That's the title of the article, I posted for discussion. Can you show me with a quote, where I endorsed it, in any way shape or form?I don't have to quote you. The title of the thread says it all.
That's the title of the article, I posted for discussion. Can you show me with a quote, where I endorsed it, in any way shape or form?I don't have to quote you. The title of the thread says it all.
That's the title of the article, I posted for discussion. Can you show me with a quote, where I endorsed it, in any way shape or form?
I know a guy who makes posts like that all the time. He likes to see the reaction and potential of thought brewing in the brains of the blinded.That's the title of the article, I posted for discussion. Can you show me with a quote, where I endorsed it, in any way shape or form?
I agree, you made a nice try, but yes, sadly, you did fail.Nice try...FAIL!!
Neat idea. I post things disagree with all the time. Something I can back up, unlike Cannucks empty claims.I know a guy who makes posts like that all the time. He likes to see the reaction and potential of thought brewing in the brains of the blinded.
Can you please provide a quote, of me endorsing the OP, in anyway?
Cool, now that you conceded to that fact, can you answer the previous questions you chose to avoid?I'm not interested in searching through your 16,000 post to find a quote. If you disagree with the article, say so.
What is my agenda?Given your clear agenda on native issues, I'm not likely to believe you anyway but knock yourself out.
Absolutely. DaS has more rights than I do.The way the system is set up all Canadians have access to the same things. All you have to do is claim your rights and defend them. It baffles me why so few ever grasp on to that.
Too true.Equal means equal. If you feel you aren't getting an equal share say something and it will happen. Sitting around wishing for things just ain't gonna work no matter what your heritage is.
Myself. Who do you blame for yours? We know who CB blames.
I don't have any.
Cool, now that you conceded to that fact
You keep saying that, but as of yet, have failed to provide any proof of any agenda, let alone clarified what that agenda is.You've bought too much into CB's propaganda.
That's irrelevant. Your present claims, are claims you have made well before I posted the OP.If you disagree with the article, say so.
If you disagree with the article, say so.
That's irrelevant. Your present claims, are claims you have made well before I posted the OP.
Half the nations are not involved in treaty negotiations because they realized that the restrictions imposed by the government were designed to favour the government and screw First nations. They are a setup. As long as they don't cede their territory, they remain sovereign nations. It will be up to the courts to decide, which holds up "development" (read: rape of resources).I don't have any. Well maybe I can be too modest sometimes but that's just being nice.
What makes you think you're not getting a free ride while there are both outstanding land claims and treaty violations?
BC has plenty of treaties under negotiation right now. Fact is, you are a squatter on someone else's land until those negotiations are concluded successfully.
Why can't you support your claims?OK, so I guess it's pretty clear that you do agree with the article. That wasn't so hard was it?
You're quite right Cliffy. The word that makes most Councils cringe is, "Incorporation".Half the nations are not involved in treaty negotiations because they realized that the restrictions imposed by the government were designed to favour the government and screw First nations. They are a setup. As long as they don't cede their territory, they remain sovereign nations. It will be up to the courts to decide, which holds up "development" (read: rape of resources).
If you disagree with the article, say so.
Why can't you support your claims?
That was you biggest issue with SJP. Now you are doing the exact same thing.
So you are a liar and a hypocrite?
I agree, you have 'pwned' yourself. By exhibiting the same traits, that you railed against.
Cannuck has already stated that Canada and Canadians are responsible for all treaties made with the First Nations people as long as they are considered Nations. Since the SCC AND the International Courts DO consider the First Nations people to be legal nations then he is on the same side as the rest of us in wanting to see the existing treaties upheld and proper meaningful negotiations for those treaties that have not been ratified yet.
Thank you for your support Cannuck, it is appreciated.
If you disagree with the article, say so.
Are you having trouble understanding English in your spastic attempts to look superior?The question you asked, can't be answered with a yes or no. There are aspects I agree with, and others I don't.
How so?You are in error. You're probably getting used to that though.
Ya I know, trying to get Cannuck to back up his claims, is like trying to nail jello to the wall.CDNBear, you can talk to him, but he ain't gonna listen ;-)