NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says the Constitutional Monarchy does not benefit Canadians

[blackbird]

A strong Constitutional Monarchy is the most stable and strongest system to survive in the history of the world.  Looking back on history, we see how Kings and Queens united the people and protected them from invaders and helped them to grow in prosperity.  This is how civilization developed and is the safest way.  We have the best of both worlds.  We have Monarchy which provides a central figure to unite  the people while at the same time, it protects our democracy and institutions.  God save the Queen.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I think you could also use it as an example that the system is sound, and if Trump could not screw with it , nobody can with out getting a response from the people. After all there was a hand over of power, regardless of trumps antics.

Quite the opposite. If the Republicans had taken both houses in the last election he could have done just about anything. As we have now seen, the whole Republican party is lining up to kiss his ass even though he lost the election. He was already talking about a third term before he was half way through his first.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, marcus said:

I still don't see how they are a benefit for us to spend any money at all. They are just a symbol.

I don't accept the scary dictator argument. I don't see that happening.

I prefer not to have some expensive, unelected symbol at the top. It makes no sense to me. There are dozens of well functioning democracies around the world, without the need of some archaeic b.s. symbol, that brings no benefit to today's society.

They aren't just a symbol. They have real constitutional powers even though they hardly ever use them. Like a good weapon system, just the threat is insurance against their use.

[myata]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Russia assassinated their Tsar and his family and replaced it with a Communist-Leninist system.  Then proceeded to kill millions of people and deny the rest their freedom.  The will of the people I guess.

Right, our success should gauged by the examples like Russia or China, and what else? Like we already have czars and mandarins in our "public" service such a natural progression.

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

  It seems like he may not know much about our institutions like most Canadians.  I blame our education system for that.

His parents sent him to a private boarding school in the US. Small wonder he is ignorant of Canadian institutions. He's shown more interest in the ones in India.

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

The very country Jagmeet Singh or his parents came from split apart when they got rid of the Monarchy.  Do you see the irony of this?

I think British India had rather more serious divisions on its plate than a debate over monarchy. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

16 hours ago, marcus said:

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

The monarchy is useless and only for show. It's time to cut it out of our budget.

Why do we need to spend over $60,000,000 a year on this useless b.s.?

Spend the money on something that matters: R&D, self sufficiency, and our veterans. 

 

And how would these costs be less if we shifted to a presidential system and had a president to support instead of a GG?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, marcus said:

I still don't see how they are a benefit for us to spend any money at all. They are just a symbol.

I don't accept the scary dictator argument. I don't see that happening.

Oh, that's real reassuring. I guess we can all forget worrying about it then.

The fact is under our parliamentary system the PM has absolute power, far more than any American president can dream of. That's particularly so in a parliament like ours, where unlike the UK or Australia, the PMs party are basically spineless crawlers licking at his feet with zero independence.

And even with this comparatively benign guy we see his disdain for parliament and democracy. He doesn't answer questions, he doesn't make public budgets and he doesn't let parliamentary committees get any information, even in a minority parliament. And you don't think someone with actual intent couldn't do far worse?

The opposition has been basically invisible since Singh agreed to shut down parliament for a promise - which Trudeau never kept (LOL). Without parliament as the backdrop they lose whatever sense of importance they had. That's why Trudeau is keeping it closed down.

[Shady]

Carbon taxes don’t benefit Canadians either.  Or does the massive importation of low skill workers.  It depresses wages.  Either does paying a bigger percentage of the budget on just interest of the ballooning national debt.  Perhaps he should work on those things first.  Then get to the monarchy.

[myata]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

The fact is under our parliamentary system the PM has absolute power, far more than any American president can dream of. That's particularly so in a parliament like ours, where unlike the UK or Australia, the PMs party are basically spineless crawlers licking at his feet with zero independence.

And... what exactly our unelected and ceremonial GG at an astronomical cost to the taxpayer in perpetuity could do to make him or another such PM more responsive? Answer: nothing much. Nothing at all, actually. Just the cost and that's pretty much all the benefit to the taxpayer. And with it, quite obvious conclusion: two bads won't make one good. An outdated and powerless halfbred of the remnants of monarchy with a democratic veneer is not an effective substitute for strong and effective checks and balances and citizen control over the government(s).

[cougar]

On 3/9/2021 at 8:33 AM, blackbird said:

Did he swear allegiance to the Queen when he became a member of Parliament?  If so, is he now breaking his oath when he said on main stream media today that the monarchy does not benefit Canadians? 

If this oath should have any bearing, you can forget about discontinuing ties with the monarchy ever!

[cougar]

On 3/9/2021 at 8:33 AM, blackbird said:

Did he swear allegiance to the Queen when he became a member of Parliament?  If so, is he now breaking his oath when he said on main stream media today that the monarchy does not benefit Canadians? 

If this oath should have any bearing, you can forget about discontinuing ties with the monarchy ever!

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, myata said:

And... what exactly our unelected and ceremonial GG at an astronomical cost to the taxpayer in perpetuity could do to make him or another such PM more responsive?

That's not their job. That's the voters' job. 

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, cougar said:

If this oath should have any bearing, you can forget about discontinuing ties with the monarchy ever!

Bloq members are avid separatists lol.  I'm sure their oath is a lie.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Quite the opposite. If the Republicans had taken both houses in the last election he could have done just about anything. As we have now seen, the whole Republican party is lining up to kiss his ass even though he lost the election. He was already talking about a third term before he was half way through his first.

Regardless of what we all think may happen, fact stands Donald Trump is no longer president, he lost the election and stepped down... proving the their system works quite well. 

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Russia assassinated their Tsar and his family and replaced it with a Communist-Leninist system.  Then proceeded to kill millions of people and deny the rest their freedom.  The will of the people I guess.

So explain why you think this is possible in Canada, our weak military ?, our ever ending quest for more territories to control the world? Canadian people are so violent, and so patriotic ? we have none of the factors that are required for our country to head down the road you describe. your whole theory is a little on the crazy side.

[myata]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

That's not their job. That's the voters' job. 

Wait, haven't we started from that having these people sitting up there could somehow improve the outcomes for our democracy? And if not, what are we paying for and why?

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

So explain why you think this is possible in Canada, our weak military ?, our ever ending quest for more territories to control the world? Canadian people are so violent, and so patriotic ? we have none of the factors that are required for our country to head down the road you describe. your whole theory is a little on the crazy side.

Canada is full of Marxists of varying degrees.  That should be obvious.  Liberals and NDP are good examples of people with very little or no moral principles.  When you have a national political party leader saying he thinks the Monarchy (Queen) is of no benefit to Canadians, you know you have a serious problem.  This is an attack against our very democratic structure.  You need to re-think your whole outlook.

[myata]

17 hours ago, cougar said:

If this oath should have any bearing, you can forget about discontinuing ties with the monarchy ever!

OMG such an excruciating dilemma for the present and future Canadians to figure out: the oath of allegiance to a (foreign) monarchy vs. freedom of thought and speech. And nothing can change here, remember? Good luck to us (yes we'll need it).

[Argus]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Wait, haven't we started from that having these people sitting up there could somehow improve the outcomes for our democracy? And if not, what are we paying for and why?

What they CAN do is to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections, regardless of what the prime minister and his party want done. That is the ultimate brake on a government running amok. 

[taxme]

On 3/10/2021 at 7:56 PM, blackbird said:

Another thing;  it would be very difficult and practically impossible to abolish or change the Constitutional Monarchy because it would require a major Constitutional change which would mean probably a referendum and it would require all ten provinces to agree which is unlikely to ever happen.  Any change to a republic would have to show what the new system would look like and likely would be rejected by provinces.  It would also require long negotiations with aboriginals which have a special relationship with the Queen through their treaties.  They would likely not agree to a change.

Singh is a Sikh and his only interest in life is to push for more Sikhism in Canada. Why would that guy be loyal in anyway to the British monarchy here in Canada. Just saying. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, myata said:

OMG such an excruciating dilemma for the present and future Canadians to figure out: the oath of allegiance to a (foreign) monarchy vs. freedom of thought and speech. And nothing can change here, remember? Good luck to us (yes we'll need it).

Why can't people just leave every f'n thing alone? Dam liberals, socialists and communists are always out there trying to stir up the chit all of the time. If people would just stop listening to everything those buffoons keep saying Canada would be in great shape today. Those three mentioned above are always trying to create division and hatred every day. They just cannot seem to leave things alone and just get on with life.

I long for the good old days of the fifties and early sixties where life was good and we did not have to live with all of these leftist liberal and socialist division bull crap that is being foisted on us all today. Their communist multicultural programs and agendas and massive 3rd world immigration has a lot to do with the mess that Canada finds itself into today. Too many people of different backgrounds and cultures are all now fighting in Canada for a piece of the Canadian pie. 

Singh is just one of those socialist chit disturbers out there who really could careless about Canada. If he loved Canada he would shut his bloody Sikh mouth up. Works for me.   

[taxme]

On 3/10/2021 at 10:56 PM, marcus said:

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

The monarchy is useless and only for show. It's time to cut it out of our budget.

 

Source

Why do we need to spend over $60,000,000 a year on this useless b.s.?

Spend the money on something that matters: R&D, self sufficiency, and our veterans. 

 

But I will bet that comrades like you have no problem with the blowing of hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars that are being shipped off too the many 3rd world countries every year in foreign aid, eh? Let's waste our time talking about the monarchy and less about foreign aid to the 3rd world. I would rather see my tax dollars go to the monarchy rather than see it go to the rest of the 3rd world foreign aid. Just what has the 3rd world ever done or offered Canada that has made Canada great? I think that it has only put Canada deeper in debt. I would like to see an end to foreign aid to any country. it's my bloody tax dollars also, comrade. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

The Dutch monarchy has a style more appropriate to the times:

https://www.timescolonist.com/entertainment/inauguration-not-coronation-and-how-the-dutch-monarchy-is-almost-just-a-job-1.59027

 

 

 

[Scott Mayers]

On 3/10/2021 at 12:56 PM, blackbird said:

I would have to write a book to reply all the erroneous ideas you wrote, but I can't do that.  You don't believe in the God of the Bible, but likely have no explanation for how or where our complex universe came from.  The truth is according to the inspired Bible that it was designed and created by a Divine Creator. 

The first sentence in the Bible says "1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  Genesis 1:1 KJB

The second point is the Bible makes it clear that God created a large number of angels at some point in eternity past and a top-ranking angel called Lucifer, rebelled against God and fell from heaven taking a third of the angels with him.  

"Many are interested in the fall of Lucifer. The Bible says that the reason for Lucifer’s fall was his desire to exalt his throne above the stars of God, and be like God. Isaiah 14:1 3 -14 (KJV)

"13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16  They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17  That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? "  Isaiah 14:13-17 KJB

Thirdly, after God created Adam and Eve, he placed them in paradise in the garden of Eden and told them they could eat any fruit but not the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  However, the serpent tempted Eve and she did eat of the forbidden fruit and gave to Adam and he ate.  This  became known as the fall of man because they rebelled against God in doing this.  Because they were the head of the human race, their fall was passed on all their descendants.  This means all are born with a fallen, sinful nature and the human heart is evil or corrupt.  This combined with the fall of Lucifer has created a fallen corrupt world.  This is why we have all the evil in the world.  This will mean all men will be condemned unless they are redeemed by faith in Jesus Christ.  God send his Son to die and atone for the sins of men but everyone must make the choice whether they will accept this redemption, forgiveness, and eternal salvation.  If they don't accept it, there is only one alternative, that is, a lost eternity in hell.  That is it in a nutshell, but if you study the Bible  you will find this out.  So all the debate about political systems is minor or insignificant compared to one's eternal destiny.   God gave the right to private property to men in the Bible and said "thou shalt not steal".  So political systems which confiscate private property without sufficient justification are going against God's commandment.  But as I said, Satan has been given a certain amount of time and space to influence and control in this world.  People choose whom they follow.

 

You are either absurdly stupid or think that this kind of explanation can con me. Let me give you something to ponder: You assume that the athiest is 'evil'. That is, given the athiest is the most evil with respect to your belief, what would the likelihood of the clever athiests to LEAD your religious institutes and WRITE your scriptures, and be the ones to PASS on (evangelize) these irrational interpretations to gullible idiots in order to CONTROL them? I mean, how COULD this not occur given we are so devious? 

In actuality, the 'Bible' is a collection of SELECT works that originated from COMMON SECULAR writings that expressed what the general shared wisdom referenced. It was not LITERAL. For instance, Adam and Eve is just a intentionally written when most did not read. This required telling stories, just as we tell them to CHILDREN that help aid in memory. "Adam" means "of the earth" as opposed to the sky ("heaven" is derived from 'Eve' as in '(h)even'); "Eve" means "all that follows"; The original EGYPTIAN word that Adam came from is "Aten", which means the ideal spherical solid (the perfect one is the 'sun'.  "Adam" is the REFLECTED IMPERFECT Earth as a child of the sun and means MANKIND, in general, not a literal person. Then "Eve" represents "all the rest that follow", not literally a woman. 

And as you may think that I'm not sufficiently in the know, I assure you that I know your sources much better than you! Imagine if some future people only had "The Simpsons" or "Family Guy" episodes as the only remaining 'sources' of the past. You would be like the idiots who literally interpret the characters and events they express as real. Notice that while these are not real, they represent the EXACT kind of story telling that enabled people to remember and pass on common ideas. Every episode of these cartoons have at least SOME hint of our present society that one can find moral and philosophical interpretations from them that you can infer about who we are today. As such, the bible (a collection of SELECT books), holds hints of reality in the same way. But those original peoples DID NOT literally interpret these as 'religion'. 

My point, however, is that politicians use religion as a means to JUSTIFY decisions that have NO REAL basis to argue morals from. Humans are still animals and all behave with priority to 'emotions' and NOT intellect. What I think is most hypocritical though is that the 'Right' wing ideologies use anti-intelligent forms of belief and attempt to appeal to the idiots of those on the bottom because it makes people easier to manipulate when they are so idiotic that they appeal to those emotions. Those running business want to use DECEPTION in order to sell rather than TRUTH. The stupider the masses are, the easier they are able to sell using anti-intelligent means. 

So, to the topic about the NDP position against the Monarchy is due to the nature of it being 'religious' in nature. That is, there is NO 'superior' justification for 'owners' beyond the limits of what one can literally carry and secure as individuals. And your political persuasion favors dictatorships based on the idea where enabled, to have power more akin to 'gods',....in complete reverse of your arrogant claims of belief about only 'God' as being 'superior'. This makes the conservatives frauds and hypocrites because they cannot actually think some 'god' grants SPECIAL HUMANS God's OWN power here on Earth without proving they are your very Satan you accuse others of being. If there is some real objective 'evil', the conservative represents this because they could care less about other but their own SELFISH powers over others. 

The phenomen of the 'spoiled' child (akin to Adam and Eve as symbolically uneducated) is that you are living relative 'heaven' on Earth UNWILLING to prove you worthy of any 'God' because you think it necessary to aim to be rich and powerful HERE. If you were NOT hypocritical, you'd be willing to give up all you have and labor hard to help others who suffer the most. But instead, you have Earthly dreams of relative paradise (compared to the vast majority of the population) and since you have NO REAL means to justify WHY you should have what you accidentally have, you embrace even the most ridiculous declarations of NATURE favoring you most particularly. You don't favor 'good works and sacrifice' and why you  need a type of 'god' belief system that make you justify your virtue in light of DOING EVIL. That is, you PRACTICE as an 'atheist' when you EMBRACE unrestricted means of GREED yet are claiming to be religious? 

"Ownership" is only an arbitrary system that PEOPLE create. "Though shalt not steal" is certain to be the laws created by ANY non-religious system regardless or society would NOT have evolved as it has. There is no superior 'law' that says one has a 'right' to be absurdly wealthy. And the ONLY way that one can literally 'earn' wealth beyond their means IS to STEAL it directly or indirectly from others. Inheritance is worse. In fact, in the past, where one inherited benefits, they also inherited vices; YOU greedily accept the benefits but pass on DEBT to the rest of society. Imagine is the law said that you HAVE to accept any debt of your parent's sins like they used to? Why do you not notice that Adam and Eve's 'curse' was about the curse of "knowing" as we become  adults that DEATH  and SUFFERING is the actually NECESSARY condition of us all, NOT about some crime against the Gods (literal original was plural).  You prove that you are still the naive child given you fear "eating of the fruit" that represented wisdom that is NECESSARY EVEN OF GOD! 

The worse anti-intelligent factor is how you even think some book (King James version??)  that is written by humans is THE significant mode of communication that God would require to speak to us? How weak is it if it cannot speak to us directly? 

You can attempt to quote all you memorized without actual intellectual capacity to interpret the original meanings. But private property is NOT what the Bible meant by your "Lord"; The term should tell you that your 'God' would be that 'lord' if anything. And if he charges rent for us here, why should anyone pay some human 'lord' as though THEY were God? [But, given what I mentioned about what the evil atheist WOULD do, maybe YOU are an Atheist in desguise attempting to con others that YOU are the LORD?] 

I'm not buying in and would like to see religion put in its place as an ARTificial construct that it is. You can be free to be stupid if you want; but then you need to step back and let us intelligent people do the actual thinking. Leave ART to be what religion should be limited to. The Monarchy (meaning ONE-PERSON-RULE or 'dictator' in modern terms) needs to be removed because it IS 'religion' that is imposed upon the people without their consent, and ONLY favors those in line with these 'royal' pretenders wishes. They are the 'nakedness' that those of us who accepted Adam and Eve's curse recognized as imature thinking.