Moonbox

Perhaps, but there's a certain irony in demanding that respect and then at the same time pleading for/demanding money from the government because the communities they're living in can't support themselves and continue to grow far faster than populations in the RoC. True, and this can't be forgiven easily. This does not, however, mean that communities with 60% unemployment, rapidly expanding populations and unnaffordable living expenses should be supported to the extent that they continue to grow, continue to be unsustainable and become more and more expensive for the government to maintain. Anywhere else in the world, communities grow where there is work to do. Communities like Attawapiskat are fairly unique in that there is no work, no real chance for an improvement of the economic situation because of the lack of work and the lack of property rights (incentive to work), yet they continue to grow, and only because of misdirected public funding. At this point it's more a question about why we continue to do/support something that we know isn't working and isn't going to work at any point in the future, and hasn't worked anywhere else in the past.

Maybe not, but the Constitution is subject to limitations and reasonable limits clauses, which protects Canadians from unreasonable decisions despite what written Law or Treaties might say. Are you denying the culture of dependency on the remote reserves? Call it racism if you want, but when I read the complaints about places like Attawapiskat, how can you call it anything but dependency? It's dependence on the band, which depends on the government. Throwing money at it isn't going to fix things either. With fertility rates at 2-3 times higher than the national average, and where buying a bag of apples is going to cost $15-20 because of how remote the place is, it's easy to see these are failed communities and won't be saved by more money. That's good money chasing after bad. Not having basic property rights breeds a culture of defeatism. That's not unique to the First Nations. That's true everywhere. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/my-four-months-on-a-james-bay-reserve/article2294458/page2/

Take it with spirit with which is was offered: total contempt for the woman and the welfare community and she lives in. This broken culture of dependency serves nobody, not even the people living on the reserve, but they're too entrenched in the 'poor us' mentality to have any real chance of improving the situation. Well said.

Hahahaha. Hunger strike...right. She'll go a couple of days without deep frying something. That's about as far as her 'fast' will go. You don't get that fat by sticking to diets.

Not at all. If it's a public sector monopoly, however, and the unions hold out services to the public in order to bargain for benefits and pensions that are far beyond what a similarly qualified public sector employee would earn, then it's unfair.

The principle of what he's saying is right. If there's any substance to it aside from that is what's left to be seen. I'm still on Martha Hall Findlay's bandwagon, but maybe Garneau's got something intresting to say. Lord knows that Trudeau doesn't.

Deep fried everything of course.

This is one of the saddest, goofiest things I've seen in a long time. How is it that Iran, a small nation from which people flee and move to Canada, and about as far away from us as possible, has any special insight into Canadian aboriginal affairs? I don't think you need to be a genius to understand the connection between Iran being Israel's most hated enemy, and Canada being Israel's most vocal ally. login, I hope you posted this article for a laugh. If not...I worry about you.

It's not 114,000/year, or even close to that. It's not even in the same realm. That's great, because most companies pay next to squat for a pension and there are a large number of people with no benefits.

Fat slob on a hunger strike. Reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons. Morning news: Hot dog stand raided outside Parliament Hill.

My point is that your obvious lack of knowledge/insight into human history leaves your utterly ignorant as to how the world has worked in various places and at various times, and how this history repeats itself. We have regulations etc because the crap you're peddling here has been proven to work out poorly for the vast majority of people, over and over again, on innumerable occasions. See Standard Oil for one of the easiest examples. Regulation can go too far, sure, but total lack of regulation is just as bad. If we didn't know from your juvenile profile pic, the Trappers reference seals the deal. What are you, like 19? You'd like to think that. Naive was about the nicest way I could think of describing your posts. Ignorant and completely clueless would be leaning more towards reality...but the amount of effort you're putting into arguing off the entire forum is cute...or charming.

It's fairly clear you're not much of a student of history. It's funny, because from your brief posting history here you're like...the stereotypical small-town Albertan libertarian. Your naive fantasies are pretty charming.

About Quebec and Alberta as independent countries? Well it's economic suicide for Quebec, and beyond that I don't need to go further. As for Alberta, that breaks up Canada's contiguency (sp?) leaving British Columbia isolated, as well as leaving Alberta a tiny, land-locked state entirely dependent on oil to sustain its economy. Those are just a couple of reasons, but you can stew on those and maybe if you think hard you can come up with some others. They're not. They don't want independence, and neither do most Albertans.

You don't vote against any party. Our intellectually bankrupt collection of whiners needs to get that through their collectively thick heads. You vote FOR a candidate. If you voted for a candidate that didn't have a chance of winning, that's on you. If the Liberals and NDP split 60% of the vote, but the Conservatives won 40% and the riding, it's moronic to say, "but...but...60% of us voted AGAINST them!" Shut up. No you didn't. You voted for someone else (who lost), and the point of an election is not to NOT elect someone.

Topaz your concerns with Harper stem more from an idealogical programming (pro red/anti blue) than anything else. Put Harper in a red suit and you'd love him lol.

The NDP will keep most of their seats in Quebec. If the Conservatives make any gains in Quebec, they'll be retaking the odd seat they previously held. There will be no surprising reversals of Tory fortunes in Quebec. I've discussed this in other threads, but I think Quebec is going to be left isolated in Canadian politics for a long time unless they can smarten up. The sad protest mentality they've exhibited for the last 20 years will continue to get them nowhere, and, as we saw in the 2011 election, will actually polarize the RoC against them. The NDP surge in Quebec, as we saw, was accompanied by a Liberal rout and a surge in Tory popularity in Ontario. I think that had less to do with Ignatieff and more to do with Canadians just wanting a majority and not having to deal with an NDP opposition.

NOPE. I'll bet good money on that. It's a wasteland for the Conservatives, and will continue to be.

A pathetic, trumped-up event orchestrated and exaggerated by a pathetic, frustrated and impotent opposition. Recessions do that. You don't go through a massive recession without a deficit, unless you're going to completely gutter social spending at the same time, which would be an aweful idea at a time like that. The only reason I keep voting for him.

Funny how your first post on this board is one as dumb as that. Hope that's not what we're to expect from you here.

Good points Jerry. That's pretty articulate and fair.

That's the real caveat here though isn't it? The population growth is due to immigration. If it's good/productive immigration, that's great news. If a large percentage of that is refugees and/or welfare bozos, not so much.

Gee we haven't seen/heard that joke about 5000 times on this forum. I guess that's the direction you take though, when the fantasy costing figures you and LM have been insisting on get completely debunked.

The opposition doesn't deserve any praise for anything. They highlight and criticize EVERY issue by default. If anyone deserves praise it's the PBO and the auditor general...you know...people who actually have a clue and aren't just wetting their pants over EVERYTHING.

To be clear guys, we may end up buying the F-35 still anyways. This is just a cancel of the sole-source purchase and will make it a more open contest. Maybe it turns out the F-35 can be manufactured and operated at a reasonable price, but until that becomes clear, we should not be going for this dog.

It looks like the Tories are finally pulling the plug on the F-35 purchase in anticipation of the results of KPMG audit this week. It's been much discussed on these forums here, but this is pretty solid confirmation now that the program was going to cost FAR more than the original $9-15B originally projected. This is long overdue as far as I'm concerned and, as discussed in the article, will likely have ripple effects for the other partners of the program. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/06/michael-den-tandt-conservatives-pull-the-ejector-seat-on-f-35-purchase/