AMERICA SUCKS (Not true RH)
nonrev @ Sat Jun 21, 2003 4:32 pm
JJ_from_filibuster JJ_from_filibuster:
Thus, while we in Canada have Bill Graham, a man who has never served in the army and has barely any experience as a diplomat or ambassador, as our foreign minister, in the United States they have Colin Powell, a decorated military veteran who has served in foreign affairs for practically his whole adult life. Colin Powell is not a member of Congress, nor is he even a die-hard Republican. He was chosen because he was the best man for the job.
While I have great respect for Colin Powell, why does being military make him a great diplomat? What, did Patton win the Nobel Peace Prize, and nobody told me?
And I wouldnt hold up the present White House administration and friends as an alternative to Bill Graham: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and so on?
Cheney, fer Krysakes??? Who stated that he never served during the Vietnam era because “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service”.... "had other priorities"?
And who can forget the disappearing act of George (aWol) Bush???
Surely you JEST, man!
PFFFFT!!!
polemarch1 @ Sat Jun 21, 2003 4:45 pm
$1:
however, if it is by region, then my vote (in BC) would be worth more than Bob in Ontario due to the pop. difference. Each person deserves the same amount of say in canada. Everyone pays taxes, and they are all part of canada. So why should one person's vote be worth more than the next guy's?
The Senate could be used to represent each region but any law or act passed in the House of Commons could overide any protest by the Senate. The Senate would exist to ensure that every region's intrests where taken into account and not just the intrests of Ontario and Quebec.
Guest @ Sat Jun 21, 2003 5:51 pm
matrix matrix:
First of all, IRONMIKE, I too disagree with the NAFTA agreement the way it is, however with some adjustments that make hte agreement more fair for all parties, it will work (Mexico, US, Canada)... and also, they have to find someway to make it a more level playing field for corporations of all three countries. That way, the large market if the United States wont give them an advantage over us, and doesnt allow them to bully smaller market nations.
So, why did your government sign it. Your acting like its the US's fault that you folks ratified it.
So instead of rallying to joining the US, why not change what we already have. Unless NAFTA is relooked at to create a more level playing field for the three states involved, I see joining the EU as a better bet. The EU may want our resources, but each nation in the EU does not have even close to teh market advantage the US has over us. Unless they band together against us, they wont be able to put as much political pressure the US puts on us. However, it is easier for europe since they have a gateway to the US market and the US has a gateway to the European market through us.
So, why did your government sign it. Your acting like its the US's fault that you folks ratified it.
So instead of rallying to joining the US, why not change what we already have. Unless NAFTA is relooked at to create a more level playing field for the three states involved, I see joining the EU as a better bet. The EU may want our resources, but each nation in the EU does not have even close to teh market advantage the US has over us. Unless they band together against us, they wont be able to put as much political pressure the US puts on us. However, it is easier for europe since they have a gateway to the US market and the US has a gateway to the European market through us.
After spending 7 years in Germany, I know what the Germans and French have done to the small countries trying to join the EU. Ask some Romanians or Hungarians how they liked having to pay the same price for a litre of gas as Germans or Frenchman while making 1/7th as much in wages annually just for the luxury of being considered for "possible" membership. Or having to meet and pay for strict requirements for improvement of their transportation infrastructure that they could not afford to pay for but at the same time could not afford not to pay for- just for consideration for membership . This is just an example of how "fair" and "even" the playing field is there in the "Great" EU. Go for it. 2 months after Canada joins the EU i'll have the pleasure of reading your posts about how much the US AND the EU sucks on CANADAKA.
Rev_Blair @ Sat Jun 21, 2003 7:39 pm
If we had an elected Senate and gave it any real power, it wouldn't take long at all before we had deadlocks in government where the two houses couldn't agree and important bill began dying on the floor with ever-increasing frequency. Shortly after that the back-room deals would start.
I guess I don't understand the problem with having a queen as head of state. She doesn't actually do anything, is a fine reminder of our heritage, and gives us a whole family of people to open fancy new projects. it isn't like she's calling up Jean and telling him what the policies should be or doing tequila shots with Ministers in an attempt to sway them. Besides the royals are endlessly entertaining...I just saw that one of the princes had a birthday and flew in a band from Botswana to play there. I giggled at the ludicrousity of it for 10 minutes. Are you willing to toss that kind of entertainment out just so we feel more American?
Just a little note to IronMike to finish things off...I'm glad you don't like NAFTA either. It really is a bad deal to all involved because of the way it is written. It is, more than anything our two countries share, the legacy of the Reagan and Mulroney years. Because those two twisted bastards signed an agreement that really benefits only corporations...in some cases giving them more power than governments...the rest of us are still suffering.
I hope we can count on you to keep speaking out against bad trade deals, Mike. Corporations shouldn't run the world...I never voted for them and neither did you.
matrix @ Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:28 pm
Well, I guess if the house of commons were to represent provinces per capita and the senete were to represent with equality among provinces, then it may work out.
However, I still stick by a democratically elected governor general, is the American way the only way? Why must we follow there way? Not to say taht hte senete is bad, I'm just saying there are probably different and quit possibily better ways. BEsides, if we give the governor general more power, then she can pretty much act as the American style senate. (By the way, the Governor General came to my University campus for our convocation today, I stood like 2 meters from her with a crowd of onnly 9 people so I had a perfect picture opportunity with her... she was entering her governor general vehical convoy)
As for the American guest, well, why does Canada have to join the US? We can adopt some of the advantages of your system, into ours and ignore the disadvantages of the AMerican system. Why do we need to join you guys?
I think its an advantage being Canadian than American because Americans are hated by most of the world while Canada tends to be liked by many nations. What if the United States became our 11th province? Or we have 63 provinces of Canada? How would Americans feel to becoming Canadians?
IF AMericans dont like the idea of becoming Canadian, then why would Canadians like the idea of becoming American? Its a matter of principal, and sovereinty. I want to abolish the monorchy because it takes away from our Sovereinty, by joining hte US we are completely removing our sovereinty as Canadians. I am a proud Canadian and there is no way anyone can get me to ever become a proud American even if Americans are great which they currently are not, especially after killing so many civilians in Iraq.
Despite my opposition to the queen as our head of state, I will give her the respect she deserves while she still is our head of state. If I was still in the service, I will not hesitate to salute her, and any room with her photo I will salute as well as Any Parade square she is in, I will salute. However, I dont want to queen as our head of state. Keep in mind, the Queen also represents England. England has a history of being brutal and cold hearted to any foreign land they encounter. Canada has a reputation of being peace keepers and liberators. So why should we have a monarchy that represents so much terror?
trackratte @ Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:45 pm
The queen also represent australia and new zealand. Are they brutal and all that negative stuff that you said?
lol
o, and i kind of apologise, im a die hard pro-canadian, pro-monarchy.
I'm a subject of her majesty, so naturally...well yeah. Britian was not always brutal, they werent exactly brutal to Canada, or really to the french if you think about it. The Acadians...that was brutal. The British weren't all that bad, they had their moments and the british didnt have an empire just from being nice. I consider Canada to be quite a nice country, and for the US to be quite a brutal one. Look where the US is, and where Canada is. Its unfortunate that the nice guy get brutalised.
Also, the queen represents us, so if you take it that way, Canada reflects on britian, australia, new zealand, ect, ect. just a thought
matrix @ Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:08 am
Okay, I am pro Canada. I totally disagree with us joining in on the US or adopting there whole system.
However, I say we adopt what is good frm the US system, and keep what we already have that is an advantage from the British system. I do not see the Queen of England being our head of state as a positive. I dont necessarily see it as totally negative either, but if I had to pick a better alternative, it would be to get ride of a foreign monarchy. She is foreign since Canada became sovereign. Whats wrong with a Governor General as the head of state as opposed to the Queen? I personally think the Governor General worked a lot harder for her position coming to Canada as an immigrant from a bombarded Hong Kong (also a former BRitish Coloney) worked her way to be respected and then getting appointed to the position (Although it would be nicer if she was elected to the position)... The Queen did pretty much nothing. All she did was come into this world as an infant to another Monarchy. It really takes away from democracy when a Canadian knows as soon as he comes into the world as a Canadian that he\she can never ever be the head of state in this nation.
The US prides it self of theoretically being one of the only nations where someone as lowly as a street bum or high as a CEO can be the Head of State (President)...although it is theoretical, but in Canada, this theory can never ever be.
JJ @ Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:37 am
I agree that we should have an elected head of state, like Matrix says, but I don't think we should use the name "Governor General" after the position becomes elected.
The term "Governor General" represents Canada as a colony; a nation that had to be "governed" by a foreign person sent from England to represent a foreign monarch. And it would be confusing, because it would make people think we were still a Commonwealth realm, as they are the only countries that have Governor Generals.
I think Canada is mature enough to have an elected President as its head of state, even if he or she is just a symbolic figure, and not involved in politics.
Rev_Blair @ Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:52 pm
I think most Canadians are mature enough to understand that the PM is our real head of state and Governor General and the Queen are just figure- heads. The only question that leaves is if we want to keep spending the money on these figure-heads. I vote yes, although I'd love to see the costs reduced. They are a very important part of our heritage though, something that shouldn't be tossed out easily.
matrix @ Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:24 pm
Getting rid of the "Governor General" name would make sense and instead have a President. However, with an elected President to take on the role of our current Queen, the position should be given more power. The point of an elected president that is not affiliated with a political party is to have a neutral stance. If his\her position position is used so infrequently or even never as is the case with our Governor General, then there is no point.
Like I said, I dont mind the fact that we have an appointed Senate instead of elected, however, if we want to keep the senators as appointed positions, the Governor General or President must have more say in and act more like our Commnder of Chief of the armed forces.
If we want to keep a so called Goveror General, as the representative to the queen, the position should be nothing but a mere diplomate or ambassador to Canada from Buckingham with no say what so ever theoretically nor pratically and the new President position will take over. That way we can maintain our Canadian heritage without undermining our sovereinty.
trackratte @ Sun Jun 22, 2003 5:46 pm
$1:
If we want to keep a so called Goveror General, as the representative to the queen, the position should be nothing but a mere diplomate or ambassador to Canada from Buckingham with no say what so ever
thats pretty much what we have now. Our PM is the equivilent of the US President. The queen is a symbol, nothing more, the last time monarchal (is that a word?) was used is in 1911.
matrix @ Sun Jun 22, 2003 8:07 pm
thats true, but symbolism means a lot in terms of politics, so why not just take away the symbol if we have no use for it?
Well, its better to have more seperation of power. If we have a presidential position, the PM will always be the main position signing treaties and stuff and making final decisions as well as taking on the position of Commander and Chief. The Prime Minister can handle pretty much everything else. Obviously the President wont sign every single paper handed to him like hte Queen does.
By having an elected President, we have no need for a full senate since we have both the Prime Minister and Presidential position. Much like Germany.
ABSOLUT_SS @ Sat Jun 28, 2003 10:21 am
Ya know, I had some really good thoughts here for this thread, but "matrix" & his simplistic views ruined it. "Matrix" is so much smarter than I am....one more thing, "matrix"; I will take you're "assuming I am an American" insults as a compliment. I, on the other hand, assume you are an asshole...