Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Harper can easily afford to do things himself too. Should we stop paying for his security and travel too?

If Harper travels, we do pay for it. It's part of the benefits of being the PM. However, if Harper travels abroad, there is no way a host country should pay for any of Harper's expenses. If the host country invites Harper, and want to pay for some of the trip, then that is all good. But this is not an invite trip.

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

It's just part of being a member of the commonwealth

It has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. Canada is a sovereign nation. Our head of state is the monarch, currently Her Majesty the Queen of Canada Elizabeth II. She is the personal embodiment of the legal state of Canada. Prince Charles is her heir apparent and future King of Canada. The Canadian Royal Family is a separate and distinct role from the British Royal Family, despite the individuals in those roles being the same persons. Like it or not, Charles is the future personal embodiment of Canada as a legal entity.
Posted

Didn't him marrying a nazi sympathizers have something to do with it too?

No... he was a Nazi himself.

Posted

The Queen is not a citizen of Canada, but has fluffy trips paid for via my tax dollars. Charles and Camilla are not citizens of Canada either, and yet we pay for it all. Welcome to the commonwealth.

They are useless figure heads of an era of kings and queens that need to simply die. They are no longer needed in a modern society.

You don't get it. The Queen literally IS Canada.
Posted

If Harper travels, we do pay for it. It's part of the benefits of being the PM. However, if Harper travels abroad, there is no way a host country should pay for any of Harper's expenses. If the host country invites Harper, and want to pay for some of the trip, then that is all good. But this is not an invite trip.

Harpers travels mean we pay the cost of getting him there plus vehciles taken, but lodging, food other security are the hosts dollar
Posted

If Harper travels, we do pay for it. It's part of the benefits of being the PM. However, if Harper travels abroad, there is no way a host country should pay for any of Harper's expenses. If the host country invites Harper, and want to pay for some of the trip, then that is all good. But this is not an invite trip.

The Royal Family is not travelling abroad. They are the Canadian Royal Family.
Posted

It is. You and g_bambino got me to change my opinion.

Maybe you're right. I think it's unfortunate that more Canadians don't understand our system of government. It seems to work well, even if it the idea of it does seem anathema to modern democracy.

Posted

No, you and I are Canada. She is not. This is what you need to get.

No, he's right. Without the Crown, Canada as currently constituted could not exist.

Posted

No, you and I are Canada. She is not. This is what you need to get.

Canada is not a Republic. You and I are not Canada. The Queen is the personal embodiment of Canada as a legal entity. Without the Queen, Canada does not legally exist.
Posted

Canada is not a Republic. You and I are not Canada. The Queen is the personal embodiment of Canada as a legal entity. Without the Queen, Canada does not legally exist.

Canada can exist without her. We just need to change a few things in order to do that. We are still essentially a part of the British empire. We claim to have sovereignty and all that and talking about being a grown up nation, while allegiance is pledged to a foreigner. I was born in Canada and has less rights and freedoms than the royal family does in my own country. I see that as a problem.

We don't need them.

Posted

There is so much wrong with everything you're saying that I don't even know where to start. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about replacing the monarchy, perhaps you should start by doing your research into the Canadian Monarchy. We do not pledge allegiance to a foreigner, as you say. We pledge allegiance to the Queen of Canada, who is the legal embodiment of the state. She literally IS Canada, as I've already said.

Posted

It's just part of being a member of the commonwealth but I'd be more concern over the Tories 3.1 billion missing money or the huge advertising cost of a program that doesn't exist with the provinces, or the added 3.1 billion from tariffs coming into this country. At least, one can see the Royals and now where the money went.

Where have you been?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/28/john-ivison-the-3-1-billion-conservative-boondoggle-that-never-was/

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Canada can exist without her. We just need to change a few things in order to do that.

Keep in mind that in order for Canada to remove the Queen has head of state, it would require reopening the constitution. This would of course cause all sorts of interprovincial squabling, finger pointing, and conflicts. In the best case, it would tie up our politicians, wasting time and money for years. In the worst case, it would give Quebec yet another excuse to complain "we didn't get exactly what we wanted" and stage yet another referendum.

Is your hate-on for the monarchy really so great that you would risk all that conflict in order to change a symbolic head-of-state?

We are still essentially a part of the British empire. We claim to have sovereignty and all that and talking about being a grown up nation, while allegiance is pledged to a foreigner.

As others have pointed out, technicaly she's not a 'foreigner'.

I was born in Canada and has less rights and freedoms than the royal family does in my own country.

Except of course that royalty is subject to pretty much the same laws that you are. They might be considered wealthier (although that gets rather complex since not all royal wealth is personally owned by the queen), but they also have more responsibilities. And lets face it, the queen and her family basically live in fish-bowls, with every mis-step reported promenantely in the news. In practical terms, it seems like they have LESS freedom than you or I.

Posted

"Except of course that royalty is subject to pretty much the same laws that you are"

only some of the laws.... Ever wonder how the Queen is so extremely rich despite never having had a real job in her whole life- and her entire family seems to be a pack of layabouts?

I figured it out years ago.....

She travels the world in a big private aircraft. She sails the seas in a giant yacht.

She never goes through immigration. Her ship and plane never get searched. She never has to take her shoes off at airport security. And so on.......

major, major drug dealer.

Science too hard for you? Try religion!

Posted

She never goes through immigration. Her ship and plane never get searched. She never has to take her shoes off at airport security. And so on.......

major, major drug dealer.

Thank you for answering my first question - so that is where that money comes from!

My second and most important question is why does she carry a purse? Does she need change or a couple of quid for a hamburger? :P

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted (edited)

Are you two done with your ridiculous trolling?

I am not sure how this statement adds to the discussion of this thread. What is it that you are trying to say?

No Trolling/Flaming

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

What part of the above rules puts my statement into that category?

What part of the above rules puts your last statement into that category?

If you do not share a sense of humour then I suggest that the problem may not be with the "two trollers" :P

Anyway - back to the thread;

Since no one has responded to my question I typed “what is in the queens purse” into Google. I got at least 10 hits describing things from a five pound note to an S hook. It appears that there is a lot of people who are interested in what is in the queens purse.

Some information can be found in “Elizabeth the Queen: The Woman Behind The Throne – by Sally Bedell Smith”

For the fans - “What’s In The Queen’s Handbag: And Other Royal Secrets” will be published on October 15 in the UK.”

This is trolling?

Edited by Big Guy

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

Looks like another "private" conversation between people goes viral. Prince Charles was described as comparing Putin to Hitler. The proverbial xxxx has hit the fan. Whether one agrees with him or not, Charles has no business commenting on political affairs. He gats paid to walk and wave - not to comment. This is giving the British Republicans yet more ammunition to attack the royalty.

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

Looks like another "private" conversation between people goes viral. Prince Charles was described as comparing Putin to Hitler. The proverbial xxxx has hit the fan. Whether one agrees with him or not, Charles has no business commenting on political affairs. He gats paid to walk and wave - not to comment. This is giving the British Republicans yet more ammunition to attack the royalty.

I agree that the Royal Family should stay out of political affairs but Charles and his father are noted for making controversial comments on occasion. However, there is nothing knew in Charles' comment. Many comparisons have made publicly between Crimea and the Sudetenland.

If the men do not die well it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it.

Posted

Your a are a subject, she is the Queen. She can do things you cannot. Yet another good reason to ditch the Monarchy. She can easily afford to pay for anything she damn wants by herself.

Watch for photo op with Harper and some feel good story in the coming week.

They are a huge part of the history of canada , but we all know in a liberal's mind canadian history started when trudeau became PM. All liberal history does is talk about the charter, which is a unfinished paper and peacekeeping. Our history is rich in traditions and alot of our growing as nation came in war. But yet the liberals do not want anybody to know that. That is why harper is making sure canadian,s new and old know that. Why are the liberals so scared of our nations great history?

Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.

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
      10,920
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Milla
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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