MNN is rewriting history!


gerryh
+1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Ignored treatys finally being settled in what are now highly built up urban areas? Of course they have more than gas stations in a metropolis like Vancouver. They have casinos too.

Has it been your life long dream to be a blackjack dealer when a crack dealer makes 100X as much?


Is that all you got from the links I posted? I guess that answers my question.

I see Bear saw the progress AND the potential available to many First Nations people. How unfortunate that you don't/can't/won't.
 
Johnnny
#32
Quote:

Actually, as loosely affiliated as the Quebec Mohawk are to the Haudenosaunee, there is a Mohawk Warrior Society, as the there is a Warrior Society amongst in all the Six Nations.

And yes, Oka, Kahnasatake and Kahnawake are well armed now

Is that a good thing? Do you mean armed with rifles like most people in the country or stocked up on automatic rifles?
 
CDNBear
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnnny View Post

Is that a good thing?

That depends on people like Cannuck.

I personally would prefer a negotiated outcome to all treaty breaches, with fairness and equality for both parties involved.

With that said, there is a small but loud contingent of people like Cannuck, that feel treaties are not contractual obligations, though precedent has been set for hundreds of years. And they feel all contracts should be nullified.

Which of course will only feed the nationalist Warrior types, and breed new ones, out of people like myself, that would have preferred a mature, legal, and fair outcome, from open dialogue and negotiation.

Quote:

Do you mean armed with rifles like most people in the country or stocked up on automatic rifles?

I mean everything from good ole farmer John's 30-30 to 60's era APC's.
 
Cannuck
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

With that said, there is a small but loud contingent of people like Cannuck, that feel treaties are not contractual obligations, though precedent has been set for hundreds of years. And they feel all contracts should be nullified.

That is not what I have said. The fact that you have to misrepresent my position clearly shows you can't refute it.
 
gerryh
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

That is not what I have said. The fact that you have to misrepresent my position clearly shows you can't refute it.

Bear isn't the only one that got that position from what you've been posting. I also see your position as being the contracts don't or shouldn't be upheld.
 
petros
+1
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Is that all you got from the links I posted? I guess that answers my question.

I see Bear saw the progress AND the potential available to many First Nations people. How unfortunate that you don't/can't/won't.

If you want to call gas stations with cheap smokes and casinos progress that is your perogative.

Have you ever heard of something called equity? How far can you get developing a business or industry without it?
 
Cannuck
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Bear isn't the only one that got that position from what you've been posting. I also see your position as being the contracts don't or shouldn't be upheld.

Then maybe you should learn to read. I have clearly stated that Canada should honor treaties it signs with other nations. My opinion is that CB and his buddies are not a nation. If and when they choose to be, then I have no problem living up to our obligations. I also don't believe we owe Dzevad in Sarajevo anything because we signed a treaty with Yugoslavia. It doesn't exist anymore. If those in the Balkans want to reestablish the nation of Yugoslavia, then by all means, lets honor any treaties we have with them.

My position really isn't that hard to understand. Only stupid people and those that haven't bothered to read my posts would be confused.
 
CDNBear
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

That is not what I have said.

That is exactly what you said...

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

No, you believe it is contractual. I don't.

Like we said.

Just because you can't support your position now, and feel the need to back peddle, won't change that fact.

Quote:

The fact that you have to misrepresent my position clearly shows you can't refute it.



You're the only one that hasn't provided a single scrap of evidence, and have rested on the "cuz I say so", "it's racist" "unethical, they aren't nations, BS strawman argument.

Which is why I would love to actually debate you seriously on the topic.

You'd lose, you know it and that's why you make excuses, and refuse to actually debate me.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I have clearly stated that Canada should honor treaties it signs with other nations. My opinion is that CB and his buddies are not a nation.

This comment proves the other half of my statement. That you feel the contracts should be nullified.

Quote:

If and when they choose to be, then I have no problem living up to our obligations.

We were, long before Canada was.

They would be State Nations, in every sense of the term, if it weren't for unethical and illegal acts by the Crown and Crowns representatives, in contrary to Royal Proclamation, and Treaty.

Under the Law, even law in antiquity, you can not profit from an illegal act.

You want to argue ethics, good luck. You want to argue law, good luck.

You're argument is so full of "logical inconsistencies", you should actually drop that from the things that bug you about peoples arguments.

Quote:

My position really isn't that hard to understand.

Of course it is, you keep squirming around, when you can't support the one I take apart, you try another. Until that one gets taken apart, then you try another. First it was "they aren't binding contracts", then it was "They aren't Nations", then it was "It's racist", then it was "Inequality", then it was an "Ethical" issue. Then you cry about being misrepresented?

I haven't misrepresented you. You can't support a single argument you've put forth. You move the goal posts around so much, you make your own argument a misrepresentation.

You sound so much like Joey in that respect.

Quote:

Only stupid people and those that haven't bothered to read my posts would be confused.

There's no confusion, you can't debate, you've refused to debate, and have offered nothing that even remotely resembles a fact, to support your position. Only stupid people bounce from one angle to another when they fail to make a clear case for their opinion. Only stupid people cry about being misrepresented, then get shown their own words, proving without a doubt that they were not misrepresented. Only stupid people claim they would like to debate, then run from the challenge. Only stupid people move goal posts. Only stupid people use the "cuz I say so" argument. Only stupid people cry about logical inconsistency, but couldn't for the life of them, be so themselves. Only stupid people would try and discuss a topic they haven't even a cursory knowledge of.

So which angle will you settle on...

They aren't contracts?

It's race based?

They aren't nations?

It's unethical?

When will you offer some proof to support any of your claims? Other then because you say so?

Even I can offer case law, Royal declarations, exact Treaty references, historical accounts of unethical and criminal acts by the Crown, and my fave, precedent. But precedent only matters in hockey right Cannuck?

To quote you, as I ask again for some proof to back up you claims...

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I'm wondering if you have evidence to back it up.

Do you fully understand what logical consistency is?
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 19th, 2011 at 05:29 AM..
 
wulfie68
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Have I miss understood the premise of freehold mineral rights in respect to First Nations lands?

I don't think you have. The mineral rights on undisputed aboriginal lands belong to the First Nation in residence. Many bands in Alberta have negotiated arrangements with local petroleum producers, not only for royalties but in many cases for employment opportunities generated by the mineral development. Some groups also have made partnerships with outsiders/investors to create their own independent oil companies. In several cases this also extends beyond the borders of reserves into what is termed "traditional lands" although the compensation is more complex in those cases (and I'm not sure exactly how it all works except that there is some and the bands can block development if they're pissed off).

A lot of the problems in Alberta stem from corruption inside the leadership of some bands, in determining who is a member vs who is not (there have been a few bitter court battles over this issue), and of course, in unresolved land claims disputes.
 
taxslave
#40
Define "out west" . From where I sit you are all back east. Many nations on the coast are quite wealthy or at least have the potential to be if the band bureaucracy didn't scoop all the loot. There are a number of malls on band land on the island that generate a fair amount of revenue with little effort and jobs. Then there is a race based commercial fishery as well as the cash food fish industry. As well as a fair number of legitimate aquaculture and mariculture operations and logging operations. Several Run of River power projects that are a real cash cow too. Best of all few are taxable.
 
CDNBear
#41
Is "race based" the term used for hereditary rights granted by Treaty?

If it is, it's erroneous. Race doesn't play a part.
 
taxslave
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Is "race based" the term used for hereditary rights granted by Treaty?

If it is, it's erroneous. Race doesn't play a part.

Not really sure of how it came about but as well as the food fishery which I believe to be treaty rights there is a native only commercial fishery. So that is definitely race based. As far as I know both of these only apply to salmon. Remember that there were few treaties made on the coast unlike eastern Canada so there are lots of grey areas.
The food fishery has become a joke as we all buy salmon off the rez even tho it is supposed to be for sustenance and ceremonial purposes. I suppose taking cash from whites could loosely fit under ceremonial though. Far cheaper than buying a boat, gear and licenses.
 
CDNBear
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Not really sure of how it came about but as well as the food fishery which I believe to be treaty rights there is a native only commercial fishery. So that is definitely race based. As far as I know both of these only apply to salmon. Remember that there were few treaties made on the coast unlike eastern Canada so there are lots of grey areas.

I'd have to read the whole of the Treaties involved.

We have similar treaties here in Ontario, whereas the Native fishing fleets on the Great Lakes, can harvest for food, and commercial trade. By definition of the Crown not interfering with traditional trade practices.

Of course many have said that that should mean they harvest with traditional methods. But since the Crown began manipulating Treaties to suit their desires, ie: strip mining and deforestation. Thus turning Treaty lands into unhuntable waste lands. Further compounded by making the Treaties "Living Documents". The argument goes circular out of the gate.


Quote:

The food fishery has become a joke as we all buy salmon off the rez even tho it is supposed to be for sustenance and ceremonial purposes.

This is where I jump right off the boat. I have no support to lend unethical practices such as this. I have railed against the illegal trade of Pickerel on the Lakes in Ontario, that are being sold to restaurants and out of road side shakes.
 
taxslave
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I'd have to read the whole of the Treaties involved.

We have similar treaties here in Ontario, whereas the Native fishing fleets on the Great Lakes, can harvest for food, and commercial trade. By definition of the Crown not interfering with traditional trade practices.

Of course many have said that that should mean they harvest with traditional methods. But since the Crown began manipulating Treaties to suit their desires, ie: strip mining and deforestation. Thus turning Treaty lands into unhuntable waste lands. Further compounded by making the Treaties "Living Documents". The argument goes circular out of the gate.


This is where I jump right off the boat. I have no support to lend unethical practices such as this. I have railed against the illegal trade of Pickerel on the Lakes in Ontario, that are being sold to restaurants and out of road side shakes.

The treaties would be some read alright. Good luck.
I view the bastardization of the food fishery right up there with the commercial "sport" fishery. Both make a mockery of managed fishery and the selling of food fish only promotes racism IMO.
 
CDNBear
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

The treaties would be some read alright. Good luck.

I was told the same thing about the litany of treaties I've already read, lol. But I managed to make it through them. As well as the statements of claim, filed with Ontario Courts, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Quote:

I view the bastardization of the food fishery right up there with the commercial "sport" fishery. Both make a mockery of managed fishery and the selling of food fish only promotes racism IMO.

I actually feel no need to challenge that opinion.
 
CDNBear
#46
Hey Cannuck...

To quote you...

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

One of these days you might actually surprise me and win a debate instead of run away.

Quite!
 
Cannuck
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Just because you can't support your position now, and feel the need to back peddle, won't change that fact.

If you ever come up with something that refutes my position send me an PM. I'll be happy to come back and debate it.
 
CDNBear
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

If you ever come up with something that refutes my position send me an PM. I'll be happy to come back and debate it.



Done. It's on almost every page in four threads now.

Just because you can't debate, doesn't mean you haven't been proven wrong, many many times.

Like the last post you carefully ignored your own words being used to discredit your claims, yet again.

Gawd you make this so easy and yet it's still so much fun making you look more and more like a rube.

Not that there's much room left...


Maybe one day you'll surprise me, and actually debate me, or at the very least formulate a supportable opinion.
 
Cannuck
#49
Quote:

This comment proves the other half of my statement. That you feel the contracts should be nullified.

Of course I don't think the contract should be nullified. There is no need to nullify them as the "nation" they were signed with does not exist.

The only real difference between our positions is that you think you and your buddies are a nation and I don't. Your defense of your position is that the SCC and the international community support your view. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less what the international community thinks. Canada (and Canada alone) should decide what requirements are needed in order for us to recognize a nation. We don't allow international bodies to tell us we must recognize Taiwan, Chechnya or even the US. I also believe the government has allowed the SCC to usurp authority from the federal government. It is my opinion that what we need to do is define what minimum standards a group of people must achieve in order for us to recognize them as a nation. Once that is done then you, Kweebeckers, Chechnyans or Manitobans for that matter, can all develop your own nations if you so choose. Since we have a treaty with you and your buddies, we should honour it, much the same way we should honour a treaty with Yugoslavia or a unified Korea (if we had them in place before).

Your position is akin to Germany telling us we must honour a treaty signed with people in Sarajevo because we signed a treaty with Yugoslavia. I understand (you not wanting to be Canadian) that you care little about Canadian sovereignty but I assure you, I do.

Absolutely nothing you have said refutes anything I believe.
 
CDNBear
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Of course I don't think the contract should be nullified. There is no need to nullify them as the "nation" they were signed with does not exist.

Wrong again...

Six Nations Of The Grand River

Quote:

The only real difference between our positions is that you think you and your buddies are a nation and I don't. Your defense of your position is that the SCC and the international community support your view. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less what the international community thinks. Canada (and Canada alone) should decide what requirements are needed in order for us to recognize a nation.

You do realize that SCC stands for the Supreme Court of Canada , right?

Quote:

We don't allow international bodies to tell us we must recognize Taiwan, Chechnya or even the US. I also believe the government has allowed the SCC to usurp authority from the federal government. It is my opinion that what we need to do is define what minimum standards a group of people must achieve in order for us to recognize them as a nation. Once that is done then you, Kweebeckers, Chechnyans or Manitobans for that matter, can all develop your own nations if you so choose. Since we have a treaty with you and your buddies, we should honour it, much the same way we should honour a treaty with Yugoslavia or a unified Korea (if we had them in place before).

You do realize that that bears no weight on the contractual obligations right, nor negotiations right?

1, The Crown negotiates with all manner of entities.
2, The Crown is bound by Royal Proclamation.
3, Canada is also bound by International Treaty that Canada signed.

Quote:

Your position is akin to Germany telling us we must honour a treaty signed with people in Sarajevo because we signed a treaty with Yugoslavia.

No it isn't. That's what you want it to be, so you can dismiss it.

My position is, two nations negotiated a Treaty to be two separate entities, sharing the same path. This was done because the government of Canada, was bound by Royal Proclamation that gave all title to the land, to the First Nations and for the service that the Haudenosaunee performed in the defence of Upper canada.

The breaching of those treaties, constitutes an illegal act, then and now. Hence the SCC's (That's still the Supreme Court of Canada )rulings. That Treaties are binding contractual documents. Made living and open to interpretation, due to the Crowns first acts of doing so, to favour the Crown.

Regardless of what you want to call us collectively, the Crown is still subject to contractual law. Whatever you believe.

Quote:

I understand (you not wanting to be Canadian) that you care little about Canadian sovereignty but I assure you, I do.

Again with the baseless, childish accusations and made up BS. So much for being a mature debate eh Joey.

As if your silly argument wasn't weak enough, you had to lower it with that crap.
Quote:

Absolutely nothing you have said refutes anything I believe.

You can keep saying it, like EAO does, but the fact is, you've been proven wrong over and over and over.

From what you think Canada is legally bound to do, to what you have said.

The words are before you to ignore.
 
Cannuck
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Wrong again...

Six Nations Of The Grand River

Posting something that backs up your definition of a nation does not refute my definition of a nation. As I've already said (and you seem completely unable to grasp) what we have is a disagreement as to what constitutes a nation and who gets to decide. At the risk of beating a dead horse, come up with something to debate if you want to debate.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

My position is, two nations negotiated a Treaty to be two separate entities , sharing the same path. This was done because the government of Canada, was bound by Royal Proclamation that gave all title to the land, to the First Nations and for the service that the Haudenosaunee performed in the defence of Upper canada.

We agree on that much however, we aren't "two separate entities". If you and your buddies want to be a separate entity then, as I've already said, let's honour the treaty. Again, there is nothing new here and as usual, you haven't actually refuted anything I've said. I was going to give you an E for effort but then you fell back to the tire old "Joey" routine so I changed my mind since that isn't the kind of thing a "serious debater" would do.
 
CDNBear
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Posting something that backs up your definition of a nation does not refute my definition of a nation.

You said...

Quote:

There is no need to nullify them as the "nation" they were signed with does not exist.

We do, as recognized by domestic and international law.

What you "believe" does not trump fact.

You "believe" it's wrong. Great so you're unethical on top of everything else.

Quote:

As I've already said (and you seem completely unable to grasp) what we have is a disagreement as to what constitutes a nation and who gets to decide.

That is irrelevant, as well as it is wrong.

A contract is still binding to any and all parties subject to it. It wouldn't matter if there were two Haudenosaunee left and they didn't think they were a Nation. The contract is still binding, because it's hereditary.

Quote:

At the risk of beating a dead horse, come up with something to debate if you want to debate.



Good call, make up more crap.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

We agree on that much however, we aren't "two separate entities".

Again, this only shows that you have no understanding or knowledge at all of what you speak.

Quote:

If you and your buddies want to be a separate entity then, as I've already said, let's honour the treaty.

Excellent idea. That is all we have asked.

Quote:

Again, there is nothing new here and as usual, you haven't actually refuted anything I've said.

Ya, except proved that what you believe is based on nothing but your imagination. You don't know what you are talking about.

You've offered nothing to even remotely support your position, which is your obligation in this debate.

Refuting your asinine opinion, is tantamount to trying to prove a negative.

Quote:

I was going to give you an E for effort but then you fell back to the tire old "Joey" routine so I changed my mind since that isn't the kind of thing a "serious debater" would do.

And this is...

Quote:

I understand (you not wanting to be Canadian) that you care little about Canadian sovereignty but I assure you, I do.

Quote:

you and your buddies

Is? Grow up child.

You really don't know what logical consistency is do you?
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 20th, 2011 at 05:19 PM..
 
Cannuck
#53
Quote:

Excellent idea. That is all we have asked.

And that is all I asked so we finally have some common ground. Now all we need to do is convince you and your buddies to become a separate entity from Canada and we can start honoring the treaties and everybody will be happy....wait a minute....my bad...asking for you and your buddies to put up or shut up is probably asking too much. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
 
CDNBear
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

And that is all I asked so we finally have some common ground. No all we need to do is convince you and your buddies to become a separate entity from Canada and we can start honoring the treaties and everybody will be happy....

Prove we aren't separate already.

It's your claim to prove. Shall I quote you on backing up claims with evidence?

And try knocking off the childish crap commentary. It weakens your argument and makes you look like an ass.
 
Cannuck
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Again with the childish crap?


Just bringing the debate down to your level.

Joey II
 
CDNBear
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Just bringing the debate down to your level.

Joey II

So in other words, you can't prove it?

You demand others provide evidence to back up their claims, but you don't have to?

I hope I don't see you talk about your pet peeve of logical consistency lacking in others Cannuck.

Way to run away from the debate Cannuck.
 
Cannuck
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

You demand others provide evidence to back up their claims, but you don't have to?

What have I asked you to prove? Better yet, what have you proven to me?
 
DaSleeper
+2
#58
 
CDNBear
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

What have I asked you to prove?

I was referring to the quote of yours I posted earlier, in which you demanded another member support his claim with evidence.

I'll get it for you. Feeding you, your own words is easy.

Quote:

Better yet, what have you proven to me?

To anyone that can read. I've proven that your opinion is based on fantasy, you aren't logically consistent, you're prone to demanding evidence from others when you offer none, that you and Joey are more alike then any other member on this board, that you can't debate, that when that becomes apparent you lower the conversation to childish innuendo, false accusations, and out right BS.

Did I miss anything?
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 20th, 2011 at 05:50 PM..
 
Cannuck
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

What have I asked you to prove?

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I was referring to the quote of yours I posted earlier, in which you demanded another member support his claim with evidence.

LOL...I know...I know...context!!
 

Similar Threads

12
On the End of History
by moha66 | Oct 22nd, 2008
78
Roman History - ancient history
by Finder | Jan 24th, 2006