The Government takes a stand-finally.

[Trex]

So the Harper Conservatives are finally starting to take a stand in regards to negotiations with the Native Indians.

Harper leaves no doubt: Governor-General will not be included in any future First Nations policy discussions | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

No GG in attendence . The GG will not available at this time for comments or discussions. No meeting 630 odd chiefs. No meetings dictated as and where by the chiefs.
Simply a comittment to meet Grand Chief Shaun Atleo at a date to be confirmed by the PM.

Boy that fish broth is going to get old.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I couldn't be more behind Harper on this. We are not ruled by the crown any longer so we don't need her representative there and we are certainly not going to be held hostage by 200 year old agreements made with someone else any more.

 

[petros]

I couldn't be more behind Harper on this. We are not ruled by the crown any longer so we don't need her representative there and we are certainly not going to be held hostage by 200 year old agreements made with someone else any more.

Does that mean we can nail CPRs azz to the wall and make them start paying taxes on the land they were given?

 

[L Gilbert]

I couldn't be more behind Harper on this. We are not ruled by the crown any longer so we don't need her representative there and we are certainly not going to be held hostage by 200 year old agreements made with someone else any more.

lol So you can agree to stuff in a contract and in a few years you don't have to stick to the agreement (especially when there's no clause specifying how long the agreement's for)?
I guess you can go speeding against speed limits because speed limits were invented about 1860 (in the UK I believe), then.

 

[PoliticalNick]

lol So you can agree to stuff in a contract and in a few years you don't have to stick to the agreement (especially when there's no clause specifying how long the agreement's for)?
I guess you can go speeding against speed limits because speed limits were invented about 1860 (in the UK I believe), then.

I will stick to any agreement I personally sign. As for sticking to an agreement I was not a party to, I don't believe it is legal to force that contract upon me without my consent. If you know anything about contract law you will know I am right about this.

 

[L Gilbert]

I will stick to any agreement I personally sign. As for sticking to an agreement I was not a party to, I don't believe it is legal to force that contract upon me without my consent. If you know anything about contract law you will know I am right about this.

As you are a Canadian (presumably able to vote), you hire the Canadian government to act on your behalf concerning national interests. Get over it.

 

[CDNBear]

I will stick to any agreement I personally sign.

Did you sign the contract when you bought lunch? Groceries?

As for sticking to an agreement I was not a party to, I don't believe it is legal to force that contract upon me without my consent.

You believe wrong.

If you know anything about contract law you will know I am right about this.

You're wrong. As has been proven more times than I can remember.

My kids know more about contract law than you.

 

[darkbeaver]

He might check out the Crown a bit closer as well.

 

[Mowich]

So the Harper Conservatives are finally starting to take a stand in regards to negotiations with the Native Indians.

Harper leaves no doubt: Governor-General will not be included in any future First Nations policy discussions | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

No GG in attendence . The GG will not available at this time for comments or discussions. No meeting 630 odd chiefs. No meetings dictated as and where by the chiefs.
Simply a comittment to meet Grand Chief Shaun Atleo at a date to be confirmed by the PM.

Boy that fish broth is going to get old.

Taking a stand? - not hardly. The government is simply stating the correct procedures in the negotiations. The GG has no place in the meetings, ergo the GG won't be there. To me it shows the degree of attention our government is giving the problems facing resolution of native issues when they would address this particular issue publicly.

Red herrings thrown up by people when they are supposed to working for the good of all, do nothing but detract away from the real issues to the detriment of all parties concerned. And this, IMO, is a red herring.

 

[CDNBear]

+100 Mowich.

 

[taxslave]

i will stick to any agreement i personally sign. As for sticking to an agreement i was not a party to, i don't believe it is legal to force that contract upon me without my consent. If you know anything about contract law you will know i am right about this.

roflmao x10

 

[PoliticalNick]

As you are a Canadian (presumably able to vote), you hire the Canadian government to act on your behalf concerning national interests. Get over it.

I am a Canadian and fully entitled to vote. I, however, do not usually vote simply because I do not feel anyone who runs for elected office is qualified to represent ME or act on my behalf in any interest.

Did you sign the contract when you bought lunch? Groceries?

It is an implied or oral contract where I give money for items or services and they issue a receipt to prove payment. contract closed without need to sign anything.

You believe wrong.

Actually I am right. You know full well that a contract cannot be forced upon someone who is not a party to it. If you believe otherwise I am buying a new couch and making the contract say you are responsible for the payment.

My kids know more about contract law than you.

Obviously not if they learned anything from you.

He might check out the Crown a bit closer as well.

Well since Bear seems to think contracts can be passed through heredity over hundreds of years and the crown still rules in Canada please answer why this clause of the Magna Carta is ignored and why the document is not valid in Canada and hasn't been for centuries.

63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent.

It would seem to me that according to the highlighted line the Magna Carta is, and will be forever, binding upon anyone within any realm of the British crown.

 

[CDNBear]

It is an implied or oral contract where I give money for items or services and they issue a receipt to prove payment. contract closed without need to sign anything.

It's implied that you accept your participation in the treaties, by being here, lol.

Actually I am right.

Nope, as has been prove, time and time again.

You know full well that a contract cannot be forced upon someone who is not a party to it.

Right.

But you're party to oit, lol.

If you believe otherwise I am buying a new couch and making the contract say you are responsible for the payment.

That's just because you like to fill your posts with stupidity.

Obviously not if they learned anything from you.

Since they know what I know about contracts and treaties, and I keep proving you wrong.

It looks like my kids do know more than you, lol.

Well since Bear seems to think contracts can be passed through heredity over hundreds of years...

I don't think it, I know it.

That's why you're still paying, lol.

and the crown still rules in Canada...

I said that?

Maybe you should spend more time getting an education, and less time lying. Your posts would be less idiotic if you did.

It would seem to me that according to the highlighted line the Magna Carta is, and will be forever, binding upon anyone within any realm of the British crown.

Maybe if you researched the Magna Carta, and the post history, and didn't filter it all through the Freeman nuttery, you wouldn't be so confused.

 

[Mowich]

I am a Canadian and fully entitled to vote. I, however, do not usually vote simply because I do not feel anyone who runs for elected office is qualified to represent ME or act on my behalf in any interest.

So why is it that though you feel no one is qualified to represent you, you still voted for someone.

 

[damngrumpy]

In a civilized society, any agreement signed by the government is an agreement signed by you
and I that is what a constitutional government is about. It is signed by all through consensus.
We cannot pick and chose what laws we want to or don't want to obey, they are the laws of the
land.
The GG does not have to be there that is true. However as part of a constitutional Monarchy
the GG will still have to sign off on them. There in lies the problem. We will go through this
process for a long time, and by the time the signing and final agreement takes place Mr Harper
may or may not be the PM. He may be opposition leader, or PM in a minority government.
That could also spell a different outcome.
The biggest problem we have in Canada is not the Conservatives or the Liberals or for that matter
the NDP the biggest problem we have collectively is Uncertainty. All the chest pounding and thumping
of desks on the side of any party does not mean they are going to be the decision makers, the people
will decide and that may provide us all with some interesting events. Remember when the US|
election came down to voting day? People really thought Obama was toast and he wasn't.
It may or may not prove the same in Canada. Again the reason too much uncertainty.

 

[L Gilbert]

I am a Canadian and fully entitled to vote. I, however, do not usually vote simply because I do not feel anyone who runs for elected office is qualified to represent ME or act on my behalf in any interest.

Well, it's up to you whether you want to have a say in the people that represent you or not. The fact stands, that you are a Canadian and that if you pay taxes, that means the gov't does stuff for you (or to you, in the least). Makes you no different than other Canadians. And something else; you're probably like some Canadians who don't feel any obligation to accept what the gov't does. In that case, I'd suggest taking the issue up with the gov't itself.

 

[Chev]

[

QUOTE=PoliticalNick;1703110]I am a Canadian and fully entitled to vote. I, however, do not usually vote simply because I do not feel anyone who runs for elected office is qualified to represent ME or act on my behalf in any interest.

It is an implied or oral contract where I give money for items or services and they issue a receipt to prove payment. contract closed without need to sign anything.

Actually I am right. You know full well that a contract cannot be forced upon someone who is not a party to it. If you believe otherwise I am buying a new couch and making the contract say you are responsible for the payment.

Obviously not if they learned anything from you.

Well since Bear seems to think contracts can be passed through heredity over hundreds of years and the crown still rules in Canada please answer why this clause of the Magna Carta is ignored and why the document is not valid in Canada and hasn't been for centuries.


It would seem to me that according to the highlighted line the Magna Carta is, and will be forever, binding upon anyone within any realm of the British crown.

“PoliticalNick I am a Canadian and fully entitled to vote. I, however, do not usually vote simply because I do not feel anyone who runs for elected office is qualified to represent ME or act on my behalf in any interest.
“PoliticalNick Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbertlol So you can agree to stuff in a contract and in a few years you don't have to stick to the agreement (especially when there's no clause specifying how long the agreement's for)?
I guess you can go speeding against speed limits because speed limits were invented about 1860 (in the UK I believe), then.”
“PoliticalNick: I will stick to any agreement I personally sign. As for sticking to an agreement I was not a party to, I don't believe it is legal to force that contract upon me without my consent. If you know anything about contract law you will know I am right about this.”

I know I’m taking this argument down several notches, but I have ask. If the people who owned my home before I bought it 25 years ago, If they had signed a contract with a company, let’s say for example.(eg). …’ a furnace and duct cleaning company, to clean the furnace and ducts in this house’ for… let’s say eg. 50 years.
Am I obliged/binded to accept/continue with a contract that I had nothing to do with and did not sign? And to have that contract forced upon me

I am also a Canadian and fully entitled to vote. I do always vote, however the past couple terms it’s been what seems to me to be closest to what I want and believe (Perhaps And/or for what seems to be ‘the lesser of all evils’.) [/QUOTE]