noahbody Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 She incorrectly used the wrong BS title. It's an easy mistake to make.For example, at my evening job I sometimes accidentally refer to myself as an alcohol transfer engineer, even though I'm actually just an alcohol transfer logistics planner. The real alcohol transfer engineers always get mad at me when I do that. -k My suggestion would be to change your title to "Alcohol Jesus." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 My suggestion would be to change your title to "Alcohol Jesus." It has been my personal opinion for decades that a good barman/maid is a Goddess/God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Who's "bloody stupid"? From what I can tell there's nothing stupid about Queen Elizabeth II or Stephen Harper, even if he does "sing out of tune". Having the Queen and the GG is bloody stupid. Canada is a sovereign nation and the top of the ladder should stop at the PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Having the Queen and the GG is bloody stupid. Canada is a sovereign nation and the top of the ladder should stop at the PM. There is something about having a head of state that is above party politics and skullduggery that I find appealing. Our politicians may be scum (as they should be) but our vice regal personage is sanctified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 There is something about having a head of state that is above party politics and skullduggery that I find appealing.Our politicians may be scum (as they should be) but our vice regal personage is sanctified. LMAO A figurehead puppet position that has long ago lost any real purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Because ceremony and history isn't at all important when you have a country....not to mention the law and the Constitution. Ceremony and history are extremely important to understanding, and having a country. One of the problems that I see Canada having is multiple versions of the history, depending on whether you're FN, French or English. There is little common ground that fuses a country. Similarly, the element of ceremony that normally helps unify a country is not uniform. Certainly, large elements revere the Queen; and other large elements do not. So, I don't agree. Ceremony and history are very important, and are in large part what unifies my country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) Could be done by a clever chimp or a 2nd grader! Like this one (link)? Police: Pet chimpanzee, Travis, attacks woman in StamfordBY Edgar Sandoval, Bill Hutchinson and Helen Kennedy DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS Updated Tuesday, February 17th 2009, 5:34 AM A teenage ape raised like a human went berserk in Connecticut Monday, badly mauling a friend of his owner before cops shot and killed him. Sandy Herold tried to stop the rampage by stabbing her beloved pet chimp, Travis, with a butcher knife, cops said. (end of excerpt of article) Edited October 8, 2009 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Canada is a sovereign nation and the top of the ladder should stop at the PM. You must be either joking, completely clueless, or insane! People complain that the PMO has too much power now; just imagine your scenario: the Prime Minister Supreme Chancellor - no longer a minister to anyone but himself - lording over the country like some absolute monarch from pre-revolutionary France. The Queen and her viceroy are the last barriers between the Prime Minsiter and full, uncheked power; and you think they can merely be flicked away like a piece of snot. Too funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 That's fairly common for Western heads of state. The systems used in France and the US are not all that common. Even France bears some similarity to our system. Their head of state has more every day power, but there is still a prime minister and a cabinet accountable to parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Ceremony and history are extremely important to understanding, and having a country. One of the problems that I see Canada having is multiple versions of the history, depending on whether you're FN, French or English. ummm...no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Chriton Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 You must be either joking, completely clueless, or insane! People complain that the PMO has too much power now; just imagine your scenario: the Prime Minister Supreme Chancellor - no longer a minister to anyone but himself - lording over the country like some absolute monarch from pre-revolutionary France. The Queen and her viceroy are the last barriers between the Prime Minsiter and full, uncheked power; and you think they can merely be flicked away like a piece of snot. Too funny! I think you should reread his comment, you either completely misread it, or are completely clueless, or insane! The GG and the Queen have no real power so not having them wouldn't change a thing other than to offend those that appreciate the historical background of those long outdated roles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 The Governor General or the Queen can dismiss the Prime Minister. It's happened before, and it might have to happen again some day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 No kidding! As I read this thread, trying to choose which of the 'GG is powerless' posts to reply to, I also wondered how many folks were completely sure as to what reply would be forthcoming last year, when Mr. Harper went hat-in-hand to beg for the privelege of continuing to govern. Sorry folks, but that's power! A danged inportant role, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't care what her official title is but she is the head of state...she has real power if she wishes to use it, and has by permitting Harper squirm away from a defeat when he should have faced a confidence vote and loss of government... do I like having a GG no and I like the queen even less...what anachronistic BS when we're still expected to cower and kiss royal butt in this day and age... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 She isn't the head of state though. I'm of the opinion that it's ok to call her the acting head of state 9because it goes along with her role as the representative in Canada of the head of state, but others even disagree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 She isn't the head of state though. I'm of the opinion that it's ok to call her the acting head of state 9because it goes along with her role as the representative in Canada of the head of state, but others even disagree with that. title is minor detail, it's the effect/power she has that is important...I doubt the Queen herself would even consider overturning a GG's decision, the position has evolved from the Queens representative in Canada to our own appointed head of last and final arbitration (unofficially) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Maybe, but it's important to not forget who we are and where we came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 The GG and the Queen have no real power so not having them wouldn't change a thing other than to offend those that appreciate the historical background of those long outdated roles. Nice assertions. Care to back them up with some facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I don't care what her official title is but she is the head of state...she has real power if she wishes to use it, and has by permitting Harper squirm away from a defeat when he should have faced a confidence vote and loss of government... As I read this thread, trying to choose which of the 'GG is powerless' posts to reply to, I also wondered how many folks were completely sure as to what reply would be forthcoming last year, when Mr. Harper went hat-in-hand to beg for the privelege of continuing to govern. Sorry folks, but that's power! A danged inportant role, imo. yeah, guess what: she did exactly what an army of legal scholars and constitutional experts told her was the proper thing to do. The decision was made by law and precedent, not by the Governor General. I suppose it is nice that we have a single individual whose authority to have the final say on the matter is unquestioned. Were this a republic, that sort of pronouncement might come from a faceless group of judges or something. There might be dispute over whose authority it really is, while in our system that authority is clearly and undeniably invested in one person. --- There was once a CBC comedy mini-series based on the premise that an anti-monarchist Prime Minister appoints a washed-up former disco-queen to the office of Governor General in an effort to embarrass the office and put an end to the monarchy in Canada. Never saw it myself. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 It's stupid because....?She isn't quite correct, but Rideau Hall is in their clarification. She is actually the Acting Head of State, also called de facto. No, she is not. She is the representative of the Queen, who is the head of state. There is a clear and distinct difference between an "Acting" person, who is holding down a position on a temporary basis, but has all the powers of that position, and a person who is merely the local representative of the actual holder of the position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 yeah, guess what: she did exactly what an army of legal scholars and constitutional experts told her was the proper thing to do.The decision was made by law and precedent, not by the Governor General. Maybe. We don't know what happened. In such a situation, she really could have done anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Having the Queen and the GG is bloody stupid. Canada is a sovereign nation and the top of the ladder should stop at the PM. The theory is excellent. The head of state is above the usual mudslinging and disreputable manoeuvring of politics. Some people respect one party, some hate it. The Head of State, being above politics, can be the Head of State to all, without rancor. And when we have a decent GG - and Jean is one - then it works quite well in practice, as well. And no, Kimmy, a chimp couldn't do it, not could a Hooters girl. The job requires a certain dignity and diplomacy to do well, to help provide that measure of pomp and cirumstance which can convince the rabble that something important is going on here that they should respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Nice assertions. Care to back them up with some facts? This one comes quickly to mind. Australian Constiutional Crisis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 One of the problems that I see Canada having is multiple versions of the history, depending on whether you're FN, French or English. There is little common ground that fuses a country. What confederation doesn't have "multiple versions" of history. That's sort of unavoidable by its very definition. There was a whole confederacy in the U.S. that has a very different history from the yanks up north. And the First Nations that weren't exterminated also have their own stories to tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 yeah, guess what: she did exactly what an army of legal scholars and constitutional experts told her was the proper thing to do.The decision was made by law and precedent, not by the Governor General. Precedent is exactly what should be followed, and the Governor General is the one to do so because the PM can't necessarily be trusted to. But the events of last December illustrated how circumstances - however rare - can sometimes arise where no precedent exists as a guide; circumstances aligned to make a potential perfect storm - a recent record of an election per year, an election just held two months previous, a parliament only just opened, a coalition of MPs ready to bring down the government, the same coalition offering to support a new government, a prime minister advising the prorogation of parliament to stave off a confidence motion, Christmas just two weeks away. Of course Jean sought advice from constitutional experts, as is right; but the point is that it is she - and not the PM, or some partisan president, or a cabal of lawyers - who has the authority to make the call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.