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.
How might you yourself suppose her Haitian origin unworthy of mentioning as bearing any affect on who or how that woman's come to be? I really dislike appointments made for the purpose of being ethnically or politically correct. What were here accomplishments or achievements making her worthy of a vice-regal position? Also I doubt strongly that she supports the concept of constitutional monarchy in any meaningful sense.
I will give her credit for handling the December 2008 "end-around coalition" well, particularly since it involved placing a separatist/treasonous party into a coalition. I am saying that even though I think Gilles Duceppes is one of the smartest politicians of whom I have read.
The NYT article serving as your introduction of this otherwise interestingly worthwhile thread is daftly corny.
I'm lost.
That you are what with putting dozens of words into my mouth, but must you appear as Haiti-aversive as Clihtoh herself there evidently is? Besides, I shan't see what constitutional monarchy or sovereignty representation has to do with Canadians' admiration of Americans with somebody whose concept of Canada is anglo-centric, thus would answering either 1 from your rhetorical pair of preceding musings be worthwhile?
Last edited by trainrover; 10-22-2016 at 06:30 PM..
Right, although following yourself serves as the best start possible. Is being once upon a time French sexier if you will than always Haitian?
Now I remember the issue. The U.S. was being held to ridicule because of the small possibility that Donald Trump, a cheesy, arm-waving, eyeball-rolling demagogue might become President. I was stating that not all of your PM's and GG's have been cut from the finest cloth either. Both countries have their share of people who properly have not earned high positions of public trust.
Michaelle Jean did nothing to dishonor the post during her incumbency. To my knowledge there were no Clarkson-style spending sprees. But had she reached any level of public esteem entitling her to oa largely honorary but expensive position; not that I can see from Stateside.
Jean had been one of the most respected journalists in Quebec when she was appointed. I am not a fan of the GG position personally, but to say she was unworthy of the position (relative to others who also became GG) would be inaccurate.
This article, in yesterday's New York Times, heartened my continued belief in our great neighbor (often misspelled as "neighbour") to the north, Canada. This is a rare piece of good news in an otherwise depressing U.S. election that in many ways makes the U.S. a laughingstock on the world stage.
The article highlights something rarely mentioned in detail; how much having a peaceful, friendly and undefended border means. This means that at least since Canada was granted dominion status in 1867 neither country has had to waste money on defense against the other.
It also meant that two peoples could have independence and self-determination while enjoying all of the business of social and business intercourse. I have always felt that our friendship with Canada was a vital part of the mix that gave both countries prosperity and happiness.
yeah, those British people who originally invented the English language are still making the same spelling mistakes.
These two countries don't have to defend each other because Canada is essentially protected by the US. It is a ridiculous idea that Canada is capable of depending itself against the US. If not, what's the point of spending the money?
yeah, those British people who originally invented the English language are still making the same spelling mistakes.
These two countries don't have to defend each other because Canada is essentially protected by the US. It is a ridiculous idea that Canada is capable of depending itself against the US. If not, what's the point of spending the money?
I would assume you spend funds on defense as a good neighbor and to do your share as an ally.
I would assume you spend funds on defense as a good neighbor and to do your share as an ally.
that's just symbolic.
Any military action would get the same results with no Canadian involvement (particularly as Canada almost never has an independent military action without US involvement). If Canada spends $0 in national defense, it will make zero difference to its own security, or world affairs.
in sum, it is not about the two are friendly with each other that defense if unnecessary. It is about one completely crushing the other overwhelming the other that any sort of "defense" is meaningless.
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.
