kengs333

Oh, okay, I get it--"surviving genocide". Now I know where you're coming from. Look, the "embassy" was burned down, then the Indians start saying that it could "hamper... further negotiations"? Why? Because some nut(s) burned down a particle board shack, they're going to walk away from the table where millions, maybe billions, of dollars of compensation are being negotiated? I don't think so. Then there's the fact that they've concluded without any evidence that "Canadians" were responsible. So how different is that from my accusing Indians of the next incident of suspected arson in Canada? Seeing that Indians hate Europeans so much, one could logically conclude that Indians are perpetrating acts of arson to destroy our country and force us "back to Europe". Remember, they call this "shack" their "embassy," and the way they talk about it it has great significance to them. So, no, I don't think it is "laughable" as you claim it to be.

Well, let's see, I think if you go back to the first post, you will notice that there is a link to an article about the incident...

Pedophile? I think most of the victims were 12-14 years old, aren't they?

Yes, the quicker Saskatchewan bleeds itself dry of oil, the better!

What specifically are you referring to with "this"--"fire investigators"?

The sad thing about American politics is the specticle that goes on for about the TWO YEARS leading up to the election. Such utter nonsense.

I think Princess Diana once referred to herself as being a "pea-brain". She flunked out of school, had absolutely no intellect--the exact opposite to Prince Charles. The thing about the Royal Family is that they are born and bred to govern--in order to maintain their relevance and power, they have to really educate themselves in all aspects of government and politics. This is not the case with Presidents and Prime Ministers--they enter politics for a variety of reasons (such as status, ego...), and eventually most return to private life.

Actually what it does is give them another incident to add to their timeline of victimization. Even though they can't prove who did it, they've somehow come to the conclusion that it was an "attack" by "Canadians".

Okay, why hasn't the evidence been made available to the media, and why haven't they covered it? Why haven't these graves been excavated in the presence of media so we can all see for ourselves once and for all? Not filled, but they are there of course; that's how predators work. They lie and mislead people, infiltrate organizations where they can continue their work. Entering the priesthood, or doing other work in a church always requires a certain amount of trust to be involved, and this trust can be easily exploited by predators. Neither the Catholic, Anglican, or United Church, or any other church wants these people in their midsts; this should be obvious from the destruction and havoc they cause. But there will always be wolves among the sheep. No amount of precaution can change that. Oh, sure you do. Typical dodge.

I asked where these graves are located, if he has the documents to prove it--not whether or not he has a website promoting his views, his book and documentary. Any crank can cook up a story and spin it into an industry; for example: http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/ Aside from that, somebody should tell him: 1) The Schopenauer quotation is incorrect about the Bible and nature 2) Schopenauer was the most virulent mysoginist in human history 3) A book that recounts the life/participation/endeavors of the author is autobiographical, not biographical.

That is frightening. Thanks for posting.

Typical American.

No, this is actually an important incident; one that will no doubt be swept under the carpet by the media and not reported as it should be when they do have to deal with it.

In the latest twist in the twisted saga of the Six Nations' "reclamation" endeavours, it's so-called "embassy" (a cheap, makeshift particleboard structure) located along Argyle street has burned to the ground. Of course, the initial findings of the Six Nations' fire investigators have found strong evidence to suggest that a "Canadian" is responsible for the dastardly deed. The Indians are so angered, in fact, that they are claiming it could "hamper" land claim negotiations. Hazel Hill called it an "an attack... by Canadians who have disturbed the peace that Six Nations has been working so diligently to preserve." LOL. This is just so absurd. Is it just me or does this seem staged, or the work of some member of the Six Nations working on their own initiative to stir things up. Even if it was perpetrated by (a) Canadian(s)--what purpose will it serve trying to twist this into being an "attack" that will "hamper" the negotiations? Reacting this was just makes them look all the more stupid. http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/278018

If he has "copies" of the documents, then the locations of these unmarked graves should be known; so where are they? Even if these documents are really exist(ed), it's still difficult to accept the story at face value. First of all, children had to be taken to schools far from home because many of these people were from isolated locations. Secondly, if these people were determined to educate and convert native children, it seems illogical that they would "murder" or neglect them to death while they were still "heathens". Thirdly, these children were prone to exposure to diseases that non-Natives were as well; non-Natives died from these diseases as well. It's most likely that these children would have received medical care to some extent, and probably at considerable cost to the government. If I was incline to do so, I could create a nice long documentary based on achival documents and numerous personal accounts detail the unspeakable atrocities and murderous behaviour that "barberous" "red skinned" "savages" perpetrated against innocent European Christian women and children. It would be quite true and factual, I could even go so far as to suggest it was genocidal because there are Indians were documented documented to have wished "whites" to be exterminated, rubbed out etc. Would you accept it as legitimate, as fact? Probably not. Would you be offended by it? Most certainly. And what would it accomplish in the end? Inflame hatred, enmity, disdain, and further divissiveness between "Europeans" and Indians. Which is exactly what you are doing as a result of that documentary. Think about it.

Ummm, I don't think you get it. First of all, our western civilization is founded on Christianity, it was because of Christianity that the world's knowledge was collected and studied to the point where western civilization became the most technologically and socially advanced in the history of mankind. It's also easy to draw very general conclusions about western civilization when one only as a (very) limited understanding of European history, not to mention Christianity. First of all, much of European history has been peaceful. Second of all, most wars were fought by rulers who used religion as an excuse/motivation for worldly gain. Thirdly, we know what happened in Europe because Europeans could read an right. No doubt wholesale wars and massacres happened throughout the world, but they are no lost to time. Personally, I couldn't care less if RC churches are "closing up shop". The faster the better. It's long standing opposition to and persecution of real Christians caused it to lose legitimacy long ago. And if Christians are eventually pushed underground again, it will only speak to fact that western civilization is regressing, returning to moral decay and degeneracy of the Romans. It will only validate what is written in the Bible, further underscoring the fact that it is the Truth. Isn't Zammit a New Age crank?

From Forum "Rules and Guidelines".... "POSTING CONTENT "All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted. In addition, use the search feature to ensure that the topic you are posting is not already being discussed somewhere else in the forums. "It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact the Admin and request a new thread."

Oh, listen to the pre-Confederation history scholar speak; he clearly has a thorough knowledge of social attitudes of the time from his (her?) years and years of diligent study and reading on the topic... If his "personal views are illustrative of the time" then they in fact have much "merit". How else are we supposed to understand the politics of the day? Most historians who specialize in pre-Confederation history, Canadian political history, etc. view it as significant. Whatever the case, the portrait was included simply because of his role in Canadian history--good or bad, it doesn't matter--and the fact that it would be removed because of hypersensitive ultrapatriotic Quebec nationalists is absurb. Thus is the level of historical debate in this country.

I just wanted to be clear on it; I can't read everything you write. It is a legitimate question, though, given your staunch defense of homosexuality; many people who engage in sexually deviant behaviour view the "gay rights" movement as a sort of model for advancing their own cause. In other words, it is a kind of foot in the door for them, and naturally they want to see it succeed. When you google "pederasty" is many references to what pederasty is, namely "relationships" between "boys" or "young boys" and older men. Boys is a term that refers to males when they are young, right? So older men having "relationships" with children of the same sex. That's not homosexual behaviour? And if not, then why is it viewed as one of the three main divisions of homosexuality? I suppose with pederasty, the argument could be made that there is a certain amount of consent from the child victim, in that the older man will subtly try to court the boy and entice them into making advances, or what the older man believes are advances. But let's face it, how many 12, 13, or 14 year old kids really understand sexuality, have the capacity to make responsible judgements about engaging in sexual behaviour, and aren't intimidated by adults to some degree? The motive behind and ultimate purpose of pederastry is no different than pedophelia, but the methods used by the older man might be a little more subtle. In the end, the child is introduced to behaviour that they shouldn't be, and for many this leads to further sexual deviance.

No, I get the impression that people don't want to waste lots of money on elections every 1.5 to 2 years, and to have to listen to politicians of all stripes go around making promises they won't keep. There are a lot of things that are dogging the Conservatives and Harper; Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition may not be able to make much of it, but they are there. Harper has some serious personality and control issues, his antipathy towards women and social programs, pandering to Quebec, his stance on Afghanistan. You never know what can happen during an election campaign; maybe a bunch of soldiers get killed in Afghanistan, some paper gets leaked, he makes an insulting remark about something.

A very shocking and disturbing story, one that probably would not have been reported in the media had the school not been connected with such a celebrity as Oprah. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...2205787,00.html

This is a perfect example. You ask for proof, I offer proof. Your response is "Umm...how about no?" In other words, you refuse to acknowledge evidence that you continually insist should be provided, which I won't waste my time to provide because I know that it won't be acknowledged anyway. The evidence is there, if you don't want to acknowledge it, that's your problem; it wont change the fact that homosexuality is deviant, that homosexuals engage in pedophelic behaviour. I know you won't acknowledge this either, or just make evasive answers, but I would like to know whether you think it is moral for much older men to lust after 12, 13 or 14 year old boys, fantasize about them, and engage in sex acts with them?

Google "pederasty"--ie. man-boy love--and see what you get. Is this not overwhelming evidence that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophelia? I'm not saying that pedophiles are exclusively homosexuals, but male pedophiles who engage in relationships with young boys are homosexuals. What else can they be? The "gay rights" movement has long advocated that the age of consent for sodomy should be reduced to 14 years old (and some want it younger). Well, it's sexual deviance; it's a "sin of the flesh" and that's just the way it is. Stating this is not judgemental, just as it isn't "judgemental" to state that incest is sexual deviance and a "sin of the flesh." This misues of the concept of "judgementalism" is really old and tired. I do, it creates a false concept of normalcy that it inherently psychologically self-destructive. As a heterosexual, I know that my body was created in such a way that there is only one proper way to engage in intimate relations. I have no doubts or insecurities about this, and I don't need the Bible to tell me this. God made it so that it should be readily apparent to any rational and faithful person what constitutes normal as opposed to deviant sexuality. People can, however, be manipulated, deceived, or forced into thinking otherwise, and as we all know people are always subject to pressure from peers; many give in; homosexuals know this, and if they can advocate strongly enough to convince a large proportion of people in a society to accept and/or engage in sexual deviant behaviour, then they can create a society that accepts their sexual deviance as normal, as well as all of the applicable psychological issues as well. 1) People can change their sexual lifestyle; ie., people who are homosexuals can and do free themselves from that deviance and go on to lead normal lives. 2) The Bible is devinely inspired, and the Gospels for instance were written within the lifetimes of those who witnessed the events. It is the only true religion, as anyone who has read the Bible should know. However, all major religions also recognize the destructiveness of sexual deviance. I recognize the truth, I see reality as it was created; I don't subscribe to delusions, etc. in an attempt to legitimize sinfulness. People who engage in sexual deviant lifestyles are always manipulating, deceiving, subverting and lying. I'm not saying that I'm not without my faults, but not engaging in sexual deviant lifestyles frees me from many bad things. I'll never claim that I'm 100% right, but I know I'm on the right path, and I know that I am right when it comes to this issue.

I suppose should the senate be abolished outright as some would like, then the Monarchy would be next. Both of these institutions are added security, and enhance Canada's democratic system. When I look at how things work in the United States, it frightens me that there are people who want to adopt that flawed system. I'm not trying to be arrogant or snide when I say this, but Canada's system really is superior and we should not be changing it.

Oh, well, let's not forget that the Conservatives were only elected by about 36% of the electorate, and their approval rating hasn't increased all that much. I think many Canadians wouldn't have a problem with the Senate stalling anything that passes because they don't want the Conservatives screwing up the country. Moreover, and election would only result in another minority government, so calling an election is apt to piss off more people than Harper would like.