Prince Harry

[Smallc]

Huh? Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of England and the Queen of Canada but the Queen of England isn't the Queen of Canada? Does that mean that I'm me but I'm not me?

The person is the same, but the office is separate. Also, as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the title Defender of the Faith, the Queen is the defender of the Church of England. As the Queen of Canada, with the title defender of the faith, she is the defender of all faiths.

[Guest American Woman]

The person is the same, but the office is separate.

I realize that, but because she is the same person, your head of state is restricted by the same exclusions placed on the British monarchy - which has been my point.

[Smallc]

I realize that, but because she is the same person, your head of state is restricted by the same exclusions placed on the British monarchy - which has been my point.

Yes, thats's true, but it isn't necessarily the case. We only keep it that way so we don't end up with different people serving as monarch of the different countries.

[cybercoma]

Yes, thats's true, but it isn't necessarily the case. We only keep it that way so we don't end up with different people serving as monarch of the different countries.

I was about to post the same thing.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, thats's true, but it isn't necessarily the case. We only keep it that way so we don't end up with different people serving as monarch of the different countries.

That's what my points have been based on - the fact that you "keep it that way."

What would it matter to Canada if there were different people serving as monarch of the different countries if your queen is supposidly solely your queen?

[eyeball]

What would it matter to Canada if there were different people serving as monarch of the different countries if your queen is supposidly solely your queen?

It wouldn't matter a bit unless they did what should be their most important job which is inspiring people's faith in the systems they're governed with.

Declining voter turnout rates, the dismal state of confidence and trust in politicians, the ongoing concentration of power away from Parliament and into the PMO and it's abuse of democratic fundamentals in our Parliament, should be flashing brightly on our Majesty's radar but...I think she either doesn't have a clue what's happening or she doesn't give a rat's ass. I don't know what else to conclude.

[cybercoma]

That's what my points have been based on - the fact that you "keep it that way."

What would it matter to Canada if there were different people serving as monarch of the different countries if your queen is supposidly solely your queen?

So who becomes our new royal family? Do we have a popular vote on it?

[eyeball]

The person is the same, but the office is separate. Also, as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the title Defender of the Faith, the Queen is the defender of the Church of England. As the Queen of Canada, with the title defender of the faith, she is the defender of all faiths.

Is this so that when the people who govern us swear to our god's, on bibles and magic sceptres and such that we can have faith that any who turn out to be liars, thieves and war criminals and whatnot will still get their comeuppance in the end?

This is our front-line institution of accountability?

Whale oil beef hooked. That truly is pathetic.

[Smallc]

That's what my points have been based on - the fact that you "keep it that way."

Yes, we do. Obviously it's working as is.

What would it matter to Canada if there were different people serving as monarch of the different countries if your queen is supposidly solely your queen?

Because the personal union system seems to work, so we keep it.

[cybercoma]

Is this so that when the people who govern us swear to our god's, on bibles and magic sceptres and such that we can have faith that any who turn out to be liars, thieves and war criminals and whatnot will still get their comeuppance in the end?

This is our front-line institution of accountability?

Whale oil beef hooked. That truly is pathetic.

You want a partisan monarchy. Thankfully, it doesn't work that way.

You want a monarchy that gets involved in Canadian politics in an identifiable way. It does. It dissolves parliament and calls an election at the very least every 4 years, so some tyrannical regime doesn't take over our government.

Edited September 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

You want a partisan monarchy.

No I don't.

Thankfully, it doesn't work that way.

I never said it should. Please stop implying that I did.

You want a monarchy that gets involved in Canadian politics in an identifiable way. It does. It dissolves parliament and calls an election at the very least every 4 years,

What I want is an institution of accountability I can take to the bank. What you describe sounds about as simplistic and banal as calling a PTA meeting.

...so some tyrannical regime doesn't take over our government.

Tyrannical how?

Edited September 3, 2012 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

There's no point in having this discussion with you if you think having regular democratic elections is like calling a PTA meeting.

[eyeball]

There's no point in having this discussion with you if you think having regular democratic elections is like calling a PTA meeting.

Hey, feel free to run away but the least you could do is let the door slam you in the ass instead of your silly strawman's on the way out.

You want a partisan monarchy.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, we do. Obviously it's working as is.

Because the personal union system seems to work, so we keep it.

Yes, so you've said. You "keep it because it's working." It's discriminatory, but it works. So never mind equal rights - as long as it works, then that's grounds for keeping discriminatory practices in place, equal rights be damned. Very admirable.

[Wilber]

The US has two classes of citizen, those born citizens who can be President and those not born citizens who cannot, but that is not discriminatory. The monarchy is discriminatory in that none of our citizens can be monarch. All our citizens are equal regardless of place of birth but that is discriminatory. OK.

[Smallc]

Yes, so you've said. You "keep it because it's working." It's discriminatory, but it works. So never mind equal rights - as long as it works, then that's grounds for keeping discriminatory practices in place, equal rights be damned. Very admirable.

Rights always have a limit placed upon them, even in the land of the free and the home of the brave. A democratic system should not be overhauled just because, especially when it works so well in so many countries.

[Guest American Woman]

The US has two classes of citizen, those born citizens who can be President and those not born citizens who cannot, but that is not discriminatory. The monarchy is discriminatory in that none of our citizens can be monarch. All our citizens are equal regardless of place of birth but that is discriminatory. OK.

Yeah, none of your citizens can be your head of state, and that's a good thing. Perhaps you should make it even better and not let any of your citizens vote. Except the Windsors, of course. Nothing discriminatory about that.

The U.S., like Canada, has two kinds of citizens - those born in the country and those granted citizenship. At least the offspring of those granted citizenship can become POTUS, while not even the offspring of anyone other than a Windsor will ever be your head of state. Ironically, what it boils down to is that no one born in your country can become your country's head of state. And this you defend.

But do keep harping about the inequities of our system because it requires the head of state to actually be born in the country he/she is representing - as you accept and defend yours.

You keep ignoring the scenario I presented. But I'm persistent. So. What would your thoughts be if we were to amend the constitution to make our head of state the firstborn of the Bush family? You think that would be no worse, no less discriminatory, than not allowing someone born outside the country to be our head of state?

[Guest American Woman]

Rights always have a limit placed upon them, even in the land of the free and the home of the brave. A democratic system should not be overhauled just because, especially when it works so well in so many countries.

That's right. Why let a little thing like discrimination get in the way of a good thing, eh? Good to see you defending it. Of course you defended a son being favored over a daughter, too, as well as the head of state not being able to marry a Catholic - both which were recently changed because of the discrimination involved. And it worked so well in so many countries for all of those hundreds of years. Makes one wonder why they changed it. Go figure.

[Wilber]

Yeah, none of your citizens can be your head of state, and that's a good thing. Perhaps you should make it even better and not let any of your citizens vote. Except the Windsors, of course. Nothing discriminatory about that.

The U.S., like Canada, has two kinds of citizens - those born in the country and those granted citizenship. At least the offspring of those granted citizenship can become POTUS, while not even the offspring of anyone other than a Windsor will ever be your head of state. Ironically, what it boils down to is that no one born in your country can become your country's head of state. And this you defend.

But do keep harping about the inequities of our system because it requires the head of state to actually be born in the country he/she is representing - as you accept and defend yours.

You keep ignoring the scenario I presented. But I'm persistent. So. What would your thoughts be if we were to amend the constitution to make our head of state the firstborn of the Bush family? You think that would be no worse, no less discriminatory, than not allowing someone born outside the country to be our head of state?

None of us has said our system isn't discriminatory and we have defended it because it has worked quite well for us. Would things be worse with out it? I don't know but if you compare a list of countries with constitutional monarchies with one of elected or appointed heads of state, the monarchies come off looking pretty good and any fool can see that things could be a hell of a lot worse. Is it because we are a monarchy? I don't know but I believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an American expression.

You have tens of millions of citizens who can't aspire to the top elected position in you country, we have one that doesn't have religious freedom to keep their job in ours. THE HORROR. You won't even acknowledge the possibility of discrimination in you system, you just keep preaching.

You belittle our system because you believe it to be an anachronism and you belittle it again when changes are made to more reflect present attitudes toward sex and religion. There is no satisfying you.

I do declare, nothing will satisfy you short of all of us declaring ourselves dolts and swearing to overthrow the Monarchy tomorrow.

[Guest American Woman]

I do declare, nothing will satisfy you short of all of us declaring ourselves dolts and swearing to overthrow the Monarchy tomorrow.

Ummm. No. That's your bizarre take on it, so that would be you calling yourself a dolt.

[Wilber]

Ummm. No. That's your bizarre take on it, so that would be you calling yourself a dolt.

As none of us has maintained that the position of our head of state isn't discriminatory, would you please explain what it is that you do want other than an opportunity to preach to the misguided.

[Guest American Woman]

As none of us has maintained that the position of our head of state isn't discriminatory, would you please explain what it is that you do want other than an opportunity to preach to the misguided.

I would appreciate the opportunity to state my view without you making it into something it isn't, for starters. Secondly, I'm not on board with your 'it works and it's too difficult to change so it doesn't matter that it is discriminatory' stance, and I'm saying so. I liken it to the American people and government saying, 'yeah, segregation is discriminatory, but it works, and it's so hard to change these things, so we'll just keep things as they are - and it won't bother me because it works.' - And I'd like the opportunity to state that opinion, same as y'all state your opinions about issues.

Edited September 3, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

I would appreciate the opportunity to state my view without you making it into something it isn't, for starters. Secondly, I'm not on board with your 'it works and it's too difficult to change so it doesn't matter that it is discriminatory' stance, and I'm saying so. I liken it to the American people and government saying, 'yeah, segregation is discriminatory, but it works, and it's so hard to change these things, so we'll just keep things as they are - and it won't bother me because it works.' - And I'd like the opportunity to state that opinion, same as y'all state your opinions about issues.

You've been stating the same thing for nine pages with no change. Any attempt to explain our system to you is greeted with the same old chant and derogatory attitude. We will make changes that we feel necessary in our own good time, thank you very much.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, none of your citizens can be your head of state, and that's a good thing. Perhaps you should make it even better and not let any of your citizens vote. Except the Windsors, of course. Nothing discriminatory about that.

You're posting rolling-eye emoticons when you quite clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding about our system of government and the role of our Head of State. Ok then.

[Guest American Woman]

You've been stating the same thing for nine pages with no change. Any attempt to explain our system to you is greeted with the same old chant and derogatory attitude. We will make changes that we feel necessary in our own good time, thank you very much.

Yes, I realize that - since any attempt to explain why I don't accept the 'it's discriminatory but it works' attitude is greeted with the same old chant, along with lame attempts to equate it to our system, for nine pages with no change.

I understand your system just fine, thank you very much. I don't agree with it, and I don't understand the mindset of 'yes it's discriminatory, but it works, so who cares?' - any more than I accept the attempts to equate it to ours; and even though I've repeated my scenario over and over, none of you will touch on the idea of an amendment to make Bush heirs our head of state for all eternity, and to me that says it all.