Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Hahaha.. Like "big boo-boos" are not a big deal.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I beg to differ. I like it much better up here.. In my opinion, the system is much more stable - with the parliament and the monarch. That's fine.....but why such strenuous comparisons to the American's system. Why do these questions of monarchy vs. republicanism linger? Trust me when I tell you that the Yankees do not miss the monarchy, or think about it ... as if it never happened at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Mine was only a sarcastic way to say that Her Majesty and The Oath mean very little indeed...and even less today. She promised to govern according to law and custom, not tip the entire system over in order to give First Nations a casino permit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Why do these questions of monarchy vs. republicanism linger? Trust me, they only linger around the shadowy edges. They mostly arise due to ignorance and/or wierd cultural hangups. The majority just goes about their business, not knowing how the system they live under works or who does what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 She promised to govern according to law and custom, not tip the entire system over in order to give First Nations a casino permit. Apparently not....as dozens of disputed land claims and treaty rights remain unresolved. Maybe Her Majesty, Queen of Canada should visit the Hood more often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 That's fine.....but why such strenuous comparisons to the American's system. Why do these questions of monarchy vs. republicanism linger? Trust me when I tell you that the Yankees do not miss the monarchy, or think about it ... as if it never happened at all. Generally, it may not desirable to think of being ruled by a monarchy. Especially when one's conception of a monarch is outdated. However, I believe that the constitutional monarchy is a good form of government, in both ideological and practical terms. On the other hand, the idea of a republic is pretty and all.. but given the nature of man kind, it can easily lead to a shipwreck of ideological purity. That is why people still desire a republic. It has all of the flash and appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Trust me, they only linger around the shadowy edges. They mostly arise due to ignorance and/or wierd cultural hangups. The majority just goes about their business, not knowing how the system they live under works or who does what. Still... The truth is that the monarchy stands for much that has held Canada back. It embodies the triumph of inheritance over merit, of blood over brains, of mindless ritual over innovation. The monarchy reminds us to defer to authority and remember our place. In Quebec, the Royals are regarded as an insult.” — Margaret Wente, 2001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I think you mean that the laws governing the line of succession are different - i.e. separate - between here and the UK. That is true, and the lines of succession thus could be different (if either country amended their law without a parallel change in the other countries), but presently they are identical. Yes thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 The country PC is from still has slavery, and wants to enslave other countries such as Georgia. Yak... That was a cheap shot... Especially coming from someone who lives in the LAST country to have DEFENDED SLAVERY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Generally, it may not desirable to think of being ruled by a monarchy. Especially when one's conception of a monarch is outdated. However, I believe that the constitutional monarchy is a good form of government, in both ideological and practical terms. On the other hand, the idea of a republic is pretty and all.. but given the nature of man kind, it can easily lead to a shipwreck of ideological purity. That is why people still desire a republic. It has all of the flash and appeal. No, the flash and appeal is government by the governed, not blood lines. Surely you are not saying the Queen is above the nature of "mankind"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Ask General Montcalm that question. I think I understand les Quebecois better now: ... he led the French forces to victory at the Battle of Carillon, facing and defeating a British army five times his size. It was considered his greatest victory... "... was hit in the abdomen by British grape-shot. Placed in a litter, he was borne back to the field hospital on the banks of the St. Charles river. Told by the surgeons he would not recover, Montclam replied calmly, "I am glad of it." ... "I am happy that I shall not live to see the surrender of Quebec." Edited October 9, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Agreed but the US is not a constitutional monarchy. It is a republic that may, if the election goes the wrong way, become a People's Republic. How could it possibly go "the wrong way" when both of your two parties have the same sponsors Your "Democrats" are far more to the right than our "Conservatives" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I think I understand les Quebecois better now:"... was hit in the abdomen by British grape-shot. Placed in a litter, he was borne back to the field hospital on the banks of the St. Charles river. Told by the surgeons he would not recover, Montclam replied calmly, "I am glad of it." ... "I am happy that I shall not live to see the surrender of Quebec." That's the spirit.....damn those Redcoats to hell. Vive le Québec libre ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 As I said, it has evolved through many years. It is only through years of experience, turmoil and even tyranny, that a political system is able to adapt and change - so that hopefully, it may learn from it's mistakes. So then shaking off the remainders of the dark colonial and monarchial past should be minor compared to what has happened already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Elizabeth II was the first monarch to be separately proclaimed as Queen of Canada, by the Royal Style and Titles Act. We can still make her be the last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) We can still make her be the last. Yea...but I think the title is a registered trademark and copyrighted. Haven't seen any Royals video games have you? I have an idea for a new Royal Sims game. Edited October 9, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Apparently not....as dozens of disputed land claims and treaty rights remain unresolved. Maybe Her Majesty, Queen of Canada should visit the Hood more often. I wonder if she gets showered by rose petals in Quebec? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Still... The truth is that the monarchy stands for much that has held Canada back. It embodies the triumph of inheritance over merit, of blood over brains, of mindless ritual over innovation. The monarchy reminds us to defer to authority and remember our place. In Quebec, the Royals are regarded as an insult.” — Margaret Wente, 2001 Oh, so it's not just us poor Communist immigrants who are insulted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Apparently not....as dozens of disputed land claims and treaty rights remain unresolved. Is the fact that the claims are unresolved proof that the Queen is not governing according to law and custom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Still... The truth is that the monarchy stands for much that has held Canada back. It embodies the triumph of inheritance over merit, of blood over brains, of mindless ritual over innovation. The monarchy reminds us to defer to authority and remember our place. In Quebec, the Royals are regarded as an insult.” — Margaret Wente, 2001 Yea, still. And she's a Yank immigrant to Canada, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 No, the flash and appeal is government by the governed, not blood lines. You do know the difference between constitutional and absolute monarchy, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 So then shaking off the remainders of the dark colonial and monarchial past should be minor Only as minor as coming up with an alternative, putting it to a referendum, and getting the agreement of all ten provincial legislatures plus the federal parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabee Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 As far as Québec and the british monarchy is concerned; In 1964, when the Queen came to Québec, the city, it resulted into a riot, referred to as "le samedi de la matraque". In 1967, when she came to Montréal for Expo 67, she did so on her Royal yatch. She landed on the expo site, temporarily declared international territory. She never set foot on Québec, the province, territory. Last year, some people asked the PM to invite her to Québec's 400th anniversary. He refused, saying that he could not guarantee her security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I beg to differ. I like it much better up here.. In my opinion, the system is much more stable - with the parliament and the monarch.Is that equally true during a majority government such as (most of) the Trudeau era or the Chretien era? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 You do know the difference between constitutional and absolute monarchy, right? Oh sure, but based on thse posts, even the ceremonial remnant is enough to piss off a lot of Canadians, particularly in Quebec. She can royally affirm that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.