jbg Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Which US state has ever exercised the Notwithstanding clause? We don't have one. 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).
myata Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Beyond comments, them Australians actually got to vote on what they want.. wow.... and a whole decade back at that. Such political audacity.. mindboggling indeed! Here though we're much more given to precision refinement of every precious bit of verbal excrement from our everlasting ruling duo. And I wouldn't be holding breath for any change.. anytime soon. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
ToadBrother Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Beyond comments, them Australians actually got to vote on what they want.. wow.... and a whole decade back at that. Such political audacity.. mindboggling indeed! They got to vote and turned it down, and yet here they are, still debating it. Here though we're much more given to precision refinement of every precious bit of verbal excrement from our everlasting ruling duo. And I wouldn't be holding breath for any change.. anytime soon. As I have so frequently explained to you, there's nothing stopping constitutional reforms, save the Canadian public's absolute lack of enthusiasm in any more constitutional wrangling. As always, what our conversations reveal is your desire for change, but unwillingness to accept that others may not share your desire for major change. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 No they do not, unless you're using a definition of feudalism quite apart from the norm. Feudalism as a political-economic system didn't evolve until the late Roman Empire, and in fact marked the decline of centralized authority (ie. kings) and the rise of landed nobility (the barons of England, for instance). Feudalism declined for a number of reasons, but part of that process was that the landed nobility began to lose power, and the monarchs of Europe became increasingly powerful, until a number of nation states (that's what they became as Feudalism broke down and the ties between tenant laborer and gentry and nobility broke down and power was centralized) adopted one form or degree of absolutism or another. The powerful monarch with centralized authority was in fact something that most Feudal kings could only wish for. This is basic European history 101. You don't know what you're talking about. It's like your knowledge of monarchy and feudalism come from a Cracker Jack Box. Please, refrain from personal attacks and stick to the substance. Yes, your historical comments appear to be correct, but that doesn't negate my point - monarchy is archaic, just as feudalism is. Having monarchy in a democratic society is like having a mumified horse that was once (long, very long ago) pulling the carriage attached to the hood of a hybrid car. Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 We've had that since William and Mary assented to the Bill of Rights in 1689. Do you have the same rights as the queen? Quote You are what you do.
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Do you have the same rights as the queen? Yes, and a few more to boot. I have even used them. I have a Roman Catholic wife. I do not need the permission of parliament to travel. I can speak my mind to the media about politics and my ears are a normal size. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Please, refrain from personal attacks and stick to the substance. Yes, your historical comments appear to be correct, but that doesn't negate my point - Actually it did and with rapier like efficiancy. Look at any constitutional monarchy and you find a modern progressive society..this is true whether it is Japan, canada, Norway or Great Britain. Republics on the otherhand are a hodge podge of success and failures... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 Yes, and a few more to boot. I have even used them. I have a Roman Catholic wife. I do not need the permission of parliament to travel. I can speak my mind to the media about politics and my ears are a normal size. Can you travel without a passport or reside and benefit from social services in a country where you have no citizenship? Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 Actually it did and with rapier like efficiancy. Look at any constitutional monarchy and you find a modern progressive society..this is true whether it is Japan, canada, Norway or Great Britain. Republics on the otherhand are a hodge podge of success and failures... No progressive society would keep symbols of subservience and inequality alive and dear. The chains have fallen long ago, but you're not free until you've freed your mind... Quote You are what you do.
bloodyminded Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 No progressive society would keep symbols of subservience and inequality alive and dear. The chains have fallen long ago, but you're not free until you've freed your mind... To be fair, anarchists would say the same about republicans.... Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 No progressive society would keep symbols of subservience and inequality alive and dear. The chains have fallen long ago, but you're not free until you've freed your mind... Well there's your opinion, and then there's the facts and reality. Your opinion is this thread has shown itself to be at odds with facts Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Can you travel without a passport or reside and benefit from social services in a country where you have no citizenship? yes but that is irrelvent. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 monarchy is archaic, So is democracy. Quote
g_bambino Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Do you have the same rights as the queen? The same fundamental rights as set out by law, yes. Quote
Smallc Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Having monarchy in a democratic society Oh, and we don't have monarchy in a democracy, we have democracy in a monarchy. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 Well there's your opinion, and then there's the facts and reality. Your opinion is this thread has shown itself to be at odds with facts On one hand: The statue of Liberty.... We, the People... On the other hand: Her Magesty... The Crown... The symbolism is undeniable. Quote You are what you do.
g_bambino Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 No progressive society would keep symbols of subservience and inequality alive and dear. Then there are no progressive societies, according to you. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 So is democracy. But not Socialism Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 Then there are no progressive societies, according to you. Not true. Some have gone further in separating the church and state than others. Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 yes but that is irrelvent. You do NOT have the right to the throne, she has it by virtue of birth or god's will (both equally insulting). Quote You are what you do.
g_bambino Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 You do NOT have the right to the throne, she has it by virtue of birth or god's will (both equally insulting). You obviously have as much familiarity with rights as you do with constitutional monarchy: Zilch. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 You obviously have as much familiarity with rights as you do with constitutional monarchy: Zilch. Oh trust me, I know my rights Quote You are what you do.
g_bambino Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 (edited) Not true. Some have gone further in separating the church and state than others. Nothing to do with what you said: "No progressive society would keep symbols of subservience and inequality alive and dear." All societies on earth have heirarchies and symbols of such; none have absolute equality; in all, people are subservient to the law and authority. Ergo, according to you, there are no progressive societies. [+] Edited August 18, 2010 by g_bambino Quote
ToadBrother Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Please, refrain from personal attacks and stick to the substance. Hardly a personal attack. Yes, your historical comments appear to be correct, but that doesn't negate my point - monarchy is archaic, just as feudalism is. It does negate the point that monarchy and feudalism are linked. Beyond that, since monarchies still exist around the world, it's obvious that they are hardly archaic. Having monarchy in a democratic society is like having a mumified horse that was once (long, very long ago) pulling the carriage attached to the hood of a hybrid car. I've asked, on two occasions, for you to provide some structural advantages to leaving the monarchy behind, and all I get is incorrect claims and rhetorical flights of fancy. This ought to be easy, as I have repeatedly said that I'm not some emotionally-attached monarchist. Give me an argument good enough to overcome the substantial risks involved in reopening our constitution, and you have a chance of convincing me. But you don't even do that, you just reiterate rather tired republican canards. This is part of the reason why I have little interest in a republic, none of its supporters seem to have any particular desire to actively defend they're view, preferring to simple attack our current constitutional arrangements. Quote
ToadBrother Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 You do NOT have the right to the throne, she has it by virtue of birth or god's will (both equally insulting). What, and you don't think the privileged in any society don't frequently get it by birth. I can tell you this, there are probably few people on the planet as knowledgeable on our constitution than QEII. I sometimes wish she'd come over here for a year or two and sit at Rideau Hall. That would keep our PM a little more terrified and respectful of our constitutional arrangements. 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.