Why Do Conservatives Support the Monarchy?

[Guest PPC2019]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It doesn't matter what you believe, there's nothing you can do to stop us.

Exactly. I know where to put my fights. I don't mess everyone who's powerful. I don't play the fiddle on some frequencies.

Edited November 14, 2019 by PPC2019

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

Exactly. I know where to put my fights. I don't mess everyone who's powerful. I don't play the fiddle on some frequencies.

No one who is powerful wants to mess with you neither, you are of no concern.

[Guest PPC2019]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

No one who is powerful wants to mess with you neither, you are of no concern.

I'm just careful of who I offend. Retaliation can be done.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

I'm just careful of who I offend. Retaliation can be done.

Only those who are prepared to kill and die for their cause are of any concern, the bourgeoisie do not give any offence whatsoever.

[Guest PPC2019]

The modern world is ruled by suppressing spirituality. A compartmentalized program controlled by the elite.

The elite promote mass narcissism, to disable patriotism.

[Dougie93]

Just now, PPC2019 said:

The elite promote mass narcissism, to disable patriotism.

Not Her Majesty.  Elizabeth Windsor invites you to be as patriotic arch conservative as you can be.

[Queenmandy85]

The Conservative Party was founded on the principle of loyalty and support of the Monarch. Pitt, Disraeli, MacDonald, Borden, and Diefenbaker are the prime examples of this. 

The Monarchy costs the British taxpayer less than the UK embassy in Paris. Just the economic injection from tourism resulting from the Monarchy more than compensates the expense. It costs the Canadian taxpayer nothing.

If we were to abolish the Monarchy, who would appoint the Prime Minister, the Premiers and the cabinet? Some would say a President but the examples so far have been less than comforting. Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping, Mugabe? Most of the best countries in the world are Monarchies. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan and the 13 nations that Queen Elizabeth II reigns over.

Our Queen has been a Canadian citizen since the designation of Canadian citizen was created. 

I prefer a Head of State who is not a politician. 

In the last 1000 years, we have had Richard the Lionheart, Henry VI, Edward II, Richard II, Bloody Mary, and James II who were disappointments. That is six in over a thousand years. On the other hand we have had Alfred, Edward the Elder, Edward the Confessor, William I, Henry II, Henry V, Edward I, Edward III, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Charles II, Louis XIV (longest reigning monarch of "Canada")George III, Victoria and George V. That is 15 outstanding leaders. Can a republic like France, Russia, or the US make the same claim?

[SkyHigh]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Your efforts are noble, i just think you're probably kidding yourself.  Maybe you're one of the very few people who can look at political issues and events from a truly academic standpoint.  Activism is impossible within legit academics, because as you say, confirmation bias becomes a huge problem.

Despite effort most people usually start taking sides on issues/events because everyone has their own theories on how the world should work and will judge actions/events/ideas as "good or "bad/evil".  Try to teach a course on slavery without moralizing it, it's almost impossible.

Anyways, hope you're successful.

Don't get me wrong, I of course have a certain bias based on personal experience, and yes to say I don't have any predisposed opinions on morals would be intellectually dishonest

That being said, my values are based on secular morality, which essentially is based on empathy and well being. Though I believe in a certain objective morality, this philosophy promotes a subjective analysis of each individual situation

Again, im not implying in any way, shape, or form that my ideology doesn't inform every decision i take, so because of that i take extra care to make sure my inherent bias is accounted for. A trick I (or anyone else for that matter) use is to simply put yourself in the place of the person(s) who's opinions differ from yours to try and see how, and why they came to their conclusions(empathy)

Partisanship is a different matter all together, it intentionally uses that bias without even attempting to correct for it, partisanship makes one think they already have the only answer before even evaluating a specific topic or issue. That i can honestly, and without reservation say that i am not.

You said " Activism is impossible within legit academics" what do you mean? Academics is about as far from my wheel house as you could get, but as the rest of your post was thoughtful and reasoned I would very much like to understand.

[SkyHigh]

14 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

You seem to be the only poster here that has a compulsive need to present your credentials . . . .  please tell us again how 'educated' you are.

what are you on about?

Dude called me an academic, i was both amused and pleased by this 

Credentials? You consider high school dropout a credential, how unacomplished must you be in life?

On a positive note you're off that foot fetish, at least that's something

[SkyHigh]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

If you feel that this and the religious values and attitude behind it have no place in a modern society, should we not, at the least, stop importing tens of thousands of people who DO believe in it into our country every year?

You think there are tens of thousands of burka wearing immigrants, coming to Canada every year? 

Please provide examples, they estimate less then 100 in Quebec, it being the second most populated province ,simple math says your off by a least a factor of ten.

But yes bring them in so we can teach them how a free society works. This idea that were so much farther advanced is ludicrous. We need not go back very far to find a time the church controlled our lives disproportionately.

Look how the Catholic church literally ran the province of Quebec until the 1950's,

But women's rights, you say? There are women alive today, that were born in this country without the right to vote

Its evident your slanted, self-righteous indignation, is based solely on opinion, and i would even suggest simply a ruse to go after brown people, but i may be wrong

[Rue]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 10:39 PM, PPC2019 said:

Canada doesn't live in a democracy. We live in a delegated democracy under a dictatorship. We live under a parliamentary-monarchy.

Why do the British taxpayers spend millions of dollars to help a royal family live in billion dollar palaces?

Isn't that worse than corporate welfare?

No tonly Cons suppport monarchy. Many Liberals do as well including Justin who said so and his father.The Monarchy has zero say or role in any democratic or legal process of decision making. The monarchy is strictly a symbol of the head of state. The reason they still exist is called TOURISM. They bring in far more money a year in revenue in tourism then they spend on themselves. As long as that is the case they will continue to exist. She only costs Canada when she visits no different than any other head of state.

Now mind you I have read she is a shape shifting Lizard who eats children. I also have read the illuminati-Mason-Satan connections she has and I am aware  her son Andrew and others in the Royal family have been linked to pedophilia, Epstein, perversion etc.

All I will say is I do not support Dracos, vampires, people who eat children, etc. As a symbol for head of state I am not upset by it. I think Camilla Parker Bowles is David Bowie in drag but so what.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Rue

[Guest PPC2019]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Now mind you I have read she is a shape shifting Lizard who eats children.

That sounds ridiculous. You actually believe that kind of crap?

[eyeball]

19 hours ago, PPC2019 said:

I'm a grassroots conservative, but not an elitist. I got a problem with massive amounts of wealth being concentrated in a few hands.

No you're a straight up commie. An attack on the rich is an attack on us all.

Sorry for peeing on your pancakes but them's the rules.

[SkyHigh]

On 11/12/2019 at 11:23 PM, Dougie93 said:

Do ya belong to any secrete societies?

 

On 11/12/2019 at 11:23 PM, Dougie93 said:

Yes.

Only him and his imaginary friends, but watch out they're planning to overthrow the Canadian gov't in the name of the Queen. Hahahaha

[Queenmandy85]

31 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

they're planning to overthrow the Canadian gov't in the name of the Queen.

How is that possible. The Queen IS the Canadian government.

[Queenmandy85]

On 11/12/2019 at 9:56 PM, PPC2019 said:

Like doing a speech against transgenderism

Why in the Name of God would she do that? What is your problem with transgenderism? Don't answer that. (thread drift.)

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How is that possible. The Queen IS the Canadian government.

Canada is simply Confederation, Confederation is highly unstable, easily overthrown, by its own corrupt and incompetent hand.

[Dougie93]

45 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

 

Only him and his imaginary friends, but watch out they're planning to overthrow the Canadian gov't in the name of the Queen. Hahahaha

Canada is overthrowing itself, tearing itself apart,  I simply invoke my oath to HM as protection against the tyrannical Canadian government.

I am not bound to fealty to the government, never swore an oath to defend nor uphold them.

I suppose they could come after me, but I am prepared to kill and die, and I would welcome the chance to die with my boots on and take a few of them with me.

[Dougie93]

I swore a solemn oath in the name of God himself, to resist Her Majesty's enemies, to include Canadians as necessary,

Canada is not a republic, there is no public rule, and most Canadians are in fact enemies of the British Crown now.

To make revolutionary war against the Post National State, is entirely consistent with my oath.

None the less, the laws of armed conflict bind me, so I will not use military force unless confronted with a military threat.

 

[Dougie93]

Somewhat fortuitously tho, with live in the Information Age, where Information War is the arm of decision.

Thus no military force is required to hasten the overthrow of Confederation, no physical force is required at all.

To throw gasoline of the fires of division, is more than enough to bring Canada down, though it will be by Quebec, not the West.

[SkyHigh]

57 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How is that possible. The Queen IS the Canadian government.

I know that, but if you actually read what dougie has written he does not.

He has specifically said that not only  he hates Canada, and is only loyal to the British monarchy

29 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is not a republic, there is no public rule, and most Canadians are in fact enemies of the British Crown now.

Maybe you just accidentally quoted me instead of him? Not sure, but asking me to defend something i said in jest responding to his original post that without the Queen Canada would fly apart. Is a best misguided

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Maybe you just accidentally quoted me instead of him?

I didn't quote anyone there, you are the one quoting me, I did not quote you in that case.

[SkyHigh]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

I didn't quote anyone there, you are the one quoting me, I did not quote you in that case.

I know, what i was asking was why she's asking me to defend your baseless claims.

Speaking of which, stiil waiting on any kind of explanation as to your contention that a figure head is still somehow necessary to confederation.

Oh ya, that's right you in no way feel the need to explain your reasoning right? Your content to just continue spouting nonsense 

[Argus]

Quote

But yes bring them in so we can teach them how a free society works. This idea that were so much farther advanced is ludicrous. We need not go back very far to find a time the church controlled our lives disproportionately.

First, your belief that we can 'teach them' seems more than slightly naive. Any number of extremely religious groups have come to Canada and utterly ignored our 'teaching', ranging from the Amish and Mormon fundamentalists to the Hasidim.  By the way, if you don't think we're so much further advanced, culturally, what do you imagine we could teach in the first place?

You invest your opinions with vitriol directed at the way the Catholic Church once behaved while instantly leaping to the defense of Islam, which by any unbiased viewpoint is leagues worse than Catholicism has ever been in this country.

Quote

Its evident your slanted, self-righteous indignation, is based solely on opinion, and i would even suggest simply a ruse to go after brown people, but i may be wrong

And it's becoming evident you're likely someone we've met before, another visitor from that other place where the far left gnashes its teeth with rage every time they hear a conservative express their views, perhaps? Care to give us your previous name or do we need to guess from your continued frothing?

Edited November 14, 2019 by Argus

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Oh ya, that's right you in no way feel the need to explain your reasoning right?

I feel no need to explain anything in the face of the strawman you are railing against,  knock yourself out, it's has nothing to do with me.