Army Guy Posted October 7 Report Posted October 7 15 hours ago, herbie said: Yet.... Thank you for a rational explanation. However I cannot imagine too many Canadians thinking the national debt is our #1 priority. Now a real (classical) Conservative might address that by suggesting restoring the GST to 7% Then i think many Canadians do not understand the position the liberal/Ndp government has put us in, we can not continue to spend massive amounts of money we don't have without consequences. In case thats number flew over your head, it cost Canada 64 bil each year to service that debt...that amount of funding could take care of most of our current social programs such as health care, our entire security apparatus, and still have money left over for additional social programs...Not to mention the over 15.5 bil we give to foreign nations each year..or the useless millions spent on other international organizations or domestic groups. Eventually someone is going to have to look at our national debt, and if we continue to stick our heads in the sand we will end up like other nations that over spent, like Greece, etc and face the same thing with having someone else mange our finances Lets be honest here restoring GST to 7 % is not going to put a dent into our 1.2 trillion dollar debt...and to be frank neither is shutting down the dental, child and pharma care but it is a start.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Moonbox Posted October 7 Report Posted October 7 27 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Then i think many Canadians do not understand the position the liberal/Ndp government has put us in, we can not continue to spend massive amounts of money we don't have without consequences. In case thats number flew over your head, it cost Canada 64 bil each year to service that debt...that amount of funding could take care of most of our current social programs such as health care, our entire security apparatus, and still have money left over for additional social programs... Canada spends something like +$300B a year on healthcare alone. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Guest Posted October 7 Report Posted October 7 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: LOL Sure Kid 😊 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿 Munch on these nuts: Quote
herbie Posted October 7 Report Posted October 7 44 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Lets be honest here restoring GST to 7 % is not going to put a dent into our 1.2 trillion dollar debt...and to be frank neither is shutting down the dental, child and pharma care but it is a start.... And throwing away sources of tax revenue is definitely going to make it worse. Quote
Army Guy Posted October 7 Report Posted October 7 59 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Canada spends something like +$300B a year on healthcare alone. And your point is what here? is it enough or could this funding help our current healthcare system. 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted October 7 Report Posted October 7 45 minutes ago, herbie said: And throwing away sources of tax revenue is definitely going to make it worse. I'm sure every penny counts , GST totals might account for 1/2 billion plus in revenue. And we are talking about trillion plus in debt... https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/prog-policy/stats/gst-hst-stats/2023/tbl02-2023-en.pdf Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted October 7 Report Posted October 7 2 hours ago, Guest said: Munch on these nuts: says the homophobe Quote
BeaverFever Posted October 8 Report Posted October 8 (edited) On 10/6/2024 at 2:45 PM, CdnFox said: That's some pretty fictional crap. I'm surprised you didn't try to cram other discreded lies like "gave away small pox blankets" or the like. And not one of your conditions was met - except perhaps for killing some of them, which first nations did to europeans as well. Your dishonesty and revisionist history does NOT constitute a genocide. FURTHER - it would be grossly inappropriate to apply the meanings today to a world that hasn't existed for almost 2 centuries at this point. Not at all. Killing members of the group: Check. You admit to that Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: Well I don’t know how you can admit to killing them but not to harming them. Plus the residential school system was institutionalized physical and mental abuse that lasted for generations. Check. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part: Here is where you can try to plead plead that the horrid conditions of life were simply due to neglect and indifference but wasn’t “deliberately calculated”. Although the destruction of indigenous culture and identity was a frequently stated goal of government so you have your work cut out for you. Check. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: As part of the eugenics programs in Alberta and British Columbia, Indigenous people—particularly women—were subjected to forced or coerced sterilization. Many Indigenous women were sterilized without their full and informed consent, often after childbirth or during medical procedures where they were not made fully aware of the nature and permanency of the sterilization. In some cases, coercion was involved, with women being told they would lose access to social services or custody of their children if they did not consent. In other cases, birth control was offered or even imposed on Indigenous women without proper counselling or understanding the implications, particularly in remote areas with limited healthcare access. Check Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: Sixties scoop, which is a catch-all term for various programs throughout the second half of the twentieth century whereby tens of thousands of indigenous children were taken from their families often for spurious or arbitrary reasons and intentionally placed with “white” foster or adoptive families. And again, the Residential school system Check You fail again Edited October 8 by BeaverFever Quote
DUI_Offender Posted October 8 Report Posted October 8 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: says the homophobe you murdered Perspectiv. Quote
BeaverFever Posted October 8 Report Posted October 8 On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: Because the French weren't murdering English civilians Neither were the mikmaw women and children. And why do you believe the English are just entitled to forcibly invade mikmaw territory but mikmaw aren’t entitled to resist? On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: Bullshit. Nobody twisted their arms or threatened them to get them to attack and murder English colonists. They did it because the French paid them to. NO sympathy here. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The mikmaw were trading partners and allies with the French who were in the area before the English. The mikmaw were not mercenary killers for hire. The British invaded mikmaw territories, were at war with the French and attempting to disrupt and destroy the French fur trade which the mikmaw had become dependent upon. On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: You're the one trying to make excuses "Oh, oh, the poor, innocent natives were just dancing in the sunflowers when the evil British colonists FORCED them to murder women and children! You need some perspective. Britain forcibly invaded mikmaw territory, and violated existing treaties not the other way around. And the total number of British killed by mikmaw over the years including soldiers was fairly low, in the dozens not the hundreds On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: No, what's typical is your liberal bigotry of low expectations. The only thing I have low expectations for is your right wing bigotry and chauvinism. On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: Suppose you find me anywhere in those treaties that says we need to provide them with housing, with heating, with water, with electricity and healthcare. Education and healthcare as well as annual payments are specifically mentioned in many if not most treaties. The Indian Act of 1876 made indigenous peoples wards of the state. This gave the federal government broad control over many aspects of Indigenous life, including governance, land use, education, and financial management. Under the Indian Act, the government assumed the role of a guardian, deciding on matters related to Indigenous peoples as though they were incapable of making their own decisions. The double edged sword is that when the Canadian government made itself legal guardians of indigenous people it also assumed the fiduciary duty to provide for them. It’s not just the treaties its also the Indian Act and the Constitution and decades of legal decisions that are involved here. On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: LOL. Think so? No, dude. That land is part of Canada. It's not going to be returned to the ancestors of people we took it from You say that based on what exactly? The LAW decides who it belongs to and the law is not on your side You right wingers think you can just force your will and whims on people regardless of the laws and other people but that’s not how democracies work. Deal with it. On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: A constitutional amendment that removed their ancestral rights would take care of that too. Oh a constitutional amendment is that all? Why it’s just like snapping your fingers! LMAO Also note another example of conservatives being the only people who would use constitutional amendments and the Supreme Court to REMOVE rights rather than expand them. On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: The pesky thing is the arrogant judges who continue to 'read into' the Constitution words and intentions which were never there. I think the same constitutional amendment that says natives have no more rights than other Canadians can restrict what the courts can 'read into' the constitution. Doood!!! U shud be a loyer! LMAO Seriously your spiteful authoritarian daydreams are completely unrealistic Your magical amendment is not only going after the FN it’s going after the SCOC too? On 10/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said: I think authoritarianism, as you call it, is a reaction to governments and courts who are deliberately writing and altering laws that harm the country and the vast bulk of the population. It's hard for a thinking person to respect that and to not want it changed. I, for example, would like to do a constitutional amendment that allowed the privy council to call a referendum that would overrule supreme court decisions. I think it’s a reaction by people who have spent too much time watching sports and wrestling and reality tv and living on the internet and don’t understand anything about the world outside of their tiny little lives amd don’t accept any perspectives other than their own. Having a club of super-elite political insiders from the ruling party who can basically unilaterally nullify the law and constitution at whim and rule by decree without checks and balances….that is a great way to end democracy and impose a fascist state. 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted October 8 Report Posted October 8 On 10/6/2024 at 9:52 AM, I am Groot said: That IS, after all, how they treated their enemies. But I'm guessing you're not going to accuse them of committing genocide. Because, after all, they were ignorant savages who weren't capable of morality. Actually prior to European arrival indigenous warfare in North America, while not uncommon, rarely involved killing of non-combatants such as women and children. In fact due to their small populations, the typical and most common practice would be for the victorious group to absorb the members defeated group to grow their numbers. “Adopting” prisoners of war whether captured warriors or non- combatants, was a common practice throughout North America. In many/most cases after some probationary period the “captives” became equal citizens and/or married into their new tribe. While there is evidence of scattered and isolated cases of non-combatants being killed here and there, these appear to be highly localized and rare events, seemingly driven by extreme stresses such as increasingly intense competition during a prolonged drought. To be fair sometimes captured warriors could be ritualistically tortured and killed depending on time, place, specific tribe and larger context of the conflict. Furthermore due to small numbers, these communities could not afford to lose large numbers of people in large pitched battles. Therefore most pre-contact combat, at least in North America, is best described as guerrilla style with skirmishes, raids and ambushes between small groups of fighters with the losing side retreating, rather than holding ground and fighting to the last man. Large armies and pitched battles prior to European contact are pretty much unheard of. This all changed after the arrival of Europeans, and the Beaver Wars, Queen Anne’s War, King George’s War and the French and Indian War. All of these were European wars fought for control of North America, with each side pitting its indigenous partners against the others especially in the earliest of these, the Beaver Wars, because the European population on the continent was relatively small at the time Long story short in that war the British and Dutch armed their Iroquois allies in modern day upstate NY and trained them in large maneuver warfare and winter warfare which were unheard of for indigenous for the purpose of mass invasion of southern Ontario and wiping out the Huron, who were the original pre-European inhabitants of this area and allied with the French. Because French missionaries lived amongst the Huron their communities were far more devastated by small pox than other groups. In addition the French church had imposed strict rules limiting the trade of firearms to indigenous people especially the non-baptized so the Hurons were effectively wiped out with survivors being absorbed by their attackers, other groups, or fleeing to modern Quebec where some descendants still live. The French then played the same game bringing in a different coalition of indigenous people, primarily Ojibwa (aka Chippewa) and related tribes from northern Ontario and others from eastern Ontario and pushed the Iroquois back. The Iroquois themselves were being pushed by English and Dutch settlers in their home territory as well. But the point is all of this was set in motion by the arrival of Europeans and indigenous groups becoming dependent on trading with them and getting caught up in their colonial wars as their territory is increasingly encroached upon. On 10/6/2024 at 9:52 AM, I am Groot said: The latest budget allocated $32 billion to natives. And btw, you're ignoring that much money is spent that is not specifically targeted at natives but is a part of the operating budget of Canada - a place natives are citizens of. That means spending on foreign affairs, highways and infrastructure, defense, pensions, etc. Spending on Indigenous priorities has increased significantly since 2015 (181 per cent) with spending for 2023-24 estimated to be over $30.5 billion, rising further to a forecast of approximately $32 billion in 2024-25. Notably, Budget 2024 includes $2.3 billion over five years to renew existing programming https://budget.canada.ca/2024/report-rapport/chap6-en.html 5% of the population, 5% of the budget. WAH And as I mentioned they are effectively wards of the state under the constitution which also entails certain obligations upon government. Let me also point out that unless you are especially wealthy you ALSO consume more tax dollars than you contribute That is the whole point of taxes On 10/6/2024 at 9:52 AM, I am Groot said: I remember reading an article last year or the year before about how natives had had to boil water on a reserve for a long time until one young man finally got bored and volunteered to take the course in how to maintain their government-paid water filtration system. Shortly thereafter, it started working again. None of the natives had ever bothered to try to maintain it before. Sounds highly dubious. Where did you read that, the Daily Klansman? The deficiencies of government provided water treatment facilities are well documented. Your alleged anecdote is not, and sounds highly distorted if not fabricated. The fact that the Trudeau government has resolved well over 100 long term boil water advisories on reserves is proof of that. On 10/6/2024 at 9:52 AM, I am Groot said: They treat housing the same as welfare tenants in city public housing projects. Chronic housing shortages that have lasted generations mean you often have up to a dozen people living in a small trailer-sized home. The homes cannot stand that much wear and tear and they’re often poorly built to begin with. Housing is band-owned but to build and repair homes they rely on government funding which is almost always inadequate. Quote
CdnFox Posted October 8 Report Posted October 8 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Not at all. Killing members of the group: Check. You admit to that Sure - but both sides did that a lot. Soooo - european genocide then? Quote Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: Well I don’t know how you can admit to killing them but not to harming them. Sure, the logic tracks, but that brings us to the above reply Quote Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part: Here is where you can try to plead plead that the horrid conditions of life were simply due to neglect and indifference but wasn’t “deliberately calculated”. No, here i would argue the 'horrid conditions' existed when europeans showed up. In fact it was these very horrid conditions that made the europeans think these people needed to be civilized. "Savage" didn't mean "violent" in those days, it meant "barely a step up from animals the way they live". They were a warring culture, who sold their women as chattel and took slaves, who lived in dirty and unhygienic conditions cramped together with minimal medical or other tech, without even steel or iron or even copper implements. In fact ALL of the actions of the first hudsons bay people and canadians later improved their conditions, they didnt' make them worse. Quote Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: As part of the eugenics programs in Alberta and British Columbia, Indigenous people—particularly women—were subjected to forced or coerced sterilization. Nope. There was no 'eugenics' program. Some specific women were pressured into being sterilized over the years because the doctors and medical people at hand thought those specific people shouldn't have children. But the first nations population has been rising since canada was born, not shrinking. To listen to you define it giving a first nations person a condom is genocide. The bar is a HELL of a lot higher than that. Precontact the death rate of children was insane - post contact it got better and better all the time as medical tech became available. If anything we facilitated a strong increase in population not a reduction. Quote Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: Sixties scoop, which is a catch-all term for various programs throughout the second half of the twentieth century whereby tens of thousands of indigenous children were taken from their families often for spurious or arbitrary reasons and intentionally placed with “white” foster or adoptive families. Nope. not "taken away from" - these were kids who were in danger or abused and needed foster care or were orpohans or the like. The issue wasn't that they were "Taken away". They were in danger or had no one to care for them or their parents abandoned them at birth. The issue was that it was later said that a greater emphasis should have been put on placing them with native families. But while that is true, there weren't exactly a bunch of native familes clamoring for kids to adopt in reality. The concept of relocating children assumes the REASON they were taken was to relocate them and there was no need to do so. That is NOT the case - this kids were in distress and had to be taken and now it was a question of what to do with them. Literally every one of your examples is either an out and out fabrication or a gross distortion of the truth. This is what people come up with when they START with the premise that there was a genocide and then spend all their energy trying to find facts (and only facts) that support that pre-clusion. However, if you look at the facts they don't support a genocide at all. Quote
DUI_Offender Posted October 8 Report Posted October 8 (edited) The fact that all these Asians from poor countries are coming here, and working for minimum wage, driving wages down for hard working multi-generational Canadians, should be incentive enough for people with European and Indigenous ancestry to work together to push them out of the country., Only them will we have true reconciliation. Edited October 8 by DUI_Offender 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted October 8 Report Posted October 8 9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: The fact that all these Asians from poor countries are coming here, and working for minimum wage, driving wages down for hard working multi-generational Canadians, should be incentive enough for people with European and Indigenous ancestry to work together to push them out of the country., Only them will we have true reconciliation. Sure, racism always sells a country's problems 🙄 1 Quote
Five of swords Posted October 8 Report Posted October 8 12 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: The fact that all these Asians from poor countries are coming here, and working for minimum wage, driving wages down for hard working multi-generational Canadians, should be incentive enough for people with European and Indigenous ancestry to work together to push them out of the country., Only them will we have true reconciliation. So you are saying that asians are not Canadian? Gosh, I thought you were dead, Hitler. 1 Quote
I am Groot Posted October 8 Author Report Posted October 8 19 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Neither were the mikmaw women and children. And why do you believe the English are just entitled to forcibly invade mikmaw territory but mikmaw aren’t entitled to resist? It was the micmks who violated the treaty and started the war 19 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Education and healthcare as well as annual payments are specifically mentioned in many if not most treaties. The Indian Act of 1876 made indigenous peoples wards of the state. Excellent. We'll get rid of it then. 19 hours ago, BeaverFever said: You say that based on what exactly? The LAW decides who it belongs to and the law is not on your side You right wingers think you can just force your will and whims on people regardless of the laws and other people but that’s not how democracies work. Deal with it. You authoritarian left-wingers who despise democracy and want rule by technocrats are just such a strange bunch. maybe it's because you don't like or trust people. 19 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Oh a constitutional amendment is that all? Why it’s just like snapping your fingers! LMAO I was responding to your silly view that without the treaties all the land reverts to the natives. If the Supreme Court was as lunatic as you and actually made such a ruling it would take the provinces and government about a week to do a constitutional amendment to overrule the SC. Because if they didn't people would just start murdering every native they could get their hands on. 19 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Also note another example of conservatives being the only people who would use constitutional amendments and the Supreme Court to REMOVE rights rather than expand them. No, it's us conservatives who care about society as a whole and you left-wingers who feel there's no problem in causing enormous dislocation, costs, and trouble to society to aid your favorite little victim groups Like the way you people decided you'd make everyone lock themselves into their homes and give criminals the free run of the street rather than lock up the criminals and let people outside. 19 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Seriously your spiteful authoritarian daydreams are completely unrealistic Your magical amendment is not only going after the FN it’s going after the SCOC too? Again, I was responding to your fantasy that the SC could rule all the land would revert to natives if we got rid of the treaties. If that happened you can be damned sure that a constitutional amendment would be implemented damned fast. And if not people would start lynching both natives and judges. You don't get that because like the rest of the Left you've never understood human nature and never understood human motivations. Because at heart, you hate people. Quote
DUI_Offender Posted October 9 Report Posted October 9 (edited) 4 hours ago, Five of swords said: So you are saying that asians are not Canadian? Gosh, I thought you were dead, Hitler. No, Canadian born Asians are full citizens. Foreign born people are driving the wages down, since they work for minimum wage, and their culture is to fit 4 families in space meant for one home, so they have an unfair advantage over born Canadians. PS...is it just me, or am I the only one who finds it ironic that Five of Spades, who literally posts like he is in the Third Reich, calling others "Hitler?" Edited October 9 by DUI_Offender Quote
Five of swords Posted October 9 Report Posted October 9 1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said: No, Canadian born Asians are full citizens. Foreign born people are driving the wages down, since they work for minimum wage, and their culture is to fit 4 families in space meant for one home, so they have an unfair advantage over born Canadians. PS...is it just me, or am I the only one who finds it ironic that Five of Spades, who literally posts like he is in the Third Reich, calling others "Hitler?" So it's OK that they are Asian, you just don't think poor people should be Canadian. OK, then you are nothing like Hitler. I meant it as a compliment, though. Quote
BeaverFever Posted October 9 Report Posted October 9 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: It was the micmks who violated the treaty and started the war What specifically do you base that statement on other that you wish that to be true? And AGAIN the Mkmaw didn’t invade England, the British invaded mikmaw land. Plus we know from how history played out and public statements what the Europeans true intention really was They never intended to peacefully coexist with “savage heathens” they believed the “doctrine of discovery” entitled them to conquer, enslave and/or convert non-Christian indigenous peoples and their land, which is what they eventually did 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: Excellent. We'll get rid of it then. Just like that! So easy! Why didn’t anyone ever think of it before? You’re hilarious 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: You authoritarian left-wingers who despise democracy and want rule by technocrats are just such a strange bunch. maybe it's because you don't like or trust people. LMAO now you’re not even making sense! What “rule by technocrats” are you referring to lol? Sounds like you just heard that term somewhere and wanted to use it but don’t know how Again let me remind you: YOU are the one who thinks a cabal of the prime minister’s party insiders should have unchecked power to rule by decree, untouchable by all laws amd courts 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: was responding to your silly view that without the treaties all the land reverts to the natives. If the Supreme Court was as lunatic as you and actually made such a ruling it would take the provinces and government about a week to do a constitutional amendment to overrule the SC. Because if they didn't people would just start murdering every native they could get their hands on. OMG the layers of absurdity in you posts are too much! So your hilarious suggestion is that: 1) Law abiding private citizens of Canada who believe in democracy and human rights will rise up and commence a genocidal killing spree if Treaty land (which non-indigenous Canadians aren’t currently even entitled to use or live on) is no longer under federal government jurisdiction after the feds unilaterally cancel all treaties because tax dollars 2) Despite being a nation of laws and human rights, rather that stopping the genocidal slaughter which is of course a crime, and restoring law and order, the feds and provinces will quickly amend the constitution despite the fact that all previous attempts at constitutional amendments have failed after months and months of negotiations 3) Despite being a nation based on laws and human rights, the purpose of the amendment will be for Canada to remove human rights and the power of the judiciary so that the government can annex land that it has no legal basis or right to claim, for no reason other than …well .just because white people might want to use it someday 4) Once the Treaty land is reconquered FirdNations will be welcomed as equal citizens and that whole genocidal massacre thing will be forgotten about and be water under the bridge Is that about right? 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: No, it's us conservatives who care about society as a whole LMAO That’s rich! The entire conservative philosophy is based in the belief that “there is no society, only the individual” and that caring about society is socialism! That’s why they hate taxes and social programs that look after society and believe it should be every man for himself 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: you left-wingers who feel there's no problem in causing enormous dislocation, costs, and trouble to society What the hell are you referring to? What dislocation? The only enormous dislocation was when the government forcibly dislocated indigenous people and you seem to think that’s no big deal. Also we’ve already covered that the costs are in fact not “enormous” If you think there wouldn’t be any “trouble to society@ caused by your completely-divorced-from-reality fantasy scenario of unilateral treaty nullification and constitutional amendments to nullify the SC and Charter of Rights, and annexation of non-Canadian territory you are seriously delusional. 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: Like the way you people decided you'd make everyone lock themselves into their homes and give criminals the free run of the street rather than lock up the criminals and let people outside. WTF are you talking about? You’re going full whackjob now. 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: Again, I was responding to your fantasy that the SC could rule all the land would revert to natives if we got rid of the treaties. If that happened you can be damned sure that a constitutional amendment would be implemented damned fast. And if not people would start lynching both natives and judges. You don't get that because like the rest of the Left you've never understood human nature and never understood human motivations. Because at heart, you hate people. First of all you’ve made it abundantly clear that you have ZERO knowledge of how our country works AT ALL. I’ve already explained how utterly stupid your line of argument is here so I won’t repeat myself but you’re sounding like a teenager who hasn’t even taken a basic history or civics course Secondly it’s quite clear from your repeated racist diatribes that the only one who hates people is you. Meanwhile your basis for saying I hate people is because I won’t agree with your absurd statement that a genocidal massacre would be the obvious result of an unfavourable Supreme Court ruling that is ultimately about saving 5% of the federal budget. Just reflect on that for a moment You probably don’t even consider indigenous people to be people that’s why the irony of your comment was lost on you. Third it’s also clear for the same reasons as noted above that YOU don’t understand human nature if you honestly believe law abiding citizens will start murdering judges and indigenous people over this. I used to think you were a grumpy old man who never left the house but given your shocking lack of knowledge and understanding Im starting to think you’re actually just a teenager who hasn’t learned anything about the world yet. Quote
Zeitgeist Posted October 9 Report Posted October 9 (edited) On 10/7/2024 at 9:47 PM, BeaverFever said: Not at all. Killing members of the group: Check. You admit to that Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: Well I don’t know how you can admit to killing them but not to harming them. Plus the residential school system was institutionalized physical and mental abuse that lasted for generations. Check. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part: Here is where you can try to plead plead that the horrid conditions of life were simply due to neglect and indifference but wasn’t “deliberately calculated”. Although the destruction of indigenous culture and identity was a frequently stated goal of government so you have your work cut out for you. Check. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: As part of the eugenics programs in Alberta and British Columbia, Indigenous people—particularly women—were subjected to forced or coerced sterilization. Many Indigenous women were sterilized without their full and informed consent, often after childbirth or during medical procedures where they were not made fully aware of the nature and permanency of the sterilization. In some cases, coercion was involved, with women being told they would lose access to social services or custody of their children if they did not consent. In other cases, birth control was offered or even imposed on Indigenous women without proper counselling or understanding the implications, particularly in remote areas with limited healthcare access. Check Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: Sixties scoop, which is a catch-all term for various programs throughout the second half of the twentieth century whereby tens of thousands of indigenous children were taken from their families often for spurious or arbitrary reasons and intentionally placed with “white” foster or adoptive families. And again, the Residential school system Check You fail again Unfortunately Indigenous people on many reserves and prior to the reserves were living under harsh conditions. The attempts both to preserve Indigenous cultures and to assimilate Indigenous into “colonial” society were no-win situations. The natives weren’t suddenly going to give up horses and guns and better shelters that they acquired during early colonial settlement, nor would they later give up TV, internet, cars, and the kinds of lifestyles that catapulted them ahead in terms of lifespan, infant mortality, and living standards. The idea of creating an artificial bubble for a group to live the old ways (that none of them would choose to live) and subsidizing the whole charade, from health to education to infrastructure, is doomed from the start, because it isn’t self-made. Of course. Sir John A. MacDonald warned of the heavy price of feeding and sheltering Indigenous for nothing in return because of the moral hazard that came true. He is called genocidal for making a true statement. The Residential Schools, for better and worse, were considered progressive at the time that they began because of the subsidized literacy and education they promised. Yes abuses happened, probably more than in non-Indigenous schools, but abuse was rampant in all schools which were still considered progressive marvels, because there was no public education system prior to the 19th century. Free, mandatory public education is still widely valued and for many good reasons. The non-Indigenous were the only ones providing it. To this day, if you come from a remote small community and you want to attend high school, you’re going to have to move far from home. And don’t kid yourself, the Indigenous were no better than other groups. The Northwest Coast Indigenous kept more slaves than any group in Canada, where slavery was banned by colonial authorities long before Confederation. Not a single body has been interred at any suspected gravesites where ground penetrating radar found anomalies. No Indigenous identities have been confirmed. No foul play has been confirmed. There was indeed greater spread of disease due to overcrowding than in non-Indigenous schools. There has been mismanagement and abuse. Suppressing cultures was bad but made sense to the people who were providing education at the time. History is full of cultural suppression unfortunately, but some cultural practices are healthier than others. There are cultural trade-offs in any event when one group dominates another, whether intentionally through war or displacement or more haphazardly through immigration, which is taking place more now than in any time in our history. Groups have defeated other groups throughout history. At least in Canada we didn’t have bounties or massacres of Indians. We didn’t have a planned attempt to hurt Indigenous people. If you read the histories of the US, it was far more brutal, though Indigenous groups also massacred women and children. No group was especially morally superior. In the bigger picture we have to prevent further mistreatment of any groups and avoid putting any groups above any others on the basis of race or other superficial qualities. Sadly, the Sixties Scoop is complicated because of the rampant alcoholism and neglect that existed on reserves. Did Child and Family Services over-reach? Yes. They have also failed to get involved when they should. These are complicated histories. While there are good recommendations from the TRC that promote greater respect and understanding, there are also ridiculous ones that have nothing to do with Indigenous and that are simply socialist redistribution of funds to pay for questionable programs like universal basic income. The public are largely ignorant of the facts. I’ve read my Thomas King and Talaga and revised histories, but the song remains the same: People are people and human nature is both good and evil. Hopefully eventually new generations of Indigenous will shed the victim mentality and intergenerational trauma, stop seeking additional dependency on outside funding, and become authentically self-governing and self-financing, without special privileges. I’m skeptical that anyone will give up special privileges and outside funding. The stories of unmarked graves feed the narrative, and the narrative wins funding. Edited October 9 by Zeitgeist Quote
BeaverFever Posted October 9 Report Posted October 9 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Sure - but both sides did that a lot. Soooo - european genocide then? Nope. As defined, “The legal term “genocide” refers to certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” The Europeans had a deliberate agenda to destroy the indigenous people, in their own homeland, which the Europeans claimed for themselves. The indigenous peoples did not have a deliberate agenda to destroy Europeans, only to end their encroachment. Even then the attacks by indigenous were sporadic and localized and small-scale and not part of a grand agenda to convert the Europeans to indigenous religion or force them to live under indigenous rulers. Local disputes with encroaching settlers that occasionally result in a small group attacking the odd farm here and there are different from a centuries-long agenda at highest levels of government to conquer, forcibly assimilate, and if necessary exterminate another group based on their ethnic identity. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Sure, the logic tracks, but that brings us to the above reply As above 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: No, here i would argue the 'horrid conditions' existed when europeans showed up. No. They weren’t drinking water contaminated with mercury and arsenic and lead and a thousand other things, they didn’t have alcohol or heroine or mold-infested houses. They lived in a pre-industrial society but that’s not what “horrid” means. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: In fact it was these very horrid conditions that made the europeans think these people needed to be civilized. It was fact that they were less technologically advanced, non-white and non-Christian. The Doctrine of Discovery explicitly states that Christian monarchs have a duty and a right to conquer foreign lands and people if they are non-Christians. Let’s be clear the Europeans came as conquerors not as saviours. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: They were a warring culture Like all humans they fought wars but not any more warring than Europeans. In fact argubly much less so. One could easily argue few were more warring than the Europeans. European history is basically a story of endless major wars, with large masses armies leaving thousands dead, many such wars lasted decades or even the famous “hundred years war” and were fought over silly disputes like titles and inheritance or some lord insulting another lord’s honour. By contrast as I mentioned indigenous conflicts more often then not tended to be brief localized skirmishes and ambushes usually due to competition over scarce resources. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: who sold their women as chattel Fake news. I’m sure they had arranged marriages just like the Europeans and every human culture did did but beyond that you’re just peddling misinformation. Also prior to European arrival chattel slavery was not practiced in North America 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: and took slaves As above. Pre-contact Indigenous economies had no prisons or chains or industrialized production, no horse-mounted overseers and therefore no use for “slaves” as we know them or ability to keep them. They did take captives during conflicts and forcibly adopt them. The captives often at first had a lower status in the new tribe and during this time they may have had fewer privileges and performed more labour like carrying firewood etc compared to others, but everyone is doing that kind of work to some degree in these societies anyway. Then after a probationary period the captives usually gained full citizenship and freedom of movement including marrying onto the group and sometimes returning to their original home. An exception appears to be with the west coast groups like Haida and other related peoples where full citizenship seems to be fairly uncommon and the captives seem to retain a permanent second class status, were owned and could be traded like property, so something closer to what we understand as slaves. Again pre-contact economies had no use or need for systemic “slavery” so where and when it was even practiced, the slaves were basically family members of the owner, primarily kept as a sign of social status, who helped with chores and had fewer freedoms and privileges. Their life could be harsh or it could be comfortable simply depending on their own personal circumstances or luck. That said it’s interesting you use an allegation of slavery to prove indigenous people were savages needing European conquest when NOBODY on this planet was a more prolific practitioner of most brutal forms of slavery than the Europeans. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: who lived in dirty and unhygienic conditions Europeans lived in dirty unhygienic conditions back then also. Perhaps even more so. . Ever heard of the plague? Many Europeans especially commoners had taboos about bathing prior to the 20th century believing it to be unnecessary or even the cause of certain illnesses. In addition Europeans often lived in crowded overpopulated settlements in close proximity to livestock, with trash and chamberpots emptied in the gutters . And you know it was the Europeans who spread small pox and other highly communicable diseases to indigenous people, not the other way around, right? 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: cramped together When you build your own lodge or wigwam from the abundant natural elements all around you why would you be cramped together? Perhaps by choice during winter months for warmth. Again European settlers were cramped in their crowded settlements and tiny cabins. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: In fact ALL of the actions of the first hudsons bay people and canadians later improved their conditions, they didnt' make them worse. It made them dependent upon trade with Europeans as they lost their ability for self-sufficiency but to your point they probably wouldn’t have adopted it if it wasn’t seen as an improvement at the time . That said, the small pox, the forced relocations to remote inhospitable regions with insufficient local resources or access to market goods , the substandard drinking water, the residential schools, the regulation of their affairs and activities by the federal government, the contamination of their water by heavy industrial activities. The social problems experienced today with high rates of suicide, mental illness, substance abuse etc are the result of poor living conditions on many reserves. Again the FN were made dependent upon the government for basic services and necessities and then those necessities were never adequately provided resulting in poor living conditions. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Nope. There was no 'eugenics' program Yes look it up several provinces had eugenics programs. They were not specifically for indigenous people they were for all kinds of people who were mentally challenged, homeless, etc. Alberta’s Sexual Sterilization Act for example was in effect until 1972 and was particularly long-running, having sterilized thousands of women deemed “unfit to reproduce”. Marginalized women, especially Indigenous women, would get railroaded or coerced into these programs. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Some specific women were pressured into being sterilized over the years because the doctors and medical people at hand thought those specific people shouldn't have children. 1) How do you happen to know this? Sounds like you’re making it up. 2) Its not the job of doctors or “medical people” to decide who should or shouldn’t have children and at any rate they could still have those beliefs for racist reasons 3) Nobody has the authority to just go sterilize a woman without her knowledge or consent 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: But the first nations population has been rising since canada was born, not shrinking. Regardless they still imposed measures to prevent birth even though the measures were unsuccessful. I think the best defence here is to perhaps argue that there was no deliberate government agenda to prevent births, and the sterilizations were just the result of bigotry amongst doctors and others involved in these activities. Not sure that gets anyone off the hook though. 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Precontact the death rate of children was insane - post contact it got better and better all the time as medical tech became available. If anything we facilitated a strong increase in population not a reduction. Lol listen to yourself. how would you or anyone else know what the pre-contact death rate is? Let alone attest that it was “insane”? You’re making stuff up again. But here is an actual fact for you: based on archaeological evidence the indigenous population is believed to have declined by 90% between the 16th century and the end of the 19th century And while access to modern medicine and other goods and services in the 20th century has allowed them to have higher birth rates they still have significantly worse medical access and higher child death rates and death rates in general compared to non-indigenous people 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Nope. not "taken away from" - these were kids who were in danger or abused and needed foster care or were orpohans or the like. The issue wasn't that they were "Taken away". They were in danger or had no one to care for them or their parents abandoned them at birth. The issue was that it was later said that a greater emphasis should have been put on placing them with native families. But while that is true, there weren't exactly a bunch of native familes clamoring for kids to adopt in reality. The concept of relocating children assumes the REASON they were taken was to relocate them and there was no need to do so. That is NOT the case - this kids were in distress and had to be taken and now it was a question of what to do with them. What are you basing this on? What you HOPE to be true? You don’t know anything about this subject and are just inventing claims again. The 60s scoop has been thoroughly documented by government and public alike, the subject of numerous court cases, settlements, government public apologies and so on. Please look something up for a change instead of just trying to BS your way through. It’s a documented fact that the objective of the 60s scoop was to place children from indigenous families in white families, which occurred even when indigenous relatives were able and willing to care for the child. It’s also a documented fact that under these programs, indigenous children were taken away from their families without sufficient justification or due process, based on racial stereotypes and prejudices about indigenous people Siblings were intentionally separated in order to prevent them from forming any shared indigenous identity Adoptive and foster parents were prohibited from telling the children their indigenous identity 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Literally every one of your examples is either an out and out fabrication or a gross distortion of the truth. Nope the only fabrications are you invented claims on topics you don’t know anything about, as mentioned above 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: However, if you look at the facts they don't support a genocide at all. Well the widely accepted term for Canadas treatment of indigenous people is “cultural genocide” because that only entails a deliberate organized effort to exterminate the culture and not necessarily the people who practice it. For those who claim it is straight up genocide, the UN language does leave some room for example using language like destroying a group “in whole or in part” Certainly a part if them were destroyed Also the word “intent”. If the outcome is apparent but the choice is made to do nothing many argue that is intent. For example the mercury poisoning of the Grassy Narrows reserve from a mill in Dryden Ontario started in the 1960s and despite indigenous peoples reporting health issues at the time, it was not even acknowledged by government until 1970. It one of the worst cases of environmental poisoning in Canadian history But the government at the time intentionally chose to do nothing for decades other than issue some fishing advisories and falsely claimed that the mercury would go away on its own in 12 weeks, a completely made up number. The first concerted effort at cleanup was not until 2019. Many people have died or were born with birth defects. So many have been poisoned there is a just now a special mercury poisoning care hospital on the reserve now under construction, only 50 or 60 years late. Successive governments for decades chose to do nothing because it’s only natives who are dying and it won’t cost them any crucial votes. A similar story goes for rhe decades-long boil water advisories. The government didn’t intend to poison the water but after learning about it, intended to do nothing and allow people to continue to be poisoned. Quote
CdnFox Posted October 9 Report Posted October 9 4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: PS...is it just me, or am I the only one who finds it ironic that Five of Spades, who literally posts like he is in the Third Reich, calling others "Hitler?" ( i think he thought it was a compliment. Just nod and smile and keep moving... ) Quote
CdnFox Posted October 9 Report Posted October 9 Just now, BeaverFever said: Nope. As defined, “The legal term “genocide” refers to certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” The Europeans had a deliberate agenda to destroy the indigenous people, in their own homeland, which the Europeans claimed for themselves. The indigenous peoples did not have a deliberate agenda to destroy Europeans, only to end their encroachment. Even then the attacks by indigenous were sporadic and localized and small-scale and not part of a grand agenda to convert the Europeans to indigenous religion or force them to live under indigenous rulers. Local disputes with encroaching settlers that occasionally result in a small group attacking the odd farm here and there are different from a centuries-long agenda at highest levels of government to conquer, forcibly assimilate, and if necessary exterminate another group based on their ethnic identity. As above No. They weren’t drinking water contaminated with mercury and arsenic and lead and a thousand other things, they didn’t have alcohol or heroine or mold-infested houses. They lived in a pre-industrial society but that’s not what “horrid” means. It was fact that they were less technologically advanced, non-white and non-Christian. The Doctrine of Discovery explicitly states that Christian monarchs have a duty and a right to conquer foreign lands and people if they are non-Christians. Let’s be clear the Europeans came as conquerors not as saviours. Like all humans they fought wars but not any more warring than Europeans. In fact argubly much less so. One could easily argue few were more warring than the Europeans. European history is basically a story of endless major wars, with large masses armies leaving thousands dead, many such wars lasted decades or even the famous “hundred years war” and were fought over silly disputes like titles and inheritance or some lord insulting another lord’s honour. By contrast as I mentioned indigenous conflicts more often then not tended to be brief localized skirmishes and ambushes usually due to competition over scarce resources. Fake news. I’m sure they had arranged marriages just like the Europeans and every human culture did did but beyond that you’re just peddling misinformation. Also prior to European arrival chattel slavery was not practiced in North America As above. Pre-contact Indigenous economies had no prisons or chains or industrialized production, no horse-mounted overseers and therefore no use for “slaves” as we know them or ability to keep them. They did take captives during conflicts and forcibly adopt them. The captives often at first had a lower status in the new tribe and during this time they may have had fewer privileges and performed more labour like carrying firewood etc compared to others, but everyone is doing that kind of work to some degree in these societies anyway. Then after a probationary period the captives usually gained full citizenship and freedom of movement including marrying onto the group and sometimes returning to their original home. An exception appears to be with the west coast groups like Haida and other related peoples where full citizenship seems to be fairly uncommon and the captives seem to retain a permanent second class status, were owned and could be traded like property, so something closer to what we understand as slaves. Again pre-contact economies had no use or need for systemic “slavery” so where and when it was even practiced, the slaves were basically family members of the owner, primarily kept as a sign of social status, who helped with chores and had fewer freedoms and privileges. Their life could be harsh or it could be comfortable simply depending on their own personal circumstances or luck. That said it’s interesting you use an allegation of slavery to prove indigenous people were savages needing European conquest when NOBODY on this planet was a more prolific practitioner of most brutal forms of slavery than the Europeans. Europeans lived in dirty unhygienic conditions back then also. Perhaps even more so. . Ever heard of the plague? Many Europeans especially commoners had taboos about bathing prior to the 20th century believing it to be unnecessary or even the cause of certain illnesses. In addition Europeans often lived in crowded overpopulated settlements in close proximity to livestock, with trash and chamberpots emptied in the gutters . And you know it was the Europeans who spread small pox and other highly communicable diseases to indigenous people, not the other way around, right? When you build your own lodge or wigwam from the abundant natural elements all around you why would you be cramped together? Perhaps by choice during winter months for warmth. Again European settlers were cramped in their crowded settlements and tiny cabins. It made them dependent upon trade with Europeans as they lost their ability for self-sufficiency but to your point they probably wouldn’t have adopted it if it wasn’t seen as an improvement at the time . That said, the small pox, the forced relocations to remote inhospitable regions with insufficient local resources or access to market goods , the substandard drinking water, the residential schools, the regulation of their affairs and activities by the federal government, the contamination of their water by heavy industrial activities. The social problems experienced today with high rates of suicide, mental illness, substance abuse etc are the result of poor living conditions on many reserves. Again the FN were made dependent upon the government for basic services and necessities and then those necessities were never adequately provided resulting in poor living conditions. Yes look it up several provinces had eugenics programs. They were not specifically for indigenous people they were for all kinds of people who were mentally challenged, homeless, etc. Alberta’s Sexual Sterilization Act for example was in effect until 1972 and was particularly long-running, having sterilized thousands of women deemed “unfit to reproduce”. Marginalized women, especially Indigenous women, would get railroaded or coerced into these programs. 1) How do you happen to know this? Sounds like you’re making it up. 2) Its not the job of doctors or “medical people” to decide who should or shouldn’t have children and at any rate they could still have those beliefs for racist reasons 3) Nobody has the authority to just go sterilize a woman without her knowledge or consent Regardless they still imposed measures to prevent birth even though the measures were unsuccessful. I think the best defence here is to perhaps argue that there was no deliberate government agenda to prevent births, and the sterilizations were just the result of bigotry amongst doctors and others involved in these activities. Not sure that gets anyone off the hook though. Lol listen to yourself. how would you or anyone else know what the pre-contact death rate is? Let alone attest that it was “insane”? You’re making stuff up again. But here is an actual fact for you: based on archaeological evidence the indigenous population is believed to have declined by 90% between the 16th century and the end of the 19th century And while access to modern medicine and other goods and services in the 20th century has allowed them to have higher birth rates they still have significantly worse medical access and higher child death rates and death rates in general compared to non-indigenous people What are you basing this on? What you HOPE to be true? You don’t know anything about this subject and are just inventing claims again. The 60s scoop has been thoroughly documented by government and public alike, the subject of numerous court cases, settlements, government public apologies and so on. Please look something up for a change instead of just trying to BS your way through. It’s a documented fact that the objective of the 60s scoop was to place children from indigenous families in white families, which occurred even when indigenous relatives were able and willing to care for the child. It’s also a documented fact that under these programs, indigenous children were taken away from their families without sufficient justification or due process, based on racial stereotypes and prejudices about indigenous people Siblings were intentionally separated in order to prevent them from forming any shared indigenous identity Adoptive and foster parents were prohibited from telling the children their indigenous identity Nope the only fabrications are you invented claims on topics you don’t know anything about, as mentioned above Well the widely accepted term for Canadas treatment of indigenous people is “cultural genocide” because that only entails a deliberate organized effort to exterminate the culture and not necessarily the people who practice it. For those who claim it is straight up genocide, the UN language does leave some room for example using language like destroying a group “in whole or in part” Certainly a part if them were destroyed Also the word “intent”. If the outcome is apparent but the choice is made to do nothing many argue that is intent. For example the mercury poisoning of the Grassy Narrows reserve from a mill in Dryden Ontario started in the 1960s and despite indigenous peoples reporting health issues at the time, it was not even acknowledged by government until 1970. It one of the worst cases of environmental poisoning in Canadian history But the government at the time intentionally chose to do nothing for decades other than issue some fishing advisories and falsely claimed that the mercury would go away on its own in 12 weeks, a completely made up number. The first concerted effort at cleanup was not until 2019. Many people have died or were born with birth defects. So many have been poisoned there is a just now a special mercury poisoning care hospital on the reserve now under construction, only 50 or 60 years late. Successive governments for decades chose to do nothing because it’s only natives who are dying and it won’t cost them any crucial votes. A similar story goes for rhe decades-long boil water advisories. The government didn’t intend to poison the water but after learning about it, intended to do nothing and allow people to continue to be poisoned. Ill keep it breif. 1 - we never tried to wipe them out as a people or they'd be dead. They DID try to wipe out whites. Fail. It is an utter lie that they wanted to destroy the first nations at any point, completely and utterly a lie. 2 See above. Complete fabrication. Produce a document that says the gov't willfully and intentionally added mercury to the first nations water with the intent to kill them. you can't. That was a lie 3 they kept slaves, and trying to pass it off as the "GOOD" kind of slavery is utter bullsh*t. 4 Slavery was banned in england, which was who showed up here so no, they weren't the 'biggest slavers' out there. Swing and a miss. 5 they absolutely traded women like horses or any other chattel. Not 'arranged marrages'. Sorry kiddo. 6 they know the precontact death rate from several sources including the first nations themselves. Remember their oral traditions are considered to be verbatum facts. 7 while the first nations died from smallpox etc that was not introduced to canada by the english. Swing and a miss. Further the engish spent a fortune keeping the first nations alive, so the 50 percent death rate would have been closer to 90 percent without our showing up. The officials of the Hudsons bay company (the gov't of the day ) talked of spending their own money to treat every textile with "Flour of Sulphur" and even keeping first nations sick in tehir own homes, and running supplies to the first nations villages so they wouldn't go out and spread the illness. (they went out anyway) And by your own numbers once canada took over their population shot up again so much for canada trying to repress their numbers. 8 The 60's scoop was as i said. YOU are the one who needs to look it up. It was kids being "Scooped up" by the child welfare system when they felt kids were in danger. They didn't just walk into anyone's home and steal a kid for god's sake. And the welfare foster homes were mostly white at the time. 9 Cultural genocide is NOT widely accepted outside of extremely left wing academics and some gov'ts who don't want to upset first nations but NOBODY in their right minds thinks it's a genocide, and "Cultural genocide" doesn't exist, its' a fake term invented to get the word "genocide" in there because it sounds worse than 'assimilation'. Virtually everything you said was a complete rewrite of history to support a conclusion you arrived at without examining the facts. You know nothing and have romanticized the "victimhood' of the first nations with no regard to the reality or history. And there is NOTHING holding the first nations back from having prosperous and happy lives today other than their own cultural issues and being told they're 'victims' constantly. Quote
I am Groot Posted October 9 Author Report Posted October 9 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Just like that! So easy! Why didn’t anyone ever think of it before? You’re hilarious Others have wanted to, like Chretien, but the opposition from native chiefs who wanted to make sure the money train kept flowing through their living rooms caused the effort to fail. I, on the other hand, don't give a shit what native chiefs say or want. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: LMAO now you’re not even making sense! What “rule by technocrats” are you referring to lol? Sounds like you just heard that term somewhere and wanted to use it but don’t know how There is a growing sense in Canada that our judges, and especially those on the country’s highest court, routinely overstep the boundaries of their office. Until last week, however, one might have thought that support for this conclusion could only be inferred from the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgments. That changed on Wednesday, when recent public remarks by the Chief Justice of Canada, Richard Wagner, sent shockwaves through social media. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-unchecked-judicial-power-thats-chief-justice-wagners-vision-for-canada 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Again let me remind you: YOU are the one who thinks a cabal of the prime minister’s party insiders should have unchecked power to rule by decree, untouchable by all laws amd courts Mmm no. Never said that. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: OMG the layers of absurdity in you posts are too much! So your hilarious suggestion is that: 1) Law abiding private citizens of Canada who believe in democracy and human rights will rise up and commence a genocidal killing spree if Treaty land (which non-indigenous Canadians aren’t currently even entitled to use or live on) is no longer under federal government jurisdiction after the feds unilaterally cancel all treaties because tax dollars Nice backtracking there. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Suddenly you're narrowing the scope of what you suggested earlier. Now it only involves empty land no one uses! Either you're dumber than I thought - which is hard to believe - or more dishonest than I thought - which is even harder. My response to your inane view that all ceded land would return to the ownership of the natives is based on the idea that land owned and paid for by homeowners throughout the country would suddenly be given over to the natives. Not to mention entire towns and cities. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 2) Despite being a nation of laws and human rights, Yes, so the first thing we'd do is rush an amendment through to tell the judges to drop dead. And it would probably contain a clause that limited their authority in future since they'd have demonstrated they couldn't be trusted without oversight. Barring that happening, yes, people would most certainly target both the judges and natives. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 3) Despite being a nation based on laws and human rights, the purpose of the amendment will be for Canada to remove human rights and the power of the judiciary so that the government can annex land that it has no legal basis or right to claim, for no reason other than …well .just because white people might want to use it someday Who said anything about 'white people'? You woke types are obsessed with race. I'm talking about the 95% of the population who would see their land taken away to please natives. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: LMAO That’s rich! The entire conservative philosophy is based in the belief that “there is no society, only the individual” and that caring about society is socialism! Are you an American, by any chance? Because the drool you slobbered onto your keyboard above has no relation to conservatism. And certainly not to conservatism in Canada. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: If you think there wouldn’t be any “trouble to society@ caused by your completely-divorced-from-reality fantasy scenario of unilateral treaty nullification and constitutional amendments to nullify the SC and Charter of Rights, and annexation of non-Canadian territory you are seriously delusional. Oh sure there'd be trouble. But short-term pain for long-term gain. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: only one who hates people is you. Meanwhile your basis for saying I hate people is because I won’t agree with your absurd statement that a genocidal massacre would be the obvious result of an unfavourable Supreme Court ruling If you weren't a demented flake and owned some property you might have more of an understanding of how property owners would respond to some judge deciding it now belongs to natives because two or three centuries ago their ancestors used to hunt on it now and then. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: that is ultimately about saving 5% of the federal budget No, it's about ever-increasing handouts to lazy natives and crooked chiefs because twisted little woke twats like you feel guilty over something that happened centuries ago. 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Third it’s also clear for the same reasons as noted above that YOU don’t understand human nature if you honestly believe law abiding citizens will start murdering judges and indigenous people over this. Yeah? Tell them they no longer own their property and see how they react. Quote
I am Groot Posted October 9 Author Report Posted October 9 On 10/7/2024 at 3:57 PM, Army Guy said: I'm sure every penny counts , GST totals might account for 1/2 billion plus in revenue. And we are talking about trillion plus in debt... https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/prog-policy/stats/gst-hst-stats/2023/tbl02-2023-en.pdf Hang on. My understanding is the government collected closer to $45 B in GST last year. Quote
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.