Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Yes, he is.

   

Say what? First, stick that "no loyalty in your heart" accusation in your ass. Second, Canada is founded on individual liberty. It ain't a private club. Forcing people to utter oaths they don't believe in violates a huge chunk of our constitution. It's basically forcing people to lie on their very first day as a new Canadian. How's that a good thing? I have no problem with requiring new Canadians to take an oath to abide by our nation's laws and respect the rights protected in our Charter. Beyond that, the rest of the citizenship oath has no connect to the duties of Canadian citizens in the 21st century nor its multicultural character, also duly enshrined in our constitution.


Swearing this oath means swearing to at least two archaic and offensive concepts: divine right and hereditary rule. It's got nothing to do with loyalty to refuse to live in the 16th century. As an American, you should appreciate that. It's the same thing you had a war of independence over.


Yeah, so?


My position is the one here that appreciates different world views. It's yours that discriminates against views that differ from their own.

   

Really? Then what's that whole 'border' thing about if it ain't a private club? And since Canada is founded on individual liberty then you won't mind if I exercise my individual liberty of carrying a weapon in Canada because, after all, it ain't a private club so it won't mind gun owners coming to visit, eh?



I agree. We don't force anyone to take any oath down here. To the contrary many of our oaths include the person asserting that they take the oath voluntarily and without any mental reservation. Of course, if you don't care to take the oath of citizenship you shouldn't mind if we ask you to go home or maybe go to Canada where people like yourself don't have any standards for who moves into your country.



How's it 'forced' on anyone?




So you're okay with forcing people to take an oath?



You'd have been a real shit in the military. If you'd expressed that sentiment even in the CF you'd have been boot fucked right into the middle of next year and your permanent rank would be Chuggernuts.

You mean what you say and then do what you say.

And you also accept the consequences of what happens if you'd lied.

The Muslims, God bless them, understand this very well. If you say the Shahada and then decide that Islam isn't for you then a fair number of them (including people in the US and Canada) will kill you dead for leaving their religion after swearing loyalty to it.



I do appreciate it. That's why I am not a Canadian citizen. Where you object to that notion then perhaps you need to be a US citizen where we don't swear loyalty to any one person.

[/quote]

I'm honest about it. And you're damned right that I discriminate against people who don't share my views and values: I don't want them as fellow citizens if they can't abide the Constitution.

That means anyone who wants to impose Shariah law on the US can fuck right the hell off.

   

Is this some kind of really fucked up hardcore libertarian belief? I didn't realize a philosophy of minimal-state and minimal-law/regulation translated into not being able to choose, or even police at all, what kind of people we're allowed to let into our country. No offense to you personally, dawg, but this is precisely the state of nature chaos that philosophers and statesmen that go even futher back than Thomas Hobbes were incessantly warning about and working against. It's insanity, and if implemented anywhere would be a thousand times more dangerous than any excess of law and police that's ever existed anywhere. Any state that did this would have a lifespan of a few weeks, top, if it ever put anything like that into practice.

   

Since you've decided to stretch this debate to the ridiculous, I'll just declare myself winner right now, but let's see what other completely unrelated directions you want to take this...


Who says I don't have any standards for who moves in? I never said that. I admit that I think the entire concept of nationhood is pretty silly. But that's the world we live in. And, as such, of course I have standards for whom I'd let it. I wouldn't let you in.


It's forced on them because they're required to say it, whether they believe it or not, in order to get citizenship. Even the citizenship lawyer in this case told this new Canadian that he could renounce the oath 5 seconds after saying it. So what's the point? It's no longer an oath at all if it can be quickly renounced.


If the oath is a promise to obey the laws, sure. I still think it's uneccessary, since it's actions, not words, that define loyalty and good citizenship, but ccga3359's point about how he regarded his "citizenship day" as such a wonderful event has me thinking that there's value in the ceremony. So in support of that, I'd be okay with forcing people to take an oath as I've described.


Apples and oranges. This isn't an oath about the military. It's about being a Canadian citizen. If I'd wanted to be in the military, I'd have taken whatever oath was required and, having taken such an oath, would hold myself to it.


I'm a natural born Canadian so I'm not required to take any oaths whatsoever, so it's irrelevant.


I don't want fellow citizens who won't abide by our constitution either. And that's what our oath of citizenship should promise, not allegiance to the Queen and her inbred clan.


Sharia law can't be imposed. It's voluntary, by definition, and completely irrelevant to whether a Canadian citizenship oath should include swearing allegiance to Lizzy and her progeny.


Nah, I'm just anticipating the global village as portrayed in Star Trek. I think the people of this planet will likely move past the silly notion of the nation state one day. Those future Earthlings will laugh at a lot of the crazy things we kill each other in the name of.

   

That's the flaw right there because the Federation was predicated on the fact, not the assumption, that most people everywhere were no longer going to act like assholes all the time. And that the education system was creating mostly intelligent and hopeful graduates of good conscience who cared about making the world a better place. Contrast this to today were even if most people aren't evil far too many of them are incredibly stupid, and stupidity can be used for fell deeds as much as active evil generally is. The education system today produces mostly morons and encourages too many of it's few bright lights to become hedge-fund managers and other such servants of darkness. At this stage in the disaster, assuming that we haven't destroyed the planet and all starved to death by then, it's probably a 99% certainty that the human race a thousand years from now will be the same gaggle of idiots and monsters that it is today.

I dig what you're trying to say, and the emotional me still desperately wants it to come to pass, but none of it's ever going to happen. Star Trek turned out to be as much of a dangerous fantasy that deluded too many people (like me) into believing that something better was inevitably going to come along. It isn't, and never will, and that's why it's as delusional an idea now as theoretical libertarianism. Sorry dude, but that dog simply ain't gonna hunt.

   

Well once we get the replicator technology hammered out, then there's no scarcity. People can just punch a few keys and a Ferrari or turkey sandwich pops right out of thin air. Once that happens, there's no need for greed, hedge-funds...or economists!

   

Here here!

-J.

   

This place will be so much better once we get rid of the damn monarchy. I could care less about the whole lot of them, let them work and pay taxes and deal with real problems like the rest of us mortals.

   

Don't get me wrong, I kinda like the old lady and my son does know her on a first name basis, but I agree with BF.

   

So that's one reason of yours to get rid of the Monarchy shot to shite and for the record they do work, probably alot more than our politicians.



http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/549 ... oyal-birth


You might not consider being at the beck and call of every charity, group, rude politician, University and organization a job but, allow me to assure you that if it wasn't, people like Al Gore and Bill Clinton wouldn't be making all that money.


As for getting rid of the whole lot of them well, let's have a referendum and see how it all shakes out because you'd be surprised how many people in Canada actually like having a Royal Family.

   

Where, where?

   

Nah, let's not. More trouble than it's worth to get rid of Liz. Plus it's kinda nice to have some connection to Old Blighty, distinquish us from the US. Who knows, maybe some political crisis where we have to get royal assent and don't would change our minds, but if that were to happen, I think Canada would just say "fuck you, your majesty" and go on about its business. I suppose if we ever found ourselves at war with Britain, that would be a bit of a sticky wicket.

   

Ya Ya, I get the legal argument. I'm sure she plays hockey in the winter and lacrosse in the summer. But in reality, her and her family are as Canadian as Obama

   

You are falling into the basic trap where you don't see the difference between 'Canada' and 'Canadian'. HRH Elizabeth II is not 'Canadian'. The Queen of Canada is 'Canada'. See the difference?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next