Our soldiers suffer while caught in the middle.

[Wilber]

Double Post

Edited March 19, 2017 by Wilber

[Bonam]

36 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Sure she does. She tells them to do what they Canadian government tells them to do. What would happen in the future if hypothetically the monarch took a position in opposition to the Canadian government?

I have an idea. How about we become a republic and get rid of all these nonsense oaths to the monarchy.

Why mess with what's not broken?

[Wilber]

43 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Sure she does. She tells them to do what they Canadian government tells them to do. What would happen in the future if hypothetically the monarch took a position in opposition to the Canadian government?

 

I have an idea. How about we become a republic and get rid of all these nonsense oaths to the monarchy.

That stuff was settled centuries ago. See English Civil War. Parliament controls the money. Even if they had the authority, a monarch couldn't go to war unless they could convince Parliament to pay for it.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Wilber

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, Bonam said:

Why mess with what's not broken?

I would argue the current system is broken, but that aside...

With this kind of attitude, society would not progress. Why build cars? Horse and buggy aren't broken. Why make cell phones? Land line phones aren't broken. etc.

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I would argue the current system is broken, but that aside...

With this kind of attitude, society would not progress. Why build cars? Horse and buggy aren't broken. Why make cell phones? Land line phones aren't broken. etc.

Of course the horse and buggy is broken. It leaves poop everywhere. Of course the land like is broken, you can't take it with you when you leave your house.

Now what's the downside of Canada's political system as compared to other political systems (like the republic you advocate)? Not in theory, but in practice. We have plenty of examples of republics and constitutional monarchies with a parliamentary system and it does not seem to me like the republics are governed any better in general. 

[-1=e^ipi]

It violates egalitarianism (people are not equal, some people gain their positions through birth, not merit) and it violates secularism (since the monarch is inherently the head of the Anglican Church). If 1 violation of egalitarianism / secularism is allowed then other violations are easier to justify in society. So if having the head of the Anglican Church be inherently the head of state is acceptable, then why isn't having a Crucifix in the National Assembly, having God in the Charter or Anthem, or having laws preventing the depiction of the prophet Mohammed not acceptable as well? Or if giving a person a position (Monarchy) based on birth right is acceptable, then why isn't hiring someone for a position due to say being born female not also acceptable? So the main issue is that it normalizes violations of egalitarianism/secularism, although there are other issues.

 

Another issue is with respect to the relationship between the state and first nations, or more particularly the Idle no more protests. If you recall the rhetoric from 2012, the position by many was that everything was an agreement between the British monarch and various unelected native monarchs and that the will and/or well-being of the Canadian people (both native and non-native alike) doesn't enter the equation. I think that as long as the monarchy exists, it will be difficult to solve first nation issues and turn society to an egalitarian society where everyone is equal under the law because all the racist agreements of the past such as the indian act are tangled up with the monarchy.

 

A third issue is that it's a waste of time/money. All of these silly ceremonies cost money and could be eliminated if we got rid of the monarchy. For example, take the oath pledge to the monarchy that people that join the military have to take. All that oath taking time and ceremony is paid for by the tax payer.

 

Finally, the existence of the monarchy helps the SJWs. If the SJWs claim that we live in a white supremacist patriarchy, they can point to the monarchy as evidence to support their claims.

Edited March 19, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

If Canada's soldiers had been conscripted to help perpetrate the West's depredations around the planet instead of volunteering this appeal for sympathy would certainly get my support.

The people who willfully supported paying for this should be the one's paying for the consequences. Those of us who've had our hard-earned tax dollars conscripted to squander on one useless military adventure after another have invested enough.

 

So what your saying is all public servants should be conscripted , in order to get your attention, in other words what your saying is unless conscripted, we the public service can go pound salt....people like military, police, fire fighters, well you know the list.....we are not worth the shit on your boots....and yet our employer seems to agree with you. that they are free to use it's citizens for any purpose at all , and when they are no longer able to be useful they are discarded, with no compensation.....how does that work in your world Eyeballs, can you do that legally....are are employees protected....i wonder did they get conscripted, why are you able to plug into benefits and yet military persons not..... 

See here is the thing eyeballs, our government is elected by the Canadian people, we have also excepted that we will accept those election results and work with them....that means you and me....Now if you don't like the elected government then you can use your freedoms given to you by the government to voice your disconcern...raise enough concern and you will gain support for your cause.....or you can sit in your lofty tree, complaining and whining that you really never ever took up a cause, instead your content to let others do the dirty work for you.... 

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

We should also get rid of the current hiring preference for veterens and citizens in the public service. Hire the best person for the job instead.

Not sure what caused all this anger towards the military, maybe some army guy stole your girl friend, or maybe your boy friend never know these days, and all that experience has left a bad taste in your month.....

It must piss you right off that a soldier forced to retire because of being medical or mentally released, still leave you in the dust when it comes to being the best person for the job....man that has got to hurt, getting your boy friend stolen then losing a job to a military girl that was a much better candidate than you....what did you say you studied again, assistance manger at McDonald's.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure what caused all this anger towards the military

Thinking we should hire the best person for the job is apparently anger towards the military... What???

 

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

maybe some army guy stole your girl friend, or maybe your boy friend never know these days

Nah, I'm asexual. I don't do the dating thing.

 

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

still leave you in the dust when it comes to being the best person for the job...

Can't really say that if there is a hiring preference for veterans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Interesting fact about the military:

 

"Allegiance and loyalty to the monarch, and the manner in which they are expressed, are specifically outlined in the Canadian Armed Forces regulations and subordinate orders. Within the Queen's Regulations and Orders, it is stipulated that all Canadian citizens or British subjects who enroll in the forces must take the Oath of Allegiance before either a commissioned officer or a justice of the peace. Those who are not Canadian citizens or British subjects must recite a longer oath: "I, [name], do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the Canadian Forces until lawfully released, that I will resist Her Majesty's enemies and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and maintained and that I will, in all matters pertaining to my service, faithfully discharge my duty. So help me God." The words so help me God are omitted if a solemn affirmation is taken."

 

The military's allegiance is to the monarch, not to Canada. If we want Canada to become a republic, the military might be an obstacle. I say defund these monarchists and save public money rather than waste it so some people can parade around in really expensive toys.

Your interesting fact is only partly correct .......your 100 % correct in stating that our military along with RCMP and all other governmental depts does not work directly for the people of Canada, .....most come under command of the PM with exception of DND, it works directly for the Governor General technical.....this is a safe guard built in to the system so if the elected government would ever declare the Canadian people an enemy it could not order our military to take action on the Canadian people with out royal assent..........it would need direct approval via the crown ( Queen)or Governor General....* note that this has never happened, and the crown has never override the PM orders to date. Sorry but there is no conspiracy theory here......maybe they did not have that on your citizens test did they Mini eyeball.... 

Perhaps eyeballs little brother can tell us when the last time the Crown has issued orders that the PM disagreed with....wait a minute Never....and while the Militaries boss is the Governor General they( military) have always followed commands issued by the PM, With one exception during the Cuban missile crisis Canadian Navy dismissed orders from the PM , and instead maintained the block aid around the Island of Cuba..... you can look that up in goggle if you'd like..... 

[-1=e^ipi]

So you are resorting to the argument that X hasn't occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent X from occurring?

 

What a ridiculous argument. Let's try it!

The monarch overriding the will of the PM has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

Significant climate change has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

Global nuclear war has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Here's an interesting scenario. Let's say that 60% of Canadian public vote in a referendum to become a republic. The current monarch says no. The Canadian government, due to having no alternative routes to become a republic, unilaterally declares one (and therefore breaks the law in the same way that other republics such as the USA and France had to do to become republics). What happens then? The military performs a coup d'etat? I think we know where the military's loyalty lies.

Been reading scary stories under your bed again.....When has our nations military posed a threat to the Canadian people.....drum role please.....never...

Perhaps you can provide a source that would explain all of these fears you have about our military...

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

It violates egalitarianism (people are not equal, some people gain their positions through birth, not merit) and it violates secularism (since the monarch is inherently the head of the Anglican Church).

... So the main issue is that it normalizes violations of egalitarianism/secularism, although there are other issues.

Everything violates egalitarianism. Being born to better parents gives you a huge leg up compared to being born to worse parents, and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it. That a few people out of tens of millions get to do some mostly ceremonial duties in an official capacity is hardly a big violation of egalitarianism compared to everything else. 

The violation of secularism is also largely symbolic. Again, there are far larger violations of secularism that actually impact people's lives and the nation's economy, like preferential treatment of religious institutions, rulings that put religious rights ahead of individual rights, etc. Further, one can make the argument that the religious duties of the monarch are separate from their state duties, and so not really a violation of secularism.

I'm a firm advocate of both secularism and egalitarianism but the monarchy doesn't bother me. 

Quote

Another issue is with respect to the relationship between the state and first nations, or more particularly the Idle no more protests. If you recall the rhetoric from 2012, the position by many was that everything was an agreement between the British monarch and various unelected native monarchs and that the will and/or well-being of the Canadian people (both native and non-native alike) doesn't enter the equation.

That's a dumb argument and the fact that some people may have made it doesn't mean that it had any bearing on how decisions were actually made. 

Quote

I think that as long as the monarchy exists, it will be difficult to solve first nation issues and turn society to an egalitarian society where everyone is equal under the law because all the racist agreements of the past such as the indian act are tangled up with the monarchy.

It seems unlikely that courts would consider past agreements null and void simply because Canada decided to no longer have a monarch. It is likely that court decisions about first nations issues would be unchanged, and they would consider continuity from the "crown" referred to in old treaties to whatever new Canadian government existed. 

Quote

A third issue is that it's a waste of time/money. All of these silly ceremonies cost money and could be eliminated if we got rid of the monarchy. For example, take the oath pledge to the monarchy that people that join the military have to take. All that oath taking time and ceremony is paid for by the tax payer.

Militaries in republics take oaths too, just not to a monarch. Don't think you'd save much money there. 

Quote

Finally, the existence of the monarchy helps the SJWs. If the SJWs claim that we live in a white supremacist patriarchy, they can point to the monarchy as evidence to support their claims.

SJWs don't use any logic or facts in their arguments. They'll be describing Canada as a white supremacist patriarchy long after every white guy is long dead. 

[hot enough]

23 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

and stop sending them to fight in pointless warzones. ...  Also, leave NATO.

Rather, in pointless war crimes. Yes, leave the terrorist group NATO.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

So you are resorting to the argument that X hasn't occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent X from occurring?

 

What a ridiculous argument. Let's try it!

The monarch overriding the will of the PM has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

Significant climate change has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

Global nuclear war has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

Again, see English Civil War The question was settled long ago. I doubt we would off the Monarchs head if they tried it again though.

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

So what your saying is all public servants should be conscripted.. 

You know that's not what I said.  You sound just like some run of the mill politician who pretends they heard something else so they can avoid what was really said.

You might want to consider how much this ridiculous way of approaching an issue has likely contributed to so many people being duped into taking up arms.  

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You sound just like some run of the mill politician who pretends they heard something else so they can avoid what was really said.

So you've noticed that too.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

So you are resorting to the argument that X hasn't occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent X from occurring?

 

What a ridiculous argument. Let's try it!

The monarch overriding the will of the PM has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

Significant climate change has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

Global nuclear war has not occurred yet, therefore we should take no steps to prevent it from occurring.

Well it seems i can't call you an idiot or for that matter any other name,  we have rules and we can not be calling member names.....at least according to my number one fan... not sure of your last nationality but here in Canada the things you suggest our military of being capable of would be like saying the leafs are capable of winning this years Cup...plausible but very unlikely..... 

[Army Guy]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You know that's not what I said.  You sound just like some run of the mill politician who pretends they heard something else so they can avoid what was really said.

You might want to consider how much this ridiculous way of approaching an issue has likely contributed to so many people being duped into taking up arms.  

I read everything you said, that because they were not conscripted they do not rate any of your concern. but they also do not qualify for care under the same benefits as regular Canadians do, such as work mans comp, or even provincial health care until the prescribe time has elapsed.....

[-1=e^ipi]

30 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

but they also do not qualify for care under the same benefits as regular Canadians do, such as work mans comp, or even provincial health care until the prescribe time has elapsed.....

That's certainly an issue that needs to be addressed. The current situation is mostly due to insane bureaucracy though.

[eyeball]

47 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I read everything you said, that because they were not conscripted they do not rate any of your concern.

No. It's because they volunteered to go do something I and many other Canadians find reprehensible and despicable.

And spare me the sob stories about all the poor little school girls - as I told you years ago you guys should have stuffed every single empty cargo plane that left Afghanistan full of little school girls. 

I wonder what became of all the little boys that were being raped nightly that Canadian soldiers were ordered to ignore at the behest of our politicians? Like Khadr they've probably all got beards and machine guns now so fuck em'. Does that sound about right?

Edited March 20, 2017 by eyeball

[Army Guy]

54 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No. It's because they volunteered to go do something I and many other Canadians find reprehensible and despicable.

And spare me the sob stories about all the poor little school girls - as I told you years ago you guys should have stuffed every single empty cargo plane that left Afghanistan full of little school girls. 

I wonder what became of all the little boys that were being raped nightly that Canadian soldiers were ordered to ignore at the behest of our politicians? Like Khadr they've probably all got beards and machine guns now so fuck em'. Does that sound about right?

Your right i did volunteer, and while you were hiding in moms basement or in the tree in the backyard, many like me were over helping others that could not help themselves....i know that is despicable... and reprehensible to guys like you , because you can not fathom a world that does not have you in the center of it...it's OK .....what we did over there was for all Canadians, including the little dudes just like you eyeball.....thanks for your tax dollars, they were well spent....

Way to go eyeball, you were paying attention to all those stories.....but you have nothing to worry about, it's not you that lives with those nightmares is it....it's those soldiers that you hate so much....you know the ones that can't get the help they need....don't worry they are still getting bent over the table by our government, In your mind we are responsible for everything that happened in the conflict, like we did not have enough to worry about like surviving the next day, or wondering how many of your friends or comrades were going to die that day.....

Your right there were some soldiers that did nothing....and they're were soldiers that did do something...it was a soldier that reported it to the media, it was soldiers that took matters into their own hands and assaulted a police station, arresting then later ordered to release those that were known for those activities....never read that in the papers did ya....maybe if the media left the camp....there are lots of things that never made the media...but who cares, your concern is not with our soldiers .....it is with yourself and your own disability to be so selfish....If it was not for guys like us eyeball you would not have anything to complain about ....except that damn squirrel that keeps steeling your nuts....what ever helps you sleep at night....

 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

That's certainly an issue that needs to be addressed. The current situation is mostly due to insane bureaucracy though.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the public being so educated with the conditions of our military....and those that served our nation....

[Moonlight Graham]

Politicians just want votes.  Giving soldiers the medical and social support and help they need doesn't do that.  They care about fighting the war, not cleaning up the mess afterwards.  It's tragic when soldiers are treated like throwaways.  Many of our politicians are horrifically selfish and unethical human beings.  They sell their own soul for votes.  They lie, cheat, take bribes, give and take unethical favours...all to secure their own power.  I have the highest contempt for these disgusting people, they care about their own careers far more than you or I.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2017-03-18 at 1:50 PM, Army Guy said:

OK i get it, our members are not very popular amoung'st the rest of the citizens,

I don't think that's true.  There's a difference in disliking a mission and the people who are ordered it vs the people who are ordered to carry it out.