Accountability Now

Please quote where it specifically states this.

Yes...it would definitely take an overthrow of the Canadian empire. Until then...I'll keep fiddling like Nero.

Yes...I had heard about a person using the Iroquois passport in the UK and being denied entry.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Canada is just trying to appease its public image by playing nicely. If it ever came down to it, they would just squash it all.

It quite clear that you are the one that doesn't get it....DUDE! The Royal Proclomation was what all other treaties were based on....the starting point if you may. So don't feed me a bunch of bullcrap about the west of the Appalachians because there are a number of treaties that outline those too. You like to make up your own definition of soverignty but here is how it is ACTUALLY defined: Soverignty: 1 obsolete: supreme excellence or an example of it 2 a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control : autonomy c: controlling influence 3 : one that is sovereign; especially: an autonomous state Tell me HOW the natives have any sense of soverignty. Do they have supreme power over their lands....hmmmm...no they don't even own their lands. The crown does. Do they have 'freedom from external control'....hmmmm....nope. The Indian Affairs controls them. But don't let me stop you from dreaming what you want to dream. Have someone from the First Nations go to the US border and have them present their soverign First Nations passport. Because that is again the other part you so seemingly seem to avoid.....its not just Canada that doesn't reconginze the FN soverignty....its the rest of the world. You don't want to use the Proclomation? That's fine....let's use any of the treaties which all basically say "do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever, all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to the lands". WOW....tell me how one can have 'supreme power' when they don't even have any rights? If you want to call it something else....then go for it but don't call it soverignty.....DUDE.

I could argue that in the Royal Procolomation (which most natives use to their benefit for land claims) that it says: The question is wheter natives adhere to the Royal Proclomation or not. If they don't then you're right. If they do then they did give up soverignty as the Brits clearly state the lands are under British sovereignty. When First Nations people leave Canada, do they use a First Nations passport? Nope...its Canadian because other soverign countries don't recognize them as being soverign either. Soverignty has to do with other countries recognizing you as sovereign....not just Canada. Having said this, looking at a document which is 250 years old doesn't solve today's problems. To be honest, I find natives still mired in soverignty talks or 'nation to nation' talks are a alot like those guys in World War II that didn't get notice that the war was actually over and kept fighting. The reality is that this country has moved on and the idea of soverignty is over. Go on and fight your land claims and other things promised to you but quit the chatter of soverignty as that ship has sailed.

Its too bad. Spence's fake hunger strike will actually kill this guy if his is for real. But....they had their chance and blew it by let Spence's charades take center stage. You can't blame Harper for not taking this guy seriously now.

Sure there is...you just need to import them like the rest of us! Lol.

This is where I disagree with you. Money is a symbol for the interaction and agreements we make with other people to provide services or goods for each other. In ancient times, we traded goods or services directly but it was changed to money along the way. Money is in fact fish or trees or whatever you want it to be.

I agree with that. Not too many people or businesses look at the big picture. Is that the job of our goverment to do so? If so, then we are screwed!

Eyeball...I'm just basing this on what comments were said to me. It wasn't until I challenged Reefer that anyone acknowledged the importance of economy. Up to that point I was hearing that money wasn't real.

I did read and did understand what Reefer posted. He commented saying "Environmentalists are the realists in this equation. Economy boosters are the fuzzy-headed ones." I posted back saying that both sides are important to the equation as it creates a necessary balance between the two. This is where he said he didn't agree and said money is an abstration and not real. If money is not real then apparently neither is economy. Is there something that I misconstrued in that? Perhaps Reefer exaggerates his side to get his point across? I don't think exaggerations are needed to prove a point here. I think its a very good arguement that we need to modify our ecomonic philisophies to be more in line with our environmental practices. AKA...tweak the formula a little. I also think that it doesn't need to be all or none. You don't need to be all for the environment or all for ecomony....which is why I'm glad there are fuzzy heads on either side because they cancel each other out. Many tree huggers seem to miss the point of the importance of economy whcih is what bothers me. It bothers me as much as economists who miss the importance of the environment.

How much more simplistic do you need this? We are not debating what the environment needs. Its fairly obvious the earth exisited for millions of years without humans and it was fine. Its not a matter of what the environment needs, its what we as humans need. So yes....health care, education, economy is equivalent as they are all things we need. Of course....environment is on that list too. They all play into the equation that balances out what we need. The problem is that Reefer and yourself are trying to say that ecomony does not matter. Take ecomony away and anarchy will prevail. Just as if you took the environment away. That has never been the argument. The arguement was that ecomony does not matter.

Yes...I can agree with that.

So I take it your arguement was a simplistic one.....saying that the environment doesn't need economy to exist. Is that right? So that would be equivalent to saying the environment doesn't need health care or education or anything else that humans do? Ok...so you do agree with my statement about economy being part of the equation. It actually has been fairly easy to debate with you because you have already gone against what you originally said. Let me quote you: Money is a symbol of our economy which you said is real. Therefore money is real. You also go on to say that an economy will not exist with an environment that can support healthy living. Again....I have already shown you that economy has been around way before we had environmental issues. So this is not true. I didn't invent things. These are your words. You can easily end this arguement by saying that you posed a simplistic argument that the environment doesn't need economy. However, the fact is that humans do. And quite frankly what should we care about the environment if humans aren't on it. Do you worry about the moon or Jupiter. Our only reason to care for the environment is to ensure that we can continue to thrive. I agree that we need the environment but we also need the ecomony. Not having ecomony is flat out ridiculous.

You're right. That's why they get paid more. My point of contention is when people like socialiat are saying that teachers should be paid over 100k much like other professionals who work 60-70 hours 50 weeks of the year.

Just to be clear...teachers in Ontario start at $45-55k. Each year they get raises where after 10 years they get between $76-94k. Times are tough aren't they? http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/anatomy-of-an-ontario-teachers-paycheque/article6015968/?service=mobile

And apparently you are too narrow minded to realize that teachers get compensated well above 99% of the private sector. Maybe it's time to stop whining about the pay and be happy with the profession YOU chose!

Ok...and private sector employees average about $43000 per year. Based on your numbers teachers work 10% more than private sector workers so they should be paid around $47,000 per year. And socialist wants $100k? Add to the fact that the pension and benefits that teachers get blow the private sector out of the water!http://work.chron.com/average-annual-base-salary-private-sector-jobs-3587.html#gsc.tab=0

That depends on where the spill is. If its in the ocean then yes you are right. If the spill happens on land with low water tables then you do clean it up. That's why the Keystone pipeline got rerouted in Nebraska in order to avoid the aquifer under the ground. Oilfield drilling sites spew oil on the ground all the time and are restored to pre-drilling state once the drilling is done.

Unfortunately we don't deal well with planning unless there is refutable evidence that something is wrong. So it will most likely take a major event to occur before emphasis is shifted towards a sustainable economy. When will that happen? Not sure...most scientists think the world can hold up to 10 billion people. That really isn't that far away. I don't know if it will be obvious things like death that make us shift. For example, I look at the increase in the number of auto-immune diseases in industrialized countries. No one can prove it but its generally beleived our pollution is causing this. Perhaps when the numbers reach 1 in 10 then we will start shifting!

Of course it can exist without humans! So does that mean we should eliminate humans to solve the problem? I suggested that there needs to be a balance between environment and economy. Perhaps not a 50/50 balance but I scoff at anyone that says economy is not needed at all in this balance.

I'm not sure if its relative to this thread as my comment is more related to home related batteries but I think one day it may transfer over to cars. Anyway...two Calgary chemists have found a way to make hydrogen fuel batteries 1,000 times cheaper. Funny thing is that I used to play hockey against one of the guys who invented this! http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/29/technology-water-electrolysis-calalyst-calgary.html

I don't know. Why are the dinasaurs extinct? Does everything have to do with humans. More to this conversation, do these exctinctions have everything to do with economy? I guess if you subsribe to survival of the fittest then it would suggest that human evoluation was deemed more fit than these other species. That is of course assuming it was humans who made these animals go extinct in the first place.

I never thought you would subscribe to this point of view because you are so far to the environmental side that could never see reality. Reality of course being the fact that economny has exisited since ancient times when people used to trade objects rather than money. Perhaps I would have agreed with you if you would have said a healthy environment can exist without modern day economics but to say without an ecomony at all is absolutely ridiculous. Economy is more than just making money. Its a way for people to interact and trade services so that as a group we can survive and thrive. Imagine for just one second that all economic trade stopped today. Are you going to do everything for yourself? Make your own knives and spears? Then go out and hunt or harvest all your food? Make your own clothes? Chop down trees and make your own house. Even ancient societies traded with each other which of course is long before the ozone layer, global warming and other environmental issues that you say econonmy has created. Economy has been around A LOT longer than our so called catasrophic environmental issues have. Don't worry though....for every person like you who doesn't think economy matters, there are peope that think environment doesn't matter. It balances out to the way it should be where both matter.