Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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?

You are what you do.

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

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.

:P

You are what you do.

Posted

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.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

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.

Posted
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.

Every act of government is done in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people.

Posted

Great then, if she ever gets fired as a queen we can have her here as a librarian.

:P

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.

Posted

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.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

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?

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

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....

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

... 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

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

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?

You are what you do.

Posted

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 :D

You are what you do.

Posted

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.

Posted

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?

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

I can't convince you - you appear to have a better understanding of the details involved.

You're right - my argument is mostly emotional :D

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.

Posted

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 :P

You are what you do.

Posted

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?

You are what you do.

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,915
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Раймо
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Раймо earned a badge
      First Post
    • Раймо earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • MDP went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • MDP earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • MDP went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...