U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-16-2013, 08:46 AM
 
18,286 posts, read 10,383,572 times
Reputation: 13357

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble View Post
Why do you feel the need to attack the US, even when the topic doesn't involve America? It seems that your nationalistic bias is the reason why you keep trying to make this an America vs Canada discussion. I started this thread because the principles of monarchy go against equality and democracy. And I wanted to encourage you Canadians to support these immigrants, who are on the right side of history, in their righteous fight. Currently, there's a huge monarchy loophole in Canada's democracy, which in theory could be exploited and abused. Why not just close the loophole and be a democracy both in theory and practice?
Well you see there's another one of your assumptions gone awry; it's difficult to separate the instigator from the U.S. like one might be able to separate the yolk from an egg, so to speak, when the instigator goes to so much trouble to align himself so stridently with a supposedly superior postion simply due to being a citizen of the U.S.

I try; believe me I try, but fail to separate you from the U.S. because you use that umbrella, not only to foster threads on here, but also to hide under when people respond to your posts as you've done above.

How can anyone mistake your infantile manner of phrasing your original post in a confrontational manner such as you have with that of the reasoned information gathering characteristic of the interested spectator? All too often your posts are worded in such a manner so as to ellicit the very responses you then use to berate the poster.

I have no illusions as to your real motivation for STARTING threads in the Canada forums.

Example of your stridency:

Canada has a Race Problem Too, So Let's End the Smugness & Solve it Together

Last edited by BruSan; 07-16-2013 at 09:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-16-2013, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,024 posts, read 10,573,355 times
Reputation: 8908
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble View Post
Obviously, the Monarchy of England is the Monarchy of Canada. That article shows that your unelected monarchy has interfered in an democratic government multiple times before and could possibly do so again.
The Crown can not, and would not attempt to tell any government in Canada at any level what to do.
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are as stubborn as an old freakin mule. I have had many conversations with Canadians who would like to see an end to the Monarchy and they had reasonable reasons for that but NONE of them used your arguments. They are not germane to the subject. Your arguments are just ignorant , uninformed and really dumb.

It would be like me saying the US Senate should be abolished because a state with less than a million citizens like Wyoming elects 2 Senators and so does California with 40 million citizens. Your voting power in Wyoming is something like 80 times that of Ca. That seems extremely disproportional and undemocratic EH!!!
If I did not understand the US constitution it would be a good argument but if I do understand the document and the intent of it, then the argument is stupid and ignorant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,691 posts, read 8,762,959 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
Ha. Your American forgot that s/he votes for a party's chosen electors, who pinky swear to cast electoral votes for the party's candidate. He or she has never voted directly for President in all his or her life, because no American voter ever has (with the exception of electors, and the House (long ago and potentially again)). And while electors are typically pretty loyal, there have been cases of faithless electors. People really wet themselves when that happens, so I naturally hope it happens again soon.
Excellent point. I will remember that next time I have such an encounter!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,691 posts, read 8,762,959 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble View Post
Again, Canadians have been participating in our internal debates from the outside, why should it be any different the other way around?
My point is that your personal involvement in this debate is moot. It could be argued that a non-citizen could have some influence on an internal political debate if their points and arguments were reasoned and logical. Some might listen.

However when the arguments sound more like rants, your chance at having any influence on anyone is lost.

Unlike others here, I do believe this debate exists in Canada, albeit just under the surface. It pops up now and then, but it is always there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,691 posts, read 8,762,959 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble View Post
With that logic I guess someone pointing out America's obesity problem should then make me want to become obese.
No, since there is no argument that obesity is healthy or good, unlike the discussion about the Monarchy. Your points about our monarchy has brought forward many good arguments for it, hence my statement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 12,313,634 times
Reputation: 10018
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
That seems extremely disproportional and undemocratic EH!!!
You'll pardon me if I have a fraternal neighborly chuckle here? You know a Yank has really begun to irritate the Canadians when you go from the relaxed conversational 'eh' to the defiant, stuff-it 'EH!!!'

I don't blame you, though. What set this off was the condescension of 'ours is better than yours because of this' and comments like 'undemocratic,' 'shameful,' 'primitive,' 'ridiculous' and 'barbaric.' All those words were in the OP. That would offend anyone, and it's magnified by the backdrop of relative sizes, the fact that Canadians get a lot of this and it gets old, and the fact that we're in the Canada forum where disparaging references are that much less appropriate from outsiders.

It's exacerbated further because, while there aren't any lese majeste laws and anyone (even a visitor) who wants may call the Queen naughty names under the law, that doesn't mean it won't offend people who respect what she stands for. In some countries, putting your money in your back pocket (sitting on the royal image) is a serious offense, and openly disparaging the monarch is such a crime that they'll get you for it even if you did it offshore years ago, should you dare go to that country. The Canadian response strikes me as pretty restrained by comparison.

The original question could have been worded: "If Canadian citizenship and presumably military, etc. oaths require swearing allegiance to an unelected hereditary monarch--however lacking in actual authority--how do you resolve the undemocratic nature of hereditary monarchy vs. the desired reality of a democratic society? Is there not an inescapable deviation from democratic fundamentals when anyone is asked to swear anything to an unelected individual, however benign and generally esteemed?" That would have asked the same sort of question without disparaging prejudice.

That would also have a variety of natural rejoinders, some a bit curt, some thoughtful and some comic, depending how people felt, perhaps including the following that spring to mind:

"Because the majority do not want it changed. I'm in the minority who do, but I respect our democracy's ongoing decision not to change it."

"Because we like it this way, because it is a generally unifying part of our heritage, and because it annoys some of your more obnoxious countrypeople."

"Because, since the monarchy has a bare sliver of political power and would lose even that on the spot were it ever abused, we feel our democracy is safe retaining this bit of tradition."

"Because pure unilateral independence in all forms is not necessarily every people's cultural way. We value our long, close, often-reinforced ties with the United Kingdom and do not desire to sever this aspect of them."

"Because it makes figuring out who to put on the money quite a bit easier. You used to put Lady Liberty on all your coins in some form, until you started putting First Nations on them, then transitioned to political figures. It's worth it to keep our powerful RCNA lobby happy eh."

"Because swearing an oath to a BNA Act just lacks panache. Look on the bright side--we almost had to swear an oath to a lake in Quebec. Except in Quebec. You can add those three words to almost any statement about Canada, you know. Even in Quebec."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,691 posts, read 8,762,959 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
You'll pardon me if I have a fraternal neighborly chuckle here? You know a Yank has really begun to irritate the Canadians when you go from the relaxed conversational 'eh' to the defiant, stuff-it 'EH!!!'

I don't blame you, though. What set this off was the condescension of 'ours is better than yours because of this' and comments like 'undemocratic,' 'shameful,' 'primitive,' 'ridiculous' and 'barbaric.' All those words were in the OP. That would offend anyone, and it's magnified by the backdrop of relative sizes, the fact that Canadians get a lot of this and it gets old, and the fact that we're in the Canada forum where disparaging references are that much less appropriate from outsiders.

It's exacerbated further because, while there aren't any lese majeste laws and anyone (even a visitor) who wants may call the Queen naughty names under the law, that doesn't mean it won't offend people who respect what she stands for. In some countries, putting your money in your back pocket (sitting on the royal image) is a serious offense, and openly disparaging the monarch is such a crime that they'll get you for it even if you did it offshore years ago, should you dare go to that country. The Canadian response strikes me as pretty restrained by comparison.

The original question could have been worded: "If Canadian citizenship and presumably military, etc. oaths require swearing allegiance to an unelected hereditary monarch--however lacking in actual authority--how do you resolve the undemocratic nature of hereditary monarchy vs. the desired reality of a democratic society? Is there not an inescapable deviation from democratic fundamentals when anyone is asked to swear anything to an unelected individual, however benign and generally esteemed?" That would have asked the same sort of question without disparaging prejudice.

That would also have a variety of natural rejoinders, some a bit curt, some thoughtful and some comic, depending how people felt, perhaps including the following that spring to mind:

"Because the majority do not want it changed. I'm in the minority who do, but I respect our democracy's ongoing decision not to change it."

"Because we like it this way, because it is a generally unifying part of our heritage, and because it annoys some of your more obnoxious countrypeople."

"Because, since the monarchy has a bare sliver of political power and would lose even that on the spot were it ever abused, we feel our democracy is safe retaining this bit of tradition."

"Because pure unilateral independence in all forms is not necessarily every people's cultural way. We value our long, close, often-reinforced ties with the United Kingdom and do not desire to sever this aspect of them."

"Because it makes figuring out who to put on the money quite a bit easier. You used to put Lady Liberty on all your coins in some form, until you started putting First Nations on them, then transitioned to political figures. It's worth it to keep our powerful RCNA lobby happy eh."

"Because swearing an oath to a BNA Act just lacks panache. Look on the bright side--we almost had to swear an oath to a lake in Quebec. Except in Quebec. You can add those three words to almost any statement about Canada, you know. Even in Quebec."
All of the above. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 12,313,634 times
Reputation: 10018
Here's another counter-argument: "Probably for the same reason you put 'In God We Trust" on your money in absolute defiance (since money is pretty fundamentally authorized by Congress) of your Constitution, which says Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion: because a majority of you like it that way. Why do you persist in this theocratic, barbaric, undemocratic, unconstitutional, shameful, superstitious practice that offends any American or immigrant who doesn't trust, let alone worship, this god? What, now I'm throwing Christians to the lions all over again? You mean all my disparaging remarks offended you? You're just touchy; I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion, and I usually start those with a volley of insults."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,691 posts, read 8,762,959 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
Here's another counter-argument: "Probably for the same reason you put 'In God We Trust" on your money in absolute defiance (since money is pretty fundamentally authorized by Congress) of your Constitution, which says Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion: because a majority of you like it that way. Why do you persist in this theocratic, barbaric, undemocratic, unconstitutional, shameful, superstitious practice that offends any American or immigrant who doesn't trust, let alone worship, this god? What, now I'm throwing Christians to the lions all over again? You mean all my disparaging remarks offended you? You're just touchy; I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion, and I usually start those with a volley of insults."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 01:40 PM
 
18,286 posts, read 10,383,572 times
Reputation: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
You'll pardon me if I have a fraternal neighborly chuckle here? You know a Yank has really begun to irritate the Canadians when you go from the relaxed conversational 'eh' to the defiant, stuff-it 'EH!!!'

I don't blame you, though. What set this off was the condescension of 'ours is better than yours because of this' and comments like 'undemocratic,' 'shameful,' 'primitive,' 'ridiculous' and 'barbaric.' All those words were in the OP. That would offend anyone, and it's magnified by the backdrop of relative sizes, the fact that Canadians get a lot of this and it gets old, and the fact that we're in the Canada forum where disparaging references are that much less appropriate from outsiders.

It's exacerbated further because, while there aren't any lese majeste laws and anyone (even a visitor) who wants may call the Queen naughty names under the law, that doesn't mean it won't offend people who respect what she stands for. In some countries, putting your money in your back pocket (sitting on the royal image) is a serious offense, and openly disparaging the monarch is such a crime that they'll get you for it even if you did it offshore years ago, should you dare go to that country. The Canadian response strikes me as pretty restrained by comparison.

The original question could have been worded: "If Canadian citizenship and presumably military, etc. oaths require swearing allegiance to an unelected hereditary monarch--however lacking in actual authority--how do you resolve the undemocratic nature of hereditary monarchy vs. the desired reality of a democratic society? Is there not an inescapable deviation from democratic fundamentals when anyone is asked to swear anything to an unelected individual, however benign and generally esteemed?" That would have asked the same sort of question without disparaging prejudice.

That would also have a variety of natural rejoinders, some a bit curt, some thoughtful and some comic, depending how people felt, perhaps including the following that spring to mind:

"Because the majority do not want it changed. I'm in the minority who do, but I respect our democracy's ongoing decision not to change it."

"Because we like it this way, because it is a generally unifying part of our heritage, and because it annoys some of your more obnoxious countrypeople."

"Because, since the monarchy has a bare sliver of political power and would lose even that on the spot were it ever abused, we feel our democracy is safe retaining this bit of tradition."

"Because pure unilateral independence in all forms is not necessarily every people's cultural way. We value our long, close, often-reinforced ties with the United Kingdom and do not desire to sever this aspect of them."

"Because it makes figuring out who to put on the money quite a bit easier. You used to put Lady Liberty on all your coins in some form, until you started putting First Nations on them, then transitioned to political figures. It's worth it to keep our powerful RCNA lobby happy eh."

"Because swearing an oath to a BNA Act just lacks panache. Look on the bright side--we almost had to swear an oath to a lake in Quebec. Except in Quebec. You can add those three words to almost any statement about Canada, you know. Even in Quebec."
There ya go again with that reason and logic thingy!

Dang; I'm picturing the picnic table under one of our maple trees with a pile of empty Alexander Keith's bottles beside it and the conversations next sentence being "well how about this then.....?"

Please keep them coming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top