Jump to content
Political Forums
Sign in to follow this  
PoliticalCitizen

Why do we have a Governor General?

Recommended Posts

g_bambino    1
Oh sure, but based on thse posts, even the ceremonial remnant is enough to piss off a lot of Canadians, particularly in Quebec. She can royally affirm that!

I think "piss off" and "a lot" are slight exaggerations. There aren't any pitchfork and torch laden mobs off to storm Rideau Hall, or anything. To La Citadelle? Well, Quebec is, as always, another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hcheh    0
No, the flash and appeal is government by the governed, not blood lines. Surely you are not saying the Queen is above the nature of "mankind"?

No, did you not read my post? I did say that the flash and appeal lies within the republic concept. I am not saying that the Queen is above the nature of mankind.. I am only saying that the powers are evenly divided. The American president is essentially the monarch and the prime minister combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Dancer    0
Classic slavery.

Involuntary Servitude.

Not alleged.

Slavery was outlawed in Mauritania is 1979

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think "piss off" and "a lot" are slight exaggerations. There aren't any pitchfork and torch laden mobs off to storm Rideau Hall, or anything. To La Citadelle? Well, Quebec is, as always, another story.

Well....there you have it ladies and gents.....the ultimate support for a monarch, despite its impact on "another story", presumed to mean the "other Canada"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, did you not read my post? I did say that the flash and appeal lies within the republic concept. I am not saying that the Queen is above the nature of mankind.. I am only saying that the powers are evenly divided. The American president is essentially the monarch and the prime minister combined.

No, the comparison is flawed....in several ways, but most importantly in the form of how the office holders are chosen. This is by design, but the monarch cannot be impeached or turfed by his/her minions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Dancer    0
No, the comparison is flawed....in several ways, but most importantly in the form of how the office holders are chosen. This is by design, but the monarch cannot be impeached or turfed by his/her minions.

The president has far more power than the Canadian Monarch, never the less in republics, whether it is the American or Roman, the head is a surogate King and designed so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
g_bambino    1
Well....there you have it ladies and gents.....the ultimate support for a monarch, despite its impact on "another story", presumed to mean the "other Canada"?

You presume poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The president has far more power than the Canadian Monarch, never the less in republics, whether it is the American or Roman, the head is a surogate King and designed so.

But not the Canadian Prime Minister, to which the American president was also compared. The Canadian PM has more unchecked power than the president....but also has a much smaller pop gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Dancer    0
But not the Canadian Prime Minister, to which the American president was also compared.

But wrongly

The Canadian PM has more unchecked power than the president....but also has a much smaller pop gun.

Quite....On the otherhand, the PM must defend himself every day the house is in session and must respond personally and in public....then run the press scrum. Presidents never have to and when they do have the option of using the rotors of the Sea King to not hear a question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But wrongly

I'm not the umpire.

Quite....On the otherhand, the PM must defend himself every day the house is in session and must respond personally and in public....then run the press scrum. Presidents never have to and when they do have the option of using the rotors of the Sea King to not hear a question...

The PM needn't defend anything if he/she wishes, nor the ministers. It's called "question period"...not answer period. Bringing up Sea Kings invites other mischief....but I will restrain myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
g_bambino    1
The PM needn't defend anything if he/she wishes, nor the ministers. It's called "question period"...not answer period.

The budget has to come up at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Dancer    0
I'm not the umpire.

The PM needn't defend anything if he/she wishes, nor the ministers. It's called "question period"...not answer period. Bringing up Sea Kings invites other mischief....but I will restrain myself.

if they want to be re-elected they have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Dancer    0
But not elected...see the difference?

Umm....there is a difference....Bush had very few press conferences and never had to account for his action to other elected officials, yet he was still elected because those things are not required of the sovereign president

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oleg Bach    0

A king can not be a crook - merchant class (Bush) is entitled to be a crook because buisness - the very nature of it is deception for the most part - still - I really don't like the idea of a Governor General who has a husband that hated the queen - that is odd to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×