g_bambino Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 That $50 million being wasted on pompous bureaucratic regal bullshit would go a long ways to help feeding them. I look forward to hearing your proposed alternative that will give us better governance and cost nothing. Please, enlighten us. Quote
Rick Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 I look forward to hearing your proposed alternative that will give us better governance and cost nothing. Please, enlighten us. Easy, get rid of this gross waste of taxpayers money by axing the GG, the Lt.Governors.Kill the useless senate and all of their bloated asses and ridiculous pensions. The PM is head of state...and if the PM can't represent us at some idiotic pageantry ceremony abroad, send one of his minions to do it. Less government, better government. Less costs to us... Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
Rick Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Pat Martin agrees with me too OTTAWA -- The time is ripe to reopen the Constitution and reassess Canada's ties to the monarchy, New Democrat MP Pat Martin said during an appearance on The West Block with Tom Clark.The Winnipeg MP said he believes he speaks for a growing number of Canadians who think it's high time the country explores whether to "cut our apron strings" to English royalty. Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Canada's ties to the monarchy are old fashioned and outdated, NDP MP says http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/monarchy/6442653278/story.html Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
dre Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 So you want to initiate conscription as well? I most definately would. Until voters and politicians actually face the same risk of their lives being wasted overseas in some idiotic and counterproductive world-policing excersize we will continue to waste blood and treasure on this crap, and we will continue nation building over there at the expensive of nation building here at home. Not only should the soldiers be conscripts but the workers that build tanks and planes should be conscripts as well. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 The PM is head of state... Wrong. [G]et rid of this gross waste of taxpayers money by axing the GG, the Lt.Governors.Kill the useless senate and all of their bloated asses and ridiculous pensions. I asked you for your proposal for something that will give us better governance for free. Perhaps you think clearing the way for dictatorship is better, but I, and I suspect most, don't. Quote
Rick Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Wrong. I asked you for your proposal for something that will give us better governance for free. Perhaps you think clearing the way for dictatorship is better, but I, and I suspect most, don't. We already have a dictatorship...The Queen and GG are both useless. When was the last time you saw a GG stand up to the PM and say no... Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Pat Martin agrees with me too http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/monarchy/6442653278/story.html Pat Martin doesn't agree with you. He said it's time to explore other options. Not completely scrap 2/3 of the government and hope for the best. Your plan gives the PM absolute power in a majority government. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 We already have a dictatorship... The Queen and GG are both useless. When was the last time you saw a GG stand up to the PM and say no... When has a PM done something where the Queen or GG needed to? Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 We already have a dictatorship... Wrong. Elections happen on a regular basis. The governor general ensures this. When was the last time you saw a GG stand up to the PM and say no... 2003. Quote
punked Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Wrong. Elections happen on a regular basis. The governor general ensures this. 2003. You mean when the government said one tour of other countries was "too grand" because it cost us 5 million dollars and she said she will spend what she wants? That seems like a bad example in for this argument. Yep that unelected official spent a huge amount of our money and our government called her on it and she stood up to them. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) You mean when the government said one tour of other countries was "too grand" because it cost us 5 million dollars and she said she will spend what she wants? Not how it happened. But, still, that's not what I was referring to. [ed.: +] Edited June 4, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Now's probably a good time to say what it is that you're thinking, since this was almost 10 years ago. Quote
punked Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Not how it happened. But, still, that's not what I was referring to. [ed.: +] You sure because that was what happened in 2003 from what I remember. Quote
Smallc Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 You sure because that was what happened in 2003 from what I remember. You remember incorrectly. Her trip wasn't even funded by her office. Quote
punked Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 You remember incorrectly. Her trip wasn't even funded by her office. That makes it all better. All state trips are funded by Foreign Affairs Department so I guess it doesn't come out of our government coffers. No wait that doesn't sound right....hmm. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 I was reminded of this thread while I was watching the flotilla today. Peter Mansbridge mentioned that it was entirely funded by private donations, rather than taxpayers' dollars. Quote
Smallc Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 That makes it all better. All state trips are funded by Foreign Affairs Department so I guess it doesn't come out of our government coffers. No wait that doesn't sound right....hmm. What it means is that she wasn't spending the money...she didn't plan the trip, and she wasn't the one who even wanted to go. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 You sure because that was what happened in 2003 from what I remember. Yes, I'm sure; there was more than one event in 2003. I'm referring to Paul Martin wanting the swearing-in of new privy councillors to take place in the Centre Block and Clarkson saying no. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 All state trips are funded by Foreign Affairs Department so I guess it doesn't come out of our government coffers. No wait that doesn't sound right....hmm. What's your point? You said "You mean when the government said one tour of other countries was 'too grand' because it cost us 5 million dollars and she said she will spend what she wants". The governor general acts on the advice of Cabinet; state visits are organised by the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Forces, and other groups; the funds for foreign trips by the governor general are drawn from budgeted amounts approved by parliament. Ergo, the government couldn't blame the governor general if a trip were "too grand" and the governor general can never say "I'll spend what I want". Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 I have no powerful objection to changing things, but I really can't see any point. The current system has a lot going for it, not least a non-partisan, non-regional Head of State; and for those who merely object to the pomp and circumstance of Royalty (which is quite benign, in my view) doesn't need to pay any attention to it. Hell, I don't; I don't care about the last wedding, am not excited nor disturbed by the Jubilee. If I thought getting rid of the Monarchy would improve matters, I'd be all for it. 100%. I just don't see what the improvements would be. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
punked Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Yes, I'm sure; there was more than one event in 2003. I'm referring to Paul Martin wanting the swearing-in of new privy councillors to take place in the Centre Block and Clarkson saying no. Well that is worth every penny of 50 million dollars. It isn't trivial at and clearly highlights why we need a GG that and the 5 million spent on a 17 day tour in 2003 right/ Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Well that is worth every penny of 50 million dollars. Nobody said it was. It was an answer to your question of when a governor general last said "no" to a prime minister. Perhaps you're looking for something else? Speaking of looking for something, we're still waiting for your proposed system that will provide us better governance for free than our parliamentary constitutional monarchy. It's sure taking you a while... Quote
eyeball Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Nobody said it was. It was an answer to your question of when a governor general last said "no" to a prime minister. Perhaps you're looking for something else? Speaking of looking for something, we're still waiting for your proposed system that will provide us better governance for free than our parliamentary constitutional monarchy. It's sure taking you a while... How much would it cost the Queen to say a word or two now and then in defence of our increasingly abused parliamentary system? Would even that be too much to ask for? Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 How much would it cost the Queen to say a word or two now and then in defence of our increasingly abused parliamentary system? Would even that be too much to ask for? Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say. She doesn't get involved in politics for a reason. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 In any case, if you would like a more activist monarch, it's less than a couple decades away. Form my understanding Charles does like to get involved in political affairs. So you may have a King that makes his presence known in Parliament soon. Quote
.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.