Moonbox

It is a 'claim'. The courts certainly DO have to validate what that claim is worth. The question is not whether there will be 500 billion or 1 trillion. Those figures would and have been outright dismissed by anyone with a brain. The SCoC would not and could not award a claim so large that it would bankrupt the nation for the benefit of a tiny Ontario community. I really don't think you understand how the courts work.

The Supreme Court would never in a million years validate a trillion dollar claim for a tiny community in southern ontario. It wouldn't in any way be a 'fair' judgement and the people saying it's going to happen are completely out to lunch.

The idea here is the whole fiasco is a legal nightmare. It's the duty of the courts to make fair and reasonable judgements. Interpreting agreements made 100+ years ago and then making fair judgements on these will be a nightmare and there's absolutely no court in the world that would validate a 1 trillion dollar claim from that long ago.

I didn't insult anyone genius. You just linked a Six Nations website. I hope you see the problem with this as far as reliable and unbiased sources are concerned. If the claims were sound, however, legally the government would be required to provide that accounting. They wouldn't be allowed to simply 'refuse'. We'll see how it all plays out in the courts okay?

You're not referencing ANY of this. You're just making claims. Whether or not the information is available on the internet doesn't matter. If there was a recognized, objective accounting of the facts, maybe what you say would have more validity. You're just spewing ridiculous numbers out of nowhere and the only people that seem to 'recognize' the claim is the Six Nations itself. If you want to talk legal action, then legally the government, as the trustee, would be required to fully disclose all information of the trust accounting. Also legally there is a little thing called "Limitations" meaning you can't retroactively file for damages hundreds of years past. It is the legal duty of the aggrieved party to take all actions possible to ensure that damages from broken contracts ect don't compound themselves. From Stats Can, there are about 1.3 million aboroginals in Canada. I'm assuming the actual population of Six Nations is MUCH smaller than that. Whatever the portion of that 1.3 million that the Six Nations ends up being, it's idiotic suggest that they should be entitled to 4.5 billion annually by birthright. An interesting legal concept is that an aggrieved party is never to be awarded damages that would leave them better off overall than if the 'problem' had never happened. Suggesting that the descendants of the Six Nations, however many thousands of them there are, should be made fabulously wealthy and should BENEFIT from the productivity of current and past Canadians would not fly in ANY legal dictionary.

I was still wondering if you could provide me some sort of reference to this Trust and the calculations made. The argument that ancestors of 150 years ago are entitled to insane sums of money by birthright is absolutely ludicrous. It doesn't appear to me that there's any difference between the claim that the First Nations own land that has been settled and populated for over 100 years and the claim of a Welshman that England belongs to them and that Norman/Saxon ancestors owe them $50 Trillion. It's idiotic and no court in the world would support it.

It's a ridiculous demand and claim. That's why.

No he's posting opinions and conjectures. He's not stating anything as fact. You're just getting all bent out over what he thinks. Ah...it's a classic case of 'might makes wrong'. The fact that the Israelis won the last couple of wars (which they did not start) means they're obviously the belligerent party here. No, but similarly you can't hate on the Jews for their parents being given back their ancient homeland after thousands of years of persecution.

Israel's borders were not defined and recognized by any of the people that actually MATTER. Namely, Israel and her neighbours. It makes very little difference what the UN bureaucrats said Israel's borders were since its neighbours never respected them. Their neighbours still don't acknowledge them and thus your argument ends up being pretty hollow.

No, it DOES work for the objectives its meant to complete. It probably does NOTHING to advance democratic rights, long term peace or anything of the sort, but it DOES help get REAL answers to questions that need answering. If the American government knew that a group of terrorist had a biological or nuclear weapon and were bringing it to the US, and if they captured someone who knew about it, I wouldn't even blink if they had to torture him for that information. There are times when a 'lesser of evil' could help avert a catastrophic evil. I understand what Ignatieff is saying in his essays. I agree with him. I just don't appreciate how he's back tracked on it because he feels it's an unpopular opinion to have in a relatively sheltered country.

My guess is Harper is meeting Layton to make it appear he is trying to make the government 'work'. i doubt anything will be worked out between the two, strictly on idealogical grounds.

Don't be fooled into the delusion that one can resist torture, done right. If you have enough time and you're careful enough, you can keep someone alive as long as you want and under as much pain as you need. Eventually, you pretty much will ALWAYS get your answer. That sounds pretty morbid but how long do you think most people would endure the worst agony possible to preserve a secret?

I'm curious as to where that number came from. I might have missed something can you provide a link or something for me to read?

No they don't. That doesn't even make sense. Actually let's go over this.... You have $40,000 in your account. You want to buy a $40,000 house. The best way to do this, according to you, is not to just spend the $40,000 on the house itself, but rather get a loan to buy a $40,000 vehicle so that you now have $80,000 - 40,000 (for the vehicle) which ends up being $40,000 left to buy the house.... That makes perfect sense... It doesn't get you any closer to getting the house. It just gets you a truck and a truck loan.

To me it appeared to be sarcasm directed your way for posting a thread like this. Good integration is a fairly simple concept and doesn't require people to define it. Good integration, I would say, means only becoming a law-abiding and 'productive' member of society. Bad integration would be becoming a law-scorning 'drain' on society. If you come here to work, live and prosper in Canada and you're not taking advantage of its laws and customs, I'd say you're integrating fine.

A 'rant' doesn't HAVE to be unintelligible. A rant is an extravagant display in which what you say has more 'style' or 'noise' than substance. Most of your rants border on unintelligible. This one at least could be read without getting your eyes crossed. I couldn't care less who you support because I don't understand half of what you say or I lose interest in the 'long-winded loquaciousness'.

Once again Oleg comes to the table with a rant that nobody is going to pay notice to. At least I could understand this one though.

Don't be surprised. In a lot of areas diseases like smallpox wiped out over 60% of the Native populations The population of North American Natives was, at best, sparse. Most scholars suggest pre-settlement populations of all of North and South America COMBINED of between 40-120 million. The vast majority of these people (like 80+%) lived in Mexico and South America. I can't even try and pretend that Native Americans weren't mistreated by European settlers, but at the same time you had miniscule populations bogarting some of the largest habitable land masses in the world.

Layton should have backed down after the last election. His political acumen is based entirely on clichéd one-liners and car-salesmen smiles. He's done nothing for the NDP since he started and it's a testament to how backwards the party's thinking is that they kept him so long. Stick with bad and unpopular policy and a bad an unpopular leader in the hopes that the votes will follow.... To me at least, it seems like the NDP is less interested in winning elections and more interested in just perpetually appeasing a niche group of voters. At least they keep their jobs that way.

or Islamic conquests following the crusades...

Myata maybe you can edit that post...because it barely even makes sense.

Everyone knew this, especially Ignatieff. Barely any money was wasted. It was a lot cheaper than an election. As for who to blame, blame Ignatieff. He knew that he didn't want to go to an election over EI. He wanted to make it look like he was doing 'something' just like he did with the budget. He extracted meaningless and symbolic concessions from the Harper government so that it would look like he was relevant.

Was it a Volkswagen?

In some cases you can. Border outposts are extremely useful for surveillance, checkpoints and buffers. The 'punishments' are not directed at palestinian civilians and it's foolish to indicate as such. They're directed at militants (Hamas etc) that insist on launching attacks from WITHIN civilian populations. When retaliatory attacks end up hitting civilians, the vast majority of the time it's because of Hamas' use of human shields. The civilians have Hamas to blame, and themselves. Hamas for hiding behind them, and the Palestinians at large for doing nothing to curb their militants. International law is a subject generally open to interpretations. The land itself has no real and rightful sovereign owner, and it hasn't for almost 100 years. It was largely taken from Jordan and the Jewish settlers are not forcibly being transferred there. It would be a pretty shakey argument to suggest that Israel would be wise to give these lands up without any firm commitment to peace from the other side. Like I said, International Law is a pretty fluffy concept. I can't argue that Israel hasn't broken a number of International Laws, but the other side is certainly not operating from within that framework and you can't even pretend they are. Two wrongs don't make right but the hypocrisy is galling when people focus exclusively on Israel's violation and ignore that they ARE INDEED being attacked and the other side is committing widespread violations themselves.

Sometimes the best way to respond to a stupid analogy is to provide an equally stupid analogy from the opposite perspective. It helps clarify the vast logical errors and omissions made. Analogies are a generally weak form of argument regardless, especially when they're dumbed down to this level. All of this, and the sarcasm intended, were lost on you, which speaks volumes about who is 'retarded' around here. Don't see why the insults were necessary.