kengs333

LOL. Talking to yourself, are you?

Sorry, but excessive force being used by soldiers at times in these kinds of situations is commonplace, so your constant bleating about this is really not going to stir much sympathy who are not as naive as you. The fact that this is all that happened (I doubt the story about the 14 year-old girl(s)) does speak to the resolve of the soldiers, as it was a tense situation where things easily could have gotten out of hand. And let's not deny the fact that the Indians were trying to push the situation to the brink; that's how it always is--they're always trying to work the situation so that they can make themselves out to look like the victim. I'm not sure what difference it makes what gender the stabbing victim was; I seem to recall the women making a big deal about how they were defenders of the land and were deeply involved in all of the posturing. So one of them gets injured and suddenly it's "violence against women" oh, the poor, frail, helpless woman has been victimzed by men yet again? Give me a break.

Sorry, what was that? "Haven't advanced as far as most native societies."? Who fills your naive mind with such nonsense? History clearly demonstrates who was and still is more advanced than the other. Moreover, the arrival of Europeans was exploited by the Indians in an attempt to increase wealth and power; unfortunately, the kinds of things that denoted status in Indian cultures happened to be things like beads and other shiney objects, which meant that Europeans could attain truly valuable items/materials for a mere pitance.

Oh, is that the manners and attitude that you've been taught by the elders around the campfire?

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken; yes, there's nothing here to indicate man-boy love is part of the "gay lifestyle" (for instance): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-boy_love Sad, really sad. Typical leftist ploy of twisting criticism into something more sinister. No group is above reproach. I suppose all of those feminists who criticize male behaviour also are assailed with your accusations of malicious intentions???

So in other words, "whites" have behaved just like any other race; pre-conquest Indian cultures absorbed surrounding cultures and then went into decline and fragmented; this is something that has gone on in the world for millenia. The only difference is that "whites" advanced far enough where they could document their history and study it and subject it to criticism like no other culture has managed to do. That said, I'm half inclined to think that this "new" member simply dropped this bomb to see what reactions it would engender; perhaps in an effort to smoke out people "she" believes are "white nationalists". Now who's been using this term alot recently and for some reason hasn't been posting on this thread...?

Well, I do think you have an obligation to act in a civilized manner.

No kid is "left out of the system". People are making excuses for why certain children don't succeed at school so that they can push their political agenda and create schools that will indoctrinate children with their political agenda. Please explain to me why many Asian kids come to Canada and excell at school? I can think of several examples of kids that I knew that came to Canada unable to speak English and within a year were fluent and getting top grades. Why? Probably because their parents had high expectations for them and didn't feed them with negativity, telling them that the education system was a "white man's" construct. There really is no excuse for not succeeding at school in Canada, unless one has a legitimate medical reason.

First of all, what are you in terms of ethnicity, so that we all know where you're coming from? What she says is true; I don't think that she's claiming to be oppressed, rather is just really put off by what she feels is racism in its own right against her skin colour/ethnicity. Just because someone is from a "dominant" racial group doesn't mean that as an individual they can't be hurt or insulted by racially-specific insults from a member of a "non-dominant" group. Unfortunately, I think that she's realized that this line that we've been fed for the last few score years is really little more than a fantasy. "White" Canadians may think that creating a "multicultural society" will rectify past wrongs and make everyone happy, but as we see in Caledonia, for instance, socalled "visible minorities" still have an axe to grind.

In the black community, light blacks tend to think of themselves as superior to the dark blacks. This dates back to the era of slavery. Asian girls lighten their skin to make themselves look more western thinking that this will give them more opportunities in the workplace. People will always use appearances to define status in some respect.

Have you been paying attention to what's been going on lately? It's looking like the Democratic party is going to be ripped apart by the hostility between Clinton and Obama. It's getting rather ugly, and I would be surprised if by the end of it, people get so fed up with it that Edwards comes out the winner.

I find this kind of description very unnecessary and offensive.

I've never made that assertion, though; the problem is in either you inability to read, or your willful twisting of my argument. I've never said that pedophiles are homosexuals; rather, that there are homosexuals who are pedophiles, and pedophelia in the guise of "man-boy love" is considered an aspect of the "gay lifestyle".

"name of the film escapes me" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOOLLOL Oh, I bet! You've probably watched it a zillion times... I've seen that movie and don't recall this incident.

That's right, "written in black and white". Perhaps if the Indians had been inclined to educate themselves, they would be able to present more of an argument than "we have a two-row wampum that says..." It's hardly a threat, rather an observation, one that I would hope would cause you to reflect on the fact that people have grown less sympathetic towards the Indians. Guess not. Funny that you would inform the police of anything; I thought they were the instrument by which "white supremacist" Canadian government oppresses the people. Now you suddenly recognize them as a legitimate instrument for enforcing legitimate laws. Nice flip-flop. I'll tell you one thing, the police do keep files on social activists, radicals, and other forms of agitators, so my guess is that have something on you, and know all about how you work; so I wouldn't expect them to take you all that serious.

That's sad and pathetic, really; you know that sexually abusing children is not condoned by Christians, and just because someone may be a member of the clergy does not mean that this should reflect on all Christians. It's astonish that people can be as crude as you are. Do you really think that you've gained any sympathy for Indians here by posting the bile that you do? Or perhaps that's your intent?

The fact that a person "cannot stand" the person that they married can be the result of many things, such as the inability to compromise and communicate, selfishness, lack of commitment... We live in a society where people are treated as disposable; people go through short term relationships trying to satisfy feelings that can never be satisfied in such a superficial manner; and when they get to a time when they feel like they want to get married the next person who fits the bill becomes their soulmate and they have a big huge picture-perfect wedding... the problem is, they've become geared to view people as disposable, and so eventually the enthusiasm wears off or the couple goes through a financial rough spot, and the marriage breaks down and usually fails.

It's good to see that you had a change of heart about the "Jesus-sodomite" (or was that somewhere else?) statement. Too bad that your revision is so laughably ignorant that it's not even worth commenting on.

There's no difference in the fact that the lands were sold or surrendered and therefore there is no valid claim to them. Saying that this is not the case doesn't change this fact. Maybe there's an issue when it comes to how money was handled in respect to the Indians; the government, I suppose, has some responsibility in assuring that the Indians benefitted from the land sales since they couldn't do it themselves. But it's a complex issue, and difficult to sort out since everyone involved is long dead, and I don't think that the truth of the matter can ever be determined; sadly, the "settlement" will likely be based on politics and misplaced sympathy for the Indians, and in the end the rest of Canada gets screwed out of yet more money for something that none of us was responsible for. The Indians may get X-amount of millions of dollars out of this, but I think the general trend towards increased concern and sympathy for Indians in this province at least has peaked because of Caledonia, and I'm sure that if things were to happen to members of Six Nations not many people would be all that concerned anymore.

Of course you are going to argue this, and latch onto "studies" that validate your feminist ideology. Divorce is a tactic that feminists have championed since the 1960s because the "traditional nuclear family" is viewed as a tool used by "patriarchy" to "oppress women"--despite the fact that it is in many was disadvantageous to men. There are, of course, instances when divorce is necessary, when one of the parents proves to be incapable of parenting or is exceedingly abussive--this fact has always be recognized in our society. However, in general, divorce has simply beome a means by which women can appropraite a man's wealth and segregate him from his children.

I seem to recall somebody else making the assertion as well. Now, who was that again...?

Oh, are they still going on? Funny how people like you always have to point fingers at events long past like that to "prove" your arguments. Moreover, it's a clear indication of one's ignorance when one makes such comments. Certainly, you must have at least a basic understanding of Christianity, and should know that faith is derived from abiding by Christ's teachings, not adhering to a state church. As a Christian, I don't feel myself accountable for acts that were committed in the name of Christianity some time in the past because that has no bearing on my relationship with God. Why should it? You are aware of the fact that there were people--"Protestants"--who broke away from the Catholic Church because of it's worldliness and corruption? Do you have any knowledge or understanding of the history of Christianity? It doesn't seem like it to me. Look at the history of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, pre-Contact America, and you'll see the same pattern of emperial growth and decline.

Well, apparently there are some people here who don't feel that gays who engage in "man-boy love" are pedophiles.

Well, it occurred during an episode of The View, and I believe that it is on youtube somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.

Thanks, feminist granny, I've already had a look at her website. It's interesting that you, a feminist, would be citing her study. That certainly further supports my contention.