Is't the time to say good bye to the Queen of England
fixer1 fixer1:
Mustang
Here is a link you should read. The Crown lands and even the Crown corporations are indeed owned by the crown. It is not owned by any one queen of king but rather to the whole royal family etc. and changes with each monarch that comes and goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_i ... _provinces
Jesus, Joseph, Mary and Jacob living in a cottage surrounded by voodoo dust! You have absolutely NO idea about the mush you post, do you? The Queen doesn't actually OWN the land, the corporation as this is a sovereign nation (I noticed you conveniently wussed out of addressing your litany of mistakes regarding sovereignty and now your ignorance is coming back to bite you in your uninformed ass) that makes those decisions FREE of foreign ties.
In fact, I'll see your banal wiki (I don't need to read up on the Monarchy as I clearly get it - don't project your lack of education on me) and toss you back the following,
"
Crown Corporation, wholly owned federal or provincial organization, structured like private or independent enterprises. Established to carry out regulatory, advisory, administrative, financial or other services or to provide goods and services, crown corporations generally enjoy greater freedom from direct political control than government departments. Although the 1951 federal Financial Administration Act (FAA) declared that crown corporations are "ultimately accountable, through a minister, to Parliament, for the conduct of (their) affairs," they are not subject to budgetary systems or direct control of a minister in the same way as government departments" (Historica's The Canadian Encyclopedia)
In fact, my poorly informed chum, your own wiki crap even claims, "Crown corporations, in theory, are owned by the Canadian Sovereign. However, this is based on the legal technicality that the Crown, as an institution, owns all the property of government.
These corporations do not belong to the Queen personally, but to the governments of the respective jurisdictions over which she reigns
It's part of the political nomenclature to use "Crown" in the title, but it doesn't render it actually the Queen's tangible property! Damn, this is basic civics and you're still failing. I tried to convery the concept of convention to in the last post, but in your infinited ignorance and intellectual cowardice, you glossed over it an attempt to post anything in the hopes that it's something.
You're wrong. Get over it and move on. Oh...and you're still out to lunch on the concept of sovereignty, but you bitched out of that little embarrassment, didn't ya'?
fixer1 fixer1:
The Federal government may run the crown corporations, but again I ask you to read the link I posted. It is surprising just what people do not know. As for me being a child... I wish I was I am a retired biochemical engineer. I am 56 years old and yes, to some that means old and cranky. But if people want to take on the issue of the monarchy in Canada, then they should first understand that there are many things that just arev not given away when we became independent. The reason things are called Crown Corporations are because they are derived from the investments made by the Crown. Such as ourt post office and railways and many maritime structures. These could only be done because the crown bought the land ort rights to things for these theings to happen. Ownership is not in question, as far as most corporations go. Crown land is exactly that land owned by the crown and in this case it means the British Monarchy of Queen Elisabeth.
Nice try at the appeal to a false authority, but that doesn't save you from being a 56 year old retired biochemical engineer that knows Jack squat about Canadian political science. I notice you're still cowering from your bogus junk regarding soveignty. So now you're a 56 year old retired biochemical egineer that pulls Canadian political sceince from his fat ass and is an intellectual coward. Congratulations. YOu're still wrong.
$1:
Are you arguing that the encyclopedias are all wrong and you are right? There are many reasons where we still form crown corporations and such, bit that is done in a more business type reason and for also to bend some rules.
We're a sovereign nation. See my encyclopedia entries as they DIRECTLY address the salient issue and the illustrate the fact that you're flat ass wrong.
methinks that said 'biochemical engineer' was exposed to one too many caustic chemicals if he thinks that Crown Corporations are owned by the royal family.
Wullu @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Well I give ya credit for actually answering these fools M1. It's not like they actually made any arguement that was worthy of a response.
Every now and then, when the troothers are busy elsewhere, the anti-monarchy thing seems to pop up here.
$1:
"Do away with the Monarchy! Even though I don't have any real reason why, have anything to replace it with or any idea as to how to go about it..."
Seems to sum up their whole argument.
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
methinks that said 'biochemical engineer' was exposed to one too many caustic chemicals if he thinks that Crown Corporations are owned by the royal family.
Well it's one thing to be wrong, but it's another thing entirely when you're shown to be wrong, but you cling to your original misstep anyway. That's willful stupidity.
Wullu Wullu:
Well I give ya credit for actually answering these fools M1. It's not like they actually made any arguement that was worthy of a response.
Every now and then, when the troothers are busy elsewhere, the anti-monarchy thing seems to pop up here.
$1:
"Do away with the Monarchy! Even though I don't have any real reason why, have anything to replace it with or any idea as to how to go about it..."
Seems to sum up their whole argument.
Some of these spazes need confronting. They wear their ignorance like a badge of honour, so they're fair game, and let's be honest, this guy actually thought "Crown" corporations were actually Lizzy's little businesses. That's a new classic around here.
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Wullu Wullu:
Well I give ya credit for actually answering these fools M1. It's not like they actually made any arguement that was worthy of a response.
Every now and then, when the troothers are busy elsewhere, the anti-monarchy thing seems to pop up here.
$1:
"Do away with the Monarchy! Even though I don't have any real reason why, have anything to replace it with or any idea as to how to go about it..."
Seems to sum up their whole argument.
Some of these spazes need confronting. They wear their ignorance like a badge of honour, so they're fair game, and let's be honest, this guy actually thought "Crown" corporations were actually Lizzy's little businesses. That's a new classic around here.
If the Queen ran VIA, she'd have cut it down to little a long time ago. Only the most profitable routes would be running. She's big on cutting down costs, especially if she has to pay personally for those costs. She runs around the palaces turning of lights and sends out notes on the cheapest paper she can find.
And the Royal train has been scrapped too.
kenmore @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:53 pm
Never have a Nixon? are you forgetting Mulroney?
Where's fixer, the 56 year old goof-off that thinks Betty owns the CBC! Priceless. I've noticed he hasn't come back (despite his boastful garbage earlier) to address his litany of intellectual farts. Typical
Sherminator333 Sherminator333:
And the Royal train has been scrapped too.
Are you sure? It's still listed as active on the Royal website.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5024.asp
WBenson WBenson:
Must have been a rumour. or was it a ship that they used that got canned?
Sherminator333 Sherminator333:
WBenson WBenson:
Must have been a rumour. or was it a ship that they used that got canned?
It was the ship. Either Blair or Major decided it was too expensive to replace or refurbish.