kengs333

It's people like you that sometimes makes me have crazy thoughts like "feminists are right about men"... of course, I quickly come to my senses, but still, I can't get over the fact that men can sometimes be so stupid when it comes to sexuality.

You should try to find out more about the author; it seems that she has an agenda, as her "findings" tend to show that divorce isn't all that bad as everyone makes it out to be. I would think that below the surface there lurks a feminist, and as we all know feminists have given us the divorce industry that we now have.

Of course not, no atheist or non-Christian likes to face the fact that people of their ilk are the true cause of most of the world's problems; if everyone abided by the teachings of Christ, we would have a world free from sin and violence. Anyone who doesn't abide by Christ is in their own small way contributing to the fact that this is not the case.

So now it's "white nationalists" and not "white supremacists". Funny how the pro-Indian side always has to attach a supposed skin colour to their opponents. In terms of trolls, it's interesting that you would make such an assertion. I suppose you're aware of the fact that the moderators are also aware of your presence here, too.

Don't you mean "glug..glug!"?

Lame analogy, and I believe it or something similar was used by someone who was banned quite some time ago.

Least of all you, I suppose? Yet you continue to post indirect ad homs about me. I don't know, soldier boy, seem to me that my opinions resonate more than you're letting on.

Nope, non-renewable means it's not coming back; once it's gone it's gone. There's nothing in the price of oil that reflects this fact. The cost is determined by the ability to produce in the near future and current supplies. There has always been the assumption that more can be found. Factoring in the cost of its non-renewability means pricing it so that the known oil reserves will never be fully depleted, and that the oil is used for what is most essential--and that does not mean providing people with cheap gas so that they can mindlessly drive around the country or drive to the corner store for a pack of gum.

oh brother, no, you just do not get it...

If you're too lazy to find the thread, then that's your problem, not mine. Whatever the case, the the traditional nuclear family is still the best environemtn for raising children.

Drea, people can claim to be whatever they wish, and there are no doubt many people who have gone off kilter with their Christianity, or who have used Christianity as a cover/excuse to perpetrate grievous acts. It is written in the NT that there will be many who lose faith, or who do not fully put their faith in God; it also warns of false prophets and those that who will deceive people in the name of God. Being a Christian takes much more than simply stating or believing that one is a Christian; it requires daily vigilence, a commitment to following Christ and abiding by his teachings; if one sincerely follows Christ, then they will be able to weave their way through all of the disceptions and distractions of this world. The sad thing about people who profess to be Christians and fall short is not the fact that they are condemning themselves, rather that it allows non-blievers, people who have anger and hostility towards God, to use them as an example in their quest to deceive and delude others into not accepting Jesus as their personal saviour and abiding by God's will. God sent Jesus to die for our sins; all of us, and that includes YOU. You can always change, regardless of whatever you've done; God will always forgive you, but you have to make the move, you have to stop with all of this mockery and hostility, the deception and deluding.

Boy, you heathens just don't get it, do you?

Land doesn't change anything. The thing that is lacking is the ability to function properly in the modern world because they are hung up on certain issues and perceived historical wrongs. There are people in this country who have gone through hell and back, whose ancestors were persecuted and never have or ever will receive any compensation for it, who don't allow this from participating fully and functionally in Canadian society, contributing to it rather than trying to destroy it. I have no sympathy for people who refuse to succeed because they perceive everything around them, all knowledge and education, to be the product of "the white man".

I'll tell you what, why don't you ask me in a really polite manner, and then I'll consider posting a response if I can fit into my busy schedule. How does that sound, kid?

They come in all shapes and sizes, from the lowly thief to the "respected" doctor: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/s....html?id=238193

No, the price you pay does not take into consideration that it is a non-renewable resource. People can "live where [they] want" without burning so much fossil fuels in doing so. Case in point. Yeah, we're gonna get there one way or another, but were on the fast track with the way we live now.

Oh, I've watched a number of these shows, and the true crackpots were the non-Christian, New Age types. The one I recall best is with the woman who had a quarter moon tattooed to her forehead and had her husband pussywhipped big time. In the post swap confrontation I just love how she complained about "too much male energy" in the other household. LOL. There's a lot of screwed up pagans out there, that's for sure.

No, I don't think you're reading what I wrote properly. I am a historian, and if I would have bothered to study history only in relation to a narrowly defined topic like First Nations, I would be able to derive the thruth of the matter, rather than approach it with an agenda like she does. She can't be relied on to present an accurate history of this issue because of the agenda she has. My concern with this issue has always been the distortion and fabrication of history that is being done primarily by members of the Six Nations for political reasons. I know nothing that I argue can make you understand this because you yourself have demonstrated that your only means of understanding this issue is from a subjective, pro-Six Nations perspective; and whatever ideological basis you have (communistic, anarchistic...). Your own lack of knowledge on this subject, not to mention historiography in general, is demonstrated by the manner in which you flippantly dismiss my arguments. Needless to say, I doubt you can present any credentials that makes your opinion on any historical issue worthy of consideration.

No, what I'm saying is that had I decided to simply focus my study of history on the very narrow (and in most historian's opinions, relatively insignificant) field of Native history, I would have the specialized knowledge to thoroughly debunk the sham arguments that she and members of Six Nations are making in a manner that would be consistant with academic debate, although the political climate in academia would probably exclude it from being fully accepted. Academic history has always been subject to the prevailing political, ideological, and even popular cultural trends; what gets lost in the shuffle is the pure truth of the matter.

Gas prices are nowhere near what they need to be. North Americans have had it too good and it's time for this to change. Mobility is not a right, and in many ways has been detrimental to our society other than from the pollution side of the equation. Whatever the case, we were warned that these times were coming and not many people wanted to listen; now they have no choice. Hopefully now people will start thinking more about wasting resources like oil, start thinking about ways to live that have less of an impact on the planet.

Actually, I started a thread about a recent study about this, but it appears to have disappeared when the forum was restructed. Whatever the case, I'm fairly certain that you were involved in the discussion to some extent, so you know already what you want to be "shown". You just don't want to accept it.

Actually, I would actually like to have a response to my questions. I won't even acknowledge that defamitory statements that both of you have made; there is nothing in what I've written that suggests that is the case. Sadly, though, what both of you have done is the typical tactic used in trying to end any debate or criticism about Jews or Israel. Neither are above reproach, as is the case for every other group of people or any other country on this planet. Discussing the merits of bombing Auschwitz, drawing attention to the suffering of all victims of the holocaust is not "denying" anything--it's a clear indication that the person making the claims knows that it happened. How it can be twisted into being a "denial" of the events is beyond me. I hate to say it, but that line of argumentation isn't going to win you many friends, so I don't know why you'd even want to go there.

Oh, right, this is real useless. Why even bother posting if you're just going to make such terse statements?

Who is this professor, and in the end what difference does it make? She has spent her life "studying" the issue and has had time to formulate all of her arguments, while rest of us have had to find other means of getting by and haven't had the time or inclination to develop the specialized knowldge on the subject. Having a discussion with her would be no different than any other professor on any subject. But just because she has a specialized knowledge in something, doesn't mean that her opinions are 100% valid, and I dare say that it's quite obvious that she would have an agenda, so I doubt a rational discussion could last all that long with her either.

Your style of argumentation sounds rather familiar... So you're not a member of Six Nations, nor do you have anything to do with them? You're simply concerned that "justice" should be done? I think that our government is not responsible for much of anything when it comes to this issue; past governments may have not acted as best as they could have, but the fact of the matter is that much of the current "problem" is the result of how Six Nations mismanaged their own affairs and wilfully entered into agreements that now, 150-200 years later, didn't seem like a good idea. Six Nations feels itself to be a "nation" and some of its members claim not to be Canadian, and when they show up in court, they claim to be "political prisoners" and not subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian law. If that is the case, and they believe that Six Nations has always been a seperate "nation," then they have no grounds for "land claims"--as a "nation" they made mistakes, used poor judgement and were ultimately defeated, and as such are not in a position to accept compensation for anything.