Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

You're joking right?

   

And said monarchy, as in the Queen, also our constitutionally-mandated head of state AND it, as an institution has also existed far beyond colonial status. Are you in favour of the RCMP losing its "royal" moniker too? How about removal of Union Jacks over WWI cemetaries because isn't that a "relic" of colonial ties?

For someone that allegedly supports conservatism, you seemed to missed day one of basic ideology.



And? Once again, I understand that it was traditional to have the royal moniker for the military, but some traditions should adapt and change to reflect the growing reality of Canada being more than a British subject, with its inhabitants descending from more places other than the British Isles. If this is a move to please veterans, then alright, but moves like this aren't healthy for Canada, in my humble opinion.[/quote]

Evidently you're missing the point on "tradition" (which is weird, because apparently you're no conservative). Tradition is what binds us, creates a unique culture and defines our collective past with contemporary enshrinement. Being a former British colony helped form our legal and political institutions and provided us with an alternative to American republicanism. Without participation in the Great War, Canada would've lost the opportunity to establish its own definitive international place and subsequent wars, especially WWII, further cemented our military reputation - all under the moniker of "royal". If the government and the military support "reverting" back to historical names, what's the harm? Evidently many of its detractors aren't interested in Canadian history, tradition or culture, so their cries of "unhealthy" will continue to fall of deaf ears.

And i guess, in addition to the RCMP, we need to get to work on removing further ties to the old colonial ways in the, The Royal Mint, The Royal Canadian Legion, Royal Military College, Royal Roads, The Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, etc. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to kick their history to the curb.

   

You're answering, right?

   

Wrong... he's banned!

   

And I've made it quite clear, that Canada should gradually move towards an elected head of state over having a monarchy, and although we can recognize the importance of the monarchy in Canada's past, continuing on with an illegitimate (in the political science sense) figurehead as Canada's head of state.

As per the RCMP notion, not really, but if it needed to be changed to remove the existence of the monarchy, then I can accept it. Same goes for existing names of Canadian military regiments, since many have histories that predate Canada.

Now the third one is a bit of a different situation. As I'm sure you know, Canada in World War I was still officially apart of the British Empire, and a great many of British immigrants in Canada volunteered to serve Mother Britain. However, keeping the Red Ensign instead of having the modern flag would be a bit different.



I didn't realize that all conservatives must fit some specific guidelines, and that they cannot have some differences in opinion. Silly me.



Except what happens when tradition goes against the ideals of how you see Canada? What if you view a truly independent Canada, with Canadians choosing its head of state over having an unelected figurehead whose membership is based purely upon being born to a select family on another continent?

I disagree with said tradition, much like some people might disagree with the tradition of some provinces to have publicly funded religious schooling, especially when it only affects the Christian faith over other religions.



Does the military reputation change for the better just because the moniker of "royal" was attached to the name of the forces? Does that make current Canadian military forces in Afghanistan somehow have less of a reputation because of it?

Outside the fact that I see it as a shift back towards our colonial past, there isn't a harm in keeping the old name or reverting back to the historical one.



Where's this assumption coming from?

   

Nice.

   

No demonstrably justifiable reason for constitional ammendment - and, you're wrong, in a "political science sense", she's a politically legitimate figurehead.



Oh...it's a case by case basis, it it - how delighfully ambigous and inherently hyocritical. And now "royal" is okay if you predate Canada? What year are you working off of - 1867? Be careful here, you've got a glaring problem with your "reasoning"



Not difficult at all - according to your stated view, it's a remant of coloinalism (even WWI and some regiments didn't predate Canada) so it's subject to contemporary revising. Oh...and the current flag has remants of "colonialism" too - i'll let you figure out which ones, but as it stands for you, it should be scrapped too.



Silly you indeed - an ideology shared similar philiosophical views, tendencies and political visons or it wouldn't be an ideology! Silly you, you've missed the boat on basic conservatism.



What a load of unmitigated dreck - how does this go against Canadian ideals?!?!? Are we not truly independent - you quote me the even or instance in the past 50 years that Canada's soveriegnty has been challenged by our head of state.



And? If this is merely opinion than fine, enjoy it, but don't pass it off like it's an affront to Canadian culture because you've inncorrectly applied your anti-monarchist feelings to Canadian heritage. Oh...and religious schooling isn't a tradition, if it's the law, like Ontario




Does changing it back make it worse? Which act has a more positive effect - appealing to patriotic Canadians who long to preserve their military heritiage and celebrate its past succeses or normally apolitical Canadians who wouldn't know Juno beach if it smacked them in their insular beaks?



Complete hyporebole - this is a "shift back towards our colonial past"?!? Get some perspective - The name was first changed in 1968!!! 1968 was our colonial past? Please...proof positive that many challenging this have no idea about our past. How ironic.



See above. It's a fact.

   

Already our fine media in Quebec (TVA) are offering people in the province their biased opinion, like their is anything new about that.

The population is probably indifferent about the entire thing, but TVA obviously wants to make sure in creating a controversy about it. TVA c'est vrai, oui certainement une vraie farce journalistique.

   

I'm curious too.

   

if you check out the CBC comments on this story some idiots think that it's going to cost millions of dollars to buy new uniforms. the dumb shits don't realize that the different commands went to their own uniforms in '86. I started in green and ended up with blues and whites....the whites used to confuse the Americans. Many thought we were officers or chiefs, rather than a bunch of enlisted.

I remember being at the Portland Rose festival in '86, just a month or two before we received our new uniforms. A few of us were wandering along the warterfront, in our green dress. Some American sailors yelled out to us,"join the navy!", to which one of ours yelled back,"we are navy!" The yank answered back,'Try the real navy." The argument ended when our big mouth responded, pointing to his beret "hey buddy, who's wearing the green berets?'.

   

Long live Canada.

Long live the Queen.

To the anti monarchists...up yours.

Let the Canadian forces traditions begin once more.

   

   

Sorry

   

Some of the PC nazis would likely have the navy ban the crossing of the line cermony.

   

General rule of thumb is if the NDP and the Bloc despise it, then it must be a good move.

Bringing back the RCAF, RCN, and the Canadian Army was a damn good move.

The only Liberal (current or former) I've heard comment on this issue is Paul Hellyer who, big surprise, thinks bringing back the traditional service titles is a bad idea.

He must cringe at seeing his legacy come undone.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next