The US has a poor Government and is a bad example to follow. The US is more of a corporate oligarchy than it is a democracy what with all the decisions being made in the interest of the lobbyists. Example: the DMCA which Canada rejects!
The US has a poor Government and is a bad example to follow. The US is more of a corporate oligarchy than it is a democracy what with all the decisions being made in the interest of the lobbyists. Example: the DMCA which Canada rejects!
Another tangent. I've never said that you should follow the US. There are many other forms of government.
Mistakes? I would be happy if Canada could be similar to the US in importance in the world. As it is right now, Canada is a like a speck of dust. If removing the monarchy makes it like the US in importance, then everyone would be for it!
I don't even see how the monarchy even prevents Canada from doing anything 'bad'. Do you have anything to back up that statement? Last I looked there were plenty of atrocities made by monarchs.
What is so great about being a world power if the cost is in liberties?
Anyhow, the UK was the greatest power the world has ever seen... monarchy and all.
Thte British Empire was able to dominate over a quarter of the worlds landmass and nearly
a quarter of the worlds population for over a century whilst the US is stretching its resources
to the limit by trying to hold on to a chunk of desert. But the empire days are over. If the US
wants to play with that that's their issue, Canada and Britain have had their imperial fun
already. Are there any benifits to this US style 'importance' other than the ego booster element?
Scientific, Military, Economic, Academic, etc. dominance would be fantastic. There really isn't much of a cost in liberty, IMO.
And you're talking about the British empire..when they were under a monarch they raped, killed, murdered, and stole from the entire world. Hardly a positive for a monarch.
Then why are you attacking Canada's government when your own is far worse!? Fix your own government first and then maybe you can 'lead by example'.
I'm not attacking Canada's government. I'm attacking the concept of a monarchy within any society. Before you came into this thread, everyone agreed that the monarchy has little power and influence within the government. You're the only royalist here that even states that monarchs have a lot of influence and power.
Plus, I didn't even say that the US is worse or better. You're the one that is obsessed with the US. Probably that Canadian inferiority complex
My point, why would Canada want to do this for the sake of becoming a world power. However unlike the US the British Empire did bring some good to the world. The existence of the Commonwealth and the fact that the Queen is head of state in sixteen countries in the world can attest to this. After all it was Britain who played a crucial role in the shaping of modern Canada.
As for Scientific, Economic, Academic, etc. dominance that is due in large part to the fact that the US has a lot more people than does Canada. Hence a larger talent pool. It has little to due with the form of government.
Yes, the US does no good in the world, unlike the UK empire? I hope that you're joking. The UK was absolutely brutal in its history. The US does far more good in the world than Canada (and definitely the murdering British Empire), but it also does a lot of harm as well.
The British Empire sure did a lot of good! You know, since it is responsible for so many problems in the world today!
Sure, that has little to do with the presence of a monarch...just like the monarchy does not prevent Canada from being tyrannical. As it is, there really is little to no advantage to having a monarch.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm not attacking Canada's government. I'm attacking the concept of a monarchy within any society. Before you came into this thread, everyone agreed that the monarchy has little power and influence within the government. You're the only royalist here that even states that monarchs have a lot of influence and power.
Plus, I didn't even say that the US is worse or better. You're the one that is obsessed with the US. Probably that Canadian inferiority complex
I'm from Maryland. I live in Texas and I am a citizen of the US. When I was younger I felt in much the same way as you did until I began actively studying constitutional law and its history. I realised to my despair that our system was in my opinion, indeed inferior. I wish the best of luck to the Canadians and I hope they won't make our mistakes.
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm not attacking Canada's government. I'm attacking the concept of a monarchy within any society. Before you came into this thread, everyone agreed that the monarchy has little power and influence within the government. You're the only royalist here that even states that monarchs have a lot of influence and power.
Plus, I didn't even say that the US is worse or better. You're the one that is obsessed with the US. Probably that Canadian inferiority complex
I'm from Maryland. I live in Texas and I am a citizen of the US. When I was younger I felt in much the same way as you did until I began actively studying constitutional law and its history. I realised to my despair that our system was in my opinion, indeed inferior. I wish the best of luck to the Canadians and I hope they won't make our mistakes.
I'm pretty surprised since you're such a staunch royalist. This might explain your beliefs that the monarchs have a whole lot of power when everyone else is screaming that they don't.
I don't think that any government would change much if they removed the monarchy (constitutional monarchies). The fundamental nature would still stay the same.
If the Empire was so damned evil than why haven't many former colonies moved to isolate themselves from Britain and the Commonwealth? Why did India fight so hard to remain in the Commonwealth after becoming a republic? Why is the Queen so damned popular in Africa that on her tours there people show in the thousands waving British flags and tribal Chief's declare her as their paramount leader? Why?
There are benefits to stay within the Commonwealth.
Are you denying all of the atrocities that the British did? It's nice that people have forgiven them to an extent, but that doesn't re-write history. She seems to be OK within the US, too, doesn't she?
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm not attacking Canada's government. I'm attacking the concept of a monarchy within any society. Before you came into this thread, everyone agreed that the monarchy has little power and influence within the government. You're the only royalist here that even states that monarchs have a lot of influence and power.
Plus, I didn't even say that the US is worse or better. You're the one that is obsessed with the US. Probably that Canadian inferiority complex
I'm from Maryland. I live in Texas and I am a citizen of the US. When I was younger I felt in much the same way as you did until I began actively studying constitutional law and its history. I realised to my despair that our system was in my opinion, indeed inferior. I wish the best of luck to the Canadians and I hope they won't make our mistakes.
I'm pretty surprised since you're such a staunch royalist. This might explain your beliefs that the monarchs have a whole lot of power when everyone else is screaming that they don't.
I don't think that any government would change much if they removed the monarchy (constitutional monarchies). The fundamental nature would still stay the same.
They hold the power but do not exercise it unless in an emergency. Prime ministers exercise the power but do not hold it. Thats separation of powers Westminster style. I like to think of the Royal Prerogative as a kind of constitutional fire extinguisher. You hope that it does not need to be used but it is still good to have in case of emergency.
It's not a big deal to change that. It would not be a significant change. Perhaps they can elect someone to hold the power. Perhaps some other government official can hold the power which they never use. Perhaps they can come up with something else. But getting rid of the monarchy would have little effect on day to day life and almost no substantial impact on the government.
Separation of powers shouldn't involve someone appointed by birth due to a caste system.
I wonder how the Japanese system works because their Emperor does not have any of the reserve powers. Perhaps that system can be followed, with the eventual removal of the monarch recognition by the government like I previously suggested.
I do not deny the atrocities. That is the what world powers tend to get themselves involved in. I think when it comes to atrocities the UK has a better track record than the US. The kind of race riots and native genocides that were the norm in the US was a rarity in the UK.
(Until Amratsar in 1919 Ghandi supported the empire because it was only by the active support of the Viceroy in India and the Colonial Secretary in London that enable him to browbeat the South African government into respecting Indian rights. Dwyer, the General that ordered the massacre, should have been hung. But the government pussyfooted and did nothing more than discharge him from the army. The Viceroy and Secretary of State for India wanted his neck with noose around it.)
I'm sorry, but the atrocities of a colonial power is 100 times worse than the atrocities of the US today. They're barely even comparable.
The kind of race riots and native genocides that were the norm in the US was a rarity in the British Empire. Sorry for the typo.
You have got to be kidding me.
You do realize that the word 'concentration camp' originally comes from British activities, right? The UK was also involved in the slaughter of natives - not only in the Americas but all over the world. There were all sorts of race riots against the British, who treated the people like dogs.
But if it were not for a colonial power there would be no Canada!
Why did so many US slaves and then in the early twentieth century many African Americans flee to Canada, which was a British colony at the time? Many Native Americans did the same thing in the late nineteenth century. There was discrimination no doubt but their lives were safe.
You don't read much history do you?
British were heavily involved with slavery so this is hardly a great argument for you.
They even practiced indentured semi-slavery into the 20th century. These are great humanitarians.
I do read much about history, especially colonial times. And what you are saying is apalling.
Yes they put africaaners in such attempt as to supress resistance during the Boer war. Indeed the war continued for several months due to insistence of the British that the Boer states allow africans with the qualifications the right to vote and do away with the hated passcards. I'm sorry but I don't have much pity for the Afrikaaaners in light of the way the Dutch and later them treated the africans.
What is appalling, that I feel the US was more brutal in the 19th century than the British? How is that appalling?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter