Wilber Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 I agree with Geoffrey. I don't see that it makes any difference when it comes to the US, the EU is made up of both Constitutional monarchies and republics. The only thing that matters is a nation's desire to remain independent, the form of government is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no queenslave Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 I agree with Geoffrey. I don't see that it makes any difference when it comes to the US, the EU is made up of both Constitutional monarchies and republics. The only thing that matters is a nation's desire to remain independent, the form of government is irrelevant. since politician swear allegiance to a foreign queen and tax us in her name how can you call Canada independent? Canada is governed by colonial powers by a corrupt government using corrupt judges to give it power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 since politician swear allegiance to a foreign queen and tax us in her name how can you call Canada independent? Canada is governed by colonial powers by a corrupt government using corrupt judges to give it power. Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before you comment on Canada's government. The Queen is not "foreign"--Her Royal Majesty is the Queen of Canada and as such is Canadian, not a foreigner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 since politician swear allegiance to a foreign queen and tax us in her name how can you call Canada independent? Canada is governed by colonial powers by a corrupt government using corrupt judges to give it power. Balls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 In this context, Canada "asserting itself" is an oxymoron. When I was in the US Navy we would transit over and under Canadian territorial waters at will. If ever caught, we were instructed that Canada would assert itself by granting permission after the fact. Nice way to treat an ally--infringe on its sovereignty and break international law in the process. Guess it shouldn't come as a huge surprise. And you people wonder why Canadians don't care much for Americans... If you can find a better market for tar sands oil, hydro, and timber, withdraw from NAFTA and ship it to somebody else. And please, this time around, try to do this without US capital investment. Let's see... China, you guys need it too desperately, China. I would gladly see Canada withdraw from NAFTA. Our primary trading partner should be Europe, anyway, but Asia will also do fine. The United States economy is starting to be something of a drag on Canada. Canada doesn't really need "US capital investment"--that can easily be acquired elsewhere and probably at a better advantage to Canada. Have fun spending your devaluing dollar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) Nice way to treat an ally--infringe on its sovereignty and break international law in the process. Guess it shouldn't come as a huge surprise. And you people wonder why Canadians don't care much for Americans... Do you speak for all Canadians, including the ones I work with every day? Let's see... China, you guys need it too desperately, China. I would gladly see Canada withdraw from NAFTA. Our primary trading partner should be Europe, anyway, but Asia will also do fine. The United States economy is starting to be something of a drag on Canada. Canada doesn't really need "US capital investment"--that can easily be acquired elsewhere and probably at a better advantage to Canada. Have fun spending your devaluing dollar... USA's "devalued" dollar still buys more than yours. Has for over 30 years....when Canada didn't really need (or want)US capital...LOL! Talk is cheap...just follow the money trail to see what Canada really "needs". Edited October 12, 2007 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(kengs333 @ Oct 12 2007, 01:04 AM) Nice way to treat an ally--infringe on its sovereignty and break international law in the process. Guess it shouldn't come as a huge surprise. And you people wonder why Canadians don't care much for Americans... Do you speak for all Canadians, including the ones I work with every day? I actually agree with the first sentence in that statement but not the last two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 I actually agree with the first sentence in that statement but not the last two. The "first sentence" expressed a general sentiment without any understanding of longstanding US disputes with Canada over "territorial" waters and various boundary limits. In fact, US Navy ships would purposely challenge such claims to exert transit rights, and not just with Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 The "first sentence" expressed a general sentiment without any understanding of longstanding US disputes with Canada over "territorial" waters and various boundary limits. In fact, US Navy ships would purposely challenge such claims to exert transit rights, and not just with Canada. Do we do the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Do we do the same? Yes, but often in consort with American task groups or NATO. I am not aware of any independent Canadian Forces transits specifically designed to assert rights under Law of the Sea provisions (e.g. Magellan Strait, Hormuz, Bosphorus, etc.). If you are asking about specific CanAm transit conflicts, I am sure we can find issues in the past for both coasts and Great Lakes, all settled without war since 1813. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Many nations have territorial disputes, Canada incuded.... Canada: With the US managed maritime boundary disputes with the US at Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and around the disputed Machias Seal Island and North Rock With Denmark sovereignty dispute with Denmark over Hans Island in the Kennedy Channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland United Kingdom: Gibraltar Chagos Archipelago Falklands South Sandwich Islands Faroe Islands US Maritime boundy, Berring Sea Maritime Boundy, Bahamas Navassa Island Wake Island .....In the end, The US and Canada have negotiated an end to more disputes than are outstanding. The American position that the NWP is international is not without merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Yes, but often in consort with American task groups or NATO. I am not aware of any independent Canadian Forces transits specifically designed to assert rights under Law of the Sea provisions (e.g. Magellan Strait, Hormuz, Bosphorus, etc.). If you are asking about specific CanAm transit conflicts, I am sure we can find issues in the past for both coasts and Great Lakes, all settled without war since 1813. We are referring specifically to the US and Canada, not other nations. I don't deny that we have issues or question the merit of the respective cases but the question is, do Canadian forces "test" those claims in the same manner as you say the US does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) Well, bambino, whaddya think of this? What do I think? I think neither surprising nor relevant. As someone put it elsewhere, taking these results in conjunction with those that previously showed only 5% of Canadians know who their head of state is, the following situation must have come up often during this last poll: Pollster: "Do you support abolition of the Queen as head of state?" Answer: "We have a queen? Yes, get rid of her." So, really, how can we take answers to a skewed question from an uneducated public very seriously? Our head of state should not be a foreigner and should not be decided by birth. The first statement: xenophobic, tribal, and inaccurate. The second statement: unfounded. Not much of an argument there. Edited October 12, 2007 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 We are referring specifically to the US and Canada, not other nations. I don't deny that we have issues or question the merit of the respective cases but the question is, do Canadian forces "test" those claims in the same manner as you say the US does. Yes and no....partly because of lacking resources for such excursions. Canada began a series of such "tests" with Narwhal operations, the latest of which may target the disputed Beaufort Sea. Many years ago, and before the potential oil Eldorado in a melting arctic, the US and Canada had defense agreements that blurred any such excursions as "tests", such as transits by HMCS Labrador. I am not aware of any Canadian under ice capabilities or transits to date, but when nuclear submarines USS Skate and Seadragon first navigated the Northwest Passage submerged, a Canadian was embarked on at least one of the missions. Many submerged transits were completed since then, particularly to maintain under ice capabilities for hunting Soviet Delta Class SSBNs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 In this context, Canada "asserting itself" is an oxymoron. When I was in the US Navy we would transit over and under Canadian territorial waters at will. If ever caught, we were instructed that Canada would assert itself by granting permission after the fact. No doubt we have joint or at least mutually agreed upon exercises but I can't imagine why you would not expect Canadians to take exception to the above statement. I can't imagine how you could respect us if we didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no queenslave Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 every politician wants you to keep the monky system we have because to change will mean the people will finally have a chance to exercise their right given to them by the Ststute of westminster to change the powers the government now assumed. The people who support a monarchist system do not understand just how corrupt the canadian system has become in the name of the queen. No such thing as equality under the law; no such thing as politicians beeing your voice in ottawa, just ottawas voice to you. No valid constitution that the supreme court upholds- as demonstrated by the lord nelson hotel case. IT is time to stop the colonial rule of Canada with all it's corrupt institutions.and civil servents. Don't you think Canadians are finally educated enough to formulate their own constitution instead of using an old colonial bill drafted by politicians and their lawyers to benefit them; imposed on us as our constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no queenslave Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before you comment on Canada's government. The Queen is not "foreign"--Her Royal Majesty is the Queen of Canada and as such is Canadian, not a foreigner. she does not live in Canada and is a foreigner by such definition. I know more about our corrupt form of government then you will ever take the time to learn; all you know is what you have been indoctrinated to believe-propaganda.Will you admit Canada was a colony until 1931?In you learning when did the sovereign people of Canada ratify a constitution? Remember the bill was called and pased as the BNA Act not the constitution of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 she does not live in Canada and is a foreigner by such definition. I know more about our corrupt form of government then you will ever take the time to learn; all you know is what you have been indoctrinated to believe-propaganda.Will you admit Canada was a colony until 1931?In you learning when did the sovereign people of Canada ratify a constitution? Remember the bill was called and pased as the BNA Act not the constitution of Canada. Until you can demonstrate that you have competancy in the English language and can formulate sentences properly, I see no reason to believe that you have much more of an understanding about anything than I do. Her Royal Majesty The Queen of Canada is a Canadian citizen and, by definition, this makes her a "foreigner" NOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 USA's "devalued" dollar still buys more than yours. Has for over 30 years....when Canada didn't really need (or want)US capital...LOL! Talk is cheap...just follow the money trail to see what Canada really "needs". I think if and when the United States' economy implodes, Canada may experience a period of economic instability, but after a slight adjustment, things will continue to thrive. Canada is nowhere near as dependent on the United States as you would like to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Since John Manley is in the news now, I saw this quote of his: "I do believe when most people think about it and realize our head of state is foreign – when she travels she doesn't represent Canada, she represents Great Britain," Manley told CBC radio. "I think they kind of realize this is really an institution that's a bit out of date for Canada to continue with," he added. ... "Having the oldest son inherit the responsibility of being head of state, that's just not something in the 21st century we ought to be entertaining," Manley said. "That's why it ought to be a person who is Canadian, who reflects Canadian diversity, and who is chosen by Canadians." CBC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Her Royal Majesty The Queen of Canada is a Canadian citizen and, by definition, this makes her a "foreigner" NOT. How True. I might add, the Queen holds no citizenship British or Canadian. In fact she bestows citizenship for ALL countries she is head of state. You could very well say that the Queen is more Canadian than 'no queenslave'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted October 14, 2007 Report Share Posted October 14, 2007 My rationale for ending the monarchy in Canada is discussed in this thread. It's not really about Peter Phillips, and where he sits in the line of succession. It is about what Canada sees as the criteria for our head of state. Do we really want to insist that our head of state can't exercise religious freedom? Because that is the issue here - If Peter Phillips (not a serious contender for the throne) has to step aside because he marries a Catholic, Canada can't really hold the value of freedom of religion that dearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no queenslave Posted October 14, 2007 Report Share Posted October 14, 2007 Trudeau ordered it.Do you know of Lord Durham? Lord Elgin? Guy Carleton? Lord Elgin has a statue in front of Quebec's National Assembly. Why? Why do the Conservatives never get seats in Quebec? Who was Louis Riel? What was Ontario's Regulation 17? Who was Clifford Sifton? Who did Laurier choose for his first cabinet in 1896? Canada - this place - has a history. And it's nothing like the Liberal/CBC nonsense we usually hear. to understand canadian history read R.Roger Smith - his report to the house of commons. Try freedom of information or your M.P. if you still think you have a democracy. Most of all government information is nothing more than indoctrination . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no queenslave Posted October 14, 2007 Report Share Posted October 14, 2007 to understand canadian history read R.Roger Smith - his report to the house of commons. Try freedom of information or your M.P. if you still think you have a democracy. Most of all government information is nothing more than indoctrination . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no queenslave Posted October 14, 2007 Report Share Posted October 14, 2007 to understand canadian history read R.Roger Smith - his report to the house of commons. Try freedom of information or your M.P. if you still think you have a democracy. Most of all government information is nothing more than indoctrination . search- Canada a country without a constitution. Trudum should of been hung- just grabing power for his french-and giving the west the finger. 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.