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.
No, American.
No.
I care because the principles of monarchy are against equality, freedom and democracy.
You are confused dear boy, the USA is a REPUBLIC not a democracy, might I suggest you read a touch about your so called founders, they were against Democracy. Equality in the USA, hell one could not vote in the sixties if one had a touch of the tar brush in the USA. Good god, another yank who believes only the USA has freedom.
You are confused dear boy, the USA is a REPUBLIC not a democracy, might I suggest you read a touch about your so called founders, they were against Democracy. Equality in the USA, hell one could not vote in the sixties if one had a touch of the tar brush in the USA. Good god, another yank who believes only the USA has freedom.
Correct. If one of them had suggested universal suffrage for everyone age 18, or 21 even, the rest would have laughed him out of the chamber. Probably would have spat chew at him for good measure. In those days it was propertied white males only, which is why I laugh any time someone tries to tell me what 'the founding fathers intended.' They intended aristocracy then and aristocracy forever. During the years when discussion arose about extending the vote to all white males, the side advocating that was jeered as 'King Mob.'
In the 1960s, racist anti-voting efforts were mainly in play in the South. That's what the first Ku Klux Klan had been about, making sure freedmen didn't vote. That had by no means stopped in the 1960s. However, the rest of the country has its own racial crosses to bear--the second KKK (founded 1915) was strongest in the Ohio Valley and far West, not so much in the South. My own current town, Kennewick, WA, was a 'sundown town' until about 1965. It was one of many. In fact there are still racial restrictive covenants technically in force, if unenforceable.
I never said to use the Constitution of the US, even though it actually is a better measure, since it doesn't grant a monarch permeant and unchecked executive powers.
You are likening the Constitutional Act with the word Constitution within to the same context used to describe your founder's document. It's alright, we understand YOU and you alone, just can't seem to help yourself. Probably just a simple genetic anomaly.
Now as to it being a "better measure" by not granting unchecked executive powers; once again, I'll simply refer you back to Post #53 and let the readers decide which has functioned in a superior manner as the test of their relevance to actual Democracy.
You're delusional. It seems that the policy you've adopted in regards to Canada and monarchy is deny deny deny, deny deny, etc
Unfortunately for you, your personal denial won't change the facts.
Once again you attribute behaviour to me not factual. You really have got to take the time to consider your typing before hitting the "submit' icon there friend.
I have NEVER once in this thread denied anything regarding the monarchy and Canada; rather the contrary in point of fact.
It has been pointed out many times to you in any number of posts, some from your own countrymen, that given the facts of history, the monarchy has performed in a very remote fashion indeed. It is a part of our governing system although a minor and insignificant part nevertheless a part. It will remain so until such time as a majority of Canadians feel it is no longer desired.
In that sense it is akin to me telling you "how can you claim to have a funtional democracy when it only exists because you have a 2nd amendment"? I could opine just as incorrectly that you are not a true Democracy if that feature is only existant due to the presence of weapons within your populace. You are just one step removed from a dictatorship if you hand over your guns? Meh!
My silly, unknowledgeable, unsolicited, unbending, inconsidered opinion would then be comparable to your silliness would it not?
I think I'm going to default, as you so rigidly practice, back to the "mindnumbingly repetitive rejoinder" form of debating with you and simply answer all of your posts with:
Refer to post numbers; 53, 149, 150. For any and all pertinent responses to what I know is almost certainly going to be your next inane, boringly irrelevant and repetitive offering from you on this topic.
I believe that swearing allegiance to the Queen of England to gain citizenship in Canada is an outdated tradition that should be put to rest, along with all our other symbolic ties to the British monarchy. However, Stephen Harper seems to be a royalist who jizzes all over himself in the presence of British royalty and is doing everything he can to reverse Canada's decades-long drift away from Britain's monarchy.
Canada is a big boy now. We don't need the queen on our money, or anywhere else. It's time to break all remaining ties with the British monarchy and declare ourselves a fully independent and sovereign nation - no oaths of allegiance necessary, except to Canada itself.
I believe that swearing allegiance to the Queen of England to gain citizenship in Canada is an outdated tradition that should be put to rest, along with all our other symbolic ties to the British monarchy. However, Stephen Harper seems to be a royalist who jizzes all over himself in the presence of British royalty and is doing everything he can to reverse Canada's decades-long drift away from Britain's monarchy.
Canada is a big boy now. We don't need the queen on our money, or anywhere else. It's time to break all remaining ties with the British monarchy and declare ourselves a fully independent and sovereign nation - no oaths of allegiance necessary, except to Canada itself.
Harper can't just end the ties to the Monarchy first he has to find out is that really what the Canadian people want then they can start to to end ties with the Monarchy plus finding a new system but that would not been done ina few years we would be talking years.
Typical American/Americanised attitude. Every country on earth has to have a government exactly like the United States. The only reason Canada is our own country is because of our loyalism. It's not just the conservatives who support monarchy, it's liberals like myself, as well. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to abolish the Canadian monarchy. Republican governments are unstable and very fragile, as has been demonstrated all over the world.
Typical American/Americanised attitude. Every country on earth has to have a government exactly like the United States. The only reason Canada is our own country is because of our loyalism. It's not just the conservatives who support monarchy, it's liberals like myself, as well. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to abolish the Canadian monarchy. Republican governments are unstable and very fragile, as has been demonstrated all over the world.
I just don't know how much support there would be to get rid of it.
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.
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.
