Standing up against bigotry.

Quote :

Why do I respect the Royal Family: Their admirable sense of duty to their country. Prince Henry has served in Iraq. Prince Andrew flew helicopters in the Falklands War. The entire Royal Family stayed and endured the Blitz with the rest of the Londoners during the war when they could have been evacuated at a word from the King. That admirable sense of noblesse oblige is something you don't see from politicians these days. They have honour. They are decent people. I respect that more than I respect any sleezy politician who just wants my vote.

So we should just hand every war veteran a crown, than?

Quote :

Why do I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy: I believe that our system of democratic constitutional monarchy is, quite simply, the best form of democracy in the world. It gives us a politically neutral arbiter of government, in theory the Queen, but in practice our Governor General, who only acts in the name of the Queen. If there is a deadlock in Parliament, the Governor General is there to resolve it. If Government proves unsatisfactory, yet no one will propose a motion of non confidence, the Governor General is there to dissolve it and appoint an interim government until an election can be called. The Governor General must be neutral, so he or she cannot be an elected official, for elections inevitably politicize the office. The Governor General MUST be appointed so that he or she can be a fair, unbiased arbiter. Who is only person with the power to do so, and thus the person who keeps our entire system running smoothly? Her Majesty Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada.

You've just described a system that the Royal Family has fuck all to do with.

I'll reply to your post in detail later because I'm tired and avoiding homework: having a figurehead monarch is like owning a dolfie. We don't change the system because, like I said, they don't do anything. They sit there, they look pretty, and we coo over the fact that we have something other people don't. It has value because we give it value. When we stop giving it head-nod value, it shows itself as functionally worthless.

Sakurelf: I don't mean to insult you, you seem like a very intelligent individual. However, I don't think you really understand how our government works. The fact that the Crown is the linch-pin of our entire system of governance counts for a bit more than "head-nod value".

Mr. Doobie: I would give every war veteran a crown, and every other honour we can give. Nobody gives more to their country than those who put their lives on the line. As for the Royal Family having "fuck-all" to do with our system of government, I refer you to my above statement.

Quote :

I would give every war veteran a crown, and every other honour we can give. Nobody gives more to their country than those who put their lives on the line.

Alright than, do it.

Hey! Hey! Fuckin' hey! We had a monarch for seven hundred years! It was the King (or Queen) of England! Didn't stop us from throwing the fucker out (mostly).

If you're so concerned about not having a figurehead who can refuse to sign things into law if s/he's feeling particularly cranky that day, just create an elected position to fill that role. That's what we did.

EricD wrote:

Sakurelf: I don't mean to insult you, you seem like a very intelligent individual. However, I don't think you really understand how our government works. The fact that the Crown is the linch-pin of our entire system of governance counts for a bit more than "head-nod value".

This video may explain this to you, as you don't seem to understand very well. The Crown has no real power, and is only a ceremonial head of state.
Please do your research. You seem to be stuck in the days of British Imperialism, which happily (almost completely) died quite a long time ago.

P.S. I am English. By your logic, this means you should obey me. So STFU with your stupid bollocks.

ZoZo wrote:

EricD wrote:

Sakurelf: I don't mean to insult you, you seem like a very intelligent individual. However, I don't think you really understand how our government works. The fact that the Crown is the linch-pin of our entire system of governance counts for a bit more than "head-nod value".

This video may explain this to you, as you don't seem to understand very well. The Crown has no real power, and is only a ceremonial head of state.
Please do your research. You seem to be stuck in the days of British Imperialism, which happily (almost completely) died quite a long time ago.

P.S. I am English. By your logic, this means you should obey me. So STFU with your stupid bollocks.

*watches*



*watches 3 more times*



Dear god that man talks fast *takes notes*

Cyberwulf: The position being elected defeats the purpose of the position. The position of Governor General or Queen must be impartial and neutral. Making it an elected position will inevitably give that position a party affiliation, which is not its point at all.

ZoZo: When did I say anything about obeying the English? When did I say anything about imperialism? All my arguments have been about why I prefer a Canadian constitutional monarchy to a republican alternative.

As for the Queen's power. She does have powers (Royal Prerogative, Royal Assent, etc), however she does not often utilize them, probably due to political concerns with the republican elements in her government, though I cannot say for sure. She has de jure powers, how de facto she is ceremonial. However, the Governor Generals she appoints in her realms have powers both de facto and de jure, and they could not be appointed without her.

In any case, I can see now that all you people are interested in is repeating the same opinions that you all can agree to, over and over again, and that none of you are actually interested in reasoned debate with someone of contrary views. Indeed, the definition of 'debate' I am seeing here seems to be strawmen and ad hominem attacks. I have been nothing but civil and polite with my opinions, and have gotten nothing but rudeness in return.

However, as Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Quote :

In any case, I can see now that all you people are interested in is repeating the same opinions that you all can agree to, over and over again, and that none of you are actually interested in reasoned debate with someone of contrary views. Indeed, the definition of 'debate' I am seeing here seems to be strawmen and ad hominem attacks. I have been nothing but civil and polite with my opinions, and have gotten nothing but rudeness in return.

However, as Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Well aren't you just the most noble, saintliest paladin to ever walk the fucking planet?

Awww, did I hurt your feelings when I called you out on your ethnocentric bullshit?

Quote :

Cyberwulf: The position being elected defeats the purpose of the position. The position of Governor General or Queen must be impartial and neutral. Making it an elected position will inevitably give that position a party affiliation, which is not its point at all.

You keep arguing this point as if just because the Queen chooses him, he's going to be completely neutral on all issues. I think this point of view is foolishly naive and optimistic.

Quote :

As for the Queen's power. She does have powers (Royal Prerogative, Royal Assent, etc), however she does not often utilize them,

Quote :

she does not often utilize them

Quote :

she does not often utilize them

You just proved our point that the royal family is useless.

You know, it costs nothing to be polite.

You are calling me a racist and an ethnocentrist without a basis of facts. When have I ever said anything against any race? I am proud of my heritage, which is British and Norwegian, but being proud of one's heritage does not make one a racist. All races are equal, for we are all God's children. I have never said anything to the contrary.

"Useless" would be if she had no powers to utilize even if she wanted to. The Queen has many powers, but she does not want to use them. Those are different things entirely.

And I know that a Governor General, as a thinking human being, will be biased on different issues. All human beings are. I am saying that, in political theory, the Governor General must be appointed so as to avoid bias and partisanship.

EricD wrote:

You are calling me a racist and an ethnocentrist without a basis of facts. When have I ever said anything against any race? I am proud of my heritage, which is British and Norwegian, but being proud of one's heritage does not make one a racist. All races are equal, for we are all God's children. I have never said anything to the contrary.

"Useless" would be if she had no powers to utilize even if she wanted to. The Queen has many powers, but she does not want to use them. Those are different things entirely.

And I know that a Governor General, as a thinking human being, will be biased on different issues. All human beings are. I am saying that, in political theory, the Governor General must be appointed so as to avoid bias and partisanship.

1) The fact that you think Western Civilization is the best civilization ever is a pretty key sign that you're ethnocentric. Saying that all the brown people should either learn your ways NOW or GTFO smacks of racism.

2) But she doesn't utilize them and hasn't utilized them in years. You keep talking about how important it is that she chooses the Governor General, but what makes her more qualified to make that decision than anyone else? Because she was lucky enough to be born to the royal family?

3) In "political theory" Communism would be a gleaming Marxist utopia where the proletariat can all put aside their differences and live with each other in peace and harmony in the gleaming land of milk, honey, puppies, and unicorn farts. What's your point?

1: Western civilization IS the best civilization ever. Just look at the alternatives. All races are equal, but not all cultures are. Our culture provides liberty, freedom and the rule of law to millions of people. The culture of, say, Saudi Arabia, has old women whipped and jailed for the crime of talking to men who aren't related to her. (Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think it is clear who has progressed farther.

As for the "learn our ways or get out" statement. It's simple, is it not? If you want to live in Canada, you should adapt to Canadian ways. If you don't like Canada, you can always leave. Nothing racial about it. I'd say the same thing to a German or an Italian or a Spaniard or a Frenchman or a Scot or anyone. And if I moved to any other country, I would have to adapt to their ways.

2: She's the most experienced political leader in the world, having been the Queen and head of state of some 16 different countries for nearly six decades now, as well as Head of the Commonwealth. That's more political experience than any other leader in the Commonwealth. That's what qualifies her to choose someone to act in her behalf in the Commonwealth Realms.

3: Yes, in political theory, communism would be perfect. However, unlike communism, constitutional monarchy works in fact as well as in theory.

EricD wrote:

1: Western civilization IS the best civilization ever.

Even if this were true - and the jury is out on it - that doesn't give anyone the right to impose it on other people.

EricD wrote:

2: She's the most experienced political leader in the world, having been the Queen and head of state of some 16 different countries for nearly six decades now,

But she doesn't do anything. In fact, she isn't allowed to do anything.

EricD wrote:

3: Yes, in political theory, communism would be perfect. However, unlike communism, constitutional monarchy works in fact as well as in theory.

Communism worked. People just didn't like the way it worked.

I find it important to add that I don't think our culture is perfect. I could rant at length about the problems with it, and there are many. However, I do think that, generally, it is a better alternative than anything else out there.

Lexin, if you were to move to another country, would you not have to adapt to their ways? The language, the culture, the society. Is it not fair, then, that someone moving to your country should adapt to your ways?

Anyways, even if you accept that Her Majesty the Queen is a meaningless ceremonial figurehead (and I don't accept that), is there anything WRONG with a ceremonial figurehead? Is there anything wrong with an affection for your figurehead? People have affection and loyalty for far more frivolous and useless people and things than Her Majesty the Queen. Sports teams, famous singers and authors, et cetera ad infinitum. The most important thing to me is my country, and the Queen of Canada and her heirs are a part of my country, and its history and traditions. That is why I am attached to the Monarchy.

EricD wrote:

2: She's the most experienced political leader in the world, having been the Queen and head of state of some 16 different countries for nearly six decades now, as well as Head of the Commonwealth. That's more political experience than any other leader in the Commonwealth. That's what qualifies her to choose someone to act in her behalf in the Commonwealth Realms.

But she hasn't done anything all those years.

Mr. Doobie, have I not already told you her primary non-ceremonial duty? That is something, and there are many other things involved with the reviewing and passing of British laws, and innumerable ceremonial duties. She's a very busy lady, as any head of state is.

Yeah, EricD, I mentioned creating an elected position that fills the role of the monarch BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IRELAND HAS. Uachtaráin na hEireann signs bills into law, dissolves the Government, is the head of the armed forces and has certain diplomatic functions. But the Taoiseach has the actual power.

Quote :

Anyways, even if you accept that Her Majesty the Queen is a meaningless ceremonial figurehead (and I don't accept that), is there anything WRONG with a ceremonial figurehead? Is there anything wrong with an affection for your figurehead? People have affection and loyalty for far more frivolous and useless people and things than Her Majesty the Queen. Sports teams, famous singers and authors, et cetera ad infinitum. The most important thing to me is my country, and the Queen of Canada and her heirs are a part of my country, and its history and traditions. That is why I am attached to the Monarchy.

This is just about the only legitimate argument you have. If you really just want a Queen because you think she's a purdy decoration on your wall, why didn't you just say so?

EricD wrote:

Mr. Doobie, have I not already told you her primary non-ceremonial duty? That is something, and there are many other things involved with the reviewing and passing of British laws, and innumerable ceremonial duties. She's a very busy lady, as any head of state is.

Your arguments are dumb and keep coming back to this point despite many of us proving said point wrong.

EricD wrote:

What allegiance should a man hold if not to his homeland?

My allegiance is to humanity in general.

Oh, wait. I'm a woman. I guess my opinion doesn't count.

EricD wrote:

Anyways, even if you accept that Her Majesty the Queen is a meaningless ceremonial figurehead (and I don't accept that), is there anything WRONG with a ceremonial figurehead? Is there anything wrong with an affection for your figurehead? People have affection and loyalty for far more frivolous and useless people and things than Her Majesty the Queen. Sports teams, famous singers and authors, et cetera ad infinitum. The most important thing to me is my country, and the Queen of Canada and her heirs are a part of my country, and its history and traditions. That is why I am attached to the Monarchy.

No, there's nothing wrong with having a dolfie. I mean figurehead ruler. That's part of the reason why we don't get rid of the queen. She does nothing. For good or ill.

Hey, hey EricD

I totally want to replace our national anthem with Jerusalem because it's a TOTALLY BETTER song.

Suck that.

ZoZo wrote:

Hey, hey EricD

I totally want to replace our national anthem with Jerusalem because it's a TOTALLY BETTER song.

Suck that.

Dude, Japan's national anthem is really nice, but it's so SAD sounding. I first heard it at the olympics. Germany's anthem is lol.

/off topic.

ZoZo: ...So? Why would I care about your opinion of your national anthem?

EricD wrote:

ZoZo: ...So? Why would I care about your opinion of your national anthem?

Hey, hey! Western Civilization is the best and most advanced civilization ever! What about Japan?

What about Japan? It was a brutal and backwards feudal society that was going nowhere in a big hurry. Then the Emperor Westernized it. Then it became brutal and imperialistic, then it lost a World War. Now it's a pretty cool place with pretty cool, if eccentric, people.