Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Caledonia

Caledonia

Recommended Posts

Yeah JBG...posit, among other things, is an expert in law and agricultural soil replenishment.
With the end-product of male cattle digestion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only do you not understand that there is no court to be considered but you don't understand the application of the doctrine of latches.....The accepted FACT is that Six Nations protested, complained, argued, filed grievances and made delegations to the Crown over the illegal land sales, the illegal occupations and development of the Haldimand from the very beginning.
The doctrine of latches and adverse possession establish that Six Nations does not automatically have a right to the return of the land and that the existing land holders *do* have rights that a court *must* consider. Six Nations has had full access to the court system for nearly 30 years and Six Nations did not file a suit to reclaim the land. This 30 year delay undermines their claim even if they have reasonable excuses for inaction prior to then.
Not Six Nations is not demanding for all the lands back to a degree that they will displace existing home owners and businesses. There are insisting, however, that undeveloped lands that are unceded be returned to their possession and jurisdiction.
A ridiculous demand because:

1) Undeveloped lands have still been purchased by someone who has rights that must be considered.

2) Lands which the crown still owns which are used for parks have a community purpose which is more important.

3) Municipalities cannot function if their territory is carved up into patches.

The fact that Six Nations thinks that their demands are reasonable simply demonstrates that they don't understand the politics of the situation.

Any costs that are to be levied are the responsibility of the Province and/or the Federal Government, and not Six Nations. Whether a car is stolen or land is stolen, the title must be returned free and clear of any encumbrance.
The government does not have any money - it must raises funds by taking money from people who were not responsible for the historical wrong. Expecting the government to raise trillion+ dollars to satisfy the greed of Six Nations is ridiculous and it is unlikely any court would ever grant such a demand. If a court did then it would likely see a backlash against the court which would undermine the claims of aboriginals everywhere. In a democracy the majority can always change the 'rule of law' to ensure it only allows what the majority wants.
The government CONTINUES to ignore the "Rule of Law" concerning the Haldimand by consulting and accommodating the Confederacy on ANY development in the tract.
The "rule of law" clearly indicates that it is not necessary to return land even if it was fraudulently obtained. Furthermore, the government feels the land was surrendered lawfully which means the onus is on Six Nations to get a court injunction to support their case. So far Six Nations has not done that therefore the government has no legal duty to consult. Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" If you go to a university..."

You want to play coy with me? Come on let's play. Your comment was deliberately elitist and insulting as you assume university is the place to acquire truth and the shot is at aboriginals because they don't in your opinion to to universities because they aren't "technical" enough which is your passive aggressive way of saying "smart" enough.

You know what is even more pathetic then someone who taunts aboriginals because they don't get their truth from universities-people like you thinking university provides the truth.

Ah but don't tell me you are university educated...

Is something wrong with you?

Open your eyes and read. I never said any such thing at all.

What I said was the guy who said that wasn't being racist. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Where the hell else would you go? The local Tim Hortens, just because you got your degree there don't attribute it to everyone else. Any normal stable person would consider a University an ideal place to conduct research.

Do try and get reality straight will you? At least pay enough attention to realize who said what, and try to can your little hissy fits please. You seem to be pretty unstable though.

Edited by AngusThermopyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Six Nations has had full access to the court system for nearly 30 years and Six Nations did not file a suit to reclaim the land. This 30 year delay undermines their claim even if they have reasonable excuses for inaction prior to then.

Wrong again Riverwind, but you know that and you spread misinformation anyway. Since the Specific Lands Claims process was set up in 1979, Six Nations has submitted 31 claims, dating from 1980 to 1995. The 1980 claim, settled in 1987, is the only one settled so far. Frustrated, Six Nations did go to litigation, 1994-2004, and thereafter back to negotiations. Then Henco started developing on the Caledonia lot ...

A ridiculous demand because:

1) Undeveloped lands have still been purchased by someone who has rights that must be considered.

2) Lands which the crown still owns which are used for parks have a community purpose which is more important.

3) Municipalities cannot function if their territory is carved up into patches.

The fact that Six Nations thinks that their demands are reasonable simply demonstrates that they don't understand the politics of the situation.

These are our issues to deal with, not Six Nations. These are our liabilities, our problems, not theirs. These issues have absolutely nothing to say about the legitimacy of Six Nations land and governance rights. It is up to us to address our concerns appropriately, to our governments; otherwise we run the risk of using our issues as an excuse for bigotry.

The government does not have any money - it must raises funds by taking money from people who were not responsible for the historical wrong. Expecting the government to raise trillion+ dollars to satisfy the greed of Six Nations is ridiculous and it is unlikely any court would ever grant such a demand. If a court did then it would likely see a backlash against the court which would undermine the claims of aboriginals everywhere. In a democracy the majority can always change the 'rule of law' to ensure it only allows what the majority wants.

You have very naive ideas about how national liabilities can be handled.

You also have naive ideas about who the greedy ones are. Canada's economy is totally dependent on (free) natural resources taken and not paid for from traditional Indigenous lands every day. You owe, I owe, we all owe Indigenous Peoples of Canada for our standard of living every single day. And the economic well-being of every Canadian continues to be stolen from Indigenous communities every single day.

The "rule of law" clearly indicates that it is not necessary to return land even if it was fraudulently obtained. Furthermore, the government feels the land was surrendered lawfully which means the onus is on Six Nations to get a court injunction to support their case. So far Six Nations has not done that therefore the government has no legal duty to consult.

The rule of law says nothing of the kind. That is entirely a matter of negotiation. There is a federal policy to that effect, but it is not law.

A court injunction for what? The DCE has been reclaimed. There is no need for consultation. The development there was stopped. You really don't have a friggen clue what you are talking about, Riverwind, and I hope no one here is believing what you say because it is ALL made up blather without ANY foundation. That is part of the negotiation process, not consultation.

The provincial and federal governments both have a legal responsibility to consult with Six Nations and every other aboriginal community about ANY USES of their traditional and treaty lands ... by rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government does not have any money - it must raises funds by taking money from people who were not responsible for the historical wrong. Expecting the government to raise trillion+ dollars to satisfy the greed of Six Nations is ridiculous and it is unlikely any court would ever grant such a demand. If a court did then it would likely see a backlash against the court which would undermine the claims of aboriginals everywhere. In a democracy the majority can always change the 'rule of law' to ensure it only allows what the majority wants.
In New York, similarly, in Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State 8 N.Y.3d 14, *28, 861 N.E.2d 50, **58, 828 N.Y.S.2d 235, ***243-243, 2006 WL 3344731,**7 (N.Y. (N.Y.,2006) advocates for the poor people in education snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The New York State Court of Appeals initially held that it ould force New York State to measurably increase funding for New York City schools. The Court stated:

In the case of New York City, student need is high, as is the local ability to pay, as measured by the State's Combined Wealth Ratio. Thus, as the trial court observed, the equalizing elements of the state aid formula do not operate to the *930 advantage of City students, the more so in that the system does not take into account the high cost of running schools in the City (187 Misc.2d at 85-86, 719 N.Y.S.2d 475). And the record supports the trial court's conclusion that funding components that might channel funds to meet the needs of City students fail to make a difference in the end: New York City regularly receives a fixed share-just under 39%-of any funding increase (187 Misc.2d at 89, 719 N.Y.S.2d 475).

Thus, the political process allocates to City schools a share of state aid that does not bear a perceptible relation to the needs of City students. While we do not join the trial court in ordering that the process be made as transparent as possible, we do agree that the funding level necessary to provide City students with the opportunity for a sound basic education is an ascertainable starting point.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State
100 N.Y.2d 893, *929, 801 N.E.2d 326, **348-348, 769 N.Y.S.2d 106,**128 (N.Y.,2003)

When the Plaintiffs overplayed their hand, the Court measurably trimmed back the Plaintiff's 2003 victory, stating:

Our deference to the Legislature's education financing plans is justified not only by prudent and practical hesitation in light of the limited access of the Judiciary “to the controlling economic and social facts,” but also by our abiding “respect for the separation of powers upon which our system of government is based” ( Matter of 89 Christopher v. Joy, 35 N.Y.2d 213, 220, 360 N.Y.S.2d 612, 318 N.E.2d 776 [1974] ). We cannot “intrude upon the policy-making and discretionary decisions that are reserved to the legislative and executive branches” ( Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 541, 475 N.Y.S.2d 247, 463 N.E.2d 588 [1984] ).

Deference to the Legislature is especially necessary where it is the State's budget plan that is being questioned. Devising a *29 state budget is a prerogative of the Legislature and Executive; the Judiciary should not usurp this power. The legislative and executive branches of government are in a far better position than the Judiciary to determine funding needs throughout the state and priorities for the allocation of the State's resources.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State
8 N.Y.3d 14, *28, 861 N.E.2d 50, **58, 828 N.Y.S.2d 235, ***243-243, 2006 WL 3344731,**7 (N.Y. (N.Y.,2006)

In my view, the Court recognized that it could not force politically unacceptable funding levels for the schools on taxpayers. Similarly, the Canadian courts likely recognize the political limits of the peoples' willingness to obey ridiculous mandates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In New York, similarly, in Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State 8 N.Y.3d 14, *28, 861 N.E.2d 50, **58, 828 N.Y.S.2d 235, ***243-243, 2006 WL 3344731,**7 (N.Y. (N.Y.,2006) advocates for the poor people in education snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The New York State Court of Appeals initially held that it ould force New York State to measurably increase funding for New York City schools. The Court stated:

In the case of New York City, student need is high, as is the local ability to pay, as measured by the State's Combined Wealth Ratio. Thus, as the trial court observed, the equalizing elements of the state aid formula do not operate to the *930 advantage of City students, the more so in that the system does not take into account the high cost of running schools in the City (187 Misc.2d at 85-86, 719 N.Y.S.2d 475). And the record supports the trial court's conclusion that funding components that might channel funds to meet the needs of City students fail to make a difference in the end: New York City regularly receives a fixed share-just under 39%-of any funding increase (187 Misc.2d at 89, 719 N.Y.S.2d 475).

Thus, the political process allocates to City schools a share of state aid that does not bear a perceptible relation to the needs of City students. While we do not join the trial court in ordering that the process be made as transparent as possible, we do agree that the funding level necessary to provide City students with the opportunity for a sound basic education is an ascertainable starting point.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State
100 N.Y.2d 893, *929, 801 N.E.2d 326, **348-348, 769 N.Y.S.2d 106,**128 (N.Y.,2003)

When the Plaintiffs overplayed their hand, the Court measurably trimmed back the Plaintiff's 2003 victory, stating:

Our deference to the Legislature's education financing plans is justified not only by prudent and practical hesitation in light of the limited access of the Judiciary “to the controlling economic and social facts,” but also by our abiding “respect for the separation of powers upon which our system of government is based” ( Matter of 89 Christopher v. Joy, 35 N.Y.2d 213, 220, 360 N.Y.S.2d 612, 318 N.E.2d 776 [1974] ). We cannot “intrude upon the policy-making and discretionary decisions that are reserved to the legislative and executive branches” ( Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 541, 475 N.Y.S.2d 247, 463 N.E.2d 588 [1984] ).

Deference to the Legislature is especially necessary where it is the State's budget plan that is being questioned. Devising a *29 state budget is a prerogative of the Legislature and Executive; the Judiciary should not usurp this power. The legislative and executive branches of government are in a far better position than the Judiciary to determine funding needs throughout the state and priorities for the allocation of the State's resources.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State
8 N.Y.3d 14, *28, 861 N.E.2d 50, **58, 828 N.Y.S.2d 235, ***243-243, 2006 WL 3344731,**7 (N.Y. (N.Y.,2006)

In my view, the Court recognized that it could not force politically unacceptable funding levels for the schools on taxpayers. Similarly, the Canadian courts likely recognize the political limits of the peoples' willingness to obey ridiculous mandates.

Certainly the federal government has the responsibility to settle native land claims as thriftily as possible. However, that has to take into account our future relations with aboriginal communities too. It is necessary to strike a fair deal, respecting the laws that apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly the federal government has the responsibility to settle native land claims as thriftily as possible. However, that has to take into account our future relations with aboriginal communities too. It is necessary to strike a fair deal, respecting the laws that apply.
Agreed. You quoted my entire post, which I suppose is not a bad thing. The point of that post is to show that when social rights groups overplay their hands, even the Courts cannot and/or will not help them. Courts' authority is largely moral authority. They do not have the manpower or fiscal ability to force compliance with decrees. That part must come from the will of the political branches to obey them.

In the US, for example, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education properly decreed an end to segregated schools, they recognized that this could not be done immediately. Thus, they ordered desegregation to occur "with all deliberate speed". A court renders unaffordable decrees at their peril. Thus, for example, giving 125% of BC to the FN's would certainly risk defiance. A decree unsettling ownership rights in a major city like Vancouver, similiarly, would not be honored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is something wrong with you?

Open your eyes and read. I never said any such thing at all.

What I said was the guy who said that wasn't being racist. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Where the hell else would you go? The local Tim Hortens, just because you got your degree there don't attribute it to everyone else. Any normal stable person would consider a University an ideal place to conduct research.

Do try and get reality straight will you? At least pay enough attention to realize who said what, and try to can your little hissy fits please. You seem to be pretty unstable though.

Lol. I love the hissy references. Tough guy calling me effeminate. Man we just can't seem to progress past this my thing is bigger then your thing reference point can we. Lol. If you want I can give you a magnifine glass. as for me, my people lose a little in the translation after we are born -its a ritual we have designed to reduce the size of our head to keep us humble.

Now then, the university and technical expertise reference in my opinion was raised as a cheap shot. The context in which they were said to me necessarily suggested the poster who made them felt the need to put down another poster and use them in a manner intended to portray himself as being intellectually superior.

The references to university and technical expertise were cheap shots at the person they were directed to, to suggest since they had not been to university and did not have the academic intelligence level i.e., technical expertise to be able to understand the truth.

The intent to belittle was clear.

When a man points a gun and uses it to gesticulate in a negative way, whether its loaded or not, the intent remains clear.

The point you also miss is that the university knowledge that poster relies on is by its very nature is incomplete and defective because of the fact that it has excluded the very people it thinks it can profess about and until it includes those people and incorporates their knowledge into its knowledge base, what it professes necessarily remains defective.

See that is something I learned from having gone to university. If I learned one thing, it is that learned people realize how stupid we are and how limited we are, and how we need to reach out with open minds and be willing to learn from the very people we claim to have knowledge about, if we are to have any credibility.

Those who use education to put others down misappropriate its purpose and defeat its very purpose.

The point is some of us are quick to put others down because we; i- assume we think we know what their knowledge base is; ii- assume we have a credible knowledge base, and iii- think or knowledge base is superior and iv-can be used as a tool to ridicule and belittle.

What I am saying is;

i-people who do the above do not understand what the aboriginal knowledge base is;

ii-assume they are credible based on a knowledge base ripe with false pretenses, subjective opinions, faulty syntax, contradictions, false or uncorroborated assumptions, cultural, religious, gender and other biases, emotions, lack of logic and problematic testing procedures taininting their empirical observations;

iii-that this knowledge base as is the case with any knowledge base is not superior to other knowledge bases, simply relative to them;

iv-it is irrational and illogical to use one's knowledge base to simply negate another's for the purpose of education and enlightenment is to widen awareness not limit it - its purpose is to expand the creative and cognitive processes not limit them.

There is nothing more tragic then a closed mind.

Some of us choose to become deaf and blind out of choice.

Ironic that people not given the choice and who are born with the conditions, learn to open their minds and develop new areas to ovecome such limitations.

I choose in this case to engage in dialogue with aboriginal peoples that sees their knowledge base as relative to mine and since my ignorance as to it that makes me deaf and blind was not something I chose but was born into, I now chose to overcome such limitations by learning to develop my listening skills as to what they have to share with me.

I do not see them and their aspirations and values as something I need to negate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These issues have absolutely nothing to say about the legitimacy of Six Nations land and governance rights. It is up to us to address our concerns appropriately, to our governments; otherwise we run the risk of using our issues as an excuse for bigotry.
Hardly. Six Nations can make whatever rediculous demands that it wants. However, making rediculous demands makes it easier for the government to simply refuse them. As I said before, these kinds of cases bring rights into conflict which means there is no universal remedy that would apply to all cases. No one knows for sure how a court would attempt to balance the conflicts between rights because there has never been a case this large before. However, there is no reason to believe that the balance would be anything close to what Six Nations is demanding. A court that was stupid enough to do that would actually undermine the rule of law and severely hurt relationships with aboriginal people because it would trigger a bitter showdown that would likely end with a change to the law to ensure such one sided decisions do not occur again.
You also have naive ideas about who the greedy ones are. Canada's economy is totally dependent on (free) natural resources taken and not paid for from traditional Indigenous lands every day.
The resources belong to *everyone* not simply the aboriginals. Your statement is nothing but racist claptrap. Canada is wealthy because of the people who built the economy that put the resources to good use. Argentina had the same resources 100+ years ago but is much poorer today because its people were less capable of using them effectively.
The rule of law says nothing of the kind. That is entirely a matter of negotiation. There is a federal policy to that effect, but it is not law.
Make up your mind. You say the rule of law entitles Six Nations to everything it demands but you also say it is matter of negotiation. What is there to negotiate if the law requires that all land be returned?

By resorting to lawlessness Six Nations has actually done all of us a big favour because they have made the government's position seem reasonable. The government will have to formulate a good faith offer to Six Nations. If Six Nations refuses this good faith offer Six Nations will have to go to court and its case will be weaker as a result.

Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argueably, the Six Nations were permitted to settle along the Grand River in an attempt to maintain them as an ally in the face of further possible aggression on the part of the Americans. From what I've read, my understanding is that their continued inhabitation of the regions was contingent upon their conduct, and if it got to the point where the Six Nations began to be antagonistic towards the British (later Canada), then the respective party was justified in dealing with the situation accordingly. I believe that that situation has now finally arisen. We find ourselves with a large group of people who are openly espousing treasonous beliefs. As un-Canadian as it may seem, I think that if the Six Nations continues to escalate the situation, and more violence results--it's only a matter of time before they kill someone--I think options such as expulsion need to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argueably, the Six Nations were permitted to settle along the Grand River in an attempt to maintain them as an ally in the face of further possible aggression on the part of the Americans. From what I've read, my understanding is that their continued inhabitation of the regions was contingent upon their conduct, and if it got to the point where the Six Nations began to be antagonistic towards the British (later Canada), then the respective party was justified in dealing with the situation accordingly. I believe that that situation has now finally arisen. We find ourselves with a large group of people who are openly espousing treasonous beliefs. As un-Canadian as it may seem, I think that if the Six Nations continues to escalate the situation, and more violence results--it's only a matter of time before they kill someone--I think options such as expulsion need to be considered.

Wrong again chum. The Haudenosaunee were along the Grand River eons before the British ever stepped into what is now Ontario. That's been proven to you over and over again and still you make up lies.

Edited by Charles Anthony
forum violation deleted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong again chum. The Haudenosaunee were along the Grand River eons before the British ever stepped into what is now Ontario. That's been proven to you over and over again and still you make up lies.

And you're the one calling me "retarded"? I think we've long ago established that your theory has no basis in fact. Just like all other Indians myths and legends. Your stories may be entertaining around the ol' campfire, but let's try not to stray to far from reality on here, okay?

Edited by Charles Anthony
forum violation deleted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hardly. Six Nations can make whatever rediculous demands that it wants. However, making rediculous demands makes it easier for the government to simply refuse them. As I said before, these kinds of cases bring rights into conflict which means there is no universal remedy that would apply to all cases. No one knows for sure how a court would attempt to balance the conflicts between rights because there has never been a case this large before. However, there is no reason to believe that the balance would be anything close to what Six Nations is demanding. A court that was stupid enough to do that would actually undermine the rule of law and severely hurt relationships with aboriginal people because it would trigger a bitter showdown that would likely end with a change to the law to ensure such one sided decisions do not occur again.

The resources belong to *everyone* not simply the aboriginals. Your statement is nothing but racist claptrap. Canada is wealthy because of the people who built the economy that put the resources to good use. Argentina had the same resources 100+ years ago but is much poorer today because its people were less capable of using them effectively.

Make up your mind. You say the rule of law entitles Six Nations to everything it demands but you also say it is matter of negotiation. What is there to negotiate if the law requires that all land be returned?

By resorting to lawlessness Six Nations has actually done all of us a big favour because they have made the government's position seem reasonable. The government will have to formulate a good faith offer to Six Nations. If Six Nations refuses this good faith offer Six Nations will have to go to court and its case will be weaker as a result.

They did that in May.

but you know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you're the one calling me "retarded"? I think we've long ago established that your theory has no basis in fact. Just like all other Indians myths and legends. Your stories may be entertaining around the ol' campfire, but let's try not to stray to far from reality on here, okay?

I presented the facts, moutarde. Maps and archaeology ARE proof. You on the other hand have nothing, no proof - just your tiny little useless voice of hate and racism and few people buy it.

When are you going to Desreonto, boy? It seems they have a party all lined up for you.....

Edited by Charles Anthony
forum violation deleted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presented the facts, moutarde. Maps and archaeology ARE proof. You on the other hand have nothing, no proof - just your tiny little useless voice of hate and racism and few people buy it.

When are you going to Desreonto, boy? It seems they have a party all lined up for you.....

I don't recall you presenting anything of credible reliability. Just claims that the H. has lived along the Grand for who knows how long, something that is not supported by archeological evidence. Any university has the resources that will show that the H. did not reside along the Grand before the land was given to them; even so, I suppose that will make no difference because you will only believe what you want to believe.

As for racism, really, the way you and a few others misuse that term really gets tiring after a while. If Indians who identify themselves as a group, do something that I do not agree with, I have every right to voice my disagreement. If you're trying to suggest that any expression of opinion about Indians is automatically racism simply because I'm (supposedly) white and they are Indians, then I'd say you've got problems. I'm sure, though, that all you're trying to do is deliberately be an ass to get under my skin. Well, people like you are a dime a dozen on the net and it doesn't bother me a bit.

My suggestion to you is that if you have such a problem with the great nation of Canada, then feel free to leave; we don't need people like you here; the resources could be better invested in a person willing to be a good Canadian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presented the facts, moutarde. Maps and archaeology ARE proof. You on the other hand have nothing, no proof - just your tiny little useless voice of hate and racism and few people buy it.
In Canada. a proof is a proof (link for "proof" of that proof).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is clarified in this account, which is information given to Kahentinetha by Elders who were there, is that there is a question of who attacked who first.
Do you have a link to that "information"? Also, I wonder how Jennie and Posit would respond to arguments that it wasn't "whitey" who ended Indian culture; it was smallpox (link). Edited by jbg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is clarified in this account, which is information given to Kahentinetha by Elders who were there, is that there is a question of who attacked who first.
You didn't link to the article, but I did (link). This material just defies description. Granted, the US is not perfect but to argue that "(t)he U.S. has some of the most refined torture methods in the world?" Yes, I believe you have the right to say it. It doesn't make it persuasive writing to assert a view so divorced from reality as to embarass even your allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't link to the article, but I did (link). This material just defies description. Granted, the US is not perfect but to argue that "(t)he U.S. has some of the most refined torture methods in the world?" Yes, I believe you have the right to say it. It doesn't make it persuasive writing to assert a view so divorced from reality as to embarass even your allies.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9873

This has been discussed here, and there is more information there. As for smallpox, that is an interesting topic perhaps deserving of its own thread with an introductory link to evidence to support your hypothesis ... perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't link to the article, but I did (link). This material just defies description. Granted, the US is not perfect but to argue that "(t)he U.S. has some of the most refined torture methods in the world?" Yes, I believe you have the right to say it. It doesn't make it persuasive writing to assert a view so divorced from reality as to embarass even your allies.

Did you read all the Red X articles? They're great, some really funny stuff there. They cant be serious though, they're so absolutely absurd as to be comical.

Are these what you meant when you talked about some of the most refined torture methods Jennie? Seriously? You cant use silliness like these articles as proof of anything other than a fertile, if somewhat twisted, imagination.

On that note though, I do keep checking for new Red X stuff, it's good for a laugh. Like I said before, it would make a great cartoon. Evil forces, resurrections, the third dimension, and free Ottawa Senators tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read all the Red X articles? They're great, some really funny stuff there. They cant be serious though, they're so absolutely absurd as to be comical.

Are these what you meant when you talked about some of the most refined torture methods Jennie? Seriously? You cant use silliness like these articles as proof of anything other than a fertile, if somewhat twisted, imagination.

On that note though, I do keep checking for new Red X stuff, it's good for a laugh. Like I said before, it would make a great cartoon. Evil forces, resurrections, the third dimension, and free Ottawa Senators tickets.

That is hilarious! It's amazing what folks can come up with given enough free time and beer!

"Suddenly a telepathic message flashed telling us how he was tortured by a special squad. They were dressed in black with black hoods. They looked something like Darth Vader’s gang. They used all the old tactics like inserting large objects into his rectum which he expelled into their faces, knocking out one eye. They siced beasts on him to frighten, bite and anally rape him. These animals ended up trying to help him and even licked some of his wounds, which drove his tormenters nuts. They also tried to put a computer chip in his brain so they could track him. They were unsuccessful because his body rejected it. He did not have the necessary anti-rejection chemicals in his system. It fell on the floor and broke into a thousand pieces. Derogatory terms were constantly hurled at him, like “dirty red sand nigger and maggot”, “Wagon burner, “big papoose” and “chief”."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9873

This has been discussed here, and there is more information there. As for smallpox, that is an interesting topic perhaps deserving of its own thread with an introductory link to evidence to support your hypothesis ... perhaps?

Jennie, great idea. Done (link).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...