No political party wants you to be free. They want to control you, they want power over you.
Governments want to force thier will on you. Would a Republic of Canada be any different than the current Canada?
We're talking symbolism here. The Queen is an unrepresentative, unelected, undemocratic, unegalitarian, hereditary institution that harks back to the medieval era.
The political philosophy behind republics are democracy and egalitarianism.
Are not all countries not symbolic?
Did you choose to become Canadian? Were you given a choice?
Did you agree to follow Canadian laws or were you forced to follow Canadian laws?
Why should I be force to be apart of your new Republic or to follow a Queen thousands of kilometres away from my home?
Are not all countries not symbolic?
Did you choose to become Canadian? Were you given a choice?
Did you agree to follow Canadian laws or were you forced to follow Canadian laws?
Why should I be force to be apart of your new Republic or to follow a Queen thousands of kilometres away from my home?
I would never force you to become part of Frmrsldr's Republik.
Some things we can change, when we (in the song by Trooper) "raise a little hell."
Other things, like being born, we have no choice over. Concerning the things we have no choice over, we can still choose our attitude and opinions toward them.
"There would be no need for leaders as every person would be a leader." In an egalitarian society, the concept of monarchy would be inconceivable.
Can you dig it, man?
We're talking symbolism here. The Queen is an unrepresentative, unelected, undemocratic, unegalitarian, hereditary institution that harks back to the medieval era.
The political philosophy behind republics are democracy and egalitarianism.
Symbolism? The Queen?
A campaign to have the 3 opposition parties band togeher in Parliament to fire the Governor General?
People feel like these are the priorities right now?
I'd definitely put it #4 after climate change, world peace, and hunger.
I'm quite happy to see us abolish our Monarchial system. Before we do I'd sure like to know what we are going to replace it with.
If we are still going to maintain our parliamentary form of government are we going to vest the current G-G powers in an elected President?
I had hopes that Jean would be a progressive in her new office. Little did I know. 
Ditto, Boom Boom; I was totally taken in when she ate that seal heart.
Good one, Sineed!
NDPPWould you prefer having a President Harper?We already have one of those.
I agree - can the GG!
as for Harpo - he's the best Prime Minister Amerikkka ever had..
Caissa:
"I'm quite happy to see us abolish our Monarchial system. Before we do I'd sure like to know what we are going to replace it with."
Robert Ruark used that question in the title of his novel, Something of Value, set in Kenya, as I recall, at the time of the Mau Mau. An old Kikuyu saying went something like..." do not replace your customs unless it is with womething of value" (something like that anyway. It goes back a few decades). I have always thought that the Kikuyu people may have blown it, themselves, but the principle is sound.
There's nothing that can quite match the image of Harper's fascist, war-mongering Governor General leading a choir of our nazi troop in a rousing chorus of 'Give Peace a Chance'. This GG grows daily more grotesque and odious. Obviously her CBC training has held her in good stead when it comes to dissembling and disseminating such unspeakable lies like we murder for peace and the women of Afghanistan rather than power, politics and petroleum. This dovetails perfectly with her fuhrer's: "of course we have no history of colonialism in Canada.."
Presumably he includes Afghanistan and Haiti...
Evidently some people believe the monstrous muck they ply us with
As for the rest, at the least, loud noises should be made..
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada's head of state.
"Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State," the Prime Minister's Office said on Thursday. The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada."
The extraordinary reminder from the country's head of government to its top viceregal representative follows an uproar over Jean's use of the phrase "head of state" when referring to herself during a speech in Paris on Monday.
Yep, I say it's time to get rid of the monarchy and the Governor General in Canada. Make the position an elected and representative President. No other change is necessary. The President has the same Constitutional powers as the GG, minus anything to do with the British Crown (of course). The position and powers of the Prime Minister remain the same. No other changes. Canada becomes like other countries that are republics and have both Prime Ministers and Presidents. In this case, Canada follows those countries where the Prime Minister is the stronger and the President is the weaker office holder.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-hot-debate-about-head-of-... Governor-General "head of state", or just a "clerk"?[/color][/url]
Just who does Governor-General Michaëlle Jean think she is? Canada's head of state? The Queen's representative? Or a bit of both? [...]When Mr. Harper prepared to ask Ms. Jean to dissolve Parliament last December to avoid defeat by an opposition coalition, his party's public campaign to pressure the Governor-General perturbed Ms. Jean, one person close to her said. [b]Ms. Jean's meeting with Mr. Harper at Rideau Hall, the source said, was extended to more than two hours in part to show she was “not just a clerk.”[/b]
Well, you've certainly convinced me, Your Wannabe Royal Excellent Highness! Why, more than two hours! Holy creepers! He really had to do some persuading, eh?
[quote=Unionist]
Rather than continue diverting the Outremont thread, I might as well get this off my chest.
Michaëlle Jean is one of the most disgraceful excuses for a governor-general that I've ever seen.
Rather than having the decency to confine herself, like royalty, to some ceremonial and humanitarian activities, she goes beyong the call of duty in a variety of ways.
She blesses the troops in Afghanistan and urges them on to greater sacrifices. Her latest act was to lead them in singing Give Peace a Chance - followed cynically by refusing to support the idea of a 17-day truce during the Vancouver Olympics, because, as she said, the troops must continue to "build peace" tirelessly.
Last year, of course, she thwarted the elected representatives in the House of Commons by allowing Harper to pull the plug early - four days before seeing his government defeated.
In her latest travesty, she has [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/good-chemi... met with the Dalai Lama[/color][/url] - at a time when federal officials were careful not to meet him for fear of offending China yet again. It is perfectly obvious that she did this on Harper's command, as if to say, "You understand that we still love you, but we have to pretend for a while."
Such shameless actions, IMO, render her unfit for the job of head of state. I demand that she be turfed.
Thanks for listening.
[/quote
Dear Unionist, you say that the G-G is "...unfit for the job of head of state." Isn't that the same slip of the tongue that got her a rebuke from Harper, and that you agreed with, incidentally?
Either Harper told her "do what I say, that's an order" - in which case our democratic political system requires that that should be publicly and transparently proclaimed.
It does. Normally, she no more speaks her own mind than the Queen does. She must act on her Ministers’ advice, except when they have lost the confidence of the House or are acting so unconstitutionally as to justify her asserting her reserve powers undemocratically, at which time she consults eminent constitutional authorities as to what to do.
Also, are you seriously going to tell me that she was "reading from Harper's script" when she granted him prorogation last year?
We don't know what constitutional advice she was given, which is a flaw in the system. It might have been that, technically, Harper had not yet lost the confidence of the House because only a vote cast in the House counts; letters don't. That's overly technical in my view. Or it might have been that a short prorogation, even in the face of likely defeat, is not unconstitutional, or at least not so unconstitutional as to justify her asserting her reserve powers; being unprecedented, that might be arguable.
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada's head of state.
"Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State," the Prime Minister's Office said on Thursday. The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada."
The extraordinary reminder from the country's head of government to its top viceregal representative follows an uproar over Jean's use of the phrase "head of state" when referring to herself during a speech in Paris on Monday.
Yep, I say it's time to get rid of the monarchy and the Governor General in Canada. Make the position an elected and representative President. No other change is necessary. The President has the same Constitutional powers as the GG, minus anything to do with the British Crown (of course). The position and powers of the Prime Minister remain the same. No other changes. Canada becomes like other countries that are republics and have both Prime Ministers and Presidents. In this case, Canada follows those countries where the Prime Minister is the stronger and the President is the weaker office holder.
^This.
It's time to democratize the office of the GG and dump this phony charade once and for all. As long as there's a provision to ban former hosts of CBC arts programs, I think it will work. What do you guys think?
She can take the Senate with her.
How come you did not get this excited when Jack Layton wore a navy uniform in August?
She looks incredibly pretentious in that photo.
How come you did not get this excited when Jack Layton wore a navy uniform in August?
I never saw that photo - can you link to it?
How come you did not get this excited when Jack Layton wore a navy uniform in August?
I [i]did[/i]. I love a man in uniform!
ETA: Was this the uniform you meant, Webgear? That's from a ship called the [i]HMS Enterprise[/i], I believe:
BoomBoom, I am looking for the link.
Unionist, I do not remember you saying anything about Jack wearing a uniform. Of course I can be wrong, it does happen.
She's entitled to wear the uniform as the designated commander in chief, and not the only GG to have done so for ceremonies calling for that sort of fashion statement. That the office itself and what it represents is a matter of debate in terms of its usefullness doesn't necessarily equate the act of wearing a ceremonial uniform as part of the existing duties as shilling, or particularly disgraceful on her part.
She's entitled to wear the uniform as the designated commander in chief, and not the only GG to have done so for ceremonies calling for that sort of fashion statement.
The last two GGs (at least) had the decency to forgo this militaristic gesture. Why has she brought it back?
That the office itself and what it represents is a matter of debate in terms of its usefullness doesn't necessarily equate the act of wearing a ceremonial uniform as part of the existing duties as shilling, or particularly disgraceful on her part.
If you read the whole thread, I think it's important to look at this performance in context. Were it an isolated act, I would just say she has an undeveloped flair for haberdashery.
Anyway, what did you think of Jack's uniform above?
Anyway, what did you think of Jack's uniform above?
Groovey, although the addition of a cape with that rendition would really set him off.
Jack looks comfortable wearing the suit from the Enterprise. The GG looks uncomfortable and pretentious in that outfit - compare her to Prince Charles, who looks like he's smirking in her general direction.
Unionist the last two GG wore the uniform.
BoomBoom
Here is the original photos
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/halifax/7/7-s_eng.asp
Oh well, in Layton's case, it's justifiable as self-defence. He's just warding off those "Taliban Jack" charges.
LMAO, thats funny Unionist.
This creep M. Jean can't shill fast enough for her Boss, Stephen Harper. Now this disgraceful performance:
Believe it or not, that's her on the left - wearing a uniform!
Here is her shameless explanation:
“I would like to begin by confiding something to you,” she said at the consecration and presentation of a new Queen’s Colour to the Canadian Navy. “I grew up under the yoke of a ruthless dictatorship, where the military uniform came to symbolize the brutal repression of the people, tyranny and massacres.
"Since becoming commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces, I have had the opportunity to work alongside you — the women and men of this country who don the uniform. I have visited your places of work. I have seen you in action…
"[b]You can see how far I have come, from the child who saw her parents, her family, her friends grappling with the horrors of oppression, to the woman who stands before you today.[/b] And I can say before you now with absolute certainty that it is an honour and a source of great pride for me to wear your uniform.”
I'm not quite certain whom she has degraded more with her "how far I have come" comment and her pretentious little military togs: the people of Haiti, or the people of Canada.
Thanks, Webgear! Unionist:
BoomBoom
I am sorry that I cant find the link for the original thread.
The last two GGs (at least) had the decency to forgo this militaristic gesture. Why has she brought it back?
I guess you missed the "General" part of the title.
ROTFLMAO. If Michaelle Jean responds, it should be: " You son of a silly person, I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries".
Michaelle Jean is wearing a uniform for the same reason that Canada has troops in A'stan - so that the Gringos will believe we are warlike supporters of their ancien regime syndrome. Ms. Jean is doing her bit to ensure little Canadian girls can go to school by participating in the charade that attempts to gull patroiotic Americans into not embargoing our sewer pipes and two by fours at the border.
wow, seriously, have to admit never ever thought of Layton as provoking a...and think that perhaps it has to do with the almost enounter i had with a naval officer years ago now... though one never knows....
but that last picture of him in navy blues did provoke a small response of....'awareness' in his masculinity..
hmmmmph....call me gobbsmacked....
LOL @remind!!!
I figure Jack will be the GG in a few years.
I figure Jack should campaign in blue shirts and a ball cap....
Remind, I agree, he does look more like the common Canadian when he is dressing down.
don't know what is with that, don't even like ball caps on men usually...but for some reason he looks goodish, in a blue shirt and cap.....
[sigh] The founding fathers of the (then) first free government in the western hemisphere (back when America was a republic) held it as self evident that the presence of a standing army was antithetical to democracy.
Btw, I bet Harpo is jealous as hell that Jean got to wear a uniform. Notice, unlike bonnie Prince Charles, Harpo is looking away from the Governor.
Jack does a good Paul Newman impression as well: 
noooooo.... not into cowboy Layton.....the type of hat wearing on the job makes all the difference it seems....
not too sure about the use of "shameless" above....
I think Jack has donned enough outfits to rival all the Village People put together.
Frmsldr
To my knowledge, USA has always had a standing army and navy.
Frmsldr
To my knowledge, USA has always had a standing army and navy.
A navy may be a threat to foreign nations, but isn't much of a threat to the host nation.
America's and (later) the U.S.A.'s navy was pretty "tin pot" until the 1930s.
The Army was pretty "rag tag" and very small (except, of course, for the U.S. Civil War) until WW 2 to the present - when the American Republic became the American Empire.
The first steps down that road were the Spanish American War and the First World War.
Frmsldr
To my knowledge, USA has always had a standing army and navy.
Actually, no, only since about 1794, when Washington raised one against the Whiskey Rebellion. The Continental Army had been dissolved in 1783 on the conclusion of the treaty of Paris. So the US Army as it is today was etablished to use against rebellious farmers who refused to pay a tax on rye and corn whiskey.
I stand corrected. I like to note the Army and Navy both increase greatly in the War of 1812 time frame.
I believe the increase of the military started in 1801 with the start of the First Barbary War (1801-1805)
The USMC has been around for 234 years although like the army, it was almost completely discharged between 1783 and 1798. Individual Marines still served on ships in small numbers.
