Accountability Now

I am very much like you but I would have to say that from the research I have done the risks for most vaccines are still considerably less than the risk of the diseases themselves. Take for example the measles vaccine, before the vaccine, about 450 people died each year compared to about 10 people who die each year from the MMR Vaccine. Obviously I would take the 10 versus 450 but why can't we see if there is something we can do about the 10 as well. Of course, other diseases with vaccinations carry a much higher mortality rate. And its not just about death but some of the other research is starting to point to other chronic conditions that we never thought vaccines had anything to do with. My largest issue is the misinformation out there from both sides. Obviously the antivaxxers have had their share but even the media and trusted medical sources seem to twist words or misuse facts in order to scare people when its not needed. Just today, I read a Maclean's article on Measles and it states in one of its graphics that Measles was eridicated in North America in 2002. Not sure if the medical community has a special definition for eradicated but the normal defintion (which is one the pubic would use) states that eradicated means to destroy completely or put and end to. However, looking at the CDC data, in the US alone there were 40 cases of measles in 2002 (about the same amount as in 2012). If we ever want to resolve this issue, we need to get through the crap which I think both sides are guilty of.

You gave one definition for apology and three for reputidate. Which one are you saying is the same?

Interesting. I already answered your comment on me being an apologist by stating that I wasn't and that all I was doing was applying logic and not apologizing at all. However, you chose not to respond to that and have now concluded on your own that I am an apologist. Good work. I am fully aware of how the Catholic church operated, not just in general but also specifically in Canada with the natives. However, if you are going to single out the one bull made in the 1400s then you should give equal footing (if not more) to the next bull that came along in the 15th century. Its logic....not apologizing. Let me ask you a question. Germany has laws today that say that Jewish people are allowed to live unharmed in that country. Does that law not take precedent over anything that happend in the 30s and 40s? Sure...you may still have neo-nazi types commiting crimes against Jews as a result of the first law but the official position of the German government has now changed. Would I be apolgistic for Hitler....no but would I also condemn the current government even though they changed their position. No. If you're going to take one of the bulls then you have to take them all. You can't pick and choose the ones you like. And noting this does not make me an apologist for the previous bulls.

That's exactly what you're doing. The conversation that you so timely chriped in at was based on a historical event. Its hard to NOT talk about things in the past when that is what the conversation is about. Of course you had no problem chirping in about your historical interpretation but now by some stroke of genius, you are now claiming that you only look to the future. What a hoot. That's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a while. Again, I have no problem looking to the past to make the realization as to how we got here however my entire discontent with the whole aboriginal approach is that they continue to look to the past and romantacize about the actual history. Of course, this method has garnered support with the bleeding heart courts and has won them various claims and continues to win them claims simply because people like you feel that we should have been more 'moral' back in the day.

Of course you will. In the mean time make sure you stop reading the comments section. It will only get you in trouble.

Um...no. I have always been well aware of the brutal nature that our society has taken to get to where we are. The funny thing is that you think its just 'our society' that has done it. That is a hoot. Look at the countless battles that the natives had before we got here and even while we were here. Do you honestly believe their conquest was for mother earth? LOL. Come on. The age of war back then was ruthless and I have no clue who thinks it was anything other than that. There was no Genva Convention or global community to stop atrocies or to have higher thinking. Hell....it was primative right until recent times. The fact that you put our 'current' knowlege base and what we percive to be right back onto what those people were doing then shows a lack of critical thinking skills.

Not knowing something about history is not the same about romantacizing.....here I'll give you a little help since you clearly need it. ro·man·ti·cize rōˈman(t)əˌsīz/ verb past tense: romanticized; past participle: romanticized deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion; make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is. "the tendency to romanticize nonindustrial societies"

Do you know what the word romanticized means?

It does look like the Government is tackling the number of claims out there....

I think you romanticize our history a bit much. The Natives did not sign these treaties as equally leveraged partners. They saw the white man coming from the east and the Americans pressing from the south. They knew it was a matter of time before they were eliminated if they did not sign a treaty. The treaty was one sided because that is the exact position these two sides were in. Just another sign showing the natives had zero leverage at the time. They were taking whatever they could get. History has shown that the first treaties gave the Natives the least because they had nothing. Over time they started to realize they could negotiate for a little more which is reflected in the later treaties but never were they negotiating from a seat of power. The only power they have now is the they strum at the bleeding hearts of our courts. That's funny....they are with every other legal contract in our country and the rest of the civilized world. But I guess in this case its ok to override the written word with a story passed down among generations that I'm sure has totally stayed in tact and was never manipulated for personal gain. I'm sure. Lol.

Your point above was that we were in court because we didn't honor the treaties when in fact we are in court to interpret the treaties. If we took the treaties as they were meant in their literal tense then it would have been game over a long time ago! However the courts do interpret. And you know what else are involved in courts? Lawyers and other legal administrators that cost money. As such the only reason we have any legal costs is not because the treaties weren't honoured, it's because the courts take the time to interpret them. I know that you just want Canada to just give up everything anytime someone makes a claim however you are proof positive as per our discussion that you can't accept everyone' so called claims just because they believe it.

I have proven you wrong twice!!!!!!!! I am the only one who actually has looked. I know you lack critical thinking skills but I think you are just playing the part because you know you have nothing. The fact that 'you think' it's a lot means nothing. I said treaty text not treaty interpretation. Treaty interpretation is required to be done by courts. Has your comprehension failed you or are you avoiding the question. Show me where it says it in the text

1. Your idea of 'a lot' has zero credibility. You used to think it was $10 billion and recently it was $200 billion. Please excuse me if I don't take your comment of us spending ' a lot' seriously. Like smallc said, prove that it's a lot. 2. Show me where in the treaties it says that we would share the resources. Show me....actual text not your made up version found in the comment section. The only reason there is any resource sharing is due to the courts which again is brought on by legal costs.

Just so that we are clear on this....you are quoting a comment...not a fact but a comment from a questionable news source that states the goverment has spent $200 billion on legal fees alone since 2005. That would be rougly $20 billion per year. Common sense states this isn't possible since the entire budget for AADNDC is $10 billion per year but then again common sense doesn't seem to be so common. So...to further illustrate this point lets look directly at the AADNDC website to see the actual LEGAL breakout (https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1359569904612/1359569939970) So even if you took the entire legal budget since 2007, you would find its only roughly 650 million.....that's million and not billion. There are few years missing from 2005 to 2007 but I'm sure you get the point (at least I hope you would). Something of particular importance. They actually break these costs out into acutal litigation service and you can see that the litigation services over these years averages around $30 million per year. So over the 10 year period it is more like $300 million and not $200 billion....but don't worry you were only off by a factor of around 750! The other interesting this is that they also show the amount of money paid in adjudicator fees which is described on this page as: I put the last part in red as its important to note that these legal costs are paid by the government but not for the government rather they are for any claimant for IRSAS. The amount on this service is between 20-30 million per year which is close to the litigation services. The next time that you want to cry injustice....perhaps do it by quoting a reputable source and not the comments section. Having said that....still waiting on your proof. Waiting....waiting......

Repudiate what? Apologist for the Bulls? Hell I had never heard of the Bulls before this conversation. There is just a lack of logic involved here. They want an apology for Item A claiming that was the churches mandate all along when Item B clearly shows it was not. Again...this is about getting leverage and using whatever false logic you need to do so

No kidding

I already did. See the audit. Waiting for your proof.....waiting...

Lmfao!!! Your claim was they spent $200 billion on legal fees based on a comment from a questionable news source....not even the source itself. This after you previously trotted out numerous accusations about the 10 billion and I have used credible facts to show you that you were wrong on both. Now, instead of defending your claim you are deflecting with a question about settled versus not settled??? With the amount of spurious claims out there clearly shown on your statements alone, I would fully hope that our government spends as much as they need to to ensure they are correct. I also notice that instead of defending your initial claim of the $200 billion you are now onto yet another questionable claim from yet another questionable source. You've been asked to back up your claims with credible sources. Please do so

Are you serious????? You are now trolling the 2 trillion urban legend which has clearly been shown to be a myth right after I showed you that your 200 billion line is a farce. Wow. You just don't get it. Again....your reference for the $200 billion came from the comments section of a questionable news source. Is that really what your're going to rely on? Perhaps you can look further into the official audit and see the numbers but that might actually prevent you from having something to gripe about.

Our Head of State has already apologized. We don't have a King or Queen that really matter. Would you want the US President and German Chancellor to apologize to the Canadian Indigenous as well?

Here's a reminder: And my reply at the time: So...do you have a citation for your $200 billion on legal fees or would prefer to stop here?

Jacee....your quite comes from the comments section of a relatively obscure newsprint which appears to have a bias from the start. You and I have been through this one already when we saw the official government audit where you were confused by the $11 billion legal portion where most of that included the costs of the actual settlement. Remember???

The church is being lambasted because their initial mandate was to kill the indigenous. They relatively rescinded that notion and have held that ever since. You can't hold the church responsible for people who act in its name under false pretenses. Again...the official mandate was to not harm the indigenous.

No I am not implying uniform. I am stating unified based on the British, French and First Nation history. No...the laws consist of one law....the Canadian consitution which recogize Aboriginal rights. The laws may have been derived from those past laws but we do not have three separate laws. We have Canada and that's it. Somewhat aborignal title. The government can still can use the land if it determines it to be a necessity. Besides it was outside of Williams Lake. Not sure anyone will really notice. It will be really interesting to see what happens to some of the other unceded territories in populated places like Vancouver. I wonder how far the court will go with that. I'll have to remember your saying 'Life goes on' for everytime you dredge up stuff from the past. Perhaps your saying would work well for those still caught in the past?

Two things.... 1. No problem with the treaties. Respect them in full...but no 'grey area' interpretations. They are fairly simple documents and should be taken the way they were written. 2. I thought you told me a while back that you aren't First Nations but your quote above says 'we' have treaties implying you are.