Accountability Now

I know a number of natives who have left the reserves and became really successful. There is no doubt the vast majority would have the same capabilities if they did too however the reserves seem to be like quicksand that keep sucking people back in even when there is little to no hope. The issue again seems to be the system of segregation that continues to draw them into staying on reserve. Ironically it was the white man's segregation that put them there and its their own segregation that keeps them there. Its very much an 'us versus them' mentality with the whole time hearing about how Canada is screwing them over. But here is the kicker....they are CANADA. They have the ability to join the rest of us and have the same so called benefits that we have but choose to stay on reserve for their treaty rights and so called benefits to be had there. I don't get it but I am not in that situation so its maybe not fair to judge. I just get tired of hearing the same rhetoric with no way forward.

Please provide a citation to back this up

I agree with this but what do you suggest is the way forward? in my mind the only suggestions brought forth by the Indigenous are continued segregation and separation from the rest of Canada. I would love to see a solution that actually is progressive and solves the problem rather than perpetuates it.

Your rights are laid out and very clear, just like the treaties that also say you ceded your rights to the land which go on to give certain exceptions to what you are allowed to do on that land.

Don’t worry...I’m sure the welcoming with the German flag will make them forget the snub http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/belgian-royals-flag-1.4573188

Dillusional statements like this are the very reason why progress will never be made.

You disagreed with him so clearly you are racist. That is how it works.

No. They tried stealing the truck from was from another farm however they were unsuccessful. They continued driving their own SUV which belonged to Wuttunee. They did also try to steal an ATV a the Stanley farm but were unsuccessful again. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214

No you're not wrong about this as they admitted to it however it was never a contentious issue since these hoodlums were never going to be charged with these acts as the Crown needed them to testify against Stanley, therefore they are given immunity for those other crimes. The decision to appeal is granted when the feel there was a technical error made in the case and Not based on what people think the verdict should be. Since there was no errors made in the case, they don't have the choice to even appeal as the law won't allow for it.

Would this party be competing against the other parties in Canada or are you saying that each area (with high enough Aboriginal population) would get an additional MP to serve the Aboriginal community? If it is the former, then I have to wonder what the demographics look like in the sense that there would only be a handful of areas in Canada that would most likely elect this group into power meaning it would be slim chances for them to even get official party status, never mind having the voting power to directly change things. But yes....they would have a voice. If its the latter then I feel that it would be a divisive move that would probably negate the purpose. It would be more formal that the current situation but it would remain similar to what we have today which is 'us versus them'

Sorry...I can see how I wasn’t clear as I was referencing the article which did state that but didn’t say it in my statement.

That’s weird....just seven posts back you had no problem using that same article to support your argument. Still waiting for you to answer my question.

Why do you refuse to answer my simple question? Is deflection your only tactic? Or do you not know what a question is?

You’re avoiding my question. Is my black neighbor one of my peers?

Why? Because the color of their skin is white? I have a black neighbor...is he not my peer?

So what's the problem with having an all white jury if there is no concern with bias?

Here's what wikipedia says on it:

As per the article they had no choice since the law dictates that no appeal can happen because the law won't allow for it. I wonder if this is where JT will step in and try to change it so that the law can make it happen.

Fair enough but if you check out the financial reports for the various years he was in power, it shows what they call a Scorecard which evaluates how the government estimated the economy in the budget and how it actually happened. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071126012234/http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr/2000/afr00_5e.html In most cases they underestimated revenues and overestimated spending because the economy was booming, not because of what they were doing but rather because of what was happening south of us. If they were true wizards (and I don't mean that facetiously) then their estimates for both revenue and spending would have been in line with their budgets. Its like my old boss used to tell me when I estimated jobs, being over by 10% is equally as bad as being under by 10% for an estimator since you weren't right either way! Like I said, they were the beneficiaries of an economic boom. Full disclosure, at the time I remember wanting to vote for Chretien but voted PC for my local MP. I don't dislike the guy but I just don't agree with anyone who who thinks any leader is anything more than a guy sailing the ship through the waters of a global economy. If times are good then the water is calm (Chretien years) but when the waters are rough like they were in the Harper years then you can't expect magic.

Chretien and Martin were the beneficiaries of an economic boom. As I stated on another thread, the Canadian economy is heavily tied to the US economy and wouldn't you know it that in the same time frame that Chretien and Martin had their surpluses, the US also had four years of surplus too. Those surpluses for the US were the only surpluses they have had in many, many years. Obviously times were good with the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble not yet popped.

No. We probably will but have you seen me do it? How about you quote me on this when you see me do it? Yes you should especially if you don't believe what they are saying. Its a fundamental part of intelligent conversation that if you are claiming something to be a fact then you need to back it up. If you claim its opinion then you don't have to. You don't know this by now? Yes you should.

As per the CBC link I provided, http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571 , there have only been three Prime Ministers who have provided surplus fiscal years since 1962. Those PM's are Chretien, Martin and Harper. All PM's with exception of Martin, also provided deficits. As per the interactive chart, deficits seem to be the norm but of course there are reasons to go into deficit which often circles around the economic stability of the country. In our recent history, we have have three severe recessions that would justify deficit style spending: The recession in 81-82 was near the end of Trudeau Senior's last term. The one in 1990-92 was in Mulroney's term and the most devastating one was in 2008-09 during Harper's term. Of course one might think that it is the policies put into place by these leaders that lead our country into recession however, as per the same article above: The US is our largest trading partner and makes us tied to the hip with whatever economic woes or gains they may have. Now speaking of gains, I find it particularly interesting that during the same time that Chretien had his surpluses, the US also had its only four surpluses in their recent history. So again, as much as anyone wants to believe that Chretien was an economic wizard only needs to visit that correlation to realize that we up here in the north are often forced to take a ride that that we don't often have control over. http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/

Interesting....a left of center magazine with assumed left of center professional and academic contacts leaned towards left of center for their choices. Who would have thunk??

I'm going to help you out on a number of points...only because you are new and quite frankly need the help: The forum rules are located here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/guidelines/. In these rules you will notice the following violations that you have already performed: 1. Your use of Pierre Poutine in place of Stephen Harper is a violation of the rules as per: 2. You need to provide citations for your so called facts. This is as per: 3. Last but not least, there are no personal insults allowed. As such when you state "your a narcissist too" that would be considered a personal attack. Of course I'm fine with it because I know its the only avenue you have left after not being able to present any coherent arguments. Oh...and remember....its you're a narcissist ...not your! Have fun and keep researching your posts!

Ok. I know what I’m dealing with now. PS...it’s not ‘are debt’...it our. But keep doing your thing bud!