Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Dave_ON

Members
  • Content Count

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave_ON

  1. Oh that would be bad, we don't need any additional "patronage appointments". The civil service unions ensure continuity in the civil service regardless of the government of the day. I'm not a fan of unions as a general rule, but this is one very positive aspect they play in the case of civil servants.
  2. I would tend to agree with MH, it's not a new problem, but it's getting worse instead of better.
  3. Hah perhaps I'm just happy someone isn't harping on how discriminatory the Monarchy is
  4. Well said, it's refreshing to read a post where someone actually understands the function of the Crown.
  5. So we have to wait until June 7th to get the Auditor Generals full report. But in the following article I find she raises some interesting points. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/25/pol-fraser-ag-report-speech.html Specifically that she feels the independence of office of the auditor general is in danger. She sites specific examples of the much talked about military spending and how she was denied access to these records. Troubling considering this is supposed to be a transparent and accountable government. This is all old hat however, what I do like is she's not afraid to
  6. Come now bambino, why let the facts get in the way of baseless opinion?
  7. So the Vatican is NOT in fact a sovereign nation? The Pope is NOT the head of state of the Vatican? The Crown is NOT a symbol of our nation? We pledge Loyalty to the head of the Church of England and NOT the Queen of Canada and the Crown she represents? I am learning a lot from you, I guess all this time I've been misinformed. Too bad I'm not able to "discriminate" between good information and bad.
  8. Yes I bolded religion quite on purpose. I don't deny that there is religious discrimination, unlike you who still refuses to admit that quite clearly there are two distinct "groups" Those born in the US and those born outside the US. Are you now also disputing the definition of group? Christ is their no end to semantics with you? Quite clearly it is discriminatory, unless you think the dictionary definition of discrimination is incorrect. Tell me what makes someone who is born on American soil more loyal then someone who moves their and pledges allegiance to the US? Would you also Argu
  9. Indeed, but I can earn a medical degree and I can also obtain a drivers license and then I do qualify. How can I change where I was born, that is discriminatory, please stop comparing ones place of birth, something distinctly out of their control, with their education/skill level, something distinctly in their control.
  10. Because and appointed senate is discrimination... oops wrong thread
  11. For the record and just to clarify discrimination for you. Dictionary.com says. *Brackets are mine. Given the above do you still maintain that disallowing someone to be POTUS does not fit in the dictionary definition of discrimination? As I've said the Monarchy is indeed discriminatory, but then again so is the POTUS. Please note it would appear from your posts you are distinctly lacking in the application of number 3.
  12. Then you have your answer why repeat the question? Expecting a different response? No it's a job requirement, as you have spent so long explaining to us about the POTUS. Not being Catholic is a justifiable job requirement for the Monarch as the Act of Settlement currently stands. It could be changed I suppose were it actually an issue people cared about. I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to trying to convince folks the Monarchy should go. Other than August and you, I don't think I've heard religion come up as the reason to be rid of the Monarchy. Most don
  13. So it seems, however I noticed a complete lack of the mention that he was Muslim on his official biography page on the site you linked. I did find a wiki article that mentions it, and the fact that he is the first and only Muslim currently in US congress. I suppose this begs the question, why was it such a big deal when the rumour was being spread that Obama was a Muslim...
  14. I don't want to belabor the definition of discrimination further. You have a very convenient definition that excludes the discrimination in your own head of state. If it makes you feel better, being born into a certain family and not being catholic is a job requirement also There are very valid reasons, you could not have a Catholic Monarch as has been pointed out. A catholic monarch would have dual allegiances, they would owe allegiance to the Pope and the Vatican which is a sovereign nation. There is a reason Catholics are excluded from the Crown, the reasons could be argued as moot no
  15. Ergo "But the Liberals did it too" is an acceptable reason to maintain the status quo? LPC set the political bar and the CPC need not exceed that expectation? Why bother electing the CPC at all, would have been simpler just to keep the LPC in power if we end up with the same government regardless.
  16. AW if you're still following this thread I'm honestly interested on your thoughts. Here's the link as it has since been lost to thread drift. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18913&view=findpost&p=673765
  17. So who then should the PM appoint to the senate? Only former and retired MP's the voters did not reject? What about people that have never run for office like Mike Duffy? The voters had no say on him either way, what's your opinion of him? Considering that senators are appointed why do the voters need to have a say in the matter? I don't see how voter input is at all relevant when it comes to senate appointments.
  18. So you're voting LPC next election? We both know that's not going to happen. I guess I don't understand why people get so upset about the LPC, so far the CPC has done precisely as the LPC before them. The more it changes the more it stays the same. This is why when people throw around words such as "leftist" and "rightwing" in reference to either the LPC or the CPC I laugh, there's precious little difference between the two. What many NDP supporters don't realize is that if the NDP in opposition continues, the same fate will befall that party as well. Ottawa changes an idealist, and cons
  19. I'll say it again. "But the Liberals did it too!" is not a good excuse. The CPC were supposed to bring change and accountability not emulate the LPC
  20. Clearly we'll never agree on the definition of discrimination, I would posit that anything you cannot control, ie. your place of birth is discrimination. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons for this discriminatation but let's call a spade a spade. You have opinions about the Monarchy and I get that and you're more than entitled to them. But if you are trying to convince Canadians that they should get rid of the monarchy based on an American frame of reference you may as well give up now, it's not going to work. Not wanting to be Americans was precisely the reason our country was found
  21. Thought the CPC was supposed to hold a higher standard than the LPC, not emulate them precisely. Do you not grow tired of the excuse "The liberals did it too!" It's wearing somewhat thin. Is how the LPC ran things really going to be the job standard that the CPC lives up to? The more things change the more they stay the same, why are the CPC doing everything they claimed they wouldn't in office and why are their supporters so quick to forgive these lapses in memory now that they are in power. The difference between the CPC and LPC is a single letter.
  22. Indeed, it is something that irks me also. Much as when people fail to pronounce the U in Aunt, ans say it as ANT. But I digress.
  23. It is discrimination as one cannot change their place of birth. One's educational status, including the earning of a degree, is under their control and you are right THAT is not discrimination. You cannot possibly ever compare where one is born to educational level that is apples to oranges. If it is a conflict of interest that is your concern that why are you so upset over the catholic thing? Clearly you don't understand that conflict of interest or mixed allegiances as you put of having the head of the church of England be a catholic? You do understand how that would present a great pro
×
×
  • Create New...