Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bugs

  1. In fact, there is no enforcement on the custodial parent, otherwise called the wife. The Courts don't have the stomach to find a mother in contempt of court. In fact, members of the legal profession who pretend to represent the non-custodial parent (otherwise known as the husband) are committing a fraud. The 'negotiations' take the form of a trade-off, in terms of payments vrs the remaining rights of the non-custodial parent. But the court will not enforce those rights, so it is a farce. Since the wife gets custody simply by wanting it, this bias is systematic. Canadians have every right to hold these courts in contempt.
  2. You have to respect a few important aspects of leadership that Trudeau fils undoubtedly possesses. First, he can attract a crowd. Second, he can raise money. Third, he gives the Liberals their best chance to whip the NDP's butt in Quebec. He has a lot of demerits, too. First, he's more his mother's son than his father's. He's attractive, congenial, idealistic -- and a little dull. He has no real background in politics, though he did win a tough riding. But he shows no signs of his father's icy intellect, or his toughness. And he has no 'answers'. He doesn't even seem to know what the problems are. His most potent and immediate effect will will be felt mostly by the NDP, in my view. He will win -- if he does -- by 'uniting the left', by taking a big chunk of the NDP vote.
  3. The land was bought from the government. Everything conventionally necessary to give clear title to the land was done, including having an archeologist/anthropologist clear it. The Six Nations Council passed on it. The bank cleared it before they authorized the loan. The various courts have made a mess of land claims. The protesters think that Canadian law doesn't apply to them because they have sovereignty. In fact, there was no claim on the land registered until well after the protests started. It never was a land claim dispute. When the developer went to the insurance company to get a settlement, they refused to pay because they claimed the problem was a civil insurrection, which they didn't cover. That's when the McGuinty gang spend an undisclosed amount of public money to buy the land from the developer, and to get the bank's money back to them. And God knows what else was thrown in the pot to pacify the natives. Only David Peterson knows for sure. It is a provincial responsibility. The province has to invite the Federal Government into the situation, but they preferred not to do it, at least partly because they were persuing a vendetta against Mike Harris, springing from Ipperwash. The protesters want to make the site into a casino, which, as you know, is a racial entitlement in Ontario -- or the next thing to it. I don't know how you can say it isn't racial on the native side. It suggests to me that you don't really know anything about it. In any case, if the Courts were doing their job, they'd know that the Iroquois do not have aboriginal right to the land because they immigrated to Canada after the American Revolution. But you're right about them -- the courts are racists. They don't acknowledge these legally relevant statuses due to the skin of the protesters.
  4. Shortlives shouldn't waste his time. When has the Supreme Court defended the old common law rights? Seriously ... when?
  5. We probably don't have a right to freely assemble anymore. That's a common law right, and isn't included in the Charter ... as if the courts pay much attention to the Charter.
  6. You say it was patriated and amended. That means it wasn't simply patriated, but it was changed in the process into something that it wasn't before. It was imposed. The additions included the mess that the courts have made of aboriginal affairs, to the point that people in a large part of south western Ontario don't know if the title of their land is valid, and economic development has been crippled. Common law is more complex. Nobody will speak the truth, in simple terms, but would the rulings of those rogue Human Right Organizations have one iota of legal backing if we had the common law. In those proceedings, the victim defendant cannot cross-examine the evidence against him, and may not even know what it is. (S)he cannot face her/his accuser. In addition, one of the immediate effects of the patriation imposition of these new legal arrangements was to locate sovereignty in the Supreme Court rather than Parliament. It's the Supreme Court that has left abortion absolutely unregulated, and which compelled Parliament to make a decision on same sex marriage. For the most part, the Court has constrained itself, but it has no respect for common law, that part is for sure. (Could same-sex marriage been imposed on us if we had common law? If you respond, bambino, please use some examples and argumentation, not simply make assertions that you probably don't know are true or not.
  7. Peter Kormos died. Maybe its that simple. He was probably the last 1930's type socialist in the party. The NDP is debating a constitutional amendment to replace the party's historic goal of creating a society based on the idea of " ... from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". You know, Communist Manifesto stuff. How outdated is that? The new goal is championing "a rules-based economy ... in which governments have the power to address the limitations of the market." (Thomas Walkom, NDP on yet another mission quest. Stay tuned. (Toronto Star, Saturday, April 6th, 2013, p. A8). What's the point? We are so far from free markets that it's a joke. This is all about getting elected, stupid! It isn't as if principles have much relationship to actual practice, anyway -- for any of our parties. But, for the NDP, the line might as well be removed, for the sake of honest expression of whatever the party deems to be useful in beguiling the politically unsophisticated -- university students and their ilk -- to the party of mid-level civil servants. It isn't as if they stand for anything beyond more jobs and bigger salaries in the public sector. The very idea of the NDP continuing to have 'socialist principles' is amusing. However, if in the NDP constitution remained the same, it would demonstrate to the world that ‘the party’ holds to an exotic, utopian philosophy with no real basis in Canadian life. My prediction: It will be replaced by unprincipled branding, focus-group tested buzz-words, new slogans, and a big marketing push, and the media will pretend that some kind of mystical renewal has taken place. Magic thinking.
  8. The potential problem is that, by meeting in Jerusalem, there might be some slight hint that Canada recognizes that Jersusalem is the legitimate capital of Israel. Stress should be put on the word 'hint'. Joe Clark, in his brief and ill-fated stint as PM, agreed to put the Canadian embassy in Jerusalem, which caused quite a stink. Nobody ever said Clark was too bright. This case isn't like that. It's certainly not an embarassment. It may not even qualify as a 'signal' of where Canada stands on the issue. Who in the Moslem world cares about whatever signals Canada sends, anyway?
  9. We lost a lot when we had this new constitution imposed upon us. We lost the common law, for example. (Some will argue, but let them put their evidence on the table.) In return, we got the so-called Charter. Canadians like it, because they imagine that it is a document like the American Bill of Rights -- the Amendments to the American Constitution. But they 'rights' it enshrines limits common law rights by writing them down, and it pretends that the enemy of the rights of citizens is other citizens, rather than the state itself -- which involves a weird misunderstanding of our history. As an example, the Charter gives Canadians the right to a speedy trial, but it simply isn't enforced. The trial of Robert Pickton is an example. He was held in jail for six years, waiting his trial, because the Crown lacked the evidence it needed to support their charge of murder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton) The first judge who tried to defend the right to a speedy trial was Judge Paul Cosgrove former mayor or Scarborough, and a Judge on the Ontario Supreme Court. For any of you who think the Judiciary is 'independent', it's an object lesson. He was essentially cashiered by the Attorney General and 'car rage' homicide perp. (http://injusticebusters.org/04/Cosgrove_Paul.shtml) In other words, the Charter is a sham. The patriation of the Constitution was anything but -- it was a successful attempt to impose a new constitution on us. This discussion is long overdue.
  10. You talk like a North Korean ... I don't know why sending somebody to an institution of supposed 'higher learning' is a solution to the ignorance problem in this country. Those institutions regularly spread ignorance. They churn out a misinformed product that has more interest in Lady Gaga than in the issues of the day.
  11. Outside of Quebec, what other provinces were there in 1774? Acadie is not Nova Scotia. Admittedly,there was a French colony in the area, but the Acadians weren't expelled until 1755 -- if I remember right. The American colonists considered themselves British when Governor Shirley mustered an army and attacked. The major reason? The metropolitan French government had placed a bounty on 'English scalps' with the result, a lot of Massachuetts folks were getting haircuts. The Quebec Act was mostly offensive because it prevented the American 'English' from expanding into the Ohio Valley. At least that's the way I heard it.
  12. This money doesn't go to the homeless, silly. The biggest part of it is gobbled up by all the middle class 'experts' who work for organizations that are supported by public funds. You'll be equally amazed about how much public money is poured into things like co-op housing, and how important race is in getting into these developments. Again, not much of it gets into the hands of those who are the supposed beneficiaries.
  13. The other major reason is addiction. Alcohol addiction, and drug addiction, mostly. The breakdown in the family is a major contributing factor. Not fashionable, perhaps, but true just the same.
  14. Seriously? What religion requires polygamy? Not Christianity, that's for sure. This comes from a bunch of law students, who want to take marriage apart for ideological reasons. In other words, it is a part of a conscious program to destroy the family on the basis that forming one endows those married with rights that other people don't have! Example: Married people do not have to testify against each other in court. The study points out that unmarried people do not have this right. They actually propose that unmarried people get to choose someone who can't testify against them, simply to remove this heinous bit of discrimination. This is from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+conspiracy+to+abolish+marriage%3A+Martha+Bailey+and+the+Law+Reform...-a0151394664 If you want to look at the report, it's can be tracked down at: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/beyond_conjugality.pdf
  15. What's their excuse, anyway? I thought I could read, at one time, but where in the Constitution, or the Charter, does it say that just anyone can come to live in this country? What is the imagined charter breech? Seriously. This was Mr. Dither's claim, about same-sex marriage -- it was required by the Charter!!! I never figured that one out, either. Perhaps it is a testament to the way law is practiced in this country. The real law-makers are the courts, and they do whatever they want. Maybe they're banking on the people being, by this time, so confused by this legal mumbo-jumbo that they just hold their heads when they hear the argument that it's in the Constitution ... as if the Constitution is there to protect the rights of illegal immigrants. Iggy ought to go back to the US, where the Dems are doing the same thing.
  16. Could you be more specific? What didn't occur? What are your accusations based on? Personally, I have a lot of respect for Christie Blatchford. She's in the top rank of Canadian journalists, by anyone's measure.
  17. Actually, poor old Alvin Green illustrates the kind of face-to-face mocking, and contemptuous treatment the media give candidates, even one of their own. Imagine if he were a Republican!!! Whatever you say, Greene won a spot on the ballot honestly, so far as anyone can tell. Why should he have to face down such ridicule?
  18. Surely the test of truth is a little more rigourous than what you have heard of. France doesn't have a free press, perhaps that's why you don't hear these things, except when Le Pen is contending for the Presidency of that country, and the English-speaking columnists are calling him a fascist and a racist. (The secret is that he's willing to bring the problem with moslems into French politics. The French are certainly not fascists.) Or perhaps you confine your reading to things that confirm your prejudices. Sadly, narrowness and contempt for others with differing views doesn't really substitute for a good discussion. Perhaps this will help you overcome your shortcomings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79EvKDK1dps
  19. Can I post them, then? You seem to be committed to the Democratic Party is some umbilical way. There are lots of indications of voter fraud, all over the place, and going back a couple of elections. ACORN is shameless about it, even giving out gas vouchers, free food, etc. to get people to register. How did Al Franken ever get elected to the Senate? Judicial decisions, not clearly by the public. (Franken lost, initially, and began getting one category of voters, ie. absentee votes, then the military vote, eliminated from the tally. I don't understand the logic, except troops are a lot more likely to vote Republican than Democrat.) They used to stuff the ballot boxes -- now they eliminate whole classes of voters. There's other signs of fraud as well. In Illinios, Obama's home state and the US champion of voter fraud, they seem to be dicking around with absentee ballots. (The Illinois Democrats, under old Mayor Daly, are generally conceded to have stolen the Kennedy election from Nixon through vote stuffing.) The whole article can be seen at http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=7747590
  20. Nice presentation, but I have one question. OMERS is supposed to be administering the pensions from contributions of the government and employees, however they have that worked out. Why is the taxpayer on the arm for the shortfall? OMERS is the trustee.
  21. Well, sorry, but I think that's crazy. The economics aren't there. Which industries do you want to close first? Auto? At latitudes above 45º, solar isn't effective, and anyway, why do we want to make electricity with it when we could use it better for heat? I live on the Lake Erie shore, in an area where they are putting in 650 of these 'wind turbines', all producing jobs in Germany and Denmark, and profits for Koreans. They produce a noise that is compared to a jet aircraft preparing for takeoff by people who live half a mile away. Also, they kill birds, lots of them. And the power they produce is orders of magnitude more expensive than the present costs. Like 10 times more. Sooner or later they will have to tell us the truth about this. It's beyond stupid. This article has a lot of the facts about the IKEA deal, which is applauded by Swedes. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/Power+failure/3641528/story.html
  22. I think I know why rates are soaring. I was at the Home Depot in Chatham a week ago, and there were some hustlers there trying to sell solar panels. $500 for enough panels to produce 60 watts! Only enough to run one light bulb. Obviously, the economics aren't there, but to make this German made crap saleable, they would put you into a 10 year contract with Hydro One, paying you 80¢ a kilowatt hour for power that they sell for 8¢ a kilowatt hour. It doesn't make any sense at all, except lyin' Dalton wants to make it look like Ontario is 'doing something' for the environment. The only feasible power source that is free of greenhouse gases is nuclear. That's what the coward won't deal with.
  23. Sorry, this is all Dalton McGoof, at his lying worst. Remember how the Liberals went after Harris, personally, for the Ipperwash raid? He painted himself into a corner when the suddenly the shoe was on his foot. He couldn't do what Harris did because he had slagged Harris so bad, and was even trying to have him arrested for it. Understand, this is not a land dispute. Nor does the Federal government have a role. This is all stuff that is clearly within provincial jurisdiction. The piece of land in question was cleared for sale by the tribal council, and they even had anthropologists looking for grave-sites, before the building permits were issued. The natives involved do not have an aboriginal right to the lands in the area -- their lands were in upstate New York, and they got their title in fee simple from the Queen. The land had been bought by the government back before Confederation, as part of the plank road they were building, so you know how long ago it must have been. The demonstration is a move by aboriginal gangsters involved in tobacco smuggling, gun smuggling, and casino and on-line gambling. They wanted the land for a casino, and were the losing bidder on the land. Figure it out. The legal situation is this: property owners have a common-law right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. That has been taken away from them by the pattern of police enforcement. There were cases of elderly people being dragged from their cars because they tried to use the public highway. A contractor was nearly killed for building a house for his daughter, and the police stood around trying to prevent anyone from intervening because they were ordered to let the reserve police handle such cases. Only petty charges were laid in an attempted murder. The natives say they are sovereign, and that Canadian law doesn't apply to them. In fact, the insurance company on the Douglas Estates project refused to pay off because, by their lights, Caledonia is an armed insurrection. No construction can take place through much of the Grand River area without paying the natives a 'development' fee. It is literally a challenge to Canadian sovereignty. Next time you're at the reservation, getting your illegal smokes, ask them about their sovereignty. You'll likely find out.
  24. It looks to me as if the gold braid part of the military deceived the government, along with the supplying company. What do you do when there is only one supplier for the equipment you need? Government aren't very effective purchasing agents. They even over-pay for paperclips. I'll give the present government this much credit -- they have done a lot better job equipping our troops than has been the case over the preceding 20 years. Strangely enough, it was Paul Martin who started the acquisitions and took on the assignment in Afghanistan, but before that, the military were treated like crap. Remember, this helicopter story goes back to the Mulroney contract that Chretien spitefully cancelled, even though it cost him half a billion to get nothing.
  25. You will notice she uses the plural pronoun ... what do you think that means? She doesn't say Williams did these things. She says men do them -- as part of the normal course of their day. What does it take for you to stop being a gentleman, and realize you (as well as the rest of us) are being slandered?
  • Create New...