Jump to content

Moonbox

Senior Member
  • Posts

    8,337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by Moonbox

  1. Mr. Canada let's get over the assault okay? There was no assault here. If that's assault then bumping into someone at the subway is assault. Give it up. You're making yourself sound dumb. Move on to funnier and more relevant things, like laughing at Layton for how starved he is for media attention.
  2. This seems like a stupid make-work project to me but I'm rather indifferent either way.
  3. What you're asking for doesn't make any sense. You're asking me to provide proof that all the land claims you bleat about won't be resolved. I can't prove that because that would be like me asking you to prove what I'm going to have for breakfast tomorrow. I could ask you to prove the reverse, and you similarly can't because nobody can prove what's going to happen in upcoming days/years. Look up the word 'fallacy' and then review your arguments. The proof you've tried to show me has giant holes in it. Waving a piece of paper around doesn't qualify for a good argument, and that's what you need to prove in a Court of Law.
  4. Of managing public sector employees and public sector finances? Interesting...
  5. This is probably the smartest thing anyone has said here in the whole thread. If you want to complain about the deficit, then find us places where we can reduce spending. Health Care is a universal benefit and useful to basically everyone. It is also most important to the vast majority of Canadians. This is probably one of the last places you want to look for cuts. From there, where can we cut? I can think of 10 easy things that would save us billions, but we'd have people up in arms over every single one of them. At the same time though, they're happy to complain about the deficit. Quite a nasty little circle isn't it?
  6. Public servants reap the benefits of public spending. Blaming them, perhaps, is not entirely fair, but asking private sector Canadians to pay excessively for those benefits is even less fair. Not as much as I care about paying extra taxes to support spending that wasn't justified in the first place. Thanks for the lesson in organizational behaviour. Unfortunately for your argument, often the demands and expectations of the above-noted employees are unreasonable, particularly in unionized organizations and even more particularly public service organizations. In such cases cost cutting measures often more than compensate for extra sick days here and there.
  7. Spoken like the child you are. You've failed at every turn to come up with anything even resembling a well-thought out argument. You haven't responded to a single argument anyone has made against you. You can continue to plug your ears, close your eyes and cry loudly, but in the real world that doesn't make you right. I'll have a good chuckle at your expense 40 years from now when nothing you say is going to happen actually happens.
  8. CR the law as you're explaining it to us IS your opinion. You've given us narrow snippets and silly claims and shown us nothing more than what you THINK should be the interpretation of the law. I don't know how much of a legal background you have, but I have a fair bit of education with the English Common Law system. There are plenty of laws in our system that don't make sense any more and aren't followed or enforced. Thus, your assertion that a Law is ominipotent and unassailable is absolutely and totally false. A court of law interprets a law in the context that it was written. Any subsequent claims made with respect to that law are interpreted in the spirit that they are made. Often, the courts can decide that the intention of the law in the first place was never to be used in the context that claims are being made today. What I'm trying to tell you is that Laws and their interpretations change with circumstances. The purpose of Canadian Law is to make life fair and safe for all Canadians, First Nations included. You seem to have it stuck in your head that Canadian Law is a tool to be exploited by the First Nations into bullying Canadians off of land they've lived on for centuries. Once again, I respect the fact that the First Nations are getting settlements. What I take exception to are the assertions you make like "All of Southern Ontario legally belongs to Six Nations" or the seeming belief that the First Nations are going to have all the land they lost 2-300 years ago returned to them. That's not going to happen and Canadian Law will not even look into it. What you fail to realize is that the Supreme Court also has the best interest of Canadians at heart. There's little to no legal precedent anywhere in the world that indicates lands settled and occupied for 200+ years should be returned to the ancestors of long-dead previous owners. The courts might deem small settlements here and there like the $65M one in Ontario you cited, simply because it's probably fair to say the First Nations have been abused even within the last century and because it's a policy of appeasement. Multi-billion dollar settlements for heavily populated areas, however, are completely out of the question. Why? Because to settle a lands claim that big for the First Nations would unfairly force countless Canadians to suffer for the disproportional benefit of making a small minority rich. This would be unfair, and thus unjust, and thus the Courts wouldn't even look at it. Now as of yet you've failed to respond to a single point I've made. You and Shwa have happily baited me and tossed around silly rhetoric, but why don't you try to explain to me how the courts would justify the sort of settlement I just discussed without simply quoting archaic legal documents like a broken record. Reason it out for me please. That's really what Law is all about. It's the enforcement of fairness and reason.
  9. All your link says is that there was a pipe ceremony at a school. Neat. That doesn't prove that they can be held whenever and wherever they want. Look up a detailed definition of 'fallacy'. You're having some problems with your arguments.
  10. How is delusional to assume that millions of human being would not freely give up their homes and property to a small group of self-interested minorities? All for the sake of a piece of paper scribbled on 200+ years ago? Explain please. I know you think you're really clever and funny, but there's more wit in a bag of dirt than there is in your head. Every human being is self-interested. It's basic human motivation. Wait...sorry...that might have been too advanced a concept for you. I'll try to keep things simpler for you. If you understood what the purpose and intention of 'Laws' were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'll let you figure that one out. I hope your brain doesn't explode. There's that incredible 'wit' again . It's like playing, "I know you are but what am I?" with Shwa. He's straight up dumb as bricks.
  11. So why haven't we had a pipe ceremony in the middle of parliament yet? Why have the First Nations not walked onto a baseball field to start smoking in the middle of a game? Why have none of us ever seen this happen? I didn't realize that First Nations members were immune to the laws of trespassing. Wait a minute. They're not...at all. This is blind delusion at its worst.
  12. My opinion is based on how logical and self-interested human beings would behave. Your opinion is based on fantasy. This is a perfect example of your inability to grasp simple logic. Asking me for 'proof' of future events is idiotic. That would be like me asking you to 'prove' who is going to win the next election. Your 'evidence' of the settlements has already been acknowledged. I know they've happened. I know there will be more. At the same time, however, I know that Canadians will only be willing to stomach so much. When the burden of paying out mooching whiners to shut their lazy mouths becomes too heavy, it will simply stop. I don't need proof for that, because that's simple human nature. Again...your terrible logic. Of course Canadians want to negotiate and find settlements to outstanding claims. I also do. We want the First Nations to shut up and start living like normal human beings. With that said, the fact that Canadians want settlements to be made is in no way indicative of our willingness to substantiate ridiculous claims like you make in your signature. The honour of the Crown is meaningless trite. The Supreme Court of Canada is there to protect the rights , freedom and prosperity of Canadians. The previous rulings may help establish precedent for similar and subsequent claims around the country, but they will in no way cause the landslide of settlements you seem to be hoping and expecting. The Supreme Court can and will eventually say, "That's all you're getting." The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what your pieces of paper and Courts say, Canadians simply won't stand for giving away their future for a bunch of lazy nobodies First Nations people. In the end, we are the ultimate decision makers and the international community recognizes that.
  13. Thank you. It's not often when Toad and I agree, but when we do we must be on to something! When a private sector company suffers, the wage increases and bonuses often freeze. Why shouldn't that happen in the public sector? Same
  14. This is the dumbest thing you have said yet. You assume the Constitution is omnipotent and that Supreme Court judges are robots programmed by the Constitution. Both assumptions are incorrect. Canadians control the Constitution and can change it any time they please providing their is enough consensus. I'm pretty sure Canadians from east to west coast would have no problem doing that if the Supreme Court was going to sell them out to a bunch of whiney mooches for the sake of a scrap of paper. Of course it won't ever even come to that, because judges understand the law much better than you and would not feel compelled to follow along with the idiocy you proclaim. Cold hard logic and a reasonable brain would tell you that what you say is fantasy. Sadly, you appear to possess neither. I have no doubt there will be more settlements, but when they start to actually have a noticeable impact on the average Canadian and start hurting them, you can be damn sure Canadians will push back, and the international community will laugh at the balogna claims of the First Nations. To assume we will meekly roll over and give away everything we've built over the last several hundred years is "fantasy" (look up that word).
  15. It's not symbolic. It means that wages won't increase and expenses won't increase. This means that we can be sure the deficit will decrease as the economy presumably improves. Some jobs have better overall wage and benefits, particularly public sector jobs in comparison to similarly qualified private sector jobs. When a public servant gets a raise, that's an extra tax burden for me. I realize that public servants are human beings and workers themselves, but it's DAMN unfair that they be getting wage increases with their safe jobs while the private sector crumbles around them and people are left out of work.
  16. It's not a symbolic gesture. That will have a real effect on our pockets. It might be a drop in the bucket but anything that lowers expenses is welcome in my eyes. Our public servants, as far as I know, aren't exactly hurting compared to their private sector counterparts. I could not care less if they're angry. We're angry about the deficit. It really depends on the investment doesn't it? Foreign investment can often be a good long term thing. It can also be a short term fix with long term problems. Look at in case by case and then we judge.
  17. I'm happy with the Throne Speech. Keep government expenses down where you can please. The foreign investment thing may be interesting providing we don't mortgage ourselves to the Chinese, so we'll have to see. As for O Canada...I didn't think it bothered anyone but whatever. I always interpreted it as a religious expression for old school Bible-thumpers so if anyone I thought it would be non-Christians who would stink about it. If you make it gender-neutral doesn't that remove the meaning? Ah I don't even care.
  18. It will end, and it will end long before you hope it to. It may be the beginning but what you fail to understand is that the Supreme Court of Canada is not governed by robots nor is the provincial or federal legislatures. These settlements you speak of are given by Canadians to get the First Nations to shut up and stop crying. It's often just less of a bother. What do you think will happen when the First Nations push for something that DOES matter to Canadians? Do you think the Supreme Court or Canadian governments are going to bankrupt or pauper the average TAX PAYING Canadian for the benefit of the First Nations? In your dreams. There's not even a CHANCE of that happening.
  19. A clumsy dodge huh? The principles of property ownership have clearly escaped you, so I tried to simplify it for you. If the law recognizes that I own my house and nobody can use my property other than me, it is reasonable to assume that I own it. If people can only take my land by 'paying' me fairly for it, this also reinforces the idea that I 'own' it. If the legal system in Canada and Ontario uphold these rights for me, that pretty much seals the deal. That is how things work here. The fact that I did not waste inordinate amounts of time searching the library or internet for information that was irrelevant to the truth stated above does not make me wrong. It means you are living in LALAland.
  20. I don't think there's any secret agenda here. I just think we have a Bible-thumping tool for an immigration minister. This is part of what I hate about the CPC. All they do with this crap is marginalize themselves trying to prevent something they can't do anything about.
  21. Mhmmm...then why is it that I live in Southern Ontario and don't pay taxes to Six nations? The native populations in North America were pretty plainly subjugated. You need only look and see who occupies the vast majority of territory to see that. You can sugar-coat that all you want, but the Six Nations had the choice to ally themselves with the Crown or deal with the USA. The fact that they have to pay suggests that the property is, for all extents and purposes, owned. You can call it whatever you want.
  22. The French don't need a legal document to tell them they're in charge of France. Similarly Canadians don't need one to know they're in charge of Canada. The reality is that Canada is inhabited mostly with Canadians. We're the people who currently live here. The international community recognizes that we live here and we have jurisdiction within internationally recognized borders. THAT is what matters. The treaties scraps of paper that are spoken of here are irrelevant. The First Nations were conquered and subjugated in less civilized times -- hundreds of years ago. Such things would not be allowed these days, but no sane court in the world would rule that an ancient scrap of paper projects more right or authority over a piece of land than generations of children, grandchildren and great grandchildren born and raised there. To think otherwise is only fooling yourself. Feel free to if you must.
  23. Pushing the woman out of the way just made him seem really small and desperate.
  24. Low self-esteem is the causation of narcissism? First off, it's not that simple. Second, causation wasn't really the word you were looking for. I doubt very much from this post that you know anything about psychology. The problem with your truth is that it's not actually reality. North America was subjugated by Europeans hundreds of years ago in case you didn't know. That was the end of the First Nations as such. That's reality. The Treaties you often bleat about were written long before myself or my parents or even my grandparents were born. They were written long before millions of immigrants came to Canada. Eventually, sovereignty passes to the actual inhabitants of the land. The First Nations have no more claim to the land I live on than do the Greeks have on Turkey. Land is owned by the people who live on it. Even if it was taken in the past, the lines that make that distinction eventually blurr and disappear.
×
×
  • Create New...