Ontario Loyalist

I disagree that it minimizes what happened during WWII. My signature refers to the Nazi movememt, ie. what happened between 1924 and 1933 when people thought that it was an ideology of change and progresses. We do not know what a gay society will entail, but we do know that homosexuality is high risk and self-destructive, and that a society governed by gay ideals will likely go into decline.

A legal and constitutional based municipal government does not and should not have to consult organizations who claim to have rights to land that they have no right to. This latest issue only speaks to the fact that the ultimate solution to all of this will probably be the removal of Six Nations in toto.

I'm sorry, but I think that you've been brainwashed into using "homophobia" in a reactionary manner. The gay rights movement is an ideologically based movement bent on changing society to suit their political and social outlook. In that respect, it is complete open to criticism and challenge just like any other ideologically based movement. Personally, I believe that the gay rights movement is to Western Civilization's detriment (just as homosexuality was a detriment to certain ancient civilizations like the Spartans and Imperial Rome) and see a modern parallel in the spread of the "gay rights" ideology in the Nazi movement in 1930s. I should state, though, that Nazism existed throughout the western world, too, until the outbreak of WWII.

Things change: The Constitutional Act of 1791 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (1791 (31 Geo. 3) C A P. XXXI., long title An Act to repeal certain Parts of an Act, passed in the fourteenth Year of his Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America; and to make further Provision for the Government of the said Province.) But you still don't seem to get it. In the early 1800s the government of Canada had little or no ability to police, and therefore Joseph Brant took advantage of the situation by illegally selling land. The government had no choice but to accept what was going on until it was in a position to really do something about it, which was in the 1840s and 50s when they finally were able to force Six Nations to conduct its affairs in an legal manner. You seem to be totally devoid of the understanding that Upper Canada was a frontier society not much different (except for all of the guns) than the American Frontier in the 1870s to 90s. You'll latch onto and be symapthetic to anything that seeks the same general goal as you have. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, as the saying goes. There is no evidence that people are "born gay" unles you are willing to argue that homosexuality is either a genetic defect like downs syndrome or a mental illness, then it is purely a learned behavioural trait. How do people become radical muslim suicide bombers? Are they "born" that way? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but your attempt to paint my opinions as "hateful" is seemly a means of trying to suppress my right to freedom of speech and to subscribe to your narrow-minded concept of the truth. Oh, well, you've revealed yourself time and time again through a number of now-banned usernames what your malicious attitude towards straight white men, modern western society, Christians and Christianity, God, morality and ethics. Do you really think that you have any moral standing by championing the cause of Godless paganism and the largest organized crime organization in Canadian history?????

No, I'm asking YOU what YOU think the problem is with the CONTENT of my signature...

People just want equality when it benefits them.

Those universities have websites, so that's a good place to start. There's also books out there about getting into Harvard, I suppose they exist for Oxford as well. Here's my free advice: 1) Perfect grades 2) Excellent references 3) Get involved in school programs, clubs and demonstrate leadership qualities 4) Volunteer and work outside of school

Clarify what parts of the following are against "house rules"?

BINGO, and that's what they did when the government of Canada forced Six Nations to start legally documenting their land transfers and sales, and before that time Six Nations WAS breaking the law, but there was little the government could do because it didn't have sufficient policing powers. So you're basically admitting that Six Nation was at fault in the first place. Oh, so you're the crank? This has been discussed elsewhere. The gay community is primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDs. The introduction of HIV/AIDs to North America has been traced back to a gay man. But that's only part of the issue; it's a political and social movement bent on overthrowing our society. An example of this can be found in some of the interviews that Gene Robinson gave recently in which he talked about an openly gay person becoming President. I should not be forced to accept an ideological movement like the gay rights movement no more than one should be forced to accept Nazism. Moreover, you're one to talk considering the nonsense you've spewed about the being a "genocide" in Canada.

I've been instructed to edit my signature due to length and content. Given that my signature is only six lines, the problem evidently really stems from the content, but no specific reason is given as to what aspect of the content is the problem. I feel that the content of my signature is a legitimate expression of personal opinion and that the attempt to force me to remove or alter parts of it are a violation of my right to free speech and personal expression.

Please, refrain from using profanity. The majority of women in so-called "traditional" relationships were quite adept at maintaining their dominance in a relationship despite the fact that the man was often the "bread winner". Honestly, if you lived in a society where the two options for work were either going out and working 12 to 16 hours a day in a menial, low-paying job, or staying at home with the kids (those that weren't at school) cooking and cleaning, who really had the raw deal? Yup, the man. Equality is the standard agenda of any "revolutionary movement" and, of course, is NEVER the true agenda or result. There can be legislated equality of rights, but in practice there is always a dominant partner in a relationship; more often than not, that has been the woman, so the "equal rights movement" is something of a paradox.

All hail the Government of Alberta! Everything it says and does is true and just!

Honestly, if that's the way you think, no wonder you have problems. The "piece of paper" is simply a formal documentation of what should be a mutual, permanent inent to remain faithful, supportive, committed, and responsible to one another. They both caused a problem by having a similarly flippant attitude towards their relationship. It's the type of problem that should not be being created in the first place. This is the cost of immorality, sin, hedonism, greed, wealth, and selfishness. Women always marry up, and when something does go wrong they always still want half. No, it's better for raising children so long as she is of the right mindset. Whatever the case, advice from you is something no man in his right mind should take. You're one of them, you're playing the game, too.

Sadly, I'll admit, that it's something that I've allowed you to drag me into... "resorting" to something means that one lowers oneself to that level, and to deal with the likes of you that means a considerable drop. Like I've said before, the grievous nature of your conduct really should have you banned, but you seem to be immune, and I think that there's something, some sort of relationship or exchange that solidifies your immunity.

There's a show on A&E about this kind of person: Intervention.

Oh, of course non-religious "types" are not judgemental and doesn't force their opinions and LIFESTYLE on others... The sad fact of the matter is, is that people like you can't even formulate a logical understanding of the concept of being "judgemental". Hate to break it to you, but stating that the Bible indicates that homosexuality is a sin is not being "judgemental"--it's simply a statement of fact.

My, my, you really think VERY highly of yourself if you consider yourself better than me... Well if that delusion makes you happy, keep on dreaming then... But truth be told, there are only a few here who I need to defend myself against by resorting to "insult," and it's fair to say that you in particular have been the originator of any hostility. I'd say about about 95% of your posts consist of ad hominum attacks, and the remaining 5% opinionated gibberish that this forum has benefitted from in no way whatsoever...

*smacks bush_cheney2004 in the head*

Don't flatter yourself. You're talking about me as if I'm the one who spent numerous years in the Canadian Forces. I'm sure you're much more experienced and knowledgeable about the "unique peculiar" actions that two men can become engaged in. That's okay, if you don't want to come out with it--that's your choice...

Oh, I don't know, trying to make government open, accountable, and transparent could do the trick. I'm just wondering whether his assassination would cause a race war...

What a shame! You could have then posted it on youtube and gotten 10,000 views-per-day from all of the homo sex perverts who lurk their... you'd like that, wouldn't you?

The problem for SN started with Joe Brant selling off land that he shouldn't have, the government eventually stopped this from happening, and in doing so saved SN. Why should they get involved when the issue can't be resolved except by giving into SN's fabricated claims? SN created this mess, and if the Federal government caves in, then everybody will start clamouring for the same. A couple of years ago there was a now-extinct band claiming ownership of much of southern BC; what makes an extinct band of Indians reappear? The smell of money...

Actually, the more that I read about this issue--the actual contemporary documents, the more convinced I am that this is neither a federal or provincial issue, rather has its origins in internal power struggles within Six Nations, ie. the fact that JOSEPH BRANT went around selling land. So if anyone is really to blame, it is him. Also, if you read other contemporary accounts of Six Nations, you start to get the sense that they felt themselves to be superior to all of their neighbouring tribes/nations, and that they were perpetually being trouble makers. Six Nations during the wars prior to the settlement of Upper Canada were extracting (some things never change...) HUGE amounts of tribute from the British in return for their "loyalty". So this who Caledonia dispute is a game that the've played before, but since the education system doesn't teach much history and when it does in a very sanitized and pc manner, well...

So why exactly are you putting "assassination" in quotation marks?

Who says there has to be a "benefit"? I'm sure there are people who want him dead because he's black, pushing for change (ie. rocking the boat), and a Democrat... A lot of people in the military would be sad to see their wars cut short on them, that's for sure...