shortlived
-
Posts
660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by shortlived
-
-
eyeball, on 13 Apr 2013 - 16:23, said:
To bad we didn't stand with Iran in 1953, the ME would probably be almost all democratized by now.
BTW anyone else notice that Israel has no oil?
Funny dat.
This isn't true, Israel has offshore oil reserves shared with Turkey as well as oil in the south of Israel.
http://geology.com/usgs/oil-shale/images/israel-jordan-oil-shale-map.gif
Now contrast that with
http://www.honestreporting.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/regionMap.jpg
-
The difference which I'm sure you've blocked out, is that the people working for those companies have the choice to work elsewhere. We don't have the choice to not pay for the hangers-on, whether corporate or otherwise. The welfare state is far more costly than corporate hand-outs however. Medicare alone eats nearly half our money on its own. The wealthiest folks have no need for that service, they quite prefer to use private care.
Yes those would be the people in the highest tax bracket.
If only the native groups believed that. But their plan is always the same - give us more cash. No to them it is certainly all about money.
You have the choice not to pay your taxes.
I would agree the welfare state is poorly managed, bloated and not geared toward productivity.
At the same time what do you expect people deemed seriously disabled and unable to carry out daily living tasks let alone work in a regular job.
Youthenizing the retards isn't a solution most modern democracies would advocate, and most g7 countries probably wouldn't let their vegetables die on the side of the road either.
You arn't offering a solution to the problem.
I am someone who advocates for medicare reform, this includes providing health care through self funding national insurance program, and removed completely from the general revenue fund. It is a provincial issue though so the provinces would have to agree to take middle income people and the wealthy off of regular medicare. Just not providing health care is a community health risk though, and poor people who could have been employable will become unemployable due to illness.
Its not all straight edge but providing basic health care dental and eye care to people in employment training for in demand jobs apprentice ships and the like is something that is beneficial.
We do need to crack down on people that have been immobilized and disabled on a corruptly and inefficient system though however we must recognize that we must change our analysis of the seriously disabled if merited, or accept that the people deemed medically incapable should be provided for by society because the alternative is really beneath a society that is supposedly welahty. The morality and ethics are not what a good society should hold in not caring for those who cannot care for themselves. If that was the case, I say we kill the greedy and selfish people first.
Tax reform, health reform, and welfare reform, along side justice reform, and electoral reform are all major policy prongs I support.
-
The police weren't "beating people up" over a bylaw; they were forcing people to obey their lawful and reasonable command to those people to get out of the streets those people had no legal nor righteous justification to selfishly take over. The "beating" came to those individuals who responded to the police's command by rioting.
Bylaws requiring protest groups to give notice to police and other city officials before mounting a protest in a public place, trespass laws, and others that relate to protest have been proven to be constitutional. I told you to prove the opposite by making a placard and sitting yourself down, unannounced, in the middle of a city avenue and then refusing to move when police tell you to. Go on, show us just how wrong we are.
[ed.: +]
They were in a park not the streets. I'm not an activist. None the less I communicate my issues direct with the people responsible for them. I'm not about public relations. I have no interest in being a sociopath or creating a following. If I feel something is issued I go to the government and voice my concerns.
If it is important enough I'd resolve it myself.
It would get bloody very quickly I have no interest in ending peoples lives, especially cops. However if it was arranged and there was no other avenue, yes I would raise awareness. Nothing is so clear and present a danger, that calls on me to raise that awareness beyond my relatively passive means of communicating concerns with the stakeholders causing the problems. It is unfortunate at the federal level that the conservative party has implemented an "aide wall" that vets communications completely from ministers and mp's, unlike the previous liberal governments. The government has increasingly created total public censorship and access to representatives and government, it is a massive failure for the public due to this governments completely detached governance, although not total is is greatly increased from previous governments, and response times are much longer.
Are you aware of a clear and present danger requiring public notice?
If there is one do you really want people dressed as cops to be able to shut you up? Do be aware people can impersonate other professions, as a social engineering task, which could be used by terrorists, or other people who could be advantaged from a false flag operation. Being able to indiscriminately lock people up trying to whistle blow is a grave public security threat.
None the less both violation of the charter, and environmental despoliation contrary to first nations constitutional law are serious errors that have detracted from Canada that have came into law against the public interest.
If it is important enough I will bring it to a lethal level if that amount of force is required to protect life and so on. Would i kill if something was so vital to my conscience that failure for me to do so would result in other innocent peoples deaths, yes. Would I kill cops or the military under so same grounds, yes, as long as I had full disclosure and the public was put in imminent and clear lethal jeopardy, and the police and military were acting unconstitutionally. I would not recognize them as lawful agents of state but rather human rights abusers and I would not feel issued in resolving the crisis. Protest is a non lethal passive method of raising alarms. I think many people have abused the process for selfish reasons, but in the case of environmental ignorance in regard to fresh water pollution, and police state enforcement methods outlawing freedom of assembly and expression, these are very grave issues for a free society, very very, the very free world is being attacked by these methods, and perhaps that is just what the communists want to take down the free world by provoking the government to clamp down so that our freedoms are removed.
However I'd ask you stay on topic and not turn this into another about shortlived topic, it is about the issue not about me.
I contacted the city of montreal, and Jean Charest last year about this issue. They already know my opinion. However last year the police wern't enforcing it during the student protests, which was a point I mentioned to Jean Charest about the fact his law isn't being enforced by the SQ... however now the Bloc government is in with anti anglophone laws and they are outlawing protest in montreal. The issues are expansive and go well beyond the communists not wanting their right of protest removed.
-
Very simple, some people don't pay taxes; they live on the largesse of other taxpayers. Maybe welfare. Maybe parents.
Some businesses rape money from poor people who work day in and day out for no gains in 200% markup on goods so that people sitting at desk jobs day in and day out pushing paper get to live better than the people buying the products they need to survive. Those same companies privatize and monopolize on resources that those poor people mutually have ownership in as citizens, meanwhile the dick and janes that supress the people pay for militants to beat up anyone who steps out of line.
Some people pay way more taxes just based on how little they get paid for their hard work with little or no economic incentives but its the life they have.
Why don't you just shut up about class warfare in a thread about first nations. All it amounts to is utter ignorance of the fact you live on native land taken from the natives so you get those fat paychecks.
None the less, whining really doesn't belong here. That person getting the tax break deserves the money just for putting up with people like you, ungrateful, and non recognizing of the non monetary contributions people add to society. The world isn't about money it is about people hopefully you'll clue in.
Either give the people training and employment or shut up about the fact they don't have a job with a fair wage.
You offer nothing constructive by whining about the fact you need to pay for the people you are raping for your money.
-
First off, it's "lose", not "loose".
Second, you keep bringing up that things are unconstitutional, but you've made it crystal clear that you don't have a freaking clue what that word even means. You don't understand the Constitution or the Charter, and it's brutally obvious that you don't know what English Common Law is.
Your arguments are contradictory and operate entirely outside the boundaries of logic and, as I've already stated, they're based on literally nothing more than how you feel. The fact that almost everything you're writing is pure nonsense doesn't matter to you. You feel your notions are correct and that's good enough for you. From where others stand, however, you might as well just be screaming loud noises at us and inserting words like freedom, justice and human dignity etc into your vapid ramblings. Your arguments wouldn't make any less sense, and we'd still be able to see that you don't really understand what those words and concepts mean anyways.
Blah blah blah.
I'm not arguing. I'm sharing my opinion.
I have nothing to proove to you.
As stated previously my Canada is not your Canada, you can take your police state and let it remove your freedoms. It need not apply anywhere near me. I'd take freedom over unjust and unconstitutional totalitarian rule any day of the week.
Why not focus on the discussion rather than once again turning this into ad hominem.
If you have nothing to add to this discussion other than personal interogation why don't you save yourself the time and trouble and not troll the thread.
Your lack of grasp of what "free society" means and section 2 of the charter totally negates any insight you may have on my understanding of the charter. Why not learn something about it before making baseless ascertations.
No contradictions here, you might as well just being saying, I lack the capacity to understand a basic principle and am too lazy to actually learn about a subject before I reply just to nag the poster.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written the mayor of Montreal and the city's police chief denouncing a controversial bylaw about protests it says "could not withstand constitutional scrutiny." -
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/06/hundreds-arrested-at-montreal-protest -
In other words, I am right. Thank you. In fact, we are right; I am correct that you have no clue about the constitution and your rights and Moonbox is correct that you're a crackpot.
In otherwords wrong. You are condoning unconstitutional actions against people which the police are blindly following.
Beating people up over a bylaw that is unconstitutional is just plain WRONG.
There is no right here other than the side of human dignity and freedom.
You lose no matter what in life without those values and you face even worse after that.
You don't understand human regardless so I might as well be talking to feces.
-
Dear god, some people that can vote wern't even alive then.
-
Uh, okay... So, the police aren't at fault, the law they're enforcing is. Well, even if we go with that, you're still advocating for the hijacking of streets by asserting (wrongly) that the law that disallows mobs from taking over streets is unconstitutional.
I dunno was the SS responsible for killing jews, or was it just the law?
Perhaps you can go down to your local library and check out a copy of The Diary of Anne Frank, and read it in retrospect to what bravery these protestors actually have.
-
This is quite the punch after touring all the arab states, who may view Jerusalem as a holy city, which they don't want the Jewish state to control.
None the less I think most people view Jerusalem as being part of Israel, aside form the antizionists. Harper government is prozionist, what is so surprising about this?
I bet Baird would just love to cut funding to Palestine. They were one of 7 countries that voted against Palestinian statehood. Their loyalties are obvious.
The New ME Order is all about the Palestinians and Arab states being stripped of all the land that was taken from them forever Aside from a small portion of the west bank and Gaza, all the rest Israel will pocket contrary to the division of lands between the Arabs and jews in agreements that established the state of Israel in transjordan. That all the posturing is about. We will keep the land. Its all about keeping them on a tight least and in an inferior position.
Lets get real though USA and Canada back Israel, not the Arab world, governmentally popular support is another issue. Jews arn't about converting everyone. They will settle on treating you on a relatively equal basis and distancing themselves while getting what they can from you, if you try to control them then perhaps there is grounds for that machivellian Jewish plot to control everyone. The muslims on the otherhand insist on converting you by force. Christians historically were much the same, but they will settle for converting you by controlling your civil life. More or less. That is partially why the US and Canada favour Israel, that and a resurgence of the United Arab States or pan-islamic state would be more powerful than USA, or perhaps even Europe due to their oil reserves, and population, this was put to bed in the 60's and 70's.
Canada under the Harper government is pro zionist, today was icing, not an embarrassment for the Harper government. Has there been any actual fallout, other than some Palestinians biting the hand that feeds them?
-
You admonished the police for breaking up an unannounced group protest that took place in... the streets.
No I said the city and police are implementing and enforcing an unconstitutional bylaw and their crack down on the basis of that bylaw is unconstitutional.
Also "Breaking up" a protest needn't occur, as I said the police should first tell people to leave the streets, such as via loud speaker or bullhorn, if it is a large group, inform them of legitimate charges, such as ccc. nuisance code, and if that fails to read the riot act provision and charge them with rioting.. but direction by the police in ordering them to leave the streets and take the sidewalks is the step prior. Just beating them with riot gear and throwing them around on a bylaw infraction that isn't even constitutional is not acceptable.
Also the city and police were well aware it was going to happen but made it a BS process hindered by red tape and formality when the facts have been on the table about the protest for the last 17 year, although this is a seperate protest. In the case of anti police violence.
None the less use of this bylaw is not unique and in every instance it is a different situation.
For one of the protests it was a street protest (anti police violence), however this one was a different cause (against criminalizing protest) this one people were being moved out of public sidewalks and streets, in what was otherwise peaceful assembly.
Police should be using what is already in the criminal code to enforce reasonable and justified actions inventing bylaws to outlaw freedoms Canadians are suppose to enjoy is plainly unconstitutional.
-
Then most people disagree with what you consider reasonable. A group taking over a street without prior warning, so that the people who were expecting to use that street for its intended purpose of transportation, the people who own businesses on that street, and the police who protect all who use the street found themselves in a situation they weren't at all prepared for, is, to the vast majority, not reasonable.
At no point did I advocate for taking over streets. As stated, a crime committed during a protest is still a crime, the point was that protest is not a crime in itself.
However, pedestrians do have right of way in crossing non highways. IMO protests which spill over onto roads should be organized, however saying the entire thing is illegal because some individuals take the road it is another matter.
Police should respond to the scene and direct people off the roads, not into a box followed by physical arrests for protesting, a bylaw infraction that holds an outrageous fine levy (like equivolent of driving 200km/h driving fine.
It is the systematics People should be first given a direction and if they refuse then a citation, if they refuse to leave the road then clearing the road makes sense. (there is a crime called refusing orders of a police officer, and if extreme if violence is associated the riot act provisions of the criminal code, but hell no not protesting a bylaw infraction)
but immediately using force, and protesters in the photos were not on roads they were being pushed and dragged out of a public park.
I think we both agree protesters should not be a nuisance, what we seem to disagree on is the status of protest as deserving or not deserving default status of being a criminal act.
My opinion is that protest is not a crime and it should not be singled out for criminalization because it is unconstitutional.
yours is that all protest is criminal and people should be able to be arrested and fined if they don't get permission from the authorities to protest.
MY GOD!!! that is socialist, g you are socialist .. you and gaddafi would love each other, are you arab?
Any law which criminalizes protest is unconstitutional in Canada, that is my point.
Until walkways are privatized the whole of the public should have access to them whether protesting or not protesting. Canadians should be able to enjoy all their freedoms in public space available to the public.
The practice of making government a private corporation where the public has no default access is disgusting and backwards and completely fascist.
9. Every one who
(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer, (
omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or © resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,is guilty of
(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 118; 1972, c. 13, s. 7.
That is not arrest for bylaw infraction with extreme prejudice and fined over $600 "for protesting"
-
No you dont, you said as much earlier today when only the sound financial folks should be allowed to gamble.
You seem fuddled with conflicting thoughts.
Yes my opinion is that people should only be allowed to gamble at publicly operated gambling houses if they arn't spending funds that represent social funding meant to remove poverty. That is my opinion. I will not prevent someone from gambling as an individual. I'm not the government. Me as an individual is not me as the government. The government has a responsibility to act for the benefit of society and to protect societies rights, part of that is responsibility to remove poverty, and gambling away funds meant to remove poverty is not responsible for the government to do.
You are connecting me and my policy they are not the same. I do not live my life the way my policy dictates I should because it is policy opinion not the real world. I do not act for my benefit or as a reflection of my belief for myself. Understand that. I am not my policy.
I'm a very personally socially conservative individual, my social policy is very libertarian. my economic policy is very frugal and progressive infrastructure and capacity building as a direction for removing poverty of the state, while my personal finances are based around travel and essentials for daily living.
You seem to have made me and my beleif to be my social policy, they are two seperate thing, what is good for me is not necessarily good for society. I don't believe in policy that represents corruption and conflict of interest. My policy views are not a personal lobby.
That is partially why I don't support welfare placements and prefer material support such as social housing, food coops and direct food programs, and supplying basic goods as opposed to cash as part of the poverty reduction methods. Poverty is not about money it is about quality of life.
Personally I really don't care about money, to me it is just a ticket to time overseas. I really hate canada in how it operates. My social policy however is very populist based even super-nationalist, because at the core of any libertarian society needs to be a core of state principles which protect the individual and enable them a means of self sufficiency and self defence. With these two individuals can be equal in society. If the state holds too much power and the individual is deprived of access to land, resources and self defence, they become slaves of the state, peasants and subject to rule by the state. That is all what my social policy tries to mitigate, so as to enable the individual. As an individual I am already there but the state doesn't support that in its current form because it wants to strip away the individuals right to self existence and to control every aspect of their life from finances, to land use, to what they can eat and drink, to where they can travel, who they can do business with, what they can beleive, and so on. Those are all police state identities, a free society beleives in individual capacity and as long as individuals do not violate the rights of others they are free to do as they please, that is a free society, and I support a free society because I'm libertarian. I am not anarchist, I think there needs to be reasonble bounds which are non violation of others, but I think it is fully reasonable for the state to say where handouts can be spent, if they are intended for poverty reduction they shouldn't be fed into gambling because some people will go without. While it is reasonable to allocate a morale fund as part of poverty reduction programs and individuals should be free to use it, it would need to be at a reasonable level. I think people should be free to spend their own money but the government should be free to limit access to materials that represent a harm to society, if it is the services they are providing. This is my opinion on drug control also, in that drugs should be able to be bought, but only in levels that are non lethal and will not cause signifigant irreparable permanent damage in regard to balance of outcomes.
Personally I don't do drugs, even if I get exposed to them, personally I don't gamble, so these things arn't of personal concern. Do I think it should be illegal to gamble, no. Do I think the government should restrict access to gambling for people living in poverty, yes. Do I think people in poverty should not be able to gamble legally, no. Do I think the government should pay people in poverty to gamble, no. Do I think public funds should be available for poor people to gamble, not specifically. Do I think the government should allocate funds provided to poor people for specific uses, yes, and where possible they should go to material support, not cash.
Does this personally advantage me, no. Does it disadvantage me, quite possibly.
All I get from your angle of attack is that you think everyone has to be corrupt, selfish and a closet satanist. That's part of the reason I am often disturbed by some of the stuff you guys post, because it is just decay and degenerate in overall composition. Really the worst form of societal entropy of mores.
I very much know myself. I'm a moderate, not a fundamentalist, in terms of public policy. As an individual I have a fundamental beleif, none of which rests on social function, it is internal belief that doesn't rely on the world. I'm very much a person of virtues, essentially supporting the human cause, being true to oneself, being faithful in confidence, and doing right in good faith. Am I good person, not in the slightest, am I as evil as I could be, not at all. I'm as good as god allows me to be.
Now do I support a free society, certainly but we must be reasonable, and we can't let people victimize others. Gambling is a victimization for the poor who are without. That is why there must be reasonable limits on the poors access to gambling because it is a form of self destruction for them, desperation even. gambling games are fine, gambling for money is not, because society will not provide for them, and they will see hardship without.
Now if you do not think that is a case perhaps you can enlighten me on how people in poverty live a good enough quality of life that we needn't be concerned about their lack.
Victimization really isn't a healthy thing for society. That is my opinion.
-
Yeah...Syria wouldn't want the world to know exactly how far they've sunk as a people. A reasonable request.
It isn't the world they don't want to know, it is their enemies who put them there.
Dude nato and the arab league are openly funding terrorism in a foreign state, that is a big no no so if you talk about where people stand look no further than yourself for where the ground is.
The death of 100,000 people and a million refugees is on the hands of nato and the arab league.
-
Didn't Assad ask for then reject UN inspectors? Originally, he wanted them to look in the north for signs of use. The UN wanted more access yo other areas of Syria and Assad said that it was an invasion of Syrian sovereignty. This makes me think both sides have been less than forthcoming as to their use of chemical weapons.
Assad: The dirty rebels have used chemical weapons in the north! Come! Look!
UN: Can we look over here, too??
Assad: Ummmm....NO...absolutely not. There are no chemical weapons. Are you trying to invade Syria or something??
I agree with Assad Nato is trying to spy on Syria to enable them to secure the chemical weapons stockpiles, and generate any dirt possible on syria for propaganda purposes.
The investigation was for that attack not all of syria. It turns it into spying which is a security risk for a country involved with massive internal insurrection.
Canada was also saying how the 25 million it is paying or 2 million it is paying into the investigation is to help nato secure syrian chemical weapons stockpiles... hello??? Syria ain't going to be cool with that.
The US for instance has the world largest chemical and biological weapons stockpiles is it going to hand them over to the UN? Hell no, why should anyone expect Syria too.
My gosh, let steroid freak USA have all the weapons of mass destruction only... god no. Them and their homeland and tendency to overthrow occupy and install undemocratic puppet regimes ain't much of an advantage over the homebrewed kind, if not worse. Why the hell would any country want the US to be the only one holding the gun, they arn't nice. They are known for human rights abuses torture, an absence of due process, extreme bias economic warfare and general disregard for even their own citizens lives. they are not the cop anyone wants.
-
I noticed a factual error in this NY times article
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/world/asia/north-korea-missile.html?_r=0
it says south korea had no way to pay the north korean workers from kaesong, but the north korean government is paid not the workers.
this misinformation in the new york times seems odd.\
It seems the companies are withholding payment from north korea.
-
Wow... do you really not understand the concept of "sarcasm"?
I believe what the previous poster was doing was illustrating the silliness of your "gambling allowed only for those above the poverty line" by extending that concept to all sorts of other hypothetical situations.
Well maybe they should have added a smiley at the end. You are trying to say no that is impossible, well sorry it is possible so don't joke about it, it happened for alchohol and pot and cigarettes it can happen to fat foods too. There are food liminations for things like thugone, MSG etc.. it is damn well possible for fatty foods and if insurance companies were private it would be live healthy or pay more.
Sarcasm belongs in places where aburdity exists not common sense. There are socialists you know.
After all, many of those people "in debt" are having financial problems because they can't control their spending habits... they buy unnecessary products, purchase more expensive versions than they need to, etc. If you are going to argue that poor people shouldn't be allowed to gamble, you can't turn around and state that "people can spend money on what they want" without sounding hypocritical.
I make it a point not to argue. I share my opinion, and I'm quite frank with it. Poor people should not be allowed to gamble beyond a reasonable limit of their assets which exist above the poverty line, and that should be offset against any government grants due to poverty such as social assistance. That is to say people receiving social assistance should not be able to gamble, so too people receiving EI, or CPP/CPP disability and OAS. Only assets beyond the poverty line should be able to be used for gambling and only at a level which is not self destructive such as a 1-5% margin - since the government is paying for it anyway with capital losses. So that is tax dollars going away.
(Unless of course your original post was an attempt at satire, but I don't think you have the ability to pull that off.)
No. I mean what I say. It is not about what I think is good for me, it is what I think is good for society, the two are mutually exclusive of one another, and in policy I'm all about society, not advantaging myself.
-
And? I said nobody pretends Scotland is a sovereign state, despite it being known that the Scots comprise a nation. Aiming to become a sovereign state only hightlights the fact that Scotland is not a nation in the sense of an independent country.
gooblygook.
The Declaration of Arbroath (1320)
sovereignty rests with the people.
The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 — English Translation
To the most Holy Father and Lord in Christ, the Lord John, by divine providence Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman and Universal Church, his humble and devout sons Duncan, Earl of Fife, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, Lord of Man and of Annandale, Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March, Malise, Earl of Strathearn, Malcolm, Earl of Lennox, William, Earl of Ross, Magnus, Earl of Caithness and Orkney, and William, Earl of Sutherland; Walter, Steward of Scotland, William Soules, Butler of Scotland, James, Lord of Douglas, Roger Mowbray, David, Lord of Brechin, David Graham, Ingram Umfraville, John Menteith, guardian of the earldom of Menteith, Alexander Fraser, Gilbert Hay, Constable of Scotland, Robert Keith, Marischal of Scotland, Henry St Clair, John Graham, David Lindsay, William Oliphant, Patrick Graham, John Fenton, William Abernethy, David Wemyss, William Mushet, Fergus of Ardrossan, Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland send all manner of filial reverence, with devout kisses of his blessed feet.
Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner. The high qualities and deserts of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, gain glory enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith. Nor would He have them confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles — by calling, though second or third in rank — the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter's brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron forever.
The Most Holy Fathers your predecessors gave careful heed to these things and bestowed many favours and numerous privileges on this same kingdom and people, as being the special charge of the Blessed Peter's brother. Thus our nation under their protection did indeed live in freedom and peace up to the time when that mighty prince the King of the English, Edward, the father of the one who reigns today, when our kingdom had no head and our people harboured no malice or treachery and were then unused to wars or invasions, came in the guise of a friend and ally to harass them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, arson, imprisoning prelates, burning down monasteries, robbing and killing monks and nuns, and yet other outrages without number which he committed against our people, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor rank, no one could describe nor fully imagine unless he had seen them with his own eyes.
But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Therefore it is, Reverend Father and Lord, that we beseech your Holiness with our most earnest prayers and suppliant hearts, inasmuch as you will in your sincerity and goodness consider all this, that, since with Him Whose vice-gerent on earth you are there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman, you will look with the eyes of a father on the troubles and privation brought by the English upon us and upon the Church of God. May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own. We are sincerely willing to do anything for him, having regard to our condition, that we can, to win peace for ourselves. This truly concerns you, Holy Father, since you see the savagery of the heathen raging against the Christians, as the sins of Christians have indeed deserved, and the frontiers of Christendom being pressed inward every day; and how much it will tarnish your Holiness's memory if (which God forbid) the Church suffers eclipse or scandal in any branch of it during your time, you must perceive. Then rouse the Christian princes who for false reasons pretend that they cannot go to help of the Holy Land because of wars they have on hand with their neighbours. The real reason that prevents them is that in making war on their smaller neighbours they find quicker profit and weaker resistance. But how cheerfully our Lord the King and we too would go there if the King of the English would leave us in peace, He from Whom nothing is hidden well knows; and we profess and declare it to you as the Vicar of Christ and to all Christendom. But if your Holiness puts too much faith in the tales the English tell and will not give sincere belief to all this, nor refrain from favouring them to our prejudice, then the slaughter of bodies, the perdition of souls, and all the other misfortunes that will follow, inflicted by them on us and by us on them, will, we believe, be surely laid by the Most High to your charge.
To conclude, we are and shall ever be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things, as obedient sons to you as His Vicar; and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge we commit the maintenance of our cause, casting our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought. May the Most High preserve you to his Holy Church in holiness and health and grant you length of days.
Given at the monastery of Arbroath in Scotland on the sixth day of the month of April in the year of grace thirteen hundred and twenty and the fifteenth year of the reign of our King aforesaid.
Endorsed: Letter directed to our Lord the Supreme Pontiff by the community of Scotland.
-
The minister is telling CBC to hand over the list of tax havens, which most journlist obtained and I wondering why she is asking just CBC when ALL news station have the list , like SunTV or any other news network. As one person in the comment portion of the article, are MP's name maybe listed or maybe some their biggest supporters? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/09/tax-haven-shea-cra-cbc-request.html
Apparently this is not the case. From what i have read only consortium members got the list and that is only CBC in Canada.
If SUN and others have the list it is because they were given it by third parties.
This is definitely something that needs to be done formally through the courts though.
The list is hearsay however. The information must have been stolen from the trust companies themselves which is representative of a crime itself. Likely some sort of privacy breech occurred. The information itself could have been engineered.
Overall though, I suspect a list will be made available by the US Gov if it is not provided by the CBC anyway.
This is a legal matter though and should be left to the courts. It should be fairly easy for the RCMP to obtain a search warrant if evidence of a crime is believed to exist. She should be contacting the RCMP and the RCMP should be requesting the information, not the minister.
I think the minister getting personally involved in this shows some bias and partisanship due to the person named being a liberal senator's spouse and the senator themself named as a beneficiary of the trust. The minsiter shouldn't be commenting on this legal issue, and it should be left to the police and courts and those actually involved. Until the issue is proven in court, the minister of revenue really has no reason to be involved. They should be saying, the police have been contacted and are investigating, not CBC you give me that list with dirt on the liberal senator's husband. Hopefully you can see the problem.
It is very indiscreet and unprofessional in how the minister is conducting themself in this matter. I think if this were a conservative related issue it would be buried with lips sewn together, and the police would need to act of their own volition.
-
Another elder in his 6th day now.. in Labrador.
-
Yes, there is alot of corruption in the west and Canada's domestic and foreign policy now based on oil and the MIC is disgraceful.
Oil and gas are major elements of the Canadian export market, in absence of other major exports, there really is no other main point or foreign policy in terms of foreign trade policy.
True you are right of course.
Personally, I don't think it is disgraceful.I think their domestic policy in regard to resource development is disgraceful, especially to the first nations.
-
Ask SNC Lavalin how Canada can benefit from corrupt regimes with lots of oil.
Or how about Talisman, and Ranger Oil?
they have far less corruption than the west.
now open viciousness and human rights abuses that is a different issue.
The West focuses on other countries people while the Arab world focuses on their own people.
You don't need to be corrupt when you already got it. Its the law over there.
-
Chocolate should only be available to men with less than 15% body fat and women with less than 20%.
Hmm, I think access to a health nutritionist is something if they are getting free health insurance.
The poor should be limited to hotels with less than a three star rating, no name food products and generic medicines.
Can't agree with this one, people should be able to spend their money on what they want.
The number of children people can produce should be dependent on their tax bracket. Women should be fitted with mandatory IUDs when they've produced their current max and men should have a clamp placed on the excretory ducts of their seminal vesicles.
Can't say I agree with reproductive limitation, there are already health and welfare systems. If people cannot care for their children they become wards of the state, but state boarding schools should exist for orphans and people unable or unwilling to raise their kids. Since in general people already pay enough to the education system to put their kids in private boardings schools.
Patient Agreement with informed Consent to medical treatment should be an absolute right of everyone. The state should not be able to force medical treatment on people, unless there is a lethal and immediate danger to public safety, such as a Ebola or other virus which is contagious and terminal.
-
Nah, it didn't defend Libya or Syria.
Canada has a prozionist gov right now, the deal has basically no effect on that.
-
He doesn't support suppression. His sense of freedom and justice, however, are supported by the principles of logic, reason, and fact. The problem you have, shortlived, along with your juvenile little protester friends, is that your sense of justice is based on literally nothing more than how you feel. Logic and reason don't even enter into the equation. You can whine and wet your pants about everything all you want, but until you can actually gain some perspective (ie view your infantile and braind-dead arguments from any point of view other than your own), you're never going to get anywhere.
The 'protests' in Montreal are the equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum. There's next to no coherency. Your points are vapid, and you're crying loudly hoping that someone will eventually give you some attention. Montreal, however, along with the rest of the province and the country itself, is dealing with you the wayyou're supposed to deal with a childish tantrum -- ignoring it. Nobody's listening. Nobody cares.
Moonbox return to reality and perhaps I will actually give you a reply.
Robo-Calling doesn't pay.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by shortlived
guess they wern't getting fair market value or the company didn't take into consideration legal cost of working for the conservatives in a support role.
The best defence againt court is being sued.
Keep on an eye on what happens to the people in the company. If it is a story of punishment for failure or hidden reward.
Robocalls were not new, none the less the ones from the US should have violated the election act, and they also should not be cold calling, the fact political parties arn't considered spammers is utter partisan BS.