Accountability Now

A gold digger goes after security rather than love. Exactly what she is doing.

This isn't about finding a native man....it's about find a 'status' native man. She even mentions this in her comment about the recent Métis ruling which now gives more prospects. What? These guys weren't native enough until the government said they were?

You're kidding right? Or are you that obtuse to not see the numerous ties to "status Indian"? Why does she need the government to say she is Indian for her to be one? Do you need the government to tell you that you're Scottish or German or whatever you are? More so, she even talks about the recent Métis ruling as adding more prospects....because apparently these people aren't good enough for her until the government benefits kick in. It's sick! But since you are having troubles comprehending, I picked out an easy one for you: "Having status comes with certain benefits like band membership, potential access to funding for post-secondary education (differs from band to band), health care, and the ability to hunt, fish, trap and gather on public lands. There are also possible tax exemptions, but those are way more narrow than you might think." Is that federal benefit enough for you? So perhaps next time you might want to think before playing the ever so popular race card which only proves you have zero to add here.

From the looks of this article, it has nothing to do with race, culture, love or personal interations. Its all about having the ability to retain Indian Status....in other words.....getting the benefits from the federal government. She even says in her article: "Just so we are on the same page, I use the word “Indian” because I’m making reference to the Indian Act in Canadian law, not because I like or approve of the word." Yet....she goes on to use the word Indian a number of other times especially when talking about retaining 'status'. Since when does the government have to tell you what your heritage is? I guess only when there are dollar signs involved.

Ya right...you walk away from the argument over two months ago and now you expect people to dive back into it? Get real.

I couldn't agree with you more. It's ridiculous.

Most government sites say you have lifelong immunity, however I have seen other sites suggest you need a booster after 10 years. This study in particular showed that after 15-25 years, a little less than half of their sample size lost immunity. "In this study we measured anti-measles IgG antibody titres 15 to 25 years after 1 or 2 doses of measles vaccination to determine the proportion of seropositivity. Of the studied population 44.6% were seronegative, and there was no difference between those who had had 1 dose of vaccine and those who had had 2 doses (P = 0.16)." http://www.emro.who.int/emhj-volume-12-2006/volume-12-issue-5/measles-seroepidemiology-among-adolescents-and-young-adults-response-to-revaccination.html

How many years ago did you have your last measles shot?

Looks like they're getting more rights. http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2613834

Yes...you're right. Take a look at this study on the 2011 outbreak (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/207/6/990.full.pdf+html). The largest outbreak in this group started with a guy who actually had been vaccinated with a single dose (not the double dose). In fact, of the 725 affected people, 23% of them had been vaccinated.

The problem for both sides is they view this whole thing to be an all or none thing...just like you do above. The whole dispute about MMR casuing autism is a non-starter because nothing causes autism execpt for a genetic pre-dispostion. Anti-vaxers tried to make a direct tie and said the MMR vaccine causes autism and that is not true but I believe that vaccines exacerbate the symptoms or conditions that autism is known for. Everyone recongnizes that autism is a neurogloical condition but now researchers are starting to understand that those neurological conditions are tied to inflamation caused by leaky gut. The concept of leaky guy was foreign a while back but even my die hard GP tried educating me on it in my last trip. A study came out a few years back outlining the adverse effects of adjuvants in the vaccines in a syndrome called ASIA ( Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants). This study addresses the issues that that adjuvants like aluminum have caused in relation to the growing auto immune diseases through inlfamation. When you get down to it, kids with autism have a genetic predispostion to inflamation and have poor immune systems. So injecting them with a bunch of ajuvants that are known to cause inflamation is not helping. So....do these vaccines or adjuvants cause autism....no. But they certainly do make it worse. Should we all stop getting the MMR? No...not at all however we need to realize that there are side effects that that some of these side effects (like growing autoimmune issues) are becoming more prevelant. Austim is one of those things that is becoming more prevelant and recent ties to autism being exacerbated by inflammation certainly makes me question if there is in fact a link to vaccines. Not a direct link...but a link nonetheless.

What about if that child has auto immune issues? What if they have detox issues? What if they they have an actual reason that makes them at risk?

Why is that?

I think they are trying to do this in Alberta too. Again....its immediately viewed as an absolute rule but the reality is that its more of a deterant than anything. It makes it alot tougher to not vaccinate when you actually have to go in front of someone to explain why but if you are willing to do so then you can still bypass the rule. So far you have a lot of people chosing not to vaccinate just because they don't want to out of fear but not because they are directly educated on why they shouldn't. WIth that said, there are reasons why some kids should not be vaccinated and the schools need to acknowledge that too.

Some native people find it offensive and some don't. The reality is that our treaties were signed with Indians. That term (whether erroneous or not) was used to describe the people and that fact doesn't change regardless of how much people are offended (or not)

But in general we have this....

And what do you think they are? Perfectly on the centre?

I guess the new Isohunt has different owners that wanted to restore it. Curious if the original guy is involved or if he's pissed because they violated his copyright of his site....lol http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5046146/beloved-torrent-site-isohunt-resurrected-by-outside-group

I see that Isohunt is back up but as www.isohunt.to which is in Tonga. I know that other sites like Kickass torrents moved to the .to domain as well. I wonder if there is some sort of protection there?

It also happened or is happening to a lot of pulp towns in BC. Here is a look at the top 10 worst towns to live in Canada based mostly on unemployment and declining populations. The bottom 10 170: Terrace, BC 171: La Tuque, QC 172: Summerside, PEI 173: Prince Rupert, BC 174: Campbell River, BC 175: Port Alberni, BC 176: Quesnel, BC 177: New Glasgow, NS 178: Williams Lake, BC 179: Bay Roberts, NL BC towns have 6 of the bottom 10 and I know that most if not all of them were affected by struggling pulp operations. http://www.moneysense.ca/spend/canadas-10-worst-cities-to-live-in

I wouldn't be surprised about this one or Edmonton for that matter. Both cities are heavily reliant on oil/gas much like Detroit was dependent on the auto industry. Sure....there are other industries here but it's no mystery that oil/gas drive the economy. It wasn't long ago where oil dropped significantly and all the rigs stopped drilling. There were loads of people out of work immediately. Luckily it didn't sustain and oil came back but the reality is that if the price ever stayed low for long periods then all of Alberta would be in trouble. Maybe even Detroit trouble as most people who moved here for the work would leave for work elsewhere..

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html You said that BC couldn't speak with expertize on the subject of London, ON because he was American. It didn't matter what he said, you just attacked the fact that he was from the US. That is an ad hominem fallacy.

You're attacking the source rather than the content.

My company dealt with the city of Detroit not too long ago and from that experience I know that the city run facilities were plagued with union contracts that caused higher than normal costs to be combined limited productivity. It was horrible. They had equipment that was perfectly fine but needed just a minor repair and instead of making those fixes they brought in third party contractors with their own equipment. The people I dealt with just threw their hands up as they said that's the way the union did it. I think the State got involved with that Right to Work legislation and started cleaning some of that BS up. The story above is purely anecdotal however I have heard the true reason for Detroit's demise is the rapidly declining population. It used to be around 2M but now is around 700,000. It would be tough for the city to manage and plan when the population drops that rapidly. Obviously a large portion of the people leaving were due to the manufacturing collapse but I have always wondered if it had anything to do with the internal taxation. If you live in Detroit and work in Detroit, you pay a 3% city income tax. However if you work in Detroit but live outside of Detroit you only pay 1.5%. So what is the advantange of living in Detroit? Maybe the other surrounding cities have the same tax rules....I don't know but the reality is that Detroit Metro is like 4M....so there is obviously a lot of people making the choice to live somewhere OTHER than Detroit.