PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 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. [+] People ruled by the people (not a monarch) are not subservient to anyone. Law is established by the people to be observed, authority is ELECTED by the people to SERVE THEM. On another note: Do you think the British Monarchy will survive even in UK? As a tourist attraction, maybe? Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 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. Great then, if she ever gets fired as a queen we can have her here as a librarian. Quote You are what you do.
M.Dancer 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 don't pay attention....she sits by the will of the people. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 People ruled by the people (not a monarch) are not subservient to anyone. If only that were true. Law is established by the people to be observed, authority is ELECTED by the people to SERVE THEM. And low and behold, the Bill of Rights, 1689 did just that. On another note: Do you think the British Monarchy will survive even in UK? As a tourist attraction, maybe? Of course it will survive. There were far more formidable republican forces attacking the monarchy during Queen Victoria's reign, particularly after her withdrawal after Albert's death, and guess what, it bounced back. The English already had a republic, it's not remembered fondly. Quote
g_bambino Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 On one hand: The statue of Liberty.... We, the People...On the other hand: Her Magesty... The Crown... The symbolism is undeniable. Undeniable, yes: The US and Canada both like to objectify women. Anyway; this will probably sail right over your head, but, for the benefit of others, at least: Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs? [Emphasis mine]Queen: I solemnly promise so to do. The Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Every act of government is done in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people. How Canadians Govern Themselves; Forsey, Eugene Quote
ToadBrother Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Great then, if she ever gets fired as a queen we can have her here as a librarian. I'm still waiting for the answer to the structural improvements of our government from booting out the monarchy. I really am beginning to think you actually cannot think of a single one. Quote
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 On one hand: The statue of Liberty.... We, the People... On the other hand: Her Magesty... The Crown... The symbolism is undeniable. I agree..one is lifeless, the other lives. 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 People ruled by the people (not a monarch) are not subservient to anyone. Law is established by the people to be observed, authority is ELECTED by the people to SERVE THEM. On another note: Do you think the British Monarchy will survive even in UK? As a tourist attraction, maybe? It is clear from this post you are babbling and speaking without a base of facts. You should know that in our society, the monarch is not above the law, the moanarch is the servant of the law. Our laws are established by the people by elected representitives. You aren't russian by any chance are you? 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 You don't pay attention....she sits by the will of the people. ... who elected her. Right? Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 I agree..one is lifeless, the other lives. Not for long, however. What then - print new money with the face of another foreigner of the same bloodline? Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 You aren't russian by any chance are you? No more than your are inglish Quote You are what you do.
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 Not for long, however. What then - print new money with the face of another foreigner of the same bloodline? No it will either be Charles the King of Canada or his Son....your thinking of Phillips side.... 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 ... who elected her. Right? Irrelevant. You are like a tr00ther...doesn't matter how many times you're corrected, you cling to your falsehoods anyway 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 Irrelevant. You are like a tr00ther...doesn't matter how many times you're corrected, you cling to your falsehoods anyway So the FACT that the queen is not elected and her right to the throne is by virtue of birth is FALSE? Did I get it right? Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 Hardly a personal attack. 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. 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. I can't convince you - you appear to have a better understanding of the details involved. You're right - my argument is mostly emotional Quote You are what you do.
ToadBrother Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 So the FACT that the queen is not elected and her right to the throne is by virtue of birth is FALSE? Did I get it right? Actually, her right to the throne is completely at the whim of Parliament. It has, in the past, through its Acts, refused the throne to certain people. Again, you need to bone up on your history. You seem to be talking about a version of the monarchy that hasn't existed since James II was booted out of England. William and Mary, by accepting Parliament's offer, and by accepting and giving assent to the Bill of Rights, 1689, put an end to that particular monarchy. Quote
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 So the FACT that the queen is not elected and her right to the throne is by virtue of birth is FALSE? Did I get it right? Half right. Parliament can remove the monarch and offer it to another as they have done in the past. Didn't you study history? Or at least, look at a history book before posting these brain farts of yours? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 I can't convince you - you appear to have a better understanding of the details involved. You're right - my argument is mostly emotional Mostly emotional? I would say they are entirely emotional. But the fact that you can offer no tangible improvement in our government would suggest to you, would it not, that it's rather pointless to pursue. I'm interested in things that make a difference, not in empty symbolism. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 Half right. Parliament can remove the monarch and offer it to another as they have done in the past. So you DO agree. Maybe monarchy defenders aren't as selectively blind as they come across. Didn't you study history? Or at least, look at a history book before posting these brain farts of yours? Well thank you. I can't, however, say that most of what you're posting originates in the brain Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 Mostly emotional? I would say they are entirely emotional. But the fact that you can offer no tangible improvement in our government would suggest to you, would it not, that it's rather pointless to pursue. I'm interested in things that make a difference, not in empty symbolism. I was kidding. What was GG's budget? How did she spend it? Why do we need her - another UNELECTED official? Quote You are what you do.
Smallc Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 What was GG's budget? How did she spend it? Why do we need her - another UNELECTED official? And so, you display a complete lack of understanding of a different office....and the Constitution...again. Quote
ToadBrother Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 I was kidding. What was GG's budget? How did she spend it? Why do we need her - another UNELECTED official? http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/index-eng.asp And the GG is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, who gets his job by virtue of an elected Parliament. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 And so, you display a complete lack of understanding of a different office....and the Constitution...again. A different, costly, irrelevant and unnecessary, office. Yes. Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Posted August 18, 2010 And the GG is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, who gets his job by virtue of an elected Parliament. Thank you. Quote You are what you do.
M.Dancer Posted August 18, 2010 Report Posted August 18, 2010 A different, costly, irrelevant and unnecessary, office. Yes. In other words you have no idea what the constitutional role of the GG is and by not knowing, you deem it unnecessary. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
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.