ToadBrother Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Only in Canada you say....the unwritten Canadian Constitution.So in essence most of the method of governing is been conducted in the absence of law. Yeah I can see how this is working out just fine! Lets see, we used to have the right to own property, now we don't. We never had a plan to govern ourselves and we placed our faith in the Crown, only to have the Crown and British Parliament reject our methods in 1931 as established in the Statute of Westminister where they washed their hands of responsibility for us, and now we retain both the Queen and the G.G. as the head of State anyway! It all makes sense to me now. The Canadian Unwritten Constitution, a lack of an act of Parliament whereby the Government of Canada can pretty much do as it pleases because there is no law against it. Um, that's the way the constitution has functioned for centuries. And clearly our constitution is not entirely unwritten (nor is Britain's for that matter). We do have an actual Constitution that is ultimately much more difficult to amend than the previous British North America Acts, or Great Britain's (at least until they signed on to the EU). Quote
jbg Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 They certainly obeyed her in 1974 when she decided that Harold Wilson should again become PM after a hung Parliament left Edward Heath incapable of forming a coalition. I was actually unaware of that incident. Did she drop the writ or simply name a new PM? Thanks. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
benny Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 One crucial element is missing; the likelihood that anyone would obey her. This is not the Central African Empire. This element is not missing, it is simply implicit: if you see someone positively, you obey this person more readily. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Did she drop the writ or simply name a new PM? She did the latter and named Harold Wilson as Britain's PM. Quote
benny Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 She did the latter and named Harold Wilson as Britain's PM. If I ever become the PM of Canada and she drops me, I will ask my supporters to revolt. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 If I ever become the PM of Canada and she drops me, I will ask my supporters to revolt. Yes, I'm sure Canadians would be dazzled by your monotonous, single sentence responses to everything. [Now putting Benny back on ignore...] Quote
benny Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Yes, I'm sure Canadians would be dazzled by your monotonous, single sentence responses to everything. [Now putting Benny back on ignore...] You are not. Quote
ToadBrother Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 If I ever become the PM of Canada and she drops me, I will ask my supporters to revolt. And if I reach the moon, I'll order a pizza. Are you intentionally trying to sound absurd, or is a natural state of being? Since the odds of my dog sprouting wings as he sings the theme song to the Batman TV series are greater than you becoming PM, it's pretty irrelevant. But let's pretend you weren't a semi-literate loon, but were PM. The only reasons she would "drop you" would be if you lost an election or lost the confidence of the House. Quote
benny Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 And if I reach the moon, I'll order a pizza.Are you intentionally trying to sound absurd, or is a natural state of being? Since the odds of my dog sprouting wings as he sings the theme song to the Batman TV series are greater than you becoming PM, it's pretty irrelevant. But let's pretend you weren't a semi-literate loon, but were PM. The only reasons she would "drop you" would be if you lost an election or lost the confidence of the House. Stephane Dion was about to become Canada's PM when Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean suspended Parliament in december 2008. Quote
ToadBrother Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Stephane Dion was about to become Canada's PM when Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean suspended Parliament in december 2008. She was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. The situation was not in the least like the 1974 hung parliament in the UK, where there was no clear winner and someone had to decide who would for the government, and it certainly wasn't Parliament. Read some history. Your ignorance is showing. You really are in over your head. Quote
benny Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 She was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. The situation was not in the least like the 1974 hung parliament in the UK, where there was no clear winner and someone had to decide who would for the government, and it certainly wasn't Parliament.Read some history. Your ignorance is showing. You really are in over your head. Dion should have started a revolt so that Quebec could be kicked out of Canada. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Read some history. Your ignorance is showing. You really are in over your head. TB, you're wasting your time on benny. Really. Quote
benny Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 TB, you're wasting your time on benny. Really. Opposition to my political party is indeed wasteful. Quote
ToadBrother Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Dion should have started a revolt so that Quebec could be kicked out of Canada. And now the nonsense answers get worse. I just have to ask, are you mentally challenged? You don't know anything about Parliamentary democracy. You don't know anything about political history. What is it exactly that you hope to accomplish here, because most folks think you're either a schizophrenic or just plain dumb. Quote
benny Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 What is it exactly that you hope to accomplish here Saving politics from cynicism. Quote
WestViking Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 If I ever become the PM of Canada and she drops me, I will ask my supporters to revolt. You would want your suspenders to fall off?? Quote Hall Monitor of the Shadowy Group
benny Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) You would want your suspenders to fall off?? I want a revolution now! Edited July 17, 2009 by benny Quote
jbg Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) If I ever become the PM of Canada and she drops me, I will ask my supporters to revolt. If I you ever become the PM of Canada President of the U.S., I will ask my supporters stomach to revolt. Edited July 17, 2009 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
benny Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 If I you ever become the PM of Canada President of the U.S., I will ask my supporters stomach to revolt. If your stomach is a real stomach it will resist. Quote
jbg Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 If your stomach is a real stomach it will resist. Is the response to this going to be your 3200'd post since March 9, 2009? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Sir Bandelot Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 And now the nonsense answers get worse. I just have to ask, are you mentally challenged? You don't know anything about Parliamentary democracy. You don't know anything about political history. What is it exactly that you hope to accomplish here, because most folks think you're either a schizophrenic or just plain dumb. Not true!! I think he has an excellent and promising future, writing the little paper notes they put into fortune cookies. Quote
Topaz Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Since the title of the topic is "republic of Canada" the first that comes to mind is...U.S.A. a republic for which it stands, and IF Canada EVER became a republic it would most likely be with the US, as in the NAU, which most Canadians would oppose but how many politicals and CEO's in Canada would? Who would have more power to see to it happened or to stop it? Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Since the title of the topic is "republic of Canada" the first that comes to mind is...U.S.A. a republic for which it stands, and IF Canada EVER became a republic it would most likely be with the US, as in the NAU, which most Canadians would oppose but how many politicals and CEO's in Canada would? Who would have more power to see to it happened or to stop it? Worrying about the NAU is like worrying about be ravished by the loch ness monster. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Craig1 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Worrying about the NAU is like worrying about be ravished by the loch ness monster. Itès a proven fact we have built the roads for the Nafta super highway into Alberta, we also will have Port Alberta, and by 2012 it will be allowed free flow of labour. That means no Canadian job is justified in this country as long as it belongs to the NAU or Nafta or what ever the hell you want to call it Quote
benny Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Is the response to this going to be your 3200'd post since March 9, 2009? irrelevant Quote
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.