g_bambino Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 google 'constitutional monarchy'. Don't need to. I'm already well acquainted with the concept. It's irrelevant to the subject of Canada's independence. Quote
treehugger Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 Royal Canadian Mounted Police? No, he didn't get rid of the R.C.M.P they are still here. Quote
Black Dog Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 I see Harper's drive to take Canada back to the 1950's continues apace. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Shwa Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 I see Harper's drive to take Canada back to the 1950's continues apace. It's all about the sweater vest and haircut daddy-o. Any era that could produce such awesome style must be idyllic. Next up, they will restore formica kitchen tables in bright, cheery colours... can't wait. Quote
g_bambino Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 I see Harper's drive to take Canada back to the 1950's continues apace. Correcting a wrong equals regression. That's a wonderful attitude. Quote
Wild Bill Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 I see Harper's drive to take Canada back to the 1950's continues apace. Could be worse, BD! Harper seems stuck on "Happy Days" and "Sha Na Na". Pretty sappy but those times did generate rock and roll. There was also an incredible amount of great black blues playing going on, although I'd be surprised to hear that Harper was a fan. Still, you never know much about the personal details of our politicians. What if it was the late 70's he was trying to re-invent? Disco? Abba? Dare I say it, Donna Summer? "The horror! The horror!" Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Black Dog Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 Correcting a wrong equals regression. That's a wonderful attitude. You have a funny idea about what constitutes a "wrong". Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
M.Dancer Posted August 16, 2011 Author Report Posted August 16, 2011 You have a funny idea about what constitutes a "wrong". I believe eroding the espirit de corps was a wrong. So was turning our backs on a very meritorious and proud history Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Black Dog Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 I believe eroding the espirit de corps was a wrong. So was turning our backs on a very meritorious and proud history Believe me, no one has a greater regard for the history of the forces than I, but I can't help but lump this in with the Cons' growing creepy (and creeping) military fetish. I guess even Harper isn't immune to the charms of a man in uniform. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
g_bambino Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 You have a funny idea about what constitutes a "wrong". Most would say yours is the funny one. Over time, many of the changes made in 1968 have since been undone: the ranks, the uniforms, the decals; the moves were never popular with the people serving in the forces. To you, though, those fixes - a return to what was before a change nobody wanted was made - was regression, since this return to the original naming is in the same vein and you think it's backwards. Besides that, this country is - right now, today - a constitutional monarchy. It doesn't seem at all incongruous for branches of the military to have a 'royal' prefix before their names; it's a badge of honour marking distinguished service to the non-partisan Canadian Crown, the embodiment of the state. The same is done in Norway, the UK, Sweden, Morocco, Thailand, Australia, Denmark. Nothing backwards about it. Quote
Black Dog Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 Most would say yours is the funny one. Over time, many of the changes made in 1968 have since been undone: the ranks, the uniforms, the decals; the moves were never popular with the people serving in the forces. To you, though, those fixes - a return to what was before a change nobody wanted was made - was regression, since this return to the original naming is in the same vein and you think it's backwards. It is, by definition, backwards. The only difference is whether or not you regard this particular regression as a good thing. You do. I don't really care one way or the other, save for what it says about our political leadership's mindset. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
GostHacked Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 Will changing the name actually fix the military or is this just some sort of stupid lip service? Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
M.Dancer Posted August 16, 2011 Author Report Posted August 16, 2011 The Conservative government's decision to restore the traditional designations of the Canadian Forces; the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is a welcome move that recognizes a reality that has been long ignored by officialdom: The decades-long attempt to erase the historic designations, and unique identities, of the RCN, Canadian Army and RCAF was a failure. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-canadian-forces-names-a-mark-of-respect/article2130372/ It is about that..period. And not the snide musings of fetishes or what ever puerile thought someone has about the conservatives. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted August 16, 2011 Author Report Posted August 16, 2011 Will changing the name actually fix the military or is this just some sort of stupid lip service? Fix? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Black Dog Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-canadian-forces-names-a-mark-of-respect/article2130372/ It is about that..period. And not the snide musings of fetishes or what ever puerile thought someone has about the conservatives. Whatever gets you off sunshine. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Wilber Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Believe me, no one has a greater regard for the history of the forces than I, but I can't help but lump this in with the Cons' growing creepy (and creeping) military fetish. I guess even Harper isn't immune to the charms of a man in uniform. I don't really care one way or the other, save for what it says about our political leadership's mindset. So if it wasn't the Conservative's idea, you would be OK with it? Edited August 16, 2011 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Black Dog Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 So if it wasn't the Conservative's idea, you would be OK with it? As I said, I am OK with it, or at least ambivalent. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
jbg Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) What if it was the late 70's he was trying to re-invent? Disco? Abba? Dare I say it, Donna Summer?Well Harper sings the Guess Who's "Share the Land" rather well. Since that came out, at least in the U.S. in October 1970 would that mean that he wants to recreate the FLQ crisis, or more the hippy era? Edited August 16, 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).
g_bambino Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 I don't really care one way or the other, save for what it says about our political leadership's mindset. You evidently disapprove. What exactly does it say about the present leadership's mindset that the restoration of the rank structure and the uniforms and the decals didn't? Quote
wyly Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 My Dad was navy. His last service was on HMCS Bonneventure, our last carrier. He saw what was coming and got out in 1960. When he saw what Hellyer did it broke his heart! Shows what can happen when you put a civilian in charge of a military who has absolutely no clue about the traditions and values of military servicemen and women. boo hoo for your daddy...Hellyer would ABSOLUTELY have had a clue since he served in WW2 in the Royal Canadian Artillery...apparently he had no silly emotional attachment to the "royal" part of his military life... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
M.Dancer Posted August 16, 2011 Author Report Posted August 16, 2011 boo hoo for your daddy...Hellyer would ABSOLUTELY have had a clue since he served in WW2 in the Royal Canadian Artillery...apparently he had no silly emotional attachment to the "royal" part of his military life... Correct. His silly attachments are for UFOs http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360737/I-believe-UFOs--Ive-seen-says-ex-defence-minister-Paul-Hellyer.html Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wild Bill Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 boo hoo for your daddy...Hellyer would ABSOLUTELY have had a clue since he served in WW2 in the Royal Canadian Artillery...apparently he had no silly emotional attachment to the "royal" part of his military life... "silly emotional attachment"? That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. So was Hellyer, for that matter. However, that doesn't change the fact that virtually the entire Canadian Armed Forces who served at the time despises Hellyer to this day. I have this mental picture of the two of you, you and Paul Hellyer, standing in front of a gathering of our armed forces. They're all carrying torches and getting ready to storm your castle. Meanwhile, the two of you are on the ramparts, yelling "Take off, eh! You and your silly emotional attachments! Get over it, eh! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
eyeball Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 I have this mental picture of the two of you, you and Paul Hellyer, standing in front of a gathering of our armed forces. They're all carrying torches and getting ready to storm your castle. Now I have this mental picture of an embittered military threatening to overthrow Parliament. And these goofs want to spend how many hundreds of billions on the military? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
wyly Posted August 16, 2011 Report Posted August 16, 2011 Now I have this mental picture of an embittered military threatening to overthrow Parliament. And these goofs want to spend how many hundreds of billions on the military? they won't be happy until our military spending puts our country into a debt equal to the usa's... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
PIK Posted August 17, 2011 Report Posted August 17, 2011 Hellyer said that every army in the world will follow, what followed was bunch of snickering going on behind the backs of our people in (bus) uniforms. This was a shot by trudeau who hated and did not understand the military, to bring them down a notch, and for some strange reason. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
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.