Moonbox
-
Posts
8,707 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
You think that we're crazy? That's rich.
This is just getting funnier and funnier by the minute isn't it. I'm actually excited every time I open up this thread to see what sort of hilariously stupid comment CR will come up with next.
-
She's an idiot. She'll likely get REPLACED. Perhaps she won't step down, but if she doesn't then she'll just get ousted.
-
Smallc it's a dumb question anyways. We don't need F-35's to fight the Taliban. That much is obvious.
We MAY need them to fight future threats that are better equipped than the Taliban, however. The Taliban are the most ass-backwards enemy we could find anywhere. Moving forward, it's almost GUARANTEED that any enemy we face will be better equipped.
-
Now you are just be daft:
This is what I meant by the difference between you and CR. CR will actually say something retarded like "math is a myth" when presented with solid figures. You, on the other hand just ignore, deflect and cower behind glib one-liners whenever you're pressed on one of your idiotic assertions. I'm not sure which one is more pathetic.
How is the math "daft"? Please, share your ineptitude with us. I'm sure we'll all get a good chuckle.
Not only are you being daft you are showing a severely limited comprehension of valuation. Fantasy fixations do that I guess.
Again, please enlighten us. Explain to us how else you're supposed to appraise a $1 trillion Trust.
Once again, I'm sure you can't and I'm equally certain you'll not respond to any of these questions. That's how you operate. You're happy to challenge literally EVERYTHING people say that you don't agree with, but you're pathetically incapable of supporting your own points.
The effort they invest in the necessary mental acrobatics is worth the self-righteously pleasing, if irrational, feeling that results. To them, stupidity is a drug (though you're right in that Shwa at least seems aware of and embarrassed by his addiction when he covers up any exposition of it with deflection, trolling, and insults). Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Beautifully stated bambino. I don't think it's possible to put it any better.
-
I understand logic fine; there is no "either." You are all alone in ignoring context.
Changing the context or topic is your realm of expertise.
So how is that reasonable exactly? Where's the logic of simply proceeding from an assertion to ridicule and grandstanding? I think a more reasonable person would have queried about that figure and how it was derived to try and determine if that figure is reasonable or the result of reasonable and logical calculations.
Here you're just trying to confuse the issue. What realistic difference does it make whether or not we're talking about a $1 trillion settlement or trust? A trust is a legal arrangement where property is managed for the benefit of another party. How would a $1 trillion trust held for the benefit of a tiny First Nations population be acceptable to ~10 million Ontarions? Neither are affordable.
My basic argument remains unchanged and unchallenged. It doesn't make sense to make a tiny minority fabulously wealthy at the great expense of the majority.
So we went from $1 trillion in "...a trust for leases and small surrenders..." to all of Southern Ontario where 10 million people would be kicked off their land. How specious a line of reasoning is that? Especially since you do not know how the $1 trillion dollar figure was arrived at or what "...a trust for leases and small surrenders" actually means. The only argument you have is a repeated appeal to fantasy about a silent-majority-people-power revolution.
You made that up yourself. I never said that so it's pretty irrelevant. I said that $1 trillion in settlements (or trusts it doesn't matter) is entirely unaffordable and thus impossible. That's practically Canada's entire GDP for a year.
No, what actually happened is you jumped into an ad hominem attack based on fallacious appeals to popular opinion. My question was wholly relevant to see if you understand that land claims are legitimate and who determines value.
Something isn't clicking in your brain. You asked if the Crown can seize land. I said yes, but that's no indication on how big future settlements would be.
Because your say in the matter of "scale" is completely meaningless. In fact, you have no say, and admit no concern, in how that value is determined; and, apaprently, you lack the power to do anything about it.
My 'say' has nothing to do with it. The Crown's adherence to common sense (another concept that escapes you) is what matters. Not only have you demonstrated you have no understanding of legal theory at its most basic level, you've also been proven (about a dozen times in this thread) to have no clue about our legal system here in Canada, particularly on the subject of what the Crown is and from where it gains its legitimacy.
That is the only "scale" that needs concern you. You can fantasize all you want about your all-powerful silent majority revolution, the Constitution and legal limits of the Crown, but that is more to pity than to scorn.
That's all you and CR are doing: Fantasizing. The $1 trillion in trust for the First Nations will coninue to elude you and we'll continue to snicker at your belief in it. Just to clarify, by scale I mean size. From your quote I'm not sure you get that. The size of claims being settled, and the speed at which they're being settled, indicate that the total value MIGHT end up being something like 2-3% of that $1 trillion when it's all said and done.
There is absolutely ZERO indication ANYWHERE that this is incorrect.
This is an illegitimate (aka "illogical" or "unreasonable") line of questioning because you have no proof any settlement discussed would be "lopsided" or "impoverish" anyone. This is a make-believe condition you have invented to appeal to popular opinion because your ability to be reasonable is blocked.
Yes. I do have proof.
$1 trillion = $1,000,000,000,000.
There are 700,000 First Nations inhabitants in Canada
1,000,000,000,000 / 700,000 = $1,428,571 in settlements (or Trust) for every single one of them if what you and CR is saying is correct
If you want to see what impact that has on Canadians, simply do the math
1,000,000,000,000 / 33,300,000 = $30,000 is the cost to each Canadian
In 2005 the average net worth of Canadians was $148,000.
A $30,000 liability, whether it be in the form of trust or settlement (makes absolutely no difference) instantly evaporates 20% of their wealth.
So, again, I ask the question:
Why would the Crown (which gains its legitimacy from the People of Canada), judge in favor of making 700,000 Natives instant millionaires and in so doing erase 20% of every Canadian's wealth?
If it were to do that, why would the Canadian People continue to support the Crown?
Without the support of the People, who would enforce the Crown's will?
I'm betting you won't answer those questions, because you and CR squirm and disappear or change the subject whenever you're actually pressed with reason supported by FACT. My FACTS there were the math and you can't argue with that. From the FACTS, I came up with a few questions. Answer them or go home.
Finally, in anticipation of another dumb argument, don't try and tell me that a $1 trillion Trust makes things any more reasonable. Whether they settle this amount up front or as an annuity, it's still the exact same cost. It's unaffordable, and thus it doesn't make sense.
-
August I don't mean to be rude...but really? You had to make a THIRD thread on the exact same subject???
There are already 2 threads on the first page of this forum complaining about the F-35. Seriously.
-
And yet here you are, now staring down the face of your solid definition of "logic" and finding it completely skewered because you removed it from context.
It seems you don't understand what logical means either.
So tell me moonbox, how exactly is the fact that the government can expropriate your real property without your consent and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement - logical? Truly the ball is in your side of the court with this one.
It's pretty simple. Centuries ago, the British Crown made all sorts of different agreements with its First Nations allies and signed treaties. Hundreds of years, and countless subsequent agreements later, the terms, context and conditions of these treaties changed. Nonetheless, it's fair to say that the First Nations have not been dealt with in good faith. As a society that respects the law and concept of fairness, the Crown should do what it REASONABLY can to make amends. As such, we've seen all sorts of land settlements and I'm sure we'll see more within reason. That's the basic point that you and CR seem to drown in. Reason isn't in your vocabulary.
The people whose property is seized, however, are reimbursed by the government. Why? Because it would NOT be fair or reasonable to kick them off land they worked for and purchased.
I asked a similar question earlier and you answered with the "fact" of "revolution." Now who is bringing in the hilarity to this thread? The guy that thinks he can predict the course of the beast just because he resides in its belly? Do you understand that analogy moonbox?
No I'll tell you what actually happened. CR and I were arguing over the SCALE of future settlements. We were not arguing about whether or not future settlements would actually happen. Your question, therefore, was completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. For the record, I answered your question with a "yes", but the fact that the Crown CAN seize land has no bearing on the question of how big the settlements will be. It's another example of how bad you and CR are at formulating a reasonable argument. The 'revolution' I spoke of was no less likely than the settlements CR claims will happen.
So, setting the so called 'trolling' aside, why don't you enlighten us all here with how it is possible for you to predict the outcome of a course of events that are explicitly tied down to your fantasy? You know, the fantasy about unreasonable land claims and such. Tell us how the people will revolt, there will be a revolution, the Crown will be voted out, etc.
Let's try answering your question with a series of questions. An intelligent, inquisitive mind would have figured this out a long time ago, but let's see if you can catch up:
1. Why would the Crown (which gains its legitimacy from the people of Canada) enforce lopsided judgements in the favour of the First Nations that would impoverish tens of millions of Canadians for the benefit of a tiny minority?
2. Supposing the Crown actually did that, why would the people of Canada continue to support it?
3. If the Crown lost the support of Canadians, who would enforce its will?
Any reasonable and intelligent being should always be asking, "Why?". My answer to your question is implied in the questions I asked you.
Make an effort to answer those questions and I'll answer anything you ask. I promise.
-
Geez, sometimes trying to get you or CR to stick to what you actually said is like nailing jello to the wall. One or BOTH of you MUST be lawyers!
I think it's pretty clear their educations go anywhere near that far
-
I live on the ottawa and years back I recieved a letter telling me that in time I will be paying my taxes to the natives and not the goverment, so I started the fire with it. lol
As would Canadians everywhere.
-
ICBM's made the Avro obsolete.
A common myth that Liberals like to support is that the Avro was leaps ahead in terms of technology etc. This is unfortunately not true as both the Americans and the British came out with similar or better designs only a few years later.
It was a good plane in its own rights, but it was designed for an obsolete role. As you may have noticed, we don't really use interceptor planes anymore.
-
He might have been wrong about how long it would take, but that appears to be exactly what's going on.
-
The replacement being designed for the F-18E Super Hornet will largely be unmanned. Maybe 1/4 of the versions built will be manned.
The F-35 is likely going to be the last primarily manned fighter we see.
-
I dunno, I feel like they are cut from the same cloth. Have never seen them disagree on anything.
They don't disagree on anything no but then Shwa's at least smart enough not to skewer himself saying something as retarded as "logic is a delusion". Rational argument is indeed beyond both of them, but Shwa at least covers up for his deficiencies with mockery and trolling. CR, however, regularly craps on his own face with some of the dumbest and most easily quoted stupidity you can find anywhere on the internet.
-
C.R has attempted to correct himself and what did he have to say? Do you recall?
He didn't correct himself. He said logic was a delusion and then when presented with the definitions he called me schizo.
I am just saying that it could be a typo or it could be some sort of derivation of meaning taken from the fact that legislation has no power without an act and such action is usually the result of contemporary interpretation. Or some other meaning - he will have to clarify.
It wasn't a typo. He posted multiple times to denounce logic as a whole. CR has also basically argued that contemporary interpretation is not part of our legal system. He has indicated that the Supreme Court would not look at any Act or legislation and interpret it based on what is reasonable. He's denounced the standard of Natural Law on our legal system (the concept that any system of law should be based on what is reasonable and fair) and he's denied that Section 1 of our Charter (AKA the limitations clause) has any impact on Section 25 of the Charter (which it absolutely does).
CR has taken the position that reason and logic have no place in the discussion of Aboriginal Rights or present and future settlement claims.
Shwa I generally view you as a troll on this forum looking mostly to agitate, but even you're not dumb enough to say some of the garbage that CR has typed out.
-
It's a little late now to cry over the milk your beloved Tories spilled on what was probably our best opportunity we'll ever have at being big shots on the global stage.
Oh yeah...you're talking about the obsolete-upon completion Avro Arrow right?
-
And of course that puts Moonbox at the same intelligence level of Bryan.
Which happens to be leaps and bounds above you.
Let's not forget:
Logic is a delusion.
Followed by a list of words synonymous (I'll let you figure out what that word means) with logic:
Common sense
Reason
Thinking
Sound judgement
Sanity
Coherence
Train of thought
I highlighted the two I thought might be simple enough for you to understand. Logic is being able to follow an argument from start to finish in a way that makes sense given the facts you have. We tried that with the dead man lying in on the ground with the gunshot wound and the bullet nearby. You got flustered.
It's interesting that sanity is used synonymously with logic. You saying logic is a delusion leads one to the obvious conclusion about your state of mind.
Now just for fun let's look at some synonyms for illogical:
Not making sense
Absurd
Disconnected
Fallacious (look that one up it might be a biggy for you)
Far-fetched
Groundless
What I'm trying to get is that any attempt by you to question ANYONE else's intelligence here after
Logic is a delusion.
is simply hilarious. That's stupidity on the grandest of scales.
-
Go find somewhere else to play child. This sandbox is not in your league.
Go back to your cage monkey. That child has more reasoning power than you do.
-
Guys, CR thinks logic, rationality and reason are a delusion. Not only is that the single most retarded thing that's EVER been said on this forum, it's also a pretty clear admission of an inability to argue intelligently.
Don't waste your time. It's like arguing with a dumb monkey.
-
The point about having such a forbiddingly remote coastline is that it's forbidding.
No the point is that it's huge and thus difficult to patrol. Our forces much be stretched very thin to even make an effort at it. There's nothing particularly daunting about actually landing on our coast (other than big daddy down south).
-
If all that can be done is name call then please do so in the post located in my sig. Let's keep the threads troll free please. There's no need for the childish behavior because you don't agree with my opinions.
It's not that simple. We don't make fun of you because we don't agree with your opinions. I generally don't agree with most of what Topaz, posts, for example, but I don't make fun of him because he can clearly state why he feels differently and because he doesn't go on useless tirades.
Your opinions, on the other hand, are both poorly supported and stupidly presented. Even when I DO agree with you (which is more often than you'd probably think) the way you present your opinions is in such a rude, ignorant and inflammatory manner that it's rarely worthy of any respect.
When you post like an idiot, you get treated like one.
-
Well done Topaz. That was my favourite post by you ever. Thanks for saying everything I was thinking. I wish there was a sub-forum for these people so they could get together andfling nonsense and poo at each other.
-
Now, explain to me why you call Canada a Police State in one breath
Wow when did either of us say that? Grasping at thin air again I see?
It's too bad you're back. I thought you were leaving weren't you??
-
Yep go post in the other thread. I think it's at like...page 90 or something.
Can someone get this deleted?
-
It must be interesting to only read what you want into every post, while the rest sails blithely over your head. I guess that might account for why you keep posting despite your every argument being crushed by someone or other.
Oh,and don't mistake contempt for hatred.
Couldn't have said it better myself - especially the part in bold.
Just in case you don't understand what contempt means (and I'm sure you don't) it means we don't respect your intelligence level.
Canada's health care system sucks
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
That's about my view of things.
Anytime I've been to emergency (for myself or for someone else) it's taken HOURS to be seen.