yam

An excellent question for those who advocate abortion. However, so as to not take your post out of context or intent. The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000. Ecclesiastes OR, THE PREACHER 3 A Time for Everything 1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6 a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. yes indeed! This piece can justify the murder of everybody on this planet let alone infants. Just do what you want when the time feels appropriate. We can be quite fickle here too since it does not even speak of justifying ones actions - great I think this actually is George Bush's manifesto.

The biggest problem with so called help is its competitive edge. The notion of giving help through government is intricately linked with emotive strategies to benefit the helper. Often its a kind of investment. To create the necessary infrastructure in the country as a foundation (commonly percieved as help), which thus serves as the very launch pad from which to exploit the resourses as in the countries outlined above and cheap labour such as that in the Maquiladoras. Africa was conquered, divided up and re-divided up through civil wars created by the conquerers dont forget. The land to this day still lines the pockets of its first world investors. Peace and harmony, aid and whatnot are necessary but in order for it to work the country must not be simultaneously drained of its resourses - human and otherwise.

"Part of respecting freedom involves accepting people doing things that do not affect other people. In the case of abortion and reproduction, the concept of respecting freedom between the woman and non-aborted-thing does not apply because the woman's complete freedom does not exist or her freedom to NOT be pregnant has already been lost." The thing is that it would be the mother's freedom that is effected by being forced to give birth and rear that child for the rest of her life. Her freedom here would be taken away by either the church or state, relations etc. And what if that mother was forming a 'thing' later to develop into a child that was violently forced upon her by a rapist? And even though she may be pregnant her freedom does exist and has not been lost. Morality and ideology from others may take it away from her - only if she allows it or is pressured that much by them. As for the 'thingy' losing its freedom - all faetuses never choose to exist. Further, they are nowhere near in the developed stage of a human that understands the mental concept of freedom. I dont like abortion - (who does) but i think it is very necessary at times. I rather hope that people are aware the sooner one has an abortion the better it is for it as not developed.

yes; evidence is often sacrificed for belief. Perhaps we should say for the benefit belief brings with it? Can you imagine what would happen in the political arena if the school curriculum was ammended to drop such crock? What really is at stake is winning the vote . . . education means nothing.

Lofty Lora's for tea and scones What say yu ol bean. What!

Everything stated or argued is never isolated but checked by two or three peoples to make sure everything is covered yet still contain the main point. This is ONE of the many particularistic "aboriginal" ways. In fact this way . . . now, is more than simply 'aboriginal".

How do you propose Lebanon remove Hezbollah... Hezbollah is bigger, and better equipped than Lebanon's Army? That's not actually true, you know. And yet, civilians seem to be streaming back to the southern villages regardless. You should try for a little less credulity when it comes to Hezbollah press releases. You should try for a little less 'faith' in Foxx. Should he NOT tell the truth? Every news item (from left to right) reported that the Lebanese bridges etc have been blown to smitherines. In fact it was worse during the 'promised' ceasefire by Israel. Hezbollah had much support in lebanon (40 something% of those that dare admit it) it also had two other nations contributing to its weapons `supply --Iran and Syria. The lebanese government is poor and could not afford anything near a match.

Im 100% with Rue on this one. For me i look to nature. The eco-system takes care of itself which also extends to the top predators of whom abort if they cannot rear their young safely. This activity balances out (scientifically) to be at one with the 'whole' ecosystem and actually saves more land and species than if it were to follow 'moral, religous doctrine' . However; i do have some questions for those that advocate the 'right for life' religous doctrine. if you managed to change a womans mind whom was about to undergo an abortion would you ever offer to rear the child and pay its life expenses? Surely this would be your gods will - right? This does not only include the usual high costs for rearing kids but also for those kids that may 'need' special requirements untill there death. The reason why i ask is this. That often many see taxation as a burden and poohoo single mothers claiming welfare. Id like to know why . . .when they have done the alleged 'noble' and 'god fearing' thing of daring to bring in a child to this world ( rape victims, incestual, severely disabled or even just through a split condom) in the full knowledge that those claiming right to life in one breath will step over these very people as a burden to the system. i sincerely believe these religous nuts carry the worst form of self rightousness ever. They are the biggest hypocrites since they will not look after those babies 'rights to life' once they are born!!! in fact they will condemn them as a burden to the system.

It is a huge problem in many universities. . . .especially in the the humanities which crosses over into the social sciences. People actually cannot think about social problems without reference to god and the devil! I have to grade many essays and find many with quotes from the bible used to debate social theorists. Its horrifying to think that people are going to be let loose in society to become social workers, councilers (let alone working in science labs), etc. It should be imperative to know whether each student believes in creation. This goes for those desiring to enter the scientific arena AND the social sciences including many of the disciplines in the humanities. The bible for them is more than a book, it is something that will save the world!! These kids will slot it into every essay they write. They actually cannot use the faculty of reason and refuse to engage critically with the material at hand. However, many have mastered the art of producing what is needed to pass. But once they have graduated they are out in the world seeking profesional humanitarian jobs

Indeed! The problem is to do with anal sex not homosexuality. Apparently the disease started in the human through the human penetration of a pig. Anybody? If so then surely science should be testing for the virus in the pig. . . . needless to say ill have to read up. . . . but does anybody else here have a clue?

See a university careers advisor. You might have to put your hand in your pocket but it may be worth your while.

Nothing can actually alter a truth. Whatever our opinion is concerning a truth does not effect or alter the truth. At most we can alter other peoples perceptions about a truth but it itself cannot be altered. Foe example the sky is above us regardless of what we think about it. It will continue being that way long after us and our opinions about it.

Flipant, vague opinions are NOT legal. The whole premise of the adversarial court system is to prove without doubt. The document i pulled apart is riddled with doubt and non fact. It is more of a personal epistle written to his greaty auntie Jones than written as a 'burden' of proof to a court of law. It does not meet the legal requirements for proof. The words should speak for themselves and the words are speaking only for and about his vague opinion concerning these lands. Again he says "THE PURPOSE OF THE SIMCOE DEED WOULD SEEMS TO BE TO CONFIRM THE GRANT ALREADY MADE TO THE HALDIMAND TRACT . . . ." The expression "seem to be . . ." does not back up 'what is'. It should either back up the treatise or not. Besides this the orginal treatise should be enough to confirm ownership. As i understand it, it then belongs to the six nations. It does not stipulate 'stewardship of these lands by the GG' but by sNs as extended by the crown. A deal - win win scenario = SN + crown as autonomous as opposed to subjects doing the 'bidding' of the higher authority which runs into the 'care and jurisdiction' of the gg However; six nations sovereignty was granted by the crown. They do have a 'different deal' from other Canadians under the GG.

It is a little to brash to be bragging about military weapons and training. We all know the US would side with Canada and that it has the greatest might globally. I think the whole point here really is to argue that despite size (numbers), geography, weaponry and more - Six Nations are not intending to buckle down and sell out like most other nations have been and are doing to the larger powers that be - For now its mainly concerning legal jargon and denial over poorly written treatise agreements. However; these documents are protected - by merit of their own status with the queen and this is why they cannot and are not being swept under the carpet. Just by this fact alone shows validity and weight in these documents. . . .the money spent on the bureaucracy and legal machinery throughout this standoff is enough to show this is not all imagination from the clan mothers! Dont forget the Canadian government is spending canadian tax dollars on this. Why you are not supporting this land claim is beyond me. You need it to settle one way or the other. The gov is spending canadian dollars on something it is not certain of. It is gambling with the notion that the clan mothers will simply give in eventually and will be "bought off". This is an old strategy done to trade unions - break them spirituallyand financially. Then they will have no choice but to accept what gov offers. But there hanging in there and your paying for the hours, days and potential`months perhaps years (?) that the gov does not finalise this situation. it has to be a descent settlement since the international community iswatching this space. Canada does have to "save face" here. Hence the complications as opposed to simply rolling in the tanks as im sure it would rather do. So forget this chatter of weaponry. Lobbying the government to end this is `a far more realistic solution.

From what i can gather they have that worked out already . . perhaps not for now but for the future when Canada will let them have their autonomy. I think- and am not certain about this, they will have something akin to a socialist infrastructure. Anyone care to clarify?

Indeed! The whole of the above is vague as it itself stipulates/confesses within! "The purpose of the Simcoe Deed would SEEM to BE to confirm . . . ." Further, "that those of the SNS settling on the lands therein described do so under the protection of the crown" protection does not here imply 'being ruled over'. It simply implies the crown as a guarantor - by way of extension over the geography against those wishing to take the land away. It is a guarantee against appropriation. "In MY OPINION . . ." This is not legal and holds no validity whatsoever As the sentence further goes on to say in the context of his opinion and deals made:- thus they "owed allegiance to the crown and thus became subjects of the crown . . ." Again from HIS OPINION of what he THOUGHT was APPROPRIATE, but certainly, this is NOT LEGALLY defined. The last sentense then speaks of his opinions as a concluding fact! Quite the audacity really! Regardless, it could never stand up to scrutiny or evidence.

You never said why YOU think that the war of Iraq needed to be fought. Im curious since they never did find weapons of mass destruction and managed to dispossess 1000s of peoples let alone murder them. Dont forget the premise for entering Iraq was to check out IF it had weapons. This is a far cry from what actually took place. The US should be locked up like any of its citizens would be if they committed mass murder.

Even testing once a year for aids will not stop it. As a virus it can live in the body for eight years without showing any symptom. Thus seclusion on something like a lepar colony will not solve the problem. Now the fact that it can sit dormant or be slow to act for so long is the reason we need science. For all we know we maybe sitting here with it ourselves. It does not only take sex to contract it. Hence much MORE money needs to be pumped into it. Worse; i think we and many other nations should pay for it through taxation. That means we would have the say about unecessary wastage of money. For example we could cut down on the bureaucracy, media and so fourth here and just get on with solid research. Perhaps we may even find the real cause!! Still nobody actually can say. Though there is a myriad hypotheseis flying around. . . .(including genocide of targeted poor nations - which got slightly out of hand and spread through tourism back to the first world!!! - forget the gay hypothesis). crazy hypothesises or otherwise are not going to solve the problem, scientific research may be able to - the chances of increasing the probabilities of cure goes hand in hand with the economy. Remember science NEARLY found a cure for Malaria - Funding was cut off right in the crux of this research because it exceeded the time span allotted. it needed another year or so for it to be gone completely. Hence, the "nearly" wiped out turned out to be a reversal due to the bacteria becoming immune to the remedy and it is now stronger and far more rampant.

"Understand, its not a matter of wanting sovereignty...we ARE sovereign. Only sovereign and separate Nations enter into treaties. We do recognize Canadas sovereign which is the Crown". Sorry, just trying to understand here. Does not the UN stipupulate you cannot have a sovereignty within a sovereignty (1940's )? Thus if Canada is . . . .However, i thought it has been established that it is not. Your case as sovereign people is surely more against the authority of the GG taking on or superceding the role and agreements made between f/ns and British over your allied sovereignty in Canada but with Britain? Therefore, this relationship overcomes the problem of sovereignty within a sovereignty "You're not understanding the issue here. It's not a matter of winning or losing a case. It's a matter of correcting the injustices of the past to the present". Yes indeed! So much so that im beginning to think you need a British representative of sorts to thrash this through with the government of Canada before ALL else. It certainly would avoid the priviledge of 'ruling' in self interest in a legal dispute as the previous 'judge' did. Outrageous!

The only thing im perplexed about here is the blanketting term "aboriginal". These undergo many contradictions concerning actual and real rights. However, since we are speaking treatise and rights that have already been established all is well and good for the six nations (though a pity the term six nations was not used). The reason i bring this up is because of the metis situation. Apparently, they did not sign treatise BUT did have "proclamations and agreements". . .However today, despite such being mapped out in this charter are not recognised as valid and fall into protective custody as it were. im hoping that six nations will not be caught out here too. And that the weight of having a treaty supercedes " . . . or other rights or freedoms . . . " as kind of debateable regardless of the problem in interpretation of proclamations and agreements.

My response too j - I certainly was not wishing to move there - Besides - i much prefer Montreal If anywhere in canada that or the wilderness -now that would be something

. . .which includes the attempt of denying them the knowledges and stewardship of the land. Such knowledges are generated over 100s of years. We cannot deny that really. Despite this thing called ownership of the land. For something of a comparison we need only flick to the problems of US based SAPs (Structural Adjustment Programs)that have been forced in many third world communities in many diff countries (for export purposes). This is not off topic since tribes, clans, natives, aboriginals exist globally. . .and can be/or would be if allowed stewards of the land. Many locals used and relied upon the polycropping method to ensure a healthy product. However, US imposed SAPs concerned with profit making failed. They did not consider land erosion, soil type and more that the communities did know about from knowledges gathered over 100s yrs. I wonder if we could say the same thing happened in Newfoundland concerning fishing quota's - the differences between local knowledge and scientific based knowledge. Dont get me wrong - im all for BOTH as long as it benefits the land and the community. but polycropping uses less land mass per output in comparison with US method. By far - less costly. Is harvested much quicker And does not exhaust the soil Further chemical pesticides are not needed.

So people must be able to afford to live well on part-time/or short term earnings i guess - which is a good thing - to have the choice. Not so long ago people were demanding security of a job with its benefit packages.

Unrelated really - or is it? But i tell you what technology is not going to wipe out six nations or other f/ns if they play there cards right - just kidding. Iv beenreading about energy depletion here 'The party's Over' by Heinberg (2005 [for another post] ) and it looks like f/ns could have a lot of say about what is going to happen in the future since they are home to a lot of natural resources. That is of course if we take note of all the legal issues, rights of ownership etc. better start being nice to them hey serious though, what are your thoughts here folks? It does tye into many of the legal`aspects about f/ns here one way or another.

Its not my intention to cast a gloom over the forum but since there is now (and many more in the pipeline) not only a few of these kinds of analysis/projections, i thought id fish out a pretty much consensual diagnosis of events and quote this: The peaking of world oil production presents the US and the world with an unprecented risk management problem. As peaking is approache. liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking 'The Hirsch Report' commissioned by the US departmen of Energy from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in heinberg,R 'The Party's Over, Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. This is alarming since the peak has 'optimistically' been sited as being between 2010 - 16. However, others have said we have already peaked!! 1) serious mitigation has not started yet (there are definitions of serious by the way). 2) economic and social costs despite alternative means (because of the slow time in production, let alone cost of farming them) is gloomy especially for urban workers. For example the US and much of Canada's labour force that travel into work will not be able to afford the energy costs to get into work. Shopping malls etc, by all accounts are going to be boarded up. Following this urban house prices are going to fall through the floor. Import export will be minimal if at all - thus no competition and high prices. Many homes are going to be abandoned and there is going to be a mass migration to th city centres. Obviously this case extends to those living in rural areas. But in this little summary i have not included what it will mean in world relations. More directly first and third world countries. And what of China whose just got a firm niche into the worlds economy going to do when it is more than likely going to be refused its 100% need of energy imports! What of India come to that. What of the Arab states - wars? - installng Westernised democratic governments might not work. Kind of mind boggling. Anybody got anything more hopeful to say. Because believe me id love to labell this 'alarmist research', but the above is not from a left wing think tank (nothing wrong with that but said in view of skeptics), rather the opposite. So if they are pushing this as others are - what gives