Michael Hardner

FYI - you're on ignore. Not to say I never respond to you but I generally don't see your posts unless someone NOT on ignore responds to you. Cheers.

I wonder if the Canadian directive on the lithium mine was the first part of that initiative ? It would make sense for the US to order us to do something like that first off while it was warming up the European nations to align...

It's amazing the degree of faith that you have in this rando...

They don't know reason, only emotion. I thought 'flavour of Europe' was a thing and now it's... wait, turn back the clock to before the EU was formed... but maybe after WW2 ? Try to pin them down on that one and best of luck. I'm a Bohemian and therefore loyal to the Holy Roman Empire only...

1. No we don't have to take a specific approach to address the problem, I agree. 2. So the answer is that their leaders are corrupt, and First Nations people accept that on some level and so it's complicated. Shouldn't that be the first stop of any reform of the relationship then ? 3. As a thought exercise, maybe come up with an analogous situation with non-natives and see how it would be solved perhaps. What if a foreign government was trying to convince the Canadian people that something was too their advantage but we, and our leaders, were against it ? 4. And yet we acknowledged Quebec as a 'nation' in the HoC ? You seem to be unable to accept that other groups will not buy into your vision as it is. You can plead and rhetoricize on here but two solitudes won't be moved by that. Harper made a political decision and so far it has worked for its goals, it seems to me. 5. "Nation" or "Nation State" ? It seems to me you are talking about the fundamental attributes of a nation, which is shared identity. A "State" is a different thing. Is it divisible ? Absolutely and that's one of the chief goals of a state, ie. unity. 6. Yes I think Canadians would pay for these things for a long, long time without too much complaining and I'm wondering if you are projecting your own annoyances onto the population. Yes, Jagmeet is one Asian politician at a position of significant power, and he says he wants to prioritize indigenous rights. Asians, too, can be politicians. "Most people" have been living with the current system for their entire lives. And so I acknowledge that you're looking for improvement here, but the gateway to a massive change of arrangement that you propose would not survive an opening statement if it included the sentiments you reflected here. It could survive by appealing to a broad desire to "improve" but that would need to preclude cost cutting as even an intermediate goal IMO.

1. True. 2. No, I didn't mean to say it was but it gives home field advantage is my point. 3. The achilles heal of the "reform" that people on here push is that there is zero attention span for these things in "the" public.

1. Ok but with this statement you are acknowledging that it's a continuum and a gradient. We had 'capitalism' which led to colonialism pretty early on, slavery, emancipation, robber barons, universal suffrage, the new deal, unions, the great society, Reaganism, globalism .... I maintain what a Communist told me once: trade deals are deals between elites. It doesn't say whether the deal is "good" or "bad" but that the so-called problems (and benefits) of capitalism are distributed on a wider and more complex scale. 2. I'm not going to argue a) and b) except to add that the 'public sphere' was purchased by corporations - which explains the 'lost all hope' part. I think that your general concerns are well-founded but that we should be specific as to our criticisms. "Global Trade" as far as it enables win-win is a good thing. Layoffs are not "bad" across the board if they facilitate expansion in other areas of the economy.

Wow... I wonder who he was referring to ? Also - there's no room in the Party for those ideas but hell yeah there's room for people who support them and what's a big tent without a racist uncle or two or a Klansman aunt ?

A greeting card is due, as per social forum etiquette...

1. Careful though, it's only respected by *reasonable, *intelligent, *sane people... ie. those who are "in on it" and those who DON'T believe science = SCHMIENCE 2. You are basically asking a cat to become a dog, or in other words for someone to change their religion. If they don't believe that big-heads with glasses and suits might be working openly and honestly, no publication with the word "Scientific" in the title will convince them. But... keep popping bubble wrap and indulging your boredom. I do it too, and feeding the trolls is as much fun as feeding squirrels so don't mind me...

My issue came back mid-day...

1. I agree we're not debating but without the military advantage I'm not sure how the Europeans could have beat them in guerilla warfare that ensued for centuries. The problem with 'trading' for weapons, though, is that you required allies with the technology - and playing English/French/Spanish off each other didn't work forever. 2. IIRC the Martin agreement was supposed to be a template but Harper killed it. My own knowledge of those events is admittedly sparse.

They don't like change and use terms like 'the flavour of Europe ' 😂 Like Corsica, Scotland and Turkey have ever been cohesive. The very idea of the Nation is a false construct that people take up to fill an existential void IMO

I cleared cache and files and it's been better so far today.

1. This is very arguable. Given that it was an ongoing war situation, we can certainly say that weaponry was the key to the defeat of the native North Americans. 2. Well if you reverse the order of the first two. And keep in mind that you're talking about many nations, so patience and clear focus on goals is required. Things like this will necessarily span several governments so you have to safeguard against an election happening and throwing out years of discussion as happened when Harper defeated Paul Martin IIRC