Shwa

Naw, you successfully refuted yourself and then skulked into a corner with your imaginary cake. I saw it coming too, you are so predictable.

But around we come and swing back to purpose. Let's suppose that there is no real 'liberal' media bias. Then for what purpose could there be for 'The Right' to continually bray about a liberal media bias?

Yes because, you know, how we form symbolic expression, constitute words and use language to stir and manipulate, is practically a useless skill when it comes to political philosophy.

While I would not think it possible, if it is who I think it is, you have just insulted every tried and true falangist everywhere, including phalangists and those ancient Greek military re-enactors who got paid scale to run around in 2004's 'Alexander.' Be scared j-dub, be scared.

Hey Smallc, just curious: have you ever read 'The Indians of Canada' (1932) by Diamond Jensess? If you have then you are likely familiar with his influence on Indian Affairs policy during the 30`s to late 60`s and how that ultimately lead to Chretien`s White Paper, the response of Citizen`s Plus and then the Calder case. If you haven`t then, well, I guess you aren`t familiar with all of that other stuff are you? Which would be a bit of a shame I think.

And what you are reduced to is imprecision, which leads to misunderstanding and error. As IF the meaning of the words in the Constitution "mattered." Why bother with experts when we can defer to g_bambino on the MLW forums. The only thing I am deflecting is the pile of crap you are trying to fling out as some sort of rational thought. Again, you are confusing the cake with the recipe. And an imaginary cake at that! This is what you are reduced to: a pedantic string of words that culminates in some back water naval gazing. You should read sometime.

Artfully done! But a dodge nonetheless: . So where in this clause does it say that the "...Crown...could be removed...?" This clause says nothing of the sort. Wait, I get it - you are equating the fact that the Constitution may be amended with respect to the "office of the Queen" as "proof" that the "...Crown...could be removed by a vote." But they are not equal. One is fact, the other is an imaginary condition. Posting links with Constitutional experts who supply their expert opinion or interpretation only supports the fact that your assertion is all in your imagination. If you want proof, supply the test results. What else can you imagine the Constitution can do? Could it permit that we shall worship the Leader and all have to become Movementarians because the people will it through a vote? Well sure, because this is no less of an imaginary use of the clause. I mean, check out 41(e). With the right kind of support from "the people," a heck of a lot of fun could be had! Here this might help you: na-na na-na na-na na-na Leeea-der! (sung to the theme song from the 1960's TV Series Batman) Sing this to yourself a few times and all your Constitutional dreams will come true. But probably not. Which is all moot of course because an idealogue with an active imagination is rarely a match for the actual.

Can you point out where I have denied "the meaning of the clause" please? You can't? I didn't think so. I never said the cause "means nothing," I said its only action in this case is a figment of your imagination. The problem here is that you have difficulty understanding English. So me not saying it is proof that I actually did, or meant to, or should have or... could have. My, you do have an active imagination don't you?

The word "could" is conditional, much less certain that the words "can" or "will." Thus, there are many things that the constitutional clause "could" allow, you just have to use your imagination to see the range of those things. As a proof of your assertion however, that particular clause says nothing. It's only action is all in your mind. Could you please point out the post in this thread in which I "completely" ignore the sources you have presented? Thanks!

Yes, as invoked by the phantom bubbas.

Agreed. If the topic were, strictly speaking, about the phenomenon of voter intimidation in general. If the discussion was about voter intimidation and racism however, Dred Scott and "Jim Crow" are relevant as reasonable starting points in history that have bearing on that topic today.

But had you traced back smallc's reasonable comment you would have noticed that we were not talking about "unreasonable." That is your interjection, which is unreasonable. If you would like to try and answer the question on smallc's behalf again, please do. Or, allow smallc to reply if he/she wishes. It's up to you.

No bud, I understand perfectly what the Crown "is." But supposing I were to ask: at what point in the passage that you quoted do you get the impression that I don't undertstand what the Crown is. Can you point that out for me please? You know, for future so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks!

Of course not. But supposing I ask: how can you be so certain?

Aye, and dance they do to the same old tune completely unawares. That sir, is scary.

The goalposts on voter intimidation news stories were clearly defined long before FOX decided to make this little noise about the latest allegations. The fact that you can't recognize this is no surprise to me, but is of little consequence. You don't own a confederate t-shirt do you?

Really? I thought the discussion was about voter intimidation, so I posted a small - easily accessible - list of similar instances of voter intimidation to show that it has happened quite often before and to also show that the current President had a pet bill on voter intimidation that never made it to law. I am quite surprised you didn't reference these instances before because they were all over the news at the time and further surprised that you weren't readily aware of them since you have a keen interest in voter intimidation issues in the US. But I guess with the introduction of the make believe white-bubbas, you wanted to focus on the racial aspect and now want evidence of white intimidation of black or non-white voters. Is that what you are asking for when you say 'bearing to the current discussion?" No, I don't think that is quite the point. The point about Jim Crow, Dred Scott et al is that you would likely not have a full enough understanding about background issues to be able to place this incident in context. This became apparent when you slid the actual underneath the make believe. Yeah, you know, like all those other voter intimidation news stories that you were aware of over the past decade? How about the KKK, are you aware of them and their history of voter intimidation? How about any of the stories on the list I had posted earlier? Were you familiar with most of them? No? I didn't think so. I wonder why...

You see the problem here is that you are equating an imaginative condition ("could be removed by a vote") as "proof" that the people are not divorced from the Crown. You suffer from the same delusion you are accusing CR of and that simply won't do. But that wasn't really the question was it? The question was directed to an individual. What you have done is tried to expand on that individual to be a symbolic representation of 'all.' Again, you have replaced the real specific with an imaginative condition. When someone offers you an apple, do you immediately lament the loss of the orchard? The law is specific in that it gives the Crown the right to expropriate real property from it's citizens, whether actual individuals or corporations. If you would like to change this law, get crackin'. Report back to us on your progress. But I suspect you and your neighbours lack the power to do so. And if the Crown comes a-knocking and siezes your real property or chattel, for whatever reason, well you must readily agree to it because as soon as you set foot in Canada your rights to property are on the Crown's terms. (Since you are not "divorced" from the Crown, you would be merely agreeing with yourself) I think this is a pretty significant legal principle don't you? Now if you want to dream away on a revolution or civil war, well at least dreams are free. However, stay away from the US model once the imaginary war is done, because they have a thing called eminent domain.

Here is where we agree, however I would modify this to say that what will happen is that the Crown will continue to expropriate real property with or without consent and hand it over to First Nations to settle land claims.

Poorly thought out protest tactics are to be counterbalanced by poorly thought out opinions of ineffectual Canadians? I hardly think so. What was the outcome of the Douglas Estates protest? Did it result in a refusal of service for Natives at the local Timmies? How many MP's have lost their seats due to the rulings of the courts? Or... it cost $600 million in 1989 dollars to build SkyDome. How many MP's lost their seats when Rogers bought it for $25 million in 2004? Then using this premise, mainstrean Canadians supported the protest at Douglas Estates since the protesters got what they wanted. Bewilderment not required. Come on. If you know anything about the leadup to the whole Six Nations claims, etc., you wouldn't be making such silly comments. Pity? Why have the developers started building on Douglas Estates again?

Your Leviathan argument fails in that for the Leviathan to be effective it must eat itself first. It would have to de-constitute itself, etc., etc., go read Hobbes. The fact of the contract-is-a-contract argument is that it is a legal one that has real bearing on present circumstances in all negotiations between Natives and the Governments.

I would concur with this if Alberta could also monitor, and supply us with the data of, veterinarian response times on the web.

I was never punched out by someone with a different skin colour, so that aspect of things doesn't fit into my bias or prejudice. So I wouldn't have attempted the worn out 'double-standard' argument using white "bubbas" in Confederate t-shirts as some sort of reasonable counterpoint. If anything kimmy, you are consistent. The point of cutting and pasting random, but topical data, shows how easy it is to counter weak arguments driven by personal hysteria over race. As if this story someone points out a general trend. A simple google search would have made you honest, but all you can come up with is a what-if-white-bubba scenario. And what did you bring to this discussion? A make-believe white-bubba in a Confederate t-shirt! Uh-huh... I supplied you with a list of previous cases that you could have easily done a little digging yourself on, but all you have are excuses and derision about method and source without actually making any methodological attempt or critique of sources yourself. You aren't lazy, you're brain-dead. Which is pretty much the reason the histrionics of FOX would appeal to you. Start here and work forward: Dred Scott I am betting that you won't have the time nor inclination to do any sort of research on US civil rights/race issues. I am not saying that at all. I am saying there is little substance to this as a news item that has any sort of long term value in the face of all the other voter intimidation "allegations" over the past couple of decades. Like make-believe white bubbas in Confederate t-shirts with baseball bats? Riiiight....

Hence the rise of the concept of the work "team." But in a team theory each member possesses and admixture of hard and soft skills which is to compliment the "skillsets" of the other team members. So some members might possess better soft skills like interpersonal communication, writing ability or lunch arrangment skills. The interesting thing about soft skills is that they can be defined as being unique to an individual and still count as overall value to the team. Not always though. It is to the benefit to the team to have everyone recognize and acknowledge everyone's elses "strengths." Weaknesses are rarely allowed to be discussed and, if they are, have to be carefully discussed in such a way as to not upset the team member, not upset team productivity nor result in a harassment complaint against the boss. This is true and has resulted in the phenomenon of "middle management" and the application of the Peter Principle. There are never enough "team leaders" and yet often enough, too many. I think most folks have...

How can you tell the difference? It seems to me that Canadians vote for "guys who tell it straight and tell the truth" only to find out afterward they had been lied to by said guys. Perhaps it is a matter of 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't.'