. If you would prefer I can simply use the words "spiteful and hateful". You stated; " Needless to say your fantastical comment about Indian marriages is not supported by the facts. Nice try, though." Keng would you please provide the specific reference you think I stated about Indian marriages and then provide your reference for stating what I said is "fantastical"? You stated; "Indian societies were matrilineal, not matriarchal." Where is your reference Keng for this statement? You stated; "(the rest has been deleted because it bores and tires me.)" That reminds me Keng of a Zen expression which is similiar to ones in Taosim, the Kabal and aboriginal and other mystic traditionss; " a man who professes boredom is a stagnant marsh-yes they both have a tendency to emit methane gas but they have a purpose-without them we would not appreciate the beauty of fast flowing waters and of course they are the birth place of other life forms that will take flight from the consequence of such stagnation. Its why so many birds live in marshes. yah I know Keng, its mystical. You are bored with it.