Accountability Now

I did read it. Only 32.6% of these papers full out support the notion of AGW...not 97. But its like Homer said : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j2Duy_xzEA

Let me see if I have this straight....there were 11,944 papers done on global warming. 66.4% had NO POSITION....that means 33.6% of the papers had a postion. So because they don't express a position, these scientists are now excluded from your final tally of 97%? That is pure cherry picking. Is it not fair to say that these people may be in the undecided category? In reality....only 32.6% were actually full out supporting the notion of AGW. The rest are either against it or have no position on it.

How?

It sounds like you are suggesting a uptopia-like situation though. Again...we are in this situation because agendas are created from the influence of money and power. How do you create a system void of agenda when it takes money and power to finance these things in the first place?

I assume this is as good of a place as any to bring this article up: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/greenpeace-co-founder-says-no-scientific-proof-hum/ Apparently one of the co-founders of Greenpeace has come out to say that the global warming we are seeing is not human induced. With that being said, I bring up the obvious: 1. I had a hard time finding this story on anything other than blogs, right wing or AGW skeptic sites 2. Greenpeace has a page dedicated to Patrick Moore stating that he was not a co-founder and that he is a spokesperson for nuclear energy. 3. He suggests that the global warming we are seeing is actually a good thing...something that a MLW member previously suggested (can't remeber his full screenname....I think its -1=e^ipi) I trust this isn't earth shattering news but I do think it just goes to show the various agendas at play.

Your link shows a variety of numbers but it too uses the 97% in the graphic showing the 97 people out of 100. The basis of this graphic states: It also shows this graphic outlining a number of other studies showing the numbers vary from 82-98%. Clearly those who support AGW push the 97% number as it suits their cause even though these other studies show various numbers.

No...I've never known anyone that has even tried those sports. Like you said, there are only 14 tracks in the world..I assume 2-3 in Canada? How does one get into something like that? I like your idea of the toboggan races....X-games style...with body checking...Lol

Sorry...I responded before you edited it to 10%. I don't think 10% is too much to for....depending in where you want to live. Again.,.if your first home is over $500k then you might want to be asking if you are in the right house to begin with!

I don't think the dream is gone...it's just much bigger. People used to be happy with a small little modest house where as it seems like most people now need bigger, better and newer. People are quite willing to be house poor just to get the property they want rather than taking the property they should have. Our sense of delayed gratification is way off and we want that dream now instead of working for it. Keep in mind a dream to own a house doesn't mean the right to own a house.

I think that changed recently. I first bought in 2004 and it was only 10%. Has it gone up?

Its obvious that funding has a huge part to play in the overall success as we see that Quebec had 40% of our total athletes and won a good amount of the medals. Quebec spends about 2.6 milllion each year on amateur sports compared to $160,000 that Alberta spends. This in light of the fact that Alberta has the most national program training centers in the country. You can take into account the population difference for the total amounts but in the end Quebec funds its amateur athletes and the results show. If Canada wants to get better as a whole then I think the funding has to hit the grassroots and give exposure to the amateur athletes out there. Lets face it.....how many kids are ever introduced to luge, bobsleigh or even speed skating. No problems with hockey, curling or even the newer X-games style skiing events.

Yes...and unfortunately the CMHC was the taking on a lot of the high risk loans to stimulate the market after the 2008 crash. Glad they learned quickly. It sounds like Flaherty wants to privitize the CMHC as it has served its purpose in getting WW2 vets houses after the war. I think its fair to say that war vets needed that help....current Canadians depending on CMHC might not be the best candidates for home ownership. I know we saved up until we had 10% to put down (thus avoiding CMHC)....but that was just us. Others will take advantage of whatever government program is out there.

The high demand was happening even when the mortgages were at 25 years so i don't think that is the case. In fact there was huge decrease in demand in 2008 as house prices fell due to the recession so the 40 year mortgage will increase demand by only so much. If anything, it will increase demand enough to give the housing market that nudge it needs for steady growth. The move to increase mortgages to 40 years was driven by what European countries and Japan started doing in the 90s as a result of their high house prices which resulted in 100 year mortgages. CMHC saw the increasing price trend in 2006 and ajusted the same way other countries had in the past. The reason Canada cut back to 35, 30 and now 25 year mortgages is becasue they saw what effect these high risk mortgages had on the US as most 40 year mortages are subprime. People are quick to abandon the houses when they have put in next to nothing. The real issue driving house prices is not the term but the subprime mortgages and zero percent down. At some point you have to have skin in the game otherwise it just makes it easy to walk which is no good for anyone.

It was because house prices started to rise that CMHC allowed the 40 year mortgages otherwise a majority of first time home owners wouldn't be able to get into the market. In my opinion the issue wasn't the term of the mortgage, it was that they allowed this mortgage with zero percent down! People should be required to put down at least 10% to show they are serious about owning a home as it is serious business. They have since reduced the term in 2008 back to 35 years and in 2012 moved it back to 25 year mortgages.

The Supreme court told the Papaschase they didn't have claims nor do the ACFN in Fort Mac on the new expansion. I trust there have been other cases just like this where the courts have closed the doors on aboriginal cases. In these situations, do you still side with the courts knowing those particular bands are not happy with the decision?

Canadian Constituation, Canadian courts, Canadian law.....all of which aboriginals are a part of and subject to...not separate from.

No kidding. I got a good chuckle with your "Never mind" comment after he went on another wild tangent. I agree that mistakes were made and some land was taken or used erroenously. The Government of Canada also agrees as they have $10B set aside for future land claims. If lands were taken in error then these bands should be compensated. However, it seems like everyone has a land claim...like the Papaschase in Edmonton or the ACFN in Fort Mac. Even once the Supreme Court says they are not entitled to a claim, they still gripe out their land claim. In my opinion this takes away from the legitimite land claims out there. I have often seen this phrase quoted but yet I see it no where in the treaties. What I do see quoted in the treaties is the following: This quote explicitly states that mining will be part of the British/Canadians land use which of course goes much further than the plough's depth. Where do you see 'plough's depth' in the historical agreements? Again...as shown in the quote above....Indigenous people retained the right to hunting and fishing SUBJECT to settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes. Furthermore, let's look at Section 35 in its entirety and see where it says they have the right to sustain themselves of the land. I see nothing about the right to sustain themselves of the land except the highlighted red part stating they will uphold treaty rights...which bring us back to my quoted statement. Perhaps I'm not seeing it or its pointed out in other documentation that is only referenced here? It doesn't matter what the Indigenous concept of ownership is. The British did and Canada does believe in ownership and the treaties were signed under British law. The original treaties even state that the Indians must adhere to British law. The BNA of 1967 section 91 Part 24 states that Indians are under the control of British law. Even the reserves they live on are owned by the government. Referring back to the Indian ways is a non-starter because it doesn't matter. It was absolute when the natives agreed to sign these British treaties which stated "CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands". That's as absolute as it gets.

Exactly. Which is what I've been tyring to explain about how soverignty works. If you can't defend it then its not yours.

What part? I'm not saying people are entitled to their land because their ancestors are from there. I'm saying there are situations where people have never been challenged for that land therefore these people CAN and DO own land based on this. My premise is that sovereignty is what dicates the ability to own land with soverignty being the ability to control, maintain or defend your borders. Their ancestors did own it...right up until they made the treaties. If they didn't own the land then who did? Again...please reference my point about sovereignty as being the ability to control, maintain and defend your borders. When it comes to land ownership, it doesn't matter who was there first. Like you said, if the US went to the moom, stayed there and continued to maintain those borders then YES they would claim ownership over the moon. The fact is they didn't....so no they don't own the moon. The Vikings came to Canada...and left. Others may have been in Canda first and were later defeated by the First Nations tribes. None of this affects our position as Canads in reference to the treaties as we signed treaties with the resepective nations who had sovereignty over that specific area....hence more than one treaty. The bottomline is that the First Nations did have soverignty at the time of treaties becasue they took it from past nations or had it evolve. They did have the rights. They fought off other tribes for those rights. They stayed on these lands to maintain those rights. They also fought with the British and French to maintain those rights. Ultimately they realized they couldn't defend these land rights any more and signed the treaties. What part of this don't you get? Show all the videos you like. I agree that they USED to own the land. I disagree that it was stolen in any way. Treaties were signed for the obvious reasons that I have pointed out and therefore the rights or sovereingty to the land was transferred. The fact that their ancestors used to own the land has no bearing on whether they own the land today or not. ZERO. I used to own a house and sold it. Doesn't mean I have any rights to that house now. Just out of curiosity....who is Dysart? I thought Neepenak was the Manitoba Grand Cheif. DId Dysart precede him? The Vikings left. The others were killed off and therefore soverignty was transferred. Its the way it is....or at least the way it was. Again...thanks to our global alliances we don't view genocide in the same way. Bottom line is that Britain signed treaties with the governing body at that time.....the current soverign group that held title to the lands. Again...the natives didn't have the land because of where their ancestors are from.....they had the land because they fought for it and defended it and then went on to maintain it. More importantly....the evolution of society as we know it did not evolve based on your utopian view of how ownership should exist. It evolved based the idea of having to defend your land. So don't superimpose your current altruistic beliefs back on people hundreds of years ago and expect it to apply. It doesn't work that way. Back in the day....YES....the Japanese would be the owners of the land becasue the Nunavut couldn't defend their borders. That is the way it was. Of course, that wouldn't fly today. Different sense of right and wrong. I like your hypocrisy.....you're saying "i'm not convinced that those that perform the genocide become the rightful owners". So who are the rightful owners? The Inuit because their ancestors were from there?

No not more...they give the same legal legitmacy as they continue to be upheld. This is true in your house example as person who had the deed was legally entitled to the property as they had the deed....until of course they found out how they came up with the deed. The laws didn't change, they just got enforced. Back to the native issue, there has never been anything against the law with the treaties. Not then nor now. So the only thing nonsense here is your analogy. I would like you to read this again. You're saying with the First Nations treaites issues which of course is treaties between Britain (Canada) and the First Nations that there is NOT 2 states that went to war OR 2 different legal systems. Let me count...First Nations legal system...that's 1.....British legal system.....that's 2. Hmmmm. Just because they were signed under the British legal framework does not negate the legitmacy of the First Nations entering into that agreement. DId Japan not have its own system before signing their treaty? This whole thing IS about the treaties....so how have I changed anything? Even in your BS response in this post pertaining to laws depending on legal authority, the example of the US right to bear arms holds true as it was first put into place by people hundreds of years ago that have nothing to do with current day people NOR due they have authority on how how the US governs itself today. YET....the current law makers continue to uphold it for what ever reason. One day the US may change the ammendment. Maybe Canada might negate or change how we deal with natives. But this will result from doing what's right for us currently....not because these past people had or didn't have so called authority. That is your response? Questioning my grammar? LOL. From the guy who didn't know the definition of 'funny'? Do you honestly want me to go back through your posts and find the gramatical errors? This is rich. Just concede that you messed up and move on. I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your posts and the manner of how you do so....moreso I am attacking the multitude of errors in your posts, which is why it seems not stop.

A timely news article discussing both the Canadian dollar and Job growth in January. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-dollar-gets-small-boost-from-january-job-gains-1.2527034 What is the best part is that this increase in 29,400 jobs happened by adding 50,000 full time jobs and removing 21,000 part time jobs which is obviously better jobs.

Do you have stats to back this up or is this just your opinion?

Depends on how you classify jobs and growth. As I showed, compared to OECD Canada remains in the top 10 for employment rate so Canada continues to provide jobs. So apparently jobs are being provided. Growth in this area is not as good but they are at the OECD average of -1.4%. It would be nice to show positve growth however that might not be possible as we approach what may be our theoretical maximum for employment rate. Look at the top 10 for net job creation. 8 out of 10 countries in the top 10 all have ER% less than 70% which means they have room to grow. Going back to the top 10 employment rate where Canada sits in 10th....7 of the 9 countries ahead of Canada also shared a negative job creation over this period. Now...if we want to evaluate Harper then lets see what he's done in his term versus past years. Looking at the OECD data that I could find, in 2001-2005 (before Harper) the ER% was 70.8, 71.4, 72.2, 72.5 and 72.5 (average of 71.86%). With Harper in power, the numbers continue to grow until 2009 when the recession hit causing a set back to 71.5. The numbers from that point then did continue to grow again. So aside from the 2009 recession (which you have even stated was not Harpers fault), there has been growth.

I have never picked a side because its not one or the other. There are times when people do own land based on where there ancestors come from and there are times where they don't. The fact that you try and make it cut and dry shows your simplicity. Land ownership/rights can change hands by war, treaties or willingly giving them up. In some cases people do have rights to land or ownership because they were the first there and no one has ever disputed it or asked them to give it up. The First Nations had rights/ownership/soverignty because no one was there to challenge it. This gradually changed as the Europeans came and started to settle the lands taking some by force and taken other areas without force. Ultiamtely, the First Nations ceded the lands to avoid future wars and a legal act was created. The people who had rights to the land handed them off to the people who didn't. Now getting back to getting back to the First Nations owning land. My point is that the First Nations people never believed they owned the land. So you can't approach this in legal framework attempting to take over ownership. However, they did believe they had rights to the land which were surrendered in the treaties. Word it however you want....Canada now legally has the rights to all treatied lands. Of course you are trying to show that other groups were in North America first and therefore the Natives didn't have rights to begin with. However these people relinquised their rights when they left so the rights were up for grabs. No war or treaties were needed. If I own a house and then vacate the house, the city I live in will retake possession and sell it off eventually and I will lose rights to the house. Remember...possession is 9/10ths of the law. See...your question was "Did any group ever have land rights over that area?". Even in your blurb above you show that the Inuit took defeated the Dorset and therefore took over rights to lands for a period of time. So...the Inuits did have rights over that area. I'm guessing your response will be more wikipedia posts. Yawn...you are making this so boring.

So you failed at a counter arguement and a justification. Great. Glad we got through this. Really?....you went on two long winded posts on that 'point'. Oh sigh...is this getting too tough for you? Reading is tough when you don't understand the words. Nice try on the analogy but again the complexity of these situations evade you. Mr Smith and your great grandfather both live under the same set of laws and are forced to abide by those laws. As such, murder and stealing (which ironically are the two examples of laws that I originally used previously) are recongized under the agreements they both live by. So in this case Mr Smith should be either compensated for the loss by having the property returned or financially. Now...when to countries go to war, there is no common set of laws that exist. Hence the saying...all is fair in love and war. So in past cases where countries have warred then property is taken by the winning side and its accepted. Luckily today war isn't that brutal (or at least I hope it stays that way) as we have the larger alliances like NATO and the UN protecting the soverignty of smaller groups. Now...one important note....I noticed that you addressed me in the third person (Accountability Now) rather that the first (you). You do realize that no one really cares about our discussion other than you (and barely me). You are not preaching to an audience so your grandstanding can stop anytime now. Instead, I would spend your time focusing on reading comprehension. Nothing? - The treaties don't have an expiry date - the legal framework under which the treaties hasn't been challenged - the treaties were introduced legally though that legal framework and one has bothered to modify the law since Your ability to debate things like this really struggle. Maybe you should copy and paste some more Wikepedia stuff. That might help. ROTFL!!!!!! I want you to go back and read what I said. I clearly stated that "YOU REALIZE CUTTING THEM OFF WILL CAUSE RIOTS" . I acknowledged that you DON'T want to cut them off cold turkey. And yet here again is one of your comprehension failures that sets you off on a wild tangent. Please....for your sake. Read the post....go do something else....come back and read it again....take a nap....and then read it for a third time. Perhaps then you will be able to converse properly. If its that obvious then you should have no problems with citing an example.Of course, I fully expect you to properly cite with the full exchange....not just a one liner which you would take out of context.