Accountability Now

They don't burn them...they just sell them. We're the one's burning them and as long as we do that...then they will continue to sell. I know you would. As for the LAST barrel....let's have that chat when they come close to not finding new oil.

BC was just commenting on WestCoastRunners statement such that: WestCoastRunner, on 18 Jul 2014 - 9:07 PM, said: ...Isn't it time for these big oil companies to pay back to society with their billions in profits and work towards reducing fossil burning fuels. Again....considering these oil companies are taxed at 40% or higher and General Electric is at 4.2%, I would say they are paying back to society. As I said, they pay more in taxes than any other company makes in profit other than Apple.

And your basic math for the tax rate? 42% versus 26%?

Yes and I trust you also noted that Exxon paid more in taxes than any other company made in profit with Apple being the only exception. Or did you?

That's great.....but unfortunately one quarter doesn't make a year. In 2013 Apple made the most profit at 37 billion while Exxon made 32.6 billion. I guess that kind takes away from your Exxon claim hey? Lol Having said that, Exxon would have made more profit if they weren't taxed so high (42% versus 26% for Apple). As per the article: "Also note that the outfits with the highest tax burdens are the perennially derided oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, with tax rates of 42% and 40%, respectively. This is because they derive a sizable portion of their profits in resource-rich nations that levy exceptionally high taxes on oil and gas developments." http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/15/what-americas-most-profitable-companies-pay-in-taxes/

Or better yet, as the UK customs agent said "Nice try...now let's see your real passport!" The Jay treaty is fine in the US and Canada but they still have to prove they are registered Indians before they gain entry.

No problem. I rememeber back in 2010 when they tried entering the UK with these passports and got rejected. Quite the scene.

Hey...I agree they are a part of Canada. They don't...which is what SmallC's point was and which this article shows.

And your point proven once again with the Iroquois Nations in the world lacrosse championships. Doesn't look like they are a part of Canada here. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/iroquois-nationals-return-to-world-field-lacrosse-championships/article19525622/

Here's where is stands? This of course is according to your Six Nations website. Like I said, you have no interest in actually looking at both sides of the story to make an informed opinion. How about you find out where it stands in the eyes of the courts?

I'm not selling it. Just reading what was reported at the Ontario provincial hearings. You don't have to agree with it and you most likely won't because it doesn't agree with your theories.

No...royal proclamations come from the highest authority. Haldimand was a Governor that had no authority to make such a claim which even the Six Nations agreed was not possible. Their rights were to only occupy the land...not to the land itself. Here is a quote from the 2012 committe hearings from the Ontario Provinical government: The above link walks through a little bit of the timeline again showing that the SIx Nations Iroquois had given up rights to the land in 1700 to the Missisauga Obijwa as an offer of peace. In the next year the Iroquois surrendered the land AGAIN but this time to the British Crown through the Nanfan Treaty which was signed by the Iroquois. Of course...how do you give up land that you already give up? In 1784 the Crown purchased this tract of land from the Missisauga Obijwa for 1,180 pounds and allowed the exiled Iroquis to occupy the land via the Haldimand claim. It was not a a transfer of title or ownership. It was the right for them to have a place to exist after the American Revolution. According to the link, the Iroquis and Obijwa leaders agreed to the sale to the British. A limited deed was provided by Simcoe to the Iroquois from which the Iroquis turned around and sold off the parcels of land. 1844 is when the Six Nations agreed to sell the Plank Road settlement. Regardless...its ironic that they are making claims to lands that they gave up twice on and were still able to sell once they did so.

The Hallimand Claim wasn't a treaty...it was a statement made which was never even agreed to by the Six Nations. The surrender of 1844 did however have the leaders of the Six Nations agree that the land should be sold. Similar to the Papaschase, now you have current day natives coming up with stories of conspiracy and coercion.

You're right...a deal is a deal. And in all the deals we see the following two excerpts: 1. 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 2. And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees with her said Indians, that they shall have right to pursue their vocations of hunting throughout the Tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may, from time to time, be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty and saving and excepting such Tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, trading or other purposes by Her Government of Canada; or by any of Her Majesty's subjects duly authorized therefor by the said Government. Where in the treaties do you see any portion where the natives are to get compensated for said resources which clearly they had no right, title or priveledge to AND which was clearly would be used by the Government of Canada. Is that in your magical version of the deal? I have no problem with honoring THE DEAL but its quite clear that the bleeding heart courts of our country have leaned so far from the facts of this deal that people have no idea what the actual deal was. This is why I find it funny that people like you romanticize about this deal in the first place. The reality is the natives saw what was happening and were willing to take whatever they could get. Brits coming from the East, Americans from the South. You make this sound like it was a well mastered negotiation.....it wasn't. It was a form of surrender that allowed them to exist peacefully and hope for some kind of future other than annihilation. Of course the natives have become wise to the bleeding heart courts and will push the issues whenever and where ever they can. The deal is a deal for them as long as it favors them. Heaven forbide someone calls it for what it is.

You didn't highlight the most important part so I took care of it for you. They have ceded the land by treaty which for the most part stated the following: "the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter more fully described and defined, 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" All rights, titles and priviledges. Pretty clear to everyone except the bleeding heart courts.

It says it in pretty much every numbered treaty which is more current and accepted than the Rp1763. Here's the text from Treaty 7: "And the undersigned Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan and Sarcee Head Chiefs and Minor Chiefs, and Stony Chiefs and Councillors on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the Tract within ceded do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this Treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen"

Right...the 40% who don't care to simply cast a vote all of a sudden are going to care to write a new constitution. Good luck with that one!

Vaccines don't cause autism but that doesn't mean they are good for people with it. Just like sugar doesn't cause diabetes but it sure has an effect on it. Stress doesn't cause MS but it sure has an effect. I think you and I have discussed this before but I'll say it again. For the vast majority of children, the ability to eliminate small toxins as what you describe above is good. Other children (like most with autism) have a reduced capability to detox and therefore these smaller amounts of toxins affect them much different than normal children. The bottom line is that more research needs to be done to figure out which kids are succeptable and might require a different vaccination approach. There have already been proven cases of vaccines 'causing' autims (Hannah Poling) and I purposely put quotes around causing as the antivax side uses this one all the time. However, if you ever read in depth was the rulings stated that the vaccines 'aggrevated' the autism condition.....not caused it. There are very few cases where we see proof of adverse reactions on an acute level however I believe the chronic conditions are starting to show themsleves and more research is showing up to prove it.

I can tell. How am I reading between the lines? You put your silly sad face emoticons twice. Distraught...yes indeed.

Exactly. I didn't even bother reading that thread so I couldn't tell you if its right or wrong. I just know that most people would have moved on. Additionally, most people wouldn't have written 7800 words for an initial thread. Conversations happen or they don't....you can't force them. They just flow...if you don't leave the conversation for two months. I don't need to read minds. I have provided you proof of what I am claiming. Its not unjustified nor is it incorrect. If you take it as a character attack then that's too bad. I'm simply pointing out the fact that you don't like it when people don't acknowledge you. Perhaps this speaks to arrogance or a self serving philosophy that you carry out on these forums but I have not suggested that nor am I implying it.

Most people at that point would realize their thread didn't garner any interest and move on. You on the other hand couldn't stand not having someone bite on your thesis paper. Like I said, you get distraught when people don't respond which is why I told you I wasn't going to engage you after you took two months off from the conversation.

How about this one?

It's reasonable when it's a one line response not the continuation of a very in depth conversation. Regardless, I posted that to let him know why I wasn't responding as I've seen him get distraught in other threads when people don't respond to his posts.

Exactly. She cares much more about the Status then the bloodline.

Lol. No....taxpayers pay for health care. It's hardly free. You and I can believe the security is not much but she sure makes it a big deal.