Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

I don't usually respond to diatribes, but I really think you aren't grasping the english language well enough to be making comments. See the smiley face? That means its a joke. You understand jokes right? Jokes of course CAN be racist and offensive, but clearly not in this case. You see, the joke is from the analogy of mentioning something (here use of the word 'dude') and its association with the language issue as it is in Quebec. The analogy is that the language debate is typically more pronounced in Quebec than in the rest of Canada (which is pretty much fact). So, how it can be a 'cheap shot'? Unless you see making a play on the 'language police' offensive, which seems a bizarre thing to take offense to, particularly since I have actually defended Quebec's position on that issue in the past. If THAT offends you then I really don't think that anything can be said about Quebec at all unless it parrots your views because you will be offended, and clearly from your response to my earlier post you don't even READ the comments but just 'glance over them' and make assumptions. Perhaps you ought to relax and read things instead of just looking for something to react to. <br /> <br /> As far as the native stuff goes, I don't even know what you're talking about and I"m only responding because I don't want people who read your extremist remarks to think I've said anything so bizarre as what you're talking about. I've never mentioned anything about 'automatic weapons' or armed resistance whatsoever. Your english is so bad that I actually can't even understand what you are talking about. However, I must admit that I DO in fact condone the use of weapons in the protections of ALL minority rights when all legal forms fail, as was the case in Oka. Every legal defense was muted and the natives really had no choice in that case. I am not a pacifist and believe that people whose lives are endangered are quite correct when they protect those rights. In Canada that means the native community and increasingly the homeless community which is also brutalized in our society. There is a substancial difference in my mind to the soldier who was shot in Oka, by natives who were defending their treaty rights and land rights and were backed into a corner, to the police 'murdering' Dudley George. No doubt people of limited intelligence won't see it that way, and I shouldn't be so derogatory to them, but,well, I am. That's the first time I've ever said any such thing, so you are obviously reading things into my posts that aren't there.

   

I know you condone it, it's EVIDENT in all your diatribes. Yeah my English is bad, but you can also EVIDENTLY understand it quite well.

   

Absolutly nothing wrong with defending yourself. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

   

If that's been 'evident' in what I've said, again, you should reread them if you have such trouble with english. Natives have actually been the paradigms of virtue in our society, such actions by them are exceedingly rare (I'm not talking about individual acts of violence), particularly when compared to the draconian acts of the flq in the seventies. When one works with natives, one immediately feels the acceptance of a far different way of life, one that is quite alien to our own in so many ways. Their religious views can only be called 'extreme' by us simply because we really are 'just that bad'. French and english are alike in this, there are far more similarities than differences when it comes to native rights. <br /> <br /> When you look at occasions where they are actually in the right under the law, like at burnt church or the charlotte islands, you see just how disciplined their minds and spirits are. The RCMP have tried on many occasions to 'infiltrate' native causes, just as they have environment, communist and most other causes, yet they have far more difficulty here. Natives would be quite within their rights to simply 'fence off' what they want and reclaim it, they know that that is counter-productive. Except in extreme cases I would never endorse violence, and I certainly don't talk about it in terms of native sovereignty because <i>they</i> know it far better than any of us. They say if you talk to a liberal (not the party) long enough you'll find out their a fascist, and our culture is the one which is really incapable of dealing with problems except violently. <br /> <br /> However, if you look at Oka the people never instigated violence. You can watch video footage and see how reserved they are, remarkable even as they were being starved and deprived of their human rights by BOTH the provincial and federal government. In fact, I hadn't mentioned it before, and it shows my innate racism but I've always recommended people research and learn from american reactionary groups, yet far better would be to look at native groups in Canada, whose successes 'under the law' have been far more remarkable and far reaching than any american movement of late. It helps when you have right on your side.

   

I also work with Natives Marcarc and you can't convince me more of their virtues. But I know what I've read concerning your extreme views on the issue and no history lesson will change the fact you've written them. Just be mindful of the far reaching consequences of violent views expressed on public websites. You never know who's reading and what's going on in their heads.<br /> <br /> I'm a Francophone and you seem to be done insulting me with petty remarks on my written English. So if you don't mind, let's just drop this subject.

   

Good points Marcarc. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

   

[QUOTE BY= Samuel]<br /> Then why may I ask have you only propped up her separatist propaganda?[/quote]<br /> I've only read up to that. I'm certainly not going to skip pages just to find references about federalist betrayals. I'll get to them eventually.<br /> <br /> [quote]Do not take people for fools just because they can't wield the English language as good as you do.[/quote]<br /> And I was taking you for a fool...how?<br /> <br /> [quote]If you thought separatists were a threat to Canada, think again. We are quickly finding out Federalists are your country's worst enemies.[/quote]<br /> No, I'm beginning to see both are OUR country's worse enemies.<br />

   

I'd like to see some examples of any 'extreme' views which I've written. I don't have too much to fear, go talk to an average native and you certainly hear far more 'extreme' language concerning our government, in fact from just about any protestor, environmentalist, etc. I've never advocated violence or even threats, if you've got something in writing I'd like to see it, otherwise stop the slander and we'll call it over.

   

Should I jump into a thread I haven't glanced over. Fear not I have skimmed and read through most of the posts on this thread.<br /> <br /> For starters, If a book is written with no sources and it contains unsubstantiated opinions. It is propoganda!!!<br /> <br /> Propaganda (Dictionary.com)<br /> <br /> Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause.<br /> <br /> A Book written by a federalist lover most likely. Dr Caleb the crux of my arguments is based on Historical Fact, International Law, and Common Law precedent. Who's fault is it, that a procedure is established (NFLD Referendum Procedure) is made and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Afterwards, it is decided the prior rules established will not generate the outcome desired so they try make up a new rules, 1982 Constitution, "the Clarity Act" etc..<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'><br /> <br /> Understand International Law took a foothold in 1946. International Law is the Supreme Law of the world. The Nfld Referendum took place after this date. Quebec's boundaries are to go back to what they were in 1946. Failure to do so, is an act of genocide by Canada <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <br /> <br /> Provinces are individual entities under the Banner of the Canadian Federation. Marcarc, pointed out that Canada has never been a democracy, and what little power anyone has amounts to very little (not entirely so, as I will elaborate <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> ). Marcarc also pointed out that liberals are fascist. A valid assertion, given the the manor in which the 1982 Constitution was contructed. <br /> <br /> Marcarc, you have advocated violence if it means protecting the rights of a minority. Go through your posts and you will find that assertion. Let's make it clear, Canada is not multicultural. It maybe now, but that is because the Liberal Party hated Canada so much, that it wanted to drive it to immolation at the expense of the First Nations, The Quebecois, and even the English (Go to Toronto) Half the city is challenged to string an English sentence together. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <br /> <br /> In order to preserve the provinces, the legs must be kicked out of the Canadian Federation. This could happen by establishing Frederal Provincial Parties nationwide. This would make coalition governments a requirement. How else will the rights of the provinces to preserve its identity, character, and history be established <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/question.gif' alt='Question'> <br /> <br /> Take your pick, the Conservatives Financially ruined Canada. The Liberals are driving the country to immolation. In my mind the Liberals are dead, and the Conservatives are also dead.<br /> <br /> Vive Le Bloc Canadien <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

[QUOTE BY= _747 Dr Caleb the crux of my arguments is based on Historical Fact, International Law, and Common Law precedent. Who's fault is it, that a procedure is established (NFLD Referendum Procedure) is made and affirmed by the Supreme Court. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Yes, but you convieniently ignore parts of Common Law et. al. that pertain to your arguments and precedents set since. Your arguments are therefore fundamentally flawed, and if they make it anywhere near the Hague, it'll be circulated as an email joke.<br /> <br /> <br /> But, we were talking about Diane Francis . . . *hint* *hint* <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <br />

   

Yes I know <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> No sources, propogandists. What's more to discuss....

   

Diane Francis is a funny case in my opinion. She wrote a book in 1986 IIRC called "Controlling Interest: Who Owns Canada" dealing with the fact that Canada is a country of family dynasties....it sounds like an interesting read.<br /> <br /> I'm not sure why her C.D. Howe Institute style continentalism started....she is American but she seemed to be an investigative type in the past.

   

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I'd like to see some examples of any 'extreme' views which I've written. I don't have too much to fear, go talk to an average native and you certainly hear far more 'extreme' language concerning our government, in fact from just about any protestor, environmentalist, etc. I've never advocated violence or even threats, if you've got something in writing I'd like to see it, otherwise stop the slander and we'll call it over.[/QUOTE]<br /> Marcarc I wanted to steer clear of this ugly topic, but I'll refresh your memory if that's what you want. Your post in this thread does ellude to violence as a justifiable means to an end. However, what I'm more specificly referring to is you and I discussing the Oka crisis last year in another thread. You had made it abudantly clear that their turning towards automatic weapons was necessary, justified and acceptable.<br /> <br /> The reason I vividly remember this is because it literally knocked me off my chair. Not only because of the obvious and tragic circumstances to come out of such actions, but because almost all of your posts are pacifist in nature. If you don't remember this tidbit, I'm afraid my word is the only proof I can offer. Dr. Caleb took it upon himself to delete a whole bunch of threads dealing with Québec sovereignty at some point in time and it has since disappeared.

   

To integrate two comments above, I may have said that they were justified, in fact in my last post I clarified that, and it's hardly extremist. I am a pacifist by nature myself, I am white, english, and even though I never did anything to earn it, I'm in the upper 5% of canadian income earners. I have nothing to NOT be pacifist about myself. I have no fear of being 'targeted' by police or threatened except during demonstrations, and even during those police clearly know who they want to get to (and it's never been me).<br /> <br /> However as far as other groups go, I am not pacifist at all. How I know I didn't make the remarks you refer to is because I didn't even KNOW what kind of weapons were present at Oka, even after watching the documentary. I did some checking and in fact most of the weapons were semi automatic hunting rifles. When treaties are broken and land illegally confiscated for something as obtruse as a golf course, yes, I absolutely think they were justified, and I'm not too worried about saying that since if you watch the documentary on it-even giving 'whitey' the benefit of the doubt- I know many people feel similar to me. Those I have watched it with have made more extreme claims than I have. In fact, when you actually get the facts, the weapons they had were clearly defensive, and were behind roadblocks-the tanks and armored vehicles came to them, not vice versa. The canadian levels of government had every opportunity to deal with it sensibly but instead wanted to 'teach natives a lesson'. The fault of that horrible chapter in Canada's history is clearly on our backs. Likewise, I have no trouble with Iraqis or Afghanis fighting to reclaim their own land. I have no trouble siding with Columbian rebels and other indiginous groups who have to resort to violence. Violence is perpetrated on THEM, so they are perfectly justified in returning it. It's pretty specious to claim that the US's attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq are 'self defense', especially considering they are the most powerful military in the world, but that's just my opinion, I don't expect anybody to share it (though I know many do) and don't really care whether they do or not, since it's all 'hypothetical' and doesn't make me act in any way against our laws or even norms-or even want to.<br /> <br /> So I hope I've cleared that up, if that 'floors' anybody, well, so be it, and if that's 'extreme', then I think it's far more common than should be expected, in which case it ceases to be extreme. I would have let this rest but I don't like vague comments about extremism thrown at me because I put a lot of thought into what I write and try to back it up with facts when necessary, and labels have a way of sticking. <br /> <br /> <br /> Back to Diane Francis', like most journalists -and people, she has ups and downs, and often inconsistencies. She is for free markets, but in favour of anti-trust laws, she is against social programs, but not always, and chides the americans on not having 'equality' in national education. The real 'conservative' approach becomes quixotic when a conservative praises american wars which have set debt levels so high that if they were any other country the IMF and World Bank would have taken over their economies like they did in Argentina. <br /> <br /> It's quite well established that american 'governmental corporatism' functions through the pentagon system, which makes claims of 'constant warfare' that much harder to defend economically. I suppose my real problem is the veneer of education derived from her books (though I haven't 'read' them, mostly perused them) when there are so many other books so much better than hers available. Canada has accepted the american 'cult of personality' so that media columnists are listened to with more credence than others. Hopefully the internet will act to change that, yet often blogs have a way of repeating the same thing on a smaller scale, which makes sites like this all the more important.

   

This is hilarious! You deny what I've said and then confirm it with an apologetic twist. Just to set the record straight, the lives of Natives in Oka were not threatened in any way until THEY took up weapons. Granted their realestate was in question.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next