RNG Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Except for the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Afghanistan. Maybe we could except the US, and Brazil isn't a total basket case right now because you and I and much of the western world bailed them out a while ago, but you want to emulate the rest? Sort of a low expectation, IMHO. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
August1991 Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) So that the person actually in charge is the elected official, rather than someone who was fortunate enough to have been born into the right family.Precisely, and well said.Canada is a better country. Catholics should also be possibly our Head of State. Edited May 15, 2011 by August1991 Quote
RNG Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Catholics should also be possibly our Head of State. That is the first really stupid thing I have seen you post on this forum. I am going to give you a pass and assume that you had some subtle meaning there, but it is way beyond me. Please expound. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
August1991 Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) That is the first really stupid thing I have seen you post on this forum. I am going to give you a pass and assume that you had some subtle meaning there, but it is way beyond me. Please expound.Canada is a Catholic country since most Canadians are Catholic. And yet, a Roman Catholic cannot be our head of state.In the past 50 years, only Pearson and Harper have been Protestant. All the other federal PMs have been Catholic. Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Martin - Catholics. And yet, the face on our money, our Head of State, must be a Protestant. ----- How can I express my opinion: In the 21st century, this method of choosing a head of state is ignorant and backward. Bambino, you are a person who uses telegrams in a world where people text one another. In Canada, this change is now obvious. Edited May 15, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 August1991, on 14 May 2011 - 10:33 PM, said: Catholics should also be possibly our Head of State.That is the first really stupid thing I have seen you post on this forum. I am going to give you a pass and assume that you had some subtle meaning there, but it is way beyond me. Please expound. Expanding further on what August has already said in response, your head of state can't even be married to a Catholic; marry a Catholic, and lose the crown. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 In the 21st century, this method of choosing a head of state is ignorant and backward. I couldn't agree with you more. Furthermore, just being born into a family doesn't make one up to the job, as past history has made clear. Quote
jbg Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 I couldn't agree with you more. Furthermore, just being born into a family doesn't make one up to the job, as past history has made clear. As our history has made clear (think Watergate)there are reasons to have a head of state divorced from politics. 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).
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 As our history has made clear (think Watergate)there are reasons to have a head of state divorced from politics. Yet Watergate resolved itself. The world as we know it didn't come to an end. There are reasons to have a head of state elected by the people, too. Reasons to have a head of state that isn't simply born into it, not only by virtue of bloodline, but by virtue of birth order - no matter how capable or incapable said person may be, as there are others much more capable. And reasons to have a head of state not limited by virtue of their religion or the religion of one's spouse. Furthermore, no head of state is "divorced" from politics; perhaps on paper, but not in reality. Quote
TimG Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 I couldn't agree with you more. Furthermore, just being born into a family doesn't make one up to the job, as past history has made clear.So do you make you mission in life to correct every tradition that would be done differently if people were laying out a constitution today? Changing constitutions is hard by design. It is not enough to argue that it could done differently. You have to demostrate that doing it differently will actually accomplish something useful. In this case the tradition where the GG is appointed by the government and rubber stamped by titular monarch is a "good enough" system. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Canada is a Catholic country since most Canadians are Catholic. And yet, a Roman Catholic cannot be our head of state. Change the succession laws, then. The monarchy need not be abolished to do that. I'm sure you're aware of the fact, but prefer to disingenuously pretend the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement are are inseperable from the Crown. Bambino, you are a person who uses telegrams in a world where people text one another. Do you actually believe these kinds of irrelevancies will distract from the hollowness of your argument? "It's the 21st century!" is just a statement of the obvious, not grounds to change anything; it's just about the most vapid reason for change I've ever heard. What is it even trying to say? Be rid of constitutional monarchy because the system is "old"? Old compared to what? The American presidential republic is just about as old, so... "Get rid of it! This is 2011, not 1776!" Stupid. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 So do you make you mission in life to correct every tradition that would be done differently if people were laying out a constitution today? "Correcting every tradition" and getting rid of a major archaic tradition which no longer serves the purpose that it did in the past are two very different things. Changing constitutions is hard by design. Lots of things are difficult by design. Does that mean people should just sit back and not make changes? Seriously. You think Canada isn't up to the task? It is not enough to argue that it could done differently. You have to demostrate that doing it differently will actually accomplish something useful. Letting the people have a say in their head of state rather than having it be determined by bloodlines and birth order and religion IS accomplishing something useful. In this case the tradition where the GG is appointed by the government and rubber stamped by titular monarch is a "good enough" system. Says you. Other people don't think so. I'd really like to know what you think about the whole 'can't convert to or marry a Catholic' stipulation. Are you ok with that? If the U.S. determined that the POTUS couldn't be Muslim or marry a Muslim, what would your reaction be? Quote
g_bambino Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 You have to demostrate that doing it differently will actually accomplish something useful. That is the key challenge republicans face, and one which they've generally failed to meet. In fact, they mostly seem to have to invent problems with our constitutional monarchy in order to make a republic (they can never agree amongst themselves on which kind) seem to be the only solution. Upon analysis, however, it's revealed that any republic will have many of the same issues republicans critise monarchy for plus a raft of new problems, or that the issues republicans criticise monarchy for can be eliminated without eliminating the monarchy. Once that's realised is when the emotive appeals come out: "we're not serfs!", "this is the 21st century!", and the suffer-the-little-children whinging about kids' crushed dreams of becoming president. It's almost formulaic. Quote
jbg Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) Yet Watergate resolved itself. The world as we know it didn't come to an end. It nearly did. Basically our government was crippled from around February 1973, when it became obvious that Nixon could not longer function, through his resignation in August 1974. Much inadvisable legislation such as the War Powers Act was passed during this period of paralysis. There are reasons to have a head of state elected by the people, too. Reasons to have a head of state that isn't simply born into it, not only by virtue of bloodline, but by virtue of birth order - no matter how capable or incapable said person may be, as there are others much more capable. And reasons to have a head of state not limited by virtue of their religion or the religion of one's spouse. Furthermore, no head of state is "divorced" from politics; perhaps on paper, but not in reality. The Queen is as apolitical as it gets. Edited May 15, 2011 by jbg 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).
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Upon analysis, however, it's revealed that any republic will have many of the same issues republicans critise monarchy for .... So a Canadian republic would forbid/exclude Catholics too? I put my question to you: I'd really like to know what you think about the whole 'can't convert to or marry a Catholic' stipulation. Are you ok with that? If the U.S. determined that the POTUS couldn't be Muslim or marry a Muslim, what would your reaction be? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 It nearly did. "Nearly" and "did" are two different things. The Queen is as apolitical as it gets. Feeling as you apparently do, I'll suggest you start a petition to bring the monarchy back. Good luck with that. Quote
Scotty Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 From the latest polls/surveys (excerpts): In May 2010, a poll by Angus Reid found that more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada's head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, [... Which works out to about 100% of Quebecers, but a much lower percentage everywhere else. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
g_bambino Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 So a Canadian republic would forbid/exclude Catholics too? How should I know? Is a republic the only way to be rid of the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Which works out to about 100% of Quebecers, but a much lower percentage everywhere else. Proof, please. Quote
Scotty Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 I'm a "real Canadian". I was born here, as was my father. My vote is "get rid of the monarchy!!" Are you willing to go out and demonstrate, donate a lot of money, scream at MPs over the phone, not do business with any organization which feels differently? Because those who support the monarchy are. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 How should I know? Is a republic the only way to be rid of the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement? How should I know? Has Canada petitioned the British monarchy to get rid of the provision? Do you think Canada has any influence in that regard? And was my question too difficult for you? I'll repost it and ask again: I'd really like to know what you think about the whole 'can't convert to or marry a Catholic' stipulation. Are you ok with that? If the U.S. determined that the POTUS couldn't be Muslim or marry a Muslim, what would your reaction be? Quote
Scotty Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 So that the person actually in charge is the elected official, rather than someone who was fortunate enough to have been born into the right family. Because our elected officials are so intelligent and broad-minded and charismatic. Some of them really look to the future, too - provided your definition of future is 'next year'. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Except for the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Afghanistan. All of which are almost completely screwed up. Although the American system has the benefit of being the only one I'm aware of which was specifically designed to be screwed up. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Maybe we could except the US, and Brazil isn't a total basket case right now because you and I and much of the western world bailed them out a while ago, but you want to emulate the rest? Sort of a low expectation, IMHO. Who says the US isn't a total basket case too? You have three, sometimes four completely distinct power bases in competition with each other, with different agendas and beliefs, often comprised mainly of venal, small minded political hacks in the pockets of various multinationals and special interest group paymasters. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Guest American Woman Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 All of which are almost completely screwed up. If you say so. Although the American system has the benefit of being the only one I'm aware of which was specifically designed to be screwed up. :lol: Too funny. Thanks for the laugh! Quote
jbg Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 "Nearly" and "did" are two different things. Was it worth finding out? Were the gas lines, 14% inflation and 8% unemployment worth it? Feeling as you apparently do, I'll suggest you start a petition to bring the monarchy back. Good luck with that. Would need a constitutional amendment for that. Our constitution bars royal titles. 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).
.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.