Moonbox

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.

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. 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. Beautifully stated bambino. I don't think it's possible to put it any better.

Changing the context or topic is your realm of expertise. 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. 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. 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. 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'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. 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.

It seems you don't understand what logical means either. 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. 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. 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.

I think it's pretty clear their educations go anywhere near that far

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.

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.

He didn't correct himself. He said logic was a delusion and then when presented with the definitions he called me schizo. 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.

Oh yeah...you're talking about the obsolete-upon completion Avro Arrow right?

Which happens to be leaps and bounds above you. Let's not forget: 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 http://thesaurus.com 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 http://thesaurus.com What I'm trying to get is that any attempt by you to question ANYONE else's intelligence here after is simply hilarious. That's stupidity on the grandest of scales.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

You say I can't make a rational argument. Now let's look at a couple definitions: rational [ˈræʃənəl] adj 1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem 2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable 3. of sound mind; sane the patient seemed quite rational 4. endowed with the capacity to reason; capable of logical thought man is a rational being 5. (Mathematics) Maths expressible as a ratio of two integers or polynomials a rational number; a rational function Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 Next: rea·son (rzn) n. 1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why. 2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving. 3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime. 4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence. 5. Good judgment; sound sense. 6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason. 7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument. and finally: logical [ˈlɒdʒɪkəl] adj 1. (Philosophy / Logic) relating to, used in, or characteristic of logic 2. (Philosophy / Logic) using, according to, or deduced from the principles of logic a logical conclusion 3. capable of or characterized by clear or valid reasoning 4. reasonable or necessary because of facts, events, etc. So here we have definitions for the words rational, reason and logical. You have stated that logic is a delusion. This causes you a problem, because the definition of rational is "in accordance with the principles of logic". Also, the word "reason" is defined as "the capacity for logical, rational and analytical thought -- intelligence". You've taken the absolutely retarded position that logic is a delusion. As such, by definition, so is reason and rationality. These are very simple and very easily illustrated FACTS. If you've denounced logic (and by definition reason and rationality) there's very little point in arguing with you. Indeed you're position is unassailable. You've entered the realm of irrationality and in this realm the only reality that counts is in your own little head. By denouncing logic you've by default confirmed that any discussion with you moving forward will be irrational and make no sense. There's nothing upsetting about this for me. Indeed, I find you hilarious as do a good number of other posters here. I've wasted enough time, however, and I have better things to do. Once again, may God have mercy on your poor dumb soul.

I did not realize that. I know a lot of groups have been upset with this and personally I really don't see why people are so upset to have to fill out a few pages of information to give to the gov't.