Radsickle Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 So, if Michaelle Jean's boss is... Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of Canada. Then who are soldiers swearing allegiance to? In the unlikely chance that Canada was to go to war against the United Kingdom, who would our soldiers fight for? The whole situation of this `Queen' of Canada needs editing. When Canadian soldiers take their oath to the Queen it is to the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. Quote
Radsickle Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 In Canada, 21 arrested at Tamil protest today in Toronto, when protesters attempted to push north on University Ave. past a barrie at Dundas St.http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/626178 So friggin' what?!?! The protest has been going on for days and the police have been cooperative. Are you new to protests, buddy? Some "barrie" barricades are there for good reason. The protesters chose to push the envelope to gain attention to their good cause. The fact some were arrested is not even slightly an example of a `police state' or whatever else you're trying to insinuate. Why don't you go to some protests if you're so passionate? Quote
Smallc Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 Then who are soldiers swearing allegiance to? In the unlikely chance that Canada was to go to war against the United Kingdom, who would our soldiers fight for? I suppose that each country's soldiers would fight for the Queen...her role as head of state of each is quite separate. She is the Queen of Canada and also the Queen of The United Kingdom...and the offices are quite separate. When the question is asked "do you want to stay with the arrangement of having the Queen of Canada as head of state where we elect a prime minister (or something like that)?" almost 80% of Canadians say yes. There is nothing wrong with our system. Quote
Radsickle Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 I suppose that each country's soldiers would fight for the Queen...her role as head of state of each is quite separate. She is the Queen of Canada and also the Queen of The United Kingdom...and the offices are quite separate. When the question is asked "do you want to stay with the arrangement of having the Queen of Canada as head of state where we elect a prime minister (or something like that)?" almost 80% of Canadians say yes. There is nothing wrong with our system. 74.6947 percent of statistics are made up on the spot. Quote
Radsickle Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 I suppose that each country's soldiers would fight for the Queen...her role as head of state of each is quite separate. She is the Queen of Canada and also the Queen of The United Kingdom... Thanks for clearing that up.... did you get that Bambino? Quote
Smallc Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 74.6947 percent of statistics are made up on the spot. The poll was from 2002. All others after and before have mentioned the 'British Monarchy' making them invalid because there is no British monarchy in Canada. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1675 Quote
Smallc Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 Thanks for clearing that up.... did you get that Bambino? So you stopped reading after that point? Quote
g_bambino Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 Nope, I'm still reading... No worries. You won't be judged for your comprehension disability; take your time, and let us know when you're done then. No use continuing this discussion until you've actually got all your facts straight. Quote
xul Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) Yes Canada may not be perfect, but when you compare it to alot of the other nations making up our globe....you'll find out just how good you have it....of course you don't have to take my word for it, travel and see for yourself....See why so many Canadians are proud to well ...just be plain old Canadians... There is a joke: The PM of a country visited the command post of his troops in Afghanistan. After being briefed by the commander, in the succedent news conference the PM told the media that the brief had given him an impression that the war is unwinable. After the news conference, astonishing for knowing the PM and his party is always the biggest supporter of the war, the commander angrily argued the PM why he had got such an impression. "Sir, I wonder if you have caught what I have briefed you... Yes, the situation may not be perfect, but just as I have told you, when you compare the amount of the villages controled by us to the the amount controled by Taliban, that's 400 to 200, you'll find out just how good the military situation we have...", the general said proudly. "Yes, I have heard every word you told me," the PM replied spiritlessly, "but last time you told me you controled 580 and Taliban only had 20...." Generally, I agree with you. But, standing for Canadia's future, sincerely, I think Canadian (and other western people) should better not spend too much time indulging in the glories their forefathers left them. Edited April 30, 2009 by xul Quote
xul Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) They are tools, just like programmed tools, actually, the US are inventing more and more automatic robot killing machines to deploy to future wars. I believe Canada would like to use it if Canada have it. It's really an innovative question. If one day politicians build a pure-droid army, which kind of decals they will send to us? support droids.....sounds stupid support wars.......speaks too frankly or..............?? Edited April 30, 2009 by xul Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 Our troops fight the wars to allow this crime to continue. Quote
Army Guy Posted April 30, 2009 Author Report Posted April 30, 2009 quote]Let's take a look at how laws are coming from ... full of cheating: No, you should answer the question, can a Canadian citizen start the processes to change a law or have a law created....Yes or no.... I was in China for more than 30 years. I did not find anyone care about what I was wearing except my mother or my wife or my boss.I have read some news said there was people walk in street naked in China, the police put cloths on them and toke them away without beating. I did not go to Iran/Iraq/Russia, I don't think your knowledge from mainstream media are all true, Wow 30 years, Are you saying Tiananmen square did not happen, that all those pictures and vid taken are fake....what about these facts... the tibiten budists, is that all fake.... Freedom of speach as long as your not talking about the current government... Freedom of movement....has to be governmental aprroved... China executes approx 10,000 persons every year.... China China[ Hell goggle is full of how well china treats it's people....Are you saying they are all wrong....or perhaps you've swallowed that proganda pill the chinese government has been shoveling....but i have one more question, if Canada is soooo bad, why did you leave China, and come here. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
normanchateau Posted April 30, 2009 Report Posted April 30, 2009 I know Stephen Harper wears a lot of eye liner but are you saying he's a `queen' too? Tell me, who is Michaelle Jean's boss? Michaelle Jean's boss is the Queen. The Queen is Canada's Head of State. Stephen Harper is not Canada's Head of state despite all the eye liner. Stephen Harper would not be governing today had Michaelle Jean not given him permission to govern in January, 2009. According to the English Act of Settlement, all kings and queens of England must be members of the Church of England. Therefore, Canada's Head of State cannot be Catholic. Quote
Radsickle Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 Michaelle Jean's boss is the Queen. The Queen is Canada's Head of State. Stephen Harper is not Canada's Head of state despite all the eye liner. Stephen Harper would not be governing today had Michaelle Jean not given him permission to govern in January, 2009. According to the English Act of Settlement, all kings and queens of England must be members of the Church of England. Therefore, Canada's Head of State cannot be Catholic. Did you get that too, Bambino? Quote
Smallc Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 I'm not sure what was proven there in your favour.... Quote
Radsickle Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 When Canadian soldiers take their oath to the Queen it is to the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. Huh? Quote
Radsickle Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 When Canadian soldiers take their oath to the Queen it is to the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. Huh? I don't care what sort of metaphorical acrobatics are employed to make this sentence seem acceptable. There is something wrong with the very notion of a `Queen' of my Canada. Quote
Smallc Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 Canadians take their oath to Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. Quote
Radsickle Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Canadians take their oath to Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. Tell Bambino, are they not the same person? The same impotent figurehead, a relic of the past, something the average Brit barely tolerates any tax money going toward anymore? Let's put this antiquated costume ball to rest. Edited May 1, 2009 by Radsickle Quote
Smallc Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 Tell Bambino, are they not the same person? The same impotent figurehead, a relic of the past, something the average Brit barely tolerates any tax money going toward anymore? Actually, according to polls, the Queen enjoys over 70% support in Quebec, and as I've already demonstrated, almost 80% of Canadians like our present system. It's not a relic and it's no outdated. It works quite well. Oh, and yes, the Queen of The United Kingdom is the same person as the Queen of Canada, but the offices that she occupies for each of the countries are completely separate. Quote
normanchateau Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 It's not a relic and it's no outdated. It works quite well. I kind of like the fact that Harper had to grovel to the Queen's representative a few months ago in order to be given permission to continue to govern. And Jean's decision was a good one. Had she given Harper the boot, he might very well have won a majority against a Dion-led coalition. As its turned out, Canadians will get to give Harper the boot in the next election. Quote
Radsickle Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) hopefully.... But, I'm sorry, this topic was about supporting our troops and what that means... Edited May 1, 2009 by Radsickle Quote
normanchateau Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 hopefully....But, I'm sorry, this topic was about supporting our troops and what that means... A few months ago, Stephen Harper decided that "we" could not win in Afghanistan and announced a date by which Canada would cut-and-run. Is that what is meant by supporting the troops? Or is that not supporting the troops? Or is it a response to the polls? Or a cheap and cynical way to buy votes in Quebec? 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.