Posit

Its a waste of time trying to teach an ignorant clod anything. When a guy uses Wikipedia as his sole source of history you know he is pretty low on the intelligence scale.

Of course the goal of right wing corporations are to reduce all their workers to poverty while the management lavish in unlimited wealth. Business expense get paid BEFORE the owner reaps a profit. They are a necessary part of operating a business and they are a necessary part of earning profits. Expenses are not taken from profits. There can be NO profit unless the expenses are first paid. That's business reality. Would I pay $100 per hour minimum wage. I would have to if I wanted to keep my business viable. But I would also, like similar business be billing them out at $200 per hour (at least) to ensure that all additional expenses are covered as well. That is what the market must bear and will bear if they have no choice. Lower minimum wages do not mean more profit either, nor do they improve marketability of the company products. In fact taking out of the system such as reduce wages of the line employees usually means lower quality of products and services.

The reality of business (as a small business owner) is that employees are a business expense and do not come out of the "profits". And if any business is making so little that it must try to steal from its employees to show profitibility, then it deserves to go "titties" up. That just isn't smart business. And no, the business will not go under if the minimum wage goes up. It will just have to consider all the business expenses when setting its new prices. And I would say that if the business, or the market can't handle that then it is time to close the doors. The business is a waste of time.

The occupation is not illegal. Insofar as the province believes they own it, they have given their permission for its continued occupation. If it is considered anything in the Canadian system (although the natives claim they are sovereign and not subject to Canadian law) it would be a simple civil matter. There is nothing illegal about a civil disagreement concerning property ownership. It happens in Canada every day. Happy Six Nations Solidarity to you too! Thanks for keeping this thread alive.

Kyoto is not the solution to global warming. It is the beginning of the discussion and the impetus to change that we must undertake ourselves. There has been much said about the cost of Kyoto yet very little about the economic benefits. I suggest that to weigh this out properly we must listen to all and discuss the viability that has been proposed. Attempting to outshout the counter argument to Kyoto economic cost is no more beneficial than for anarchists to complain about how government is run. BTW I remember watching a CTV docu on the City of Edmonton, who undertook to take responsibility for their part of global warming by looking for energy efficiencies in their buildings and operations. Turned out they saved the taxpayers in many ways since the benefits of switching to things like compact and energy efficient fluorescents outweighed the initial costs of buying that slightly more expensive lighting technology. There is definitely an economic argument to be made in support of greener technologies - something we should all be allowed to hear.

What's even more amazing as the number of right wingers who are threatened by an open discussion on the economic benefits of doing something positive for the environment. I mean if the guy's data and propositions are irrelevant, then you would think that the right wingers would welcome an opportunity to debate the information instead of trying to dismiss the messenger before he has even delivered the message. Ah...but....there must be some validity to get some many people upset while trying to protect their own personal investments, right?

What a pathetic ignorant response. At about 100 years post contact the Iroquois Confederacy numbered 3.5 million people in about 700 agricultual villages spread out from where Georgia is today east to Quebec City, West to Detroit and north to Ottawa. At the same time the Three Council Fire Confederacy of the Anishnabec had a population of about 5 million people spread around Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, north of the Ottawa River to Timmins and into parts of Quebec in smaller family-based communities. The Iroquois Confederacy had a complex government system based on a 1000 year old constitution call the Great Law that is still in effect today, and is the only true representative democracy in the world, where even the children are allowed to speak on national matters. What dumb archaeologists summarized as ritual sacrifice in the Aztec and Mayan societies were really autopsies. Their societies like that of Iroquois Confederacy were thousands of years ahead of Europe in developing human physiological knowledge, astronomy, physics, social graces, etiquette and self-government. In fact when most of our ancestors first arrived here from Europe they only bathed once a year where washes and baths were a daily occurance in all Iroquois communities. In a thousand years from now someone could easily look at Communion say that Christian churches practice ritualized cannibalism. I see you're not interested in reading history so why not see if you can say anything productive about the current events instead?

I agree! Their role is to redistribute the wealth, mostly from the rich to the poor. Setting minimum wages in one of those roles and should not be abolished. I think that perhaps going to a minimum wage of $20 per hour would make much more sense, especially where the CEO of the company takes more than 20 times the lowest hourly wage.

Everyone don your Red Ribbons for Six Nations Solidarity. Today, Feb. 28, 2007 is 1 year anniversary of the reclamation of Six Nation lands in Caledonia. We'll be celebrating with corn soup, corn bread and traditional singing! Happy Six nations Solidarity Day!

Ah divert from the point and attack the poster. Such an immature response, really.... I would suggest that you take to Canadian History. Long before us white guys arrived here the injuns had vast trade networks from South America to the Arctic. And in fact according to archaeological records that included the trading of metals and finished metal products more than 3000 years before we (our ancestors) discovered metal working in Europe. Us white guys weren't half as advanced as the natives at the same time.

"They stole the route to Canada from British and John Cabot who was here first." Give your head a shake. This continent was mapped out and trails cut long before our white ancestors showed up here.

Businesses don't have rights in Canada nor would we want them to usurp the human rights guaranteed our citizens.

The English language cost you far more than the French language does by way of improper comprehension, misused words and legal jargon to hide the true agenda behind laws and regulations. It would be much simpler if our one official language was French since it is far more descriptive with a whole lot less verbiage in describing the same scenario. But the real issue isn't about language at all, is it.... It is about your precious money. And as an Anglo-European Christian white male, you begrudge any money being spent that doesn't directly benefit you, right? However, what you don't get is that the money offered to make bilingualism in this country is the price you pay for being Canadian. Being Canadian isn't about the Anglo-European Christian white male and never has been. It is about a bunch of immigrants coming to a land of natural beauty and resource wealth coming together for our joint benefit. It is about sharing what has been shared with us in the first place. And just because people with your world view immigrated here from Great Britain or other European doesn't give you anymore privilege than the Chinese, East Indian, or African immigrant seeking the same things. As soon as you come to that realization, the sooner you will become a true Canadian.

Actually the articles contained in the Charter concerning First Nations and Quebec are there to protect them from the tyranny of the mainly Anglo-European majority. The protection of these freedoms is necessary because in the past there has always been a propensity by AE Christian White Males to take advantage over minorities, including women to advance their own personal interests. Without special provisions in the Charter it wouldn't take any time at all before the English Canadians disadvantaged all others.

Same sex marriage and the issue of security certificates have been dealt with by the government. In the case of SSM, the government asked the SCC if SSM would violate the Charter. They ruled it wouldn't, so the argument that freedom of religion guarantees would conflict with SSM became a non-issue. The government approved SSM on that basis. It remains a constitutional right by our agreement as a society as a whole. As far as security certificate, the Charter protects us not only from the infringement of our rights by other people, by by the stat, its justice system and the government. No government can be above the Charter, unless it is a dictatorship, in which case there would be no need for a Charter of Rights. IN ANY democracy we must always be alerted to the potential of government without controls to remove our rights and freedoms based on political will - which is exactly what the Conservatives want to do. There is no support in the general public for the kind of fascist rule you would propose.

The judges ARE doing their jobs - free from political interference. What you are suggesting is that the government interfere with the judicial and strike down any conviction you don't agree with. Seems to me that this in itself is promoting the use of the Charter to infringe upon the rights of the accused to an impartial hearing. And to repeat the fact that judges are doing their jobs, there is no possible way - even by appointment of Conservative supporting judges - to alter the judicial outcomes. The law system runs independently of the government and the determination of guilt or innocence has no political overtones. Even the sentencing prescribed by law have no bearing since it is the judicial that determines what is reasonable. Save for mandatory sentences, a judge would rather sentence the accused to a lesser crime than to un"reasonably" incarcerate a convicted person more than what is warranted. I see nothing wrong with that part of the system so my vote would be for you and the right wingnuts to butt out of the Charter. You couldn't hope to succeed with a Charter amendment on that basis because your point is UN"reasonable"

The Canadian Wheat Board is a subsidized marketing agency in which the farmers benefit by selling grain for them, instead of having to beat the pavement and find buyers themselves. I say that if they want to sell their own barley then let them sell all their grains on their own, remove all other subsidies, tax free status and benefits and let them make it on their own. I'm all for getting rid of government interference but what they must realize that all government welfare MUST go with it.

Ah so now you "rational lies" the welfare by saying others are doing it so we should too? Ya right! But the point is, that is farmers want freedom to sell ~some~ of their products while many others are being protected, and marketed by Boards, then perhaps it is time to give all their freedom, get them off all corporate and farmer's welfare and get into the real job of running a business without subsidies, quotas or guaranteed income. The fact is that the average farm production is a failure and the failure is hidden by the layers of government protection and interventions. Farming could be profitable if they would simply do like real businesses, get rid of the government's farmer aid and the middle men who are stealing the profits, and sell directly to the consumer. However, their laziness when it comes to the business of marketing and managing is protected by the Wheat Board, milk quotas and egg marketing is what is killing the profit. I can buy eggs at $1.99 from the supermarket. They would be at least a week or two old. I can also buy eggs from a local producer for $1.99 (Grade A Extra Large) usually 1 or two days old. Guess who I spend my money with? And why? There are market farmers through-out my region and most of them do quite well. Those that don't don't last very long.

Agriculture Subsidies "The Ottawa plan is expected to offer farm aid of $5.2 billion over five years, with the same proportion offered in 1999: 60 per cent from Ottawa, 40 per cent from the provinces. If the provinces kick in the 40 per cent, it could amount to an aid package for farmers of about $8.18 billion over five years." Farmer Welfare

Perhaps it is time to get the western farmers off farmer welfare. If they want to market barley themselves, then them let run it as a business without government grants, subsidies, tax-free status and guaranteed quotas.

Canada (2007 - MoE ± 3.1%, 2006 - MoE ± 5.0%) The change from the night before the election is in parenthesis. Most Trustworthy Leader Harper – 35% (+14) Dion – 20% (Martin - 18%) Duceppe – 8% (-3) Layton – 18% (-7) May – 8% (Harris - 3%) Most Competent Leader Harper – 41% (+17) Dion – 22% (Martin - 28%) Duceppe – 8% (No change) Layton – 13% (-4) May – 4% (Harris - 2%) Best Vision for Canada Harper – 39% (+14) Dion – 21% (Martin - 25%) Duceppe – 5% (-1) Layton – 16% (-2) May – 7% (Harris - 3%) Canada (N=913, MoE ± 3.3%, 19 times out of 20) For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed Voters Only) The change from the previous wave is in parenthesis. National Conservative Party – 33% (-1) Liberal – 33% (+1) NDP – 17% (+1) BQ – 10%(-3) Green Party – 7% (+2) Quebec (N=234, MoE ±6.5, 19 times out of 20) BQ – 39% (-11) Liberal – 27% (+2) Conservative Party – 20% (+8) NDP – 8% (-2) Green Party – 6% (+2) Ontario (N=262, MoE ±6.1, 19 times out of 20) Liberal – 38% (-6) Conservative – 36% (no change) NDP – 19% (+3) Green Party – 8% (+3)

Nope. Six Nation HAS proven it and the federal negotiators haven't got an answer.

First of all I will accept your argument once you prove: 1. Canada is legally a nation and, 2. Six Nations is subject of that nation. You must use legal documents that show that the authority of the nation of Canada (not just on the advise that some other nation recognizes Canada) and, you must show where the Confederacy Council was dissolved and the people knowingly and willingly adopted the laws and precepts of that mythical nation. I can assure you that you cannot prove either. Now go try....

Canada being a nation was always assumed. However a recent series of emails between the Department of Justice, some legal professors and the United Nations, whereby it was discovered there is no legal basis for Canada. The research conducted puts the nationhood of Canada into serious question and instead by definition assigns the Provinces individual Sovereign authority under the Crown. Canada is a legal myth. It has no authority over First Nations, nor the Provinces.

The Natives don't use a foreigner's court. If they did they could as easily go to the US and get them to issue an order for Canada to get off Six Nations' land. You are confused. Technology doesn't belong to you just because we have a dispute which BTW Canada cannot prove ownership. If every dispute cause a party to give up technology then you would be back to throwing stones since gunpowder was invented by the Chinese and metal smelting was discovered here about 3000 years before it was discovered in Europe. The DoJ has admitted that there is no legal definition of Canada, nor does it have a definition of Canada's boundaries. This essentially reduces Canada to a corporation without a land base and without even the authority over the Provinces. If one reads the BNA, it was clearly intended to form a federation of provinces to protect business and security interests against manipulation by the US. However, when the Queen repatriated the Constitution she did not relinquish authority and still legally holds all authority over the simple corporation of Canada. Canada is not a nation, nor does it have legal authority over the provinces, or First Nations. All First Nation treaties were made with the "Crown" and all legal, parliamentary, or institution authority comes from the Crown. The GG, the Queens representative is not only the Head of State, but also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.