Wild Bill Posted April 6, 2008 Report Posted April 6, 2008 "'Common sense" is a collection of prejudices you acquire before the age of 18" Albert Einstein Nice dodge on my request for a source... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
DangerMouse Posted April 6, 2008 Author Report Posted April 6, 2008 quote name='Wild Bill' date='Apr 6 2008, 09:50 AM' post='303297'] Nice dodge on my request for a source... It works both ways...I can't remember if it was you, but it may have been Angus. I requested an example of where a First Nation has dreamt up oral history for contemporary objectives? I'm looking forward to all your responses.[ Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted April 7, 2008 Report Posted April 7, 2008 It works both ways...I can't remember if it was you, but it may have been Angus. I requested an example of where a First Nation has dreamt up oral history for contemporary objectives? I'm looking forward to all your responses. Nope, you didn't ask me any such thing, I would have given you the recent case involving the band claiming South Edmonton. You know, the one overturned by the Supreme court. The same supreme court that they are now ignoring because the ruling didn't go in their favour. The reason being that the court determined the claim was based on false testimony, that one, or are you not familiar with it because you aren't keeping up on these matters? As for answering, you have no place to talk. I've asked you to back up things you've said about me at least a half dozen times and been met with stony silence on the subject every time without fail. So what was that you were saying about not providing the info requested. Can you say hypocrite? Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
DangerMouse Posted April 8, 2008 Author Report Posted April 8, 2008 Nope, you didn't ask me any such thing, I would have given you the recent case involving the band claiming South Edmonton. You know, the one overturned by the Supreme court. The same supreme court that they are now ignoring because the ruling didn't go in their favour. The reason being that the court determined the claim was based on false testimony, that one, or are you not familiar with it because you aren't keeping up on these matters?As for answering, you have no place to talk. I've asked you to back up things you've said about me at least a half dozen times and been met with stony silence on the subject every time without fail. So what was that you were saying about not providing the info requested. Can you say hypocrite? You're funny! Hey one thing you should know is that the provincial supreme courts are a waste of time and money when it comes to aborginal issues. In another thread here, some guys is blabbin on about economic rights. What most people like you don't even realize, is that the 2 levels of government and all the accompanying institutions are the governments prized "gray area." It's how they've gotten things through and continue to get things through. When it comes to aboriginal issues and provincial supreme courts it's all crap and that's all there is to that-- a huge waste of taxpayers money based on total biased legal crap all twisted to meet the needs of the provinces...you say that the court threw a case out on flase testimony! Well when you think about it, the provincial supreme courts are in a jurisdiction equivalent to a cracker jack box!! Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted April 8, 2008 Report Posted April 8, 2008 Thanks DM, you just reinforced what I've been saying all along. When the courts rule in their favour Natives tout the decision as unassailable wisdom. When it goe's against them then the courts are a joke. Really, I couldn't have summed it up more nicely if I tried. Well done! Now I've asked you this before but I'll try again. What exactly is people like me? Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
DangerMouse Posted April 8, 2008 Author Report Posted April 8, 2008 Thanks DM, you just reinforced what I've been saying all along. When the courts rule in their favour Natives tout the decision as unassailable wisdom. When it goe's against them then the courts are a joke. Really, I couldn't have summed it up more nicely if I tried. Well done! Now I've asked you this before but I'll try again. What exactly is people like me? No I didnt say that....I said the extra level is a waste of time and money! Aboriginal People fall under federal jurisdiction. SO to go through a provincial court first, when the bozos know that it will have to eventually get to the federal level anyways, is a waste of time and money. Wow you're a real lightulb. Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted April 8, 2008 Report Posted April 8, 2008 .I said the extra level is a waste of time and money! This we will take for what its worth being nothing more than your opinion with no concrete facts to back your assertion. The simple fact was that the information was falsified when presented in court. You asked when Oral history has ever been falsified, I showed you an example. In reply you then attempt to change the subject as to the value of the various layers of courts utilized. Nice attempt but no cigar. Next, once again you refuse to answer my question, yet you condemn others for not answering yours, pot calling the kettle black anyone? And finally, you just cant get away from the rather feeble attempts at insults and discuss matters in a more adult manner. This alone speaks volumes as to your maturity (or lack there off) and your intellectual capacity. In short you repeatedly demonstrate why no one should take you seriously, as I said, keep it up, I love watching someone dig their own grave with the skill you so abundantly display. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
DangerMouse Posted April 8, 2008 Author Report Posted April 8, 2008 This we will take for what its worth being nothing more than your opinion with no concrete facts to back your assertion. The simple fact was that the information was falsified when presented in court. You asked when Oral history has ever been falsified, I showed you an example. In reply you then attempt to change the subject as to the value of the various layers of courts utilized. Nice attempt but no cigar.Next, once again you refuse to answer my question, yet you condemn others for not answering yours, pot calling the kettle black anyone? And finally, you just cant get away from the rather feeble attempts at insults and discuss matters in a more adult manner. This alone speaks volumes as to your maturity (or lack there off) and your intellectual capacity. In short you repeatedly demonstrate why no one should take you seriously, as I said, keep it up, I love watching someone dig their own grave with the skill you so abundantly display. I don't smoke anyways! Why do you want concrete facts over something that is obvious? The fact is a "fact is not a feeble attempt but it is a fact?" It's that simple. If you can't see my point about conflicting government jurisdictions, and their accompanying courts then you need to change your lightbulb. Why is the province trying to rule on a provincial matter? Quote
DangerMouse Posted April 8, 2008 Author Report Posted April 8, 2008 ...Why is the province trying to rule on a provincial matter? I meant to say...Why is the province trying to rule on a matter that falls under federal jurisdiction? Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted April 8, 2008 Report Posted April 8, 2008 If you can't see my point about conflicting government jurisdictions Oh, I see your point alright. Your point is to change the subject. You asked for an instance when Oral history has been subverted to serve an agenda, I provided one. At that juncture you started to dance away from the subject onto one of Federal vs. Provincial jurisdiction. So, not only do you accuse others of the actions you so abundantly display but you also have a pronounced inability to admit or concede any point. Nice. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
DangerMouse Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Posted April 9, 2008 Oh, I see your point alright. Your point is to change the subject. You asked for an instance when Oral history has been subverted to serve an agenda, I provided one. At that juncture you started to dance away from the subject onto one of Federal vs. Provincial jurisdiction. So, not only do you accuse others of the actions you so abundantly display but you also have a pronounced inability to admit or concede any point. Nice. Your verbal diahrea is sickening! Quote
jbg Posted April 9, 2008 Report Posted April 9, 2008 I meant to say...Why is the province trying to rule on a matter that falls under federal jurisdiction?How do you choose one font on some posts and this one on others? Any other favorite (or is it favourite) fonts? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
AngusThermopyle Posted April 9, 2008 Report Posted April 9, 2008 (edited) laugh.gif laugh.gif tongue.gif Your verbal diahrea is sickening! tongue.gif Thank you so much, no, I really mean it. I couldn't have displayed the irrelevancy of your posts any more clearly than you have just done with that single comment. Toddle on off now, okay. Edited April 9, 2008 by AngusThermopyle Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
jbg Posted April 10, 2008 Report Posted April 10, 2008 Your verbal diahrea is sickening! Is that all you have to say? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.