[22CreessGah]

Originally posted by Arrian
Wezil,

Are you kidding?

At this point I think there are lemurs I'd take over Bush. They'd just crawl around and look cute. He actually does stuff. President Charles

hmmm...

[Alexunda]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I actually don't know of any gay Canadians... We shipped a whole bunch up as anti war objectors back in the 60's and 70's. I'm sure they've been naturalized since then.

[arrendabomnem]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Canadians are soooo cute with their unmitigated obeisance to a tier 2 nation's sovereign.. She's our sovereign, and we're great, so that's makes her a great sovereign.

In other news, I know people who resigned from the Canadian Forces when they changed the oath to remove the Queen and asked everyone to take the new oath. So you could say there is some attachment in some quarters.

It's actually not hard to figure out. She's an important public figure who has never ****ed anything up for us. She's the furthest thing from political. I mean, she won't even visit if there is an election on and is likely to delay visits if one is likely to start while she is here.

There are people, take Wezil for example (but he hates just about everything) who think having a monarch is somehow uncool. I suppose they worry about what the Yanks may think. For many others it's no skin off our noses and the alternatives could be a lot worse.

[pseusawbappem]

Blair's resigning. I wonder if he decided to do it while she was out of the country. Wouldn't it be cool if some ultra-leftie stepped in and abolishd the monarchy while she was still on this side of the Atlantic?

[Fiipolera]

It's really funny hearing jibes from Yanks about democracy given your recent history.

[GohJHM9k]

Yes, and the dog's breakfast that you, the Russians, and some others make of the elections for the position are soooo much better than having the power of the executive reside in the legislature, in'it?

[Preegovesem]

Better than having a King or Queen as our head of state .

I'll take President Clinton over a Prime Minister Gingrich combined with some inbred monarch sucking on the public teat.

[N95FzmMw]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I was surprised an my strong reaction to seeing her wear that crown. I really wanted to grab her by the scruff of the neck and toss her out of the country. Wear a royal crown in my country?! We tossed your royal heinies outta here in 1781, and we're ready to do it again! LOL




(it's funny because you are serious)

[rujeltaoser]

Originally posted by notyoueither
In fact, the abuses of executive power that are more debated recently do tend to come for the great republics such as the US, Russia, France...

Just how much better is your system when it is so clearly inferior? Don't you have a hockey game to go to or something?

[JRixlcvF]

Originally posted by Sava


Don't you have a hockey game to go to or something? Nope. Down night. The NHL gave everyone 2 days off. ****ing wimpy hosers!

[JMLot]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Firstly, you do realize according to the constitution, the monarchs of Britain have far more power than they actually do exercise currently? And you in turn do realise they have that power only so long as Parliament and public opinion allow them to, yes?

The monarch is a check on the power of a Parliament gone berserk, as they could say no. However, if they did say no, they better damn well have very good reasons for doing so. Once in a lifetime sort of reasons.

How many politicians do you imagine would be so restrained. Here's a clue. Say 'none'.

And, more importantly, anyone interested in a democratic (or republic if you will) form of government should abhor that the head of state is head by a bloody monarch! Why? If the power they wield is 99.9% ceremonial, and the only time they would use the 0.1% to confront elected powers would be if said powers had gone seriously off the rails?

View it as a final check on insanity.

Someone gets to represent the entire country and blow massive amounts of tax revenue on their luxurious lifestyle simply because one of their ancestors was good at warring or marriage deals. Actually, the monarchy costs us far, far less than some elected political pimp would.

If we had to elect them they would get ideas about grandeur. The current arrangement is very condusive to lower costs for us. the Brits actually make money on it.

[khjhkfggt]

And you in turn do realise they have that power only so long as Parliament and public opinion allow them to, yes?

And you realize the President has such 'extra' executive power only so long as Congress, the Courts, and public opinion allow them to, yes?

Why? If the power they weild is 99.9% ceremonial, and the only time they would use the 0.1% to confront elected powers would be if said powers had gone seriously off the rails?

Because you've decided to keep your head of state as a hereditary position, where those who step into it have no further qualifications than being born to the right parents before the rest of their siblings.

If you really want a 'final check on insanity', why not commit to republicanism and elect your final check? Hey, the Queen can run too if she wants .

Actually, the monarchy costs us far, far less than some elected political pimp would.

If we had to elect them they would get ideas about grandeur. The current arrangement is very condusive to lower costs for us. the Brits actually make money on it.

Because if the monarchy was abolished, folks wouldn't visit Windsor castle? Silly arguments there... people don't visit royal lands because they may see the monarch, but because of their historical significance. Getting rid of the monarchy would allow them to save more money... while still getting all that historical tourism.


I do love how the monarchists get all these strange ideas that there are only two possible systems, constitutional monarchy or American style republicanism with a powerful President. Obviously, for instance, the Israeli President has great power and delusions of grandeur . I wonder if most could even name the President of Israel, actually. Though everyone up on the news knows the PM of Israel. Another example is Germany.

Hey if you want a strong Parliament system, that's up to you... but why exactly can't you elect your "final check"? Why exactly do you have to gift it to some family who only claim to fame is that they had a powerful ancestor a few centuries back?

[qQVXpYM6]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you in turn do realise they have that power only so long as Parliament and public opinion allow them to, yes?

And you realize the President has such 'extra' executive power only so long as Congress, the Courts, and public opinion allow them to, yes? Are you suggesting that POTUS exists at the pleasure of the Congress?

Do you know what Parliamentary Supremecy means?

We can vote their heads off. Can you?

Why? If the power they weild is 99.9% ceremonial, and the only time they would use the 0.1% to confront elected powers would be if said powers had gone seriously off the rails?

Because you've decided to keep your head of state as a hereditary position, where those who step into it have no further qualifications than being born to the right parents before the rest of their siblings. They have that, and a building full of advisors who tell them what would be right and wrong to do.

If they ever err to the side of the wrong thing to do, they are very easily replaced. See Parliamentary Supremecy.

If you really want a 'final check on insanity', why not commit to republicanism and elect your final check? Hey, the Queen can run too if she wants . Because you get all sorts of wingnuts running for it, like Bush, Putin, Le Pen, and sometimes the lunatics win. Then you're in a real pickle.

Actually, the monarchy costs us far, far less than some elected political pimp would.

If we had to elect them they would get ideas about grandeur. The current arrangement is very condusive to lower costs for us. the Brits actually make money on it.

Because if the monarchy was abolished, folks wouldn't visit Windsor castle? Silly arguments there... people don't visit royal lands because they may see the monarch, but because of their historical significance. Getting rid of the monarchy would allow them to save more money... while still getting all that historical tourism. Not quite right. See the Changing of the Guard. Also tell us how Versailles is outdrawing Buckingham.

A lot of people go, including Yanks, to see the trappings and pomp of a living monarchy. The buildings are just a bunch of stones. They go to see the monarch.

I do love how the monarchists get all these strange ideas that there are only two possible systems, constitutional monarchy or American style republicanism with a powerful President. Obviously, for instance, the Israeli President has great power and delusions of grandeur . I wonder if most could even name the President of Israel, actually. Though everyone up on the news knows the PM of Israel. Another example is Germany. And we should replace centuries of law and tradition that has led to a powerless head of state for another system with a powerless head of state because?

Incidently, the Queen has not been sued over sexual harassment last I heard.

Hey if you want a strong Parliament system, that's up to you... but why exactly can't you elect your "final check"? Why exactly do you have to gift it to some family who only claim to fame is that they had a powerful ancestor a few centuries back? Because politicians often prove themselves to be completely unfit to occupy a position such as the monarch currently holds. They want too much. They think they earned it because they collected a few ballots.

I know it offends your Jacobin nature, but it isn't just the blood that qualifies a monarch for the job. It is also a lifetime of training. No one else qualifies, because no one else receives the training.

And if we get a dog that breaks training, we'll deal with it. It would be rough, but no rougher than your Watergate, and now Iraq, and then etc, etc, etc, piled on the bonfire of your presidential vanities.

Tell us what Liz has done to bring disrepute to political office in the 60+ years she has been on the throne, other than sit back and let her PMs rule.

[Amirmsheesk]

I very much doubt it.

[twinaircant]

Impeachment is not the same as a vote of no confidenc.e

[Ambrakam]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Impeachment is not the same as a vote of no confidenc.e No. It's not.

And an impeachment is not a death warrant.

[DoctorDeryOne]

Just need someone else to say OK.

Big qualifier.