The Federal Republic of Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

I probably shouldn't have said I hate the American system; there are those out there that suck worse than it does. But I do think it's inferior to constitutional, monarchical, parliarmentary democracy, and I'm glad I don't live under it. I've never hidden that fact; so, I'm not sure what purpose dragging out that other particular comment of mine serves.

Therein lies your error....the American system may indeed "suck" for some Canadians, but by definition, it is superior for Americans. "Dragging out" your comments provided a more complete context for your "innocent" protests concerning American boots and royal posteriors.

[g_bambino]

Therein lies your error....the American system may indeed "suck" for some Canadians, but by definition, it is superior for Americans. "Dragging out" your comments provided a more complete context for your "innocent" protests concerning American boots and royal posteriors.

Yet again, you've dazedly wandered away to la-la land.

The initiating point of our discussion was your assertion that the proof of the American system's "superiority" over that of Canada and the UK lay in the United State's rise to global power, due to, supposedly, ejecting the monarchy in 1776. I countered with the point that the US rose to such a position in ways little different to how the UK attained even greater achievements, but as a constitutional monarchy. Ergo, republican or monarchical government matters little to empire building, and thus the empire built does not necessarily affirm one system's superiority over another.

Failing to see this, and after insanely babbling about how you weren't actually trying to say one system was better than the other while simultaneously calling the Canadian one "fake," you veered off to try and declare the Canadian monarchy as near-dead because Canadians questioned its validity, while the US republic was robust with the support of all Americans. That was shot down when it was revealed that it is but a tiny minority of the Canadian population who desires a change in head of state, and there are actually Americans who want their country to become monarchical.

And here we are with you now trying to infer that I apply my opinions of constitutional systems onto entire populations of different countries.

So, the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies declared themselves independent and gave monarchy the heave-ho. Well, so what? I never protested that, contrary to your claims, and, in fact, I already said the revolution is irrelevant to this conversation. The central crux of this back and forth is your belief that the US republic is superior to the Canadian kingdom, and my belief of the opposite. After all your sneering condescension, you've failed completely to provide any valid argument for your side of the debate.

I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.

[kengs333]

As for why some people seek change, who am I to speak about the desires of individuals? But, in my experience, those Canadians who do want to have Canada become a republic are either uneducated on the present system, brainwashed with anti-British nationlism, greatly Americanised, have delusions of grandeur, or all of the above. Not once have I heard a valid argument, free of irrational biases, for making the switch.

This sums it up nicely.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet again, you've dazedly wandered away to la-la land.

No, I called you on your own pretzel logic and contradictions....too bad.

So, the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies declared themselves independent and gave monarchy the heave-ho. Well, so what? I never protested that, contrary to your claims, and, in fact, I already said the revolution is irrelevant to this conversation. The central crux of this back and forth is your belief that the US republic is superior to the Canadian kingdom, and my belief of the opposite. After all your sneering condescension, you've failed completely to provide any valid argument for your side of the debate.

My side of the debate clearly stated that the political systems are different...not necessarily better either way, excepting that Americans have a preference for the game plan that has led to much success sans royal deadweight. I also pointed out (with glee) that one cannot inflate the value and efficacy of any monarchy by disparaging the American form of government (e.g. "sucks"), its elected "head of state", or its supporting citizens.

I wouldn't even be responding to this telling thread of monarchy doubt save for the typical America bashing and definition by American anti-matter.

[g_bambino]

No, I called you on your own pretzel logic and contradictions....too bad.

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid; if anyone thinks like a pretzel, it would most obviously be you.

My side of the debate clearly stated that the political systems are different...not necessarily better either way, excepting that Americans have a preference for the game plan that has led to much success sans royal deadweight. I also pointed out (with glee) that one cannot inflate the value and efficacy of any monarchy by disparaging the American form of government (e.g. "sucks"), its elected "head of state", or its supporting citizens.

You clearly stated the political systems were different, but your debate said you consider one to be better than the other (yet again, you reveal your biases through the use of the term "royal deadweight," which ranks up there with "fake monarchy"). Perhaps we should wait for you to first be honest about your stance before expecting any real argument in support of it.

Edited October 18, 2007 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

You clearly stated the political systems were different, but your debate said you consider one to be better than the other (yet again, you reveal your biases through the use of the term "royal deadweight," which ranks up there with "fake monarchy"). Perhaps we should wait for you to first be honest about your stance before expecting any real argument in support of it.

Clue: the "royals" were deadweight for the Americans, but not anymore. Now they are just tabloid fodder in the UK and elsewhere. If you are expecting me to worship royalty in my responses, you will be disappointed. God save the queen and all that jazz.

[g_bambino]

Clue: If you are expecting me to worship royalty in my responses, you will be disappointed.

Never expected that, ever.

Edited October 18, 2007 by g_bambino

[Pliny]

You've veered completely off the point: neither the American Revolution, World War II, nor any of this other stuff in any way proves the US republic to be better than the Canadian, or British, constitutional monarchy.

They have both veered completely off their mandates. Both were originally established to maintain the exploitive class in their respective regions. Governments are established for that reason alone. The citizens only hope to keep a vigilant watch upon them. Only the American system had originally attempted to limit the powers and size of government. I believe that is it's only advantage and perhaps it's saving grace.

[jbg]

Both were originally established to maintain the exploitive class in their respective regions.

Who, and which regions?

[Pliny]

Who, and which regions?

Responsibility and accountability had almost entirely passed to the hands of Parliament as regards governance. It was an easy task to hang advisers to the Crown, sparing the life of the King himself, for ill begotten policies. And rebellions against the Monarchy, such as occurred with Cromwell, were buffetted by parliament.

In America there was the land-owners class of which most of the contributers to the founding of the Constitution belonged. They did not write democracy into the Constitution democracy was an increasing influence. Only adult white male freemen had a vote and the terms of citizenship evolved over the next century, Indians not gaining citizenship until 1924. Women considered citizens did not have a vote.

As I said, the people of the US, the framers of the Constitution, at least understood that government was like a fire, at best a cantankerous servant and at worst a raging tyrant - a paraphrasing of the quote from Washington.

[bush_cheney2004]

In America there was the land-owners class of which most of the contributers to the founding of the Constitution belonged. They did not write democracy into the Constitution democracy was an increasing influence. Only adult white male freemen had a vote and the terms of citizenship evolved over the next century, Indians not gaining citizenship until 1924. Women considered citizens did not have a vote.

OK..but this is not entirely true, since the US Constitution left suffrage to individual states and evolved for all classes and "races" over many years. Black "freehold" males could vote in several New England states, while many white male non-landowners found themselves excluded (e.g. Dorr Rebellion).

[Pliny]

OK..but this is not entirely true, since the US Constitution left suffrage to individual states and evolved for all classes and "races" over many years. Black "freehold" males could vote in several New England states, while many white male non-landowners found themselves excluded (e.g. Dorr Rebellion).

Yes, you are right. The States all varied as to voting qualifications. According to "A History of the American People" by Paul Johnson White women were citizens except for voting purposes until 1920. Blacks did not get automatic citizenship until 1868 and Indians until 1924. The Federal Constitution, and the States, reserved citizenship to whites, implicitly excluding blacks (even if free) and still-tribalized Indians, regarded as belonging to foreign nations. That was Federally.

The States did change voting rights over the forming years, enfranchising some and disenfranchising others, even women had the vote in New Jersey, until 1809, if they were worth 50 pounds. Originally, and for the most part, voting privileges were based upon land ownership and payment of taxes.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Pliny

[jbg]

Yes, you are right. The States all varied as to voting qualifications. According to "A History of the American People" by Paul Johnson White women were citizens except for voting purposes until 1920. Blacks did not get automatic citizenship until 1868 and Indians until 1924. The Federal Constitution, and the States, reserved citizenship to whites, implicitly excluding blacks (even if free) and still-tribalized Indians, regarded as belonging to foreign nations. That was Federally.

The States did change voting rights over the forming years, enfranchising some and disenfranchising others, even women had the vote in New Jersey, until 1809, if they were worth 50 pounds. Originally, and for the most part, voting privileges were based upon land ownership and payment of taxes.

The expansion of the suffrage had little effect on electoral results for a variety of reasons. The main one was that (except for the status of blacks) the effect of purely male suffrage was to give one vote per family. Turnout ratios were extremely high then.

With the expansion of suffrage to women, and eventually 18 year olds, turnout ratios dropped since people who had less immediate stake in election results were added to the electorate. Similarly, when property ownership qualifications were eliminated, at first de facto through inflation and then de jure, many of hte newly enfranchised people didn't vote since they had little interest in voting.

One of the reasons that turnouts, even for Presidential elections rarely rise over 60%, and usually hover between 55% and 60%, is that for many people who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC (or for that matter 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, ON) doesn't change their plans for the next day very much. Sorry, political junkies, most people are not like us.

[no queenslave]

Yet again, you've dazedly wandered away to la-la land.

The initiating point of our discussion was your assertion that the proof of the American system's "superiority" over that of Canada and the UK lay in the United State's rise to global power, due to, supposedly, ejecting the monarchy in 1776. I countered with the point that the US rose to such a position in ways little different to how the UK attained even greater achievements, but as a constitutional monarchy. Ergo, republican or monarchical government matters little to empire building, and thus the empire built does not necessarily affirm one system's superiority over another.

Failing to see this, and after insanely babbling about how you weren't actually trying to say one system was better than the other while simultaneously calling the Canadian one "fake," you veered off to try and declare the Canadian monarchy as near-dead because Canadians questioned its validity, while the US republic was robust with the support of all Americans. That was shot down when it was revealed that it is but a tiny minority of the Canadian population who desires a change in head of state, and there are actually Americans who want their country to become monarchical.

.

And here we are with you now trying to infer that I apply my opinions of constitutional systems onto entire populations of different countries.

So, the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies declared themselves independent and gave monarchy the heave-ho. Well, so what? I never protested that, contrary to your claims, and, in fact, I already said the revolution is irrelevant to this conversation. The central crux of this back and forth is your belief that the US republic is superior to the Canadian kingdom, and my belief of the opposite. After all your sneering condescension, you've failed completely to provide any valid argument for your side of the debate.

I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.

you are defending the indefensible. the canadian system was based on lies and fraud from day one, and nothing has changed, it still is a system based on lies and fraud.

Read the 52 Quebec resolutions and what you got instead. The Americans declared and got independence and no more slavery to the queen. The queen gave the people and provinces their sovereignty and independence; and what we have is the same old colonial rules and government, with no independence.. People of wealth ran this country as a colony and still do. And you are still a slave to the queen and are not willing to admit it, just another slave in denial..

Edited October 23, 2007 by no queenslave

[g_bambino]

you are defending the indefensible. the canadian system was based on lies and fraud from day one, and nothing has changed, it still is a system based on lies and fraud.

Read the 52 Quebec resolutions and what you got instead. The Americans declared and got independence and no more slavery to the queen. The queen gave the people and provinces their sovereignty and independence; and what we have is the same old colonial rules and government, with no independence.. People of wealth ran this country as a colony and still do. And you are still a slave to the queen and are not willing to admit it, just another slave in denial..

[jbg]

People of wealth ran this country as a colony and still do. And you are still a slave to the queen and are not willing to admit it, just another slave in denial..

Ask your parents what a "sounding like a broken record" means since I doubt you're old enough to know.

[Pliny]

The expansion of the suffrage had little effect on electoral results for a variety of reasons. The main one was that (except for the status of blacks) the effect of purely male suffrage was to give one vote per family. Turnout ratios were extremely high then.

With the expansion of suffrage to women, and eventually 18 year olds, turnout ratios dropped since people who had less immediate stake in election results were added to the electorate. Similarly, when property ownership qualifications were eliminated, at first de facto through inflation and then de jure, many of hte newly enfranchised people didn't vote since they had little interest in voting.

One of the reasons that turnouts, even for Presidential elections rarely rise over 60%, and usually hover between 55% and 60%, is that for many people who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC (or for that matter 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, ON) doesn't change their plans for the next day very much. Sorry, political junkies, most people are not like us.

All I know is-a Base-a-ball been bery, bery good - to me!

I agree with most, if not all, of what you have said here!

[Pliny]

you are defending the indefensible. the canadian system was based on lies and fraud from day one, and nothing has changed, it still is a system based on lies and fraud.

Read the 52 Quebec resolutions and what you got instead. The Americans declared and got independence and no more slavery to the queen. The queen gave the people and provinces their sovereignty and independence; and what we have is the same old colonial rules and government, with no independence.. People of wealth ran this country as a colony and still do. And you are still a slave to the queen and are not willing to admit it, just another slave in denial..

It isn't fraud and deceit, queenie. It is there staring everyone in the face. Anyone can read about it. The government represents the Crown. The only thing you will have a problem finding out is who owns what. It's called protecting your interests. The elite all do it and they have governments to tell them who else is doing it. It is rather controlling but they do try to do well by you.

[jbg]

I agree with most, if not all, of what you have said here!

Thanks.

My analysis was based on American history. I have no idea if Canadian history is remotely similar, since our countries are extremely different.

[no queenslave]

It isn't fraud and deceit, queenie. It is there staring everyone in the face. Anyone can read about it. The government represents the Crown. The only thing you will have a problem finding out is who owns what. It's called protecting your interests. The elite all do it and they have governments to tell them who else is doing it. It is rather controlling but they do try to do well by you.

please quote hansard where each province debated the Statute of westminster in their legislatures. Its staring you in your red face queenie. Put up or you have demonstrated you have no credibility but post government lies.

Edited October 23, 2007 by no queenslave

[Pliny]

Thanks.

My analysis was based on American history. I have no idea if Canadian history is remotely similar, since our countries are extremely different.

Your teachers did well - not a "PUBLIC" education, I presume?

Canada is different than the US mainly because of the French. We failed to buy them out as you did in the Louisiana purchase. French and English friction made it necessary to remain attached to their respective Monarchies. They were both wary of each other and felt the State provided a security so remained loyal and demanded the presence of troops. France tokenly supported you throwing off the British yoke but they were very busy with internal strife and couldn't bother themselves with yours. History could have been very different had the economists not destroyed the economy of France and the socialists not called for the head of the King.

Your immigration policy after the revolution, basically accepting all-comers, also contributed to a more diverse population that did not have the numbers to appeal to the ruling class of their particular nationalities to send aid and troops. You had your frictions of course but they faded into the melting pot for the most part.

Basically, there has always been a strong attachment to the State in Canada, from both the French and English. Of course, Americans were frowned upon as; to be nice, disloyal.

That's how I see it from what I have read.

[Pliny]

please quote hansard where each province debated the Statute of westminster in their legislatures. Its staring you in your red face queenie. Put up or you have demonstrated you have no credibility but post government lies.

So you are saying that the Statute of Westminster was not debated in the legislature of each province? Why is that important to you? Is it because it leaves us tied to the British Commonwealth?

[g_bambino]

please quote hansard where each province debated the Statute of westminster in their legislatures. Its staring you in your red face queenie. Put up or you have demonstrated you have no credibility but post government lies.

What role were the provinces supposed to play in the drafting of the Statute of Westminster? There was no amending formula at that time that required the input of the provinces on constitutional matters. The Statute of Westminster was the codification of resolutions passed by the Empire governments at the Imperial Conference of 1926; meaning Canada's federal politicians worked with other countries' politicians to draft the text.

But, what on Earth are you trying to argue? That independence was imposed on us against our will? The horror! The injustice! Let's go back to being under Whitehall so we can valiantly wage war and fight for our independence like the glorious Yankees did!

[jbg]

Your teachers did well - not a "PUBLIC" education, I presume?

Yes. I had a public education and am proud of it. PS ?? in NYC in 1963-4, Quaker Ridge School in Scarsdale, New York from Fall 1964-Spring 1971 and Scarsale High School from Fall 1971 to Spring 1975, then Cornell University (private) and Boston University Law School (private).

Canada is different than the US mainly because of the French. We failed to buy them out as you did in the Louisiana purchase. French and English friction made it necessary to remain attached to their respective Monarchies.

There were actually very few people that came with the Louisiana Purchase and, from what I understand, the people were not bought out. What happened was that there were overwhelmingly fewer people there than in US proper, so that when Louisiana because a state they had to adopt English as the unifying language. Your problem, from what I see, is that after the "13 colonies" to the South pulled out between 1774 and 1782 you were left with a 50-50 split between English and French. The English were as fiscally depleted by the Seven Years War and the US Revolutionary War as the French Empire was so they sought peace (read appeasement) with the French, thus creating your current issues.

They were both wary of each other and felt the State provided a security so remained loyal and demanded the presence of troops. France tokenly supported you throwing off the British yoke but they were very busy with internal strife and couldn't bother themselves with yours. History could have been very different had the economists not destroyed the economy of France and the socialists not called for the head of the King.

France had no real tradition of democracy and hence the people did not really know what to do with freedom. England had a history of democracy to "return to" with the Glorious Revolution. France, by contrast, turned into rivers of blood. Further, their economy was agrarian whereas Britain, without much fertile land, was in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Your immigration policy after the revolution, basically accepting all-comers, also contributed to a more diverse population that did not have the numbers to appeal to the ruling class of their particular nationalities to send aid and troops. You had your frictions of course but they faded into the melting pot for the most part.

And the lack of welfare to this day means that our immigrants come to assimilate and work. Yours don't.

Basically, there has always been a strong attachment to the State in Canada, from both the French and English. Of course, Americans were frowned upon as; to be nice, disloyal.

That's how I see it from what I have read.

Ah, the old Tory tradition. According to Seymour Martin Lipset's excellent Continental Divide, highlighting the differences between our countries, even your "Liberals" adhere to this tradition, whereas both our Left and Right wings distrust if not hate all of our levels of government.

[Pliny]

And the lack of welfare to this day means that our immigrants come to assimilate and work. Yours don't.

Sad, but true!

Ah, the old Tory tradition. According to Seymour Martin Lipset's excellent Continental Divide, highlighting the differences between our countries, even your "Liberals" adhere to this tradition, whereas both our Left and Right wings distrust if not hate all of our levels of government.

Well, we'll see if Hillary becomes President. She seems to be the popular choice and I think from that at least the Left wing is starting to cozy up to the State. Hope I am wrong!

Well, can't complain about your education regarding history. I learned most of what I know on my own and that isn't much. Public schools weren't too bad when you and I went to school. There was some experimentation with things such as the New math and the whole language method of teaching reading today they indoctrinate kids with political claptrap like the Gore documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth"

Well, I am starting to wander on the topic.

I am waiting for no queenslave to answer g_bambino's latest post.