kengs333

Well, at the risk of forcing you to understand the reality of Canadian history and culture, Canada is in fact a Christian country. It was founded by Christians--or people who claimed to be Christians--and was settled by people who were almost exclusively Christian. Christianity was the dominant (not "popular") religion for much of Canada's history, and rightfully so; now that it is going into decline, so goes Canada. This is not a coincidence. Christianity is what has given Canadians the freedoms and human rights that we cherish, and now we are substituting this with atheistic humanism and religious/ethnic balkinization. No such country can exist--a perfect example is the Austro-Hungarian Empire--in such a fashion for long. I wouldn't be so sure. People who immigrate from Muslim countries don't shed their old beliefs as easily as you'd like to think, and they haven't been subjected to the self-defeating. Self-hating secular ideology that most of us Canadians have over the last thirty years that causes us to loathe our own cultural and religious heritage, and allow others to trample all over it. Once they increase enough in numbers and gain political power the laws can be easily changed. Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if image-conscious little girls begin to accept and adopt the hijab as an acceptable fashion statement. All one has to do is look at the history of feminine headdress to see how it has often been influenced by "exotic" cultures.

Define "flooded." Sorry, but I've read enough "journalism" in Canada to know that reporters are known to make serious factual errors and exaggerate the truth. That's just the way it is. This is not about whether phone calls or emails were received, rather how they have been characterized. But still plausable. Do you mean "un-Christian"? Speaking of "speculation"... do you really know what the content of those emails and phone calls contained? How can you characterize them as "not being Christian" if you don't? Yes, in fact, it does have relevance. Well, seeing that you really don't know the content of these emails and phone calls, nor do you know who really made these comments, making such a statement is somewhat absurd. Moreover, one really has to wonder just why Miss Scott feels justified in labelling people as being un-Christian when she is a front for what is clearly an anti-Christian agenda. It's a mockery, and an insult.

Have you even looked into the history of the land usage in that area? Well, at least you have sense enough to distinguish the Neutrals from the Iroquois, but whatever the case, I don't think there is any doubt that the valley was used to some extent by Indians, but the attempt to delay construction by claiming that features known not to be burial mounds were indeed that really screwed things up. It's true, isn't it?

Do you know what the responses were, because I see no examples given in the article. All we have to go on is the accusations of Miss Scott and the claims made by the author of the article. It could well be that a few cranks out there did write something bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if some anti-Christians took the opportunity to write some inflammitory things in the guise of being Christians in order to stir things up. But whatever the case, does it just not make any sense to her that this sort of thing is actually insulting to some Christians, that it is going to cause some animosity? And then for her to sit there and accuse people of not behaving in a Christian manner... Give me a break. What is she? Probably not a Christian.

You mean the kind of law that gave Haldimand the ability to give the Iroquois some land along the Grand River? It's funny how British/Canadian law is only legitimate when it suits the Indian. As far as I'm concerned, the British gave the Iroquois, who were really "native" to what is now New York state, the opportunity to come to Canada; now that the Iroquois have proven themselves to be utterly unworthy of the priviledge, I believe that Canada has every right not to tolerate the presence of these people. They repeatedly--like you--claim not to be under the jurisdiction of Canada's laws: that makes them foreigners and traitors, and therefore should be removed from this country.

And all educated by whites, I believe. The road should not have been built, but the valley was hardly "pristine". It was surrounded by urban development and had been considerably "touched" for quite some time. In the end, apparently only 10,000 trees were cut down, and the commute time saved is somewhat less than 17 minutes. Indians arrived late on the scene, and they pretty much screwed everything up by making false claims of burial sites and claims of ownership.

party politics existed in germany prior to 1919.

More like were living in poverty, or trying to eke out a living on a small farm, or working long hours in an industry for poor wages. Again, try not to believe everything you see on Nazi propaganda. You're just falling for what the Nazis wanted the Germans to fall for. Not that I'm not saying that large numbers of people didn't support them, or that large numbers didn't come out to their rallies and parades. But things were somewhat more complex than the propaganda makes it look. If only 1/3 of Germans voted for the Nazis, then that means 2/3 didn't. Even if a large number of these 2/3 were willing to go along to some extent with the Nazis, it still means that there were a large number of people who didn't. Moreover, the Hitler and Nazis that they supported were the people who were promising restore Germany's honor, territory, deal with subversive political opponents, restore the economy. It was a different time, people thought differently, were educated differently and the media was not what it is now; they just did not have the access to information that would have allowed them to make decisions they way we do, and the way people like you think they should have.

They tend not to let outsiders into their society because it is very difficult for outsiders to adapt to their way of life. But they still serve as an excellent example of how true Christians should live their lives. Of course you can't name them, if they exist, which I doubt.

Please note quotation marks.

Why not? It's true. Why not? Is the left above reproach? There are Old Order Amish and Mennonite societies in Canada and the United States. They are stable, have virtually no crime, are hardworking, industrious, civil, and quite prosperous.

According to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA: Again, the nature of your posts suggests that you are not here to have a reasoned discussion about this issue, or anything else.

Actually, you're somewhat wrong here. Hitler did have a significant amount of support, but this did not occur until a few years before he was put in power. Hitler only received about 1/3 of the vote during the 1933 elections, and the fact that he was put in power was because the people who put him there thought that he was a chump who could be controlled. Once he was in power, he systematically consolidated his dictatorship by doing away with political and internal rivals and instituted a revolutionary propaganda campaign--the genesis of modern commercial advertising--that finally gave him majority--but not universal support. One of the things that this propaganda was supposed to instill was the fact that Germany was united behind him--when in reality that wasn't quite the case--and this propaganda still seems to be misleading people to this day.

Well, the irony is, that Canada needs to import these kinds of people because "liberated" women in Canada don't want to have children, and population growth is key to economic growth. So, in other worlds, left-wing radicalism is responsible for bringing this kind of problem to Canada. If we had a truly Christian society, this would not even be an issue, and Canada would be a stronger country.

Excuse me? Your repeated leaps in logic in order to paint me as something that I'm not is really questionable. I could just as easily suggest that "you would have [stoned] this girl if she did not follow your doctrine" because that's what it says in your holy books. You know full well that Christ taught non-violence, that he stopped Jews from stoning a sinner. Such utter nonsense. All things considered, I just do not understand why your flagrant bating and flaming continues to be tolerated.

Public profanity, verbal abuse can be grounds for being charged, although it's rather redundant nowadays and would only inflame the situation. You're skating on thin ice with this. It's already clear by the nature of your posts that you're not here to have a reasoned discussion.

Actually, I believe that the person in question is Lynda Powless, publisher of Turtle Island News. http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/RBC:QtJ9aY71A8...da_powless.html Interesting that she would just happen to be the one trying to obstruct McHale. Basically confirms that this was all a set up. And sad that such a low-life is an important media source in the community, and that she was, for some reason, considered a "powerful" woman. A fifth-rate local media source with a mere 12 employees makes one "powerful"? This is back in 2006, incidently.

I'm not sure someone with a mere 40 posts should be accusing other members of trolling, especially when the acuser's identity is suspect. Communism in particular has been exceedingly brutal, not just in the Soviet Union, but in China, southeast Asia, Korea, Africa, parts of central America.

Umm... "fundamentalist" when ascribed to Christianity usually mean Protestants who follow the New Testament "literally". If you've ever cared to read the New Testament, you'll notice that there is not much in there that can be construed as bad; there are perhaps a few practices that are no longer acceptable in the opinion of secular society (in itself inherantly flawed) but overall, it presents a peaceful, positive message of hope. One can only wonder what type of person as bad...

Oh, right, now it's being changed from devout Christian to "belief in a creator". Well belief in a "creator" alone does not a Christian make. It's that simple. Your argument is complete nonsense. You're blaming Christians for the actions of criminals who no doubt do not view themselves as Christian. You should be blaming God-hating, anti-Christian, atheists and moral relativists--but I suppose that could mean that you would in fact have to blame yourself and, of course, there's no way you would ever do such a thing.

Who said anything about enciting hate? Besides, it was obvious what that foul-mouth woman was trying to accomplish by using obscene language to incite something herself, but I guess because she's not "white" it doesn't matter. So much for equality. Where's this "power" nonsense coming from. Simply put you post in a remarkably similar manner and that's all there is too it. Why would you want to assume that other people have ascribed to her a power that they're not ascribing? Unless, perhaps...

No, you just don't know how to read.

Free speech also "allows the use of" racist language, but it doesn't mean that it's justified, acceptable, or decent. But while we're on the topic, how many Indians have I seen who are considerably overweight? There are some communities where this is the norm, and they somehow manage this living well below the poverty line. Interesting. This self-flattery is a dead give away, as is the manner in which you post. But whatever the case, in terms of who "she" was--or should I say what?--we were never quite sure. He/she/it was unapologetically deceptive and malicious, hardly the kind of character to be complimented.

I highly doubt that "patriarchal family and tribal structures" has anything to do with this. First of all, we really don't know what a matriarchal society would be like; the only one I've heard of is in China, and, well, needless to say I'm not overly impressed. Historically, if you care to believe certain archeologists, there may have been matriarchal societies, but they were weak and incapable of defending themselves, and were conquered by patriarchal societies. There are some remnants of these societies, and not surprisingly they are centered around illicit sexuality, namely the reverence of female sexual manipulation and deceit. Who knows what primative level civilization would still find itself on had patriarchy not rightfully done away with such things, and taken us in a direction where humans have been able to advance to a state of intellectual and scientific greatness.

Hmm... "white supremacists"... "fundie"... "racism"... This sounds rather familiar. Speaking of criminality, there is little doubt that Six Nations is rife with crime, and that many of its people have a criminal record. I believe this woman herself was acting criminally in using profane language and making bigotted remarks about McHale's weight. Whatever the case, her conduct is hardly what one should consider being that of a "respected" elder, and it's shameful that a great country like Canada is being duped by people of such low-brow character. By dealing with these people, Canada is essentially negotiating with organized crime. Unacceptable.