Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Dave_ON

Members
  • Content Count

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dave_ON

  1. One department to cut is the DND with 2100 job cuts over years. I think what he government will do is get rid of more workers who are unionized and only hire workers on contract, which is good for the government but not good for the workers. Being contract worker, you never know when your job is done, you may not get EI, or pensions. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/jobs+documents+show/4840558/story.html

    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 think we should pledge to the flag more often. I don't have a huge problem with "god save the Queen". Why:

    I see the Queen/monarch as more of a figurehead or a symbol of Canada. The monarch technically has some political power, but its largely by convention and the monarch/GG acts on the advice of the PM, only not doing so as a much-needed check on the vast power of the PM.

    I care little either way about the fact that she recently woo'd Obama. What she does personally i don't much care, she still symbolizes Canada, I don't need her to kiss our ass.

    Well said, it's refreshing to read a post where someone actually understands the function of the Crown.

  3. 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 talk about the fiscal elephant in the room which is how will the government deal with budget shortfalls?

    Cutting the per vote subsidy and scrapping the gun registry won't even scratch the surface, so what are they going to cut? It's unlikely they will raise taxes and in all liklihood will cut taxes further. That leaves only spending cuts which they also seem to be unwilling to do. I'm definitely a supporter of the increased military spending but honestly we cannot afford to similtaneously cut taxes and increase spending. Health care is one of our biggest bills and with an aging population, and shrinking work force it's only going to get worse. Clearly this will have to be cut back. I wonder if by the end of the 4-5 years term, if the CPC will be wishing they had the opposition to blame for the cuts that are to come. The long sought majority just might come back and bite them in the ass.

  4. I don't see how that applies in today's world, in a secular nation. How is being loyal to the Pope any different from being loyal to the head of the Church of England? How is one a threat to Canada - a secular nation - and the other not? We're not talking loyalty to another country, as in the instance of the loyalty of the POTUS. It's why I feel the monarchy is archaic and discriminatory in a democratic, secular nation. I see it as contradictory to exclude one religion. I see loyalty to a person over the country as archaic. I pledge loyalty to my country, not my head of state.

    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.

  5. If you take that definition completely literally, every job that has requirements that must be met would be discrimination. Requiring a doctor to have a medical degree would be discrimination. Requiring a bus driver to have a driver's license would be discrimination. But not taking "the group" so literally, since "the group" in the case of POTUS involves everyone born anywhere in the world other than the US, it's not limited to "one definable group" as is obviously meant in the definition you posted. That would be, say, allowing anyone except those born in the Middle East. That would fit the meaning of a "group" in the definition you cited. Note that it clearly lists "racial" and "religious," however.

    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?

    The monarchy is, the POTUS is no more discriminatory than any other job that requires valid qualifications for the position. The religion of the head of state has nothing to do with the job in a secular nation while loyalty to the country of the POTUS as Commander in Chief does.

    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 Argue that Timothy McVeigh a native Son is more deserving to run for POTUS then someone else who became a citizen and has worked the past 50 years as a loyal hard working citizen? Timothy McVeigh is but one example of a naturalized citizen who proved very disloyal to his country, that could have run for POTUS by virtue of where he was born. Obviously he gave up that right, but the fact remains, one can have that right taken away by their actions, why can one who works hard and actually earns on their own merit the privilege to be a citizen not be granted the ability to become POTUS? I thought merit was at the core of being an American, hypocrisy abounds it would seem. How is ones place of birth at all directly related to their loyalty?

    Methinks you are the one lacking in that area, as you are incapable of making any distinctions regarding what "a group" refers to. As I said, every job in the world that has any requirements at all, no matter how reasonable for the position, would be discrimination by your take on the definition, as they all exclude a "group of people" who don't meet the valid qualifications.

    Indeed the problem you are having is calling a spade a spade. Whether or not you agree with something isn't what defines it as discrimination or not. You agree with the discrimination that is in place for POTUS, that doesn't change the reality that it is, by definition, discrimination. That's just justification to make you feel better and give you a sense of moral superiority. I don't care if it's technically legal, written into the constitution or on a stone tablet atop mount Sinai. It is discrimination all the same.

  6. As is "everyone without a medical degree" and "everyone without a license." Yet it's not discrimination to exclude those groups when it comes to doctors and bus drivers. I won't repeat myself further.

    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.

  7. For the record and just to clarify discrimination for you. Dictionary.com says.

    1.an act or instance of discriminating.

    2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group (ie. group of people NOT born in the US), class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

    3.the power of making fine distinctions;

    *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.

  8. I know how it happened. I'm speaking of now.

    Then you have your answer why repeat the question? Expecting a different response?

    Because it's discrimination. Seems to me you are saying discrimination is ok as long as the majority of people are ok with it. What an odd way of justifying it.

    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't understand it's current role and think it's as easy as printing new coins and 20 dollar bills.

    But what would it matter EVEN if the Monarch could be Catholic would you honestly have no issue with it? You're sticking point is not truly the Catholic thing though you do harp upon it ceaselessly. You're problem is you don't like an unelected head of state. End of story, that is the definition of Monarchy. I've said it before, the "job requirements" for Monarch are a lot stricter than what you're comfortable with, but they are as much a job requirement as any placed on the POTUS.

    You keep repeating that. To the point of coming across as defensive.

    Much like your convenient definition of discrimination, you keep repeating it, and we're still not convinced by it.

  9. Yes...Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota)

    http://ellison.house.gov/

    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...

  10. It's not a matter of us agreeing on the definition; it's a matter of what the definition actually is. In order for it to be discrimination, the exclusion has to be "unjust," and since there are valid reasons, it's not unjust. Therefore it's not discrimination. Furthermore, discrimination can be based on things that are within a person's control - religion would be one of them.

    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 now, but at the time they were put in place they were seen as just as pragmatic a "job requirement" as you see the POTUS limitations as being. Time was allegiance was to the pope and the church first and one's country second. England threw off the shackles of Theocracy long ago, not unlike your ancestors threw off what they perceived as the shackles of the Monarchy. Would you ever take the monarchy back after fighting so hard to free yourself from it? Why then would you expect the British Monarchy to do the same? You see, you're not so very different from the British after all.

    I have brought up the issues that I have for a reason - the requirement that government jobs often require the candidate to speak both English and French...

    Actually I do feel these are discriminatory, as stipulated previously just because it is backed by legislation or even written into the constitution does not make it not discriminatory, it simply makes it legal. It's also not even very pragmatic, what it does do is allow someone who may be less qualified in every other respect to get a job over someone else simply because they are bilingual. It also creates delays in filling positions where bilingual applicants are not readily available, ie. most places West of Ontario. Even the federal government posts in London are filled by mostly uni-lingual anglophones. There are few francophones and even fewer bilingual folks in SW Ontario.

    I'm not trying to "convince" Canadians of anything. I'm stating my opinion and stating how ironic, at best, it is that so many Canadians are accepting of discrimination in their country regarding the head of state, government sanctioned, while being so quick to criticize "the US" for something one individual citizen did. I'm also stating how ironic, at best, it is that so many Canadians make a show of how their nation isn't a nation of Christians like the US defend the crown, which is your head of state, which excludes Catholics. I find it ironic, at best, that a nation that prides itself on multiculturalism and tolerance and fair treatment to all (isn't that what I'm always hearing regarding your health care?) would retain a system where their head of state is determined by bloodlines and birth order and religion.

    It's not discrimination, it's a "job requirement" just like the POTUS has. You don't like those rather stringent job requirements, but they are job requirements none-the-less. I could care less how you choose to elect/select your head of state, as at the end of the day I have no control over it. I do find it ironic however, that you are utterly in denial about the limits that are already placed on the office. The naturalized citizenship notwithstanding, as I mentioned earlier, a Muslim would never be elected POTUS, not because a law prevents him, but because, the majority of Americans would NEVER elect him/her. In fact are there any representatives on a federal scale that are of the Muslim faith? Keep in mind I'm not speaking of what "could be" I'm speaking of what is. The proof is in the pudding as it were.

    I think "not wanting to be Americans" perhaps figures too prominently in too many Canadians' mindset. We have never done anything because "we don't want to be this or that" but rather because this is what we want to be.

    I'm sorry to inform you my friend, but your country was founded on "we're not British" that's why you came up with a system that was vastly different.

    Last but not least, many Canadians feel it's time to get rid of the monarchy. It's not just an "American thing."

    Perhaps they do, I would have to see a valid study with the methodology spelled out. Besides getting rid of the monarchy is no easy task. If one thing can be said about Canadians we don't like to rock the boat. Getting rid of the monarchy, means re-writing the constitution almost in it's entirity, this is no small task. The provinces couldn't even agree on the relatively minor changes in Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. How would we ever agree on something so far reaching? I think you're quick to criticize our current system but slow on alternatives, you cannot simply copy and paste bits and pieces from one system into another. Their are many intricacies I think you fail to understand at this point. Our Confederation is not structured the same way your Union is, there are reason why things are setup the way they are. There are also reasons why are system has been the most successful of any other system of government currently employed.

    Are you agreeing that it's discriminatory? And that you're ok with your head of state being discriminatory? Because if you are, you can't criticize anyone else for discrimination.

    I'm agreeing it's as much a "job requirement" as the ones you've state above yes :) You can't criticize us for having "job requirements" if you're ok with the ones placed by your own HOS.

    Based on what a lot of Canadians on this board are telling me, you wouldn't have to replace it with anything because she doesn't do anything. It's all symbolic. She has no power. Why would someone who is only a symbol, who has no power, need to be replaced? That, too, is an earnest question.

    Ahh there it is. If you believe erroneously as many of these Canadians do, that the Crown is purely symbolic and useless, then you don't understand the role of the Crown. This does explain why we are having this discussion however. What people "say" or "think" about the Crown is rather immaterial, what is important is what the constitution "says" about the crown. That is reality, that is law, and that is the foundation of our democracy.

    But if you need to replace the monarchy, why not eliminate it and just have a position such as your Governor General completely devoid of the crown? - Why do you need a tie to the crown? Why wouldn't you want YOUR GG-type position to be your head of state position instead of "representative of" the head of state - especially in light of what it is representative of?

    We could in fact do this I suppose with some constitutional wrangling as mentioned above, but again to what benefit? As our system is, the position of head of state is not elected and with good reason. This would mean that the PM would still appoint the head of state, and we all know how this has worked out in terms of the senate. Because the GG, as the position stands is not beholden to the PM but rather the Crown whom he/she represents. However, we are well outside of my personal realm of knowledge on this particular aspect, this is something that GBAMBINO is far more suited to address than myself. I suppose it all comes back to the simple fact that if it is truly not broken why fix it?

    If as many Canadians felt that strongly about the Monarchy as some on this board would have you believe I'm certain we would have made the appropriate changes already. It is my theory, that it is a non-issue for most Canadians and our Gracious and decidedly non-Catholic Queen shall be with us for many more years to come. Religion is truly not a big deal in Canada, many of us are "Christian" in name only, how many of us are "practicing" is entirely another matter. I think that the Religion of the Monarch is as big a deal to most Canadians as the Religion of our PM, most probably don't know or care to know it.

    You are one of these people that do not like the Monarchy and think it should be scrapped simply because it is "archaic" however you give little thought to the ramifications of those actions. The imbalances in our system that would create, the ridiculous amount of power that would then be concentrated in the PMO not to mention the amount of autonomy that would be lost by the provinces. You cannot simply pull out a key check and balance in our system and "hope for the best". There are reason why things are setup the way they are, it's a tried and true method of government. Honestly, the onus, is not truly on me to prove why the Monarchy should stay, the stability and success of our nation speaks for itself. The onus is on you, and those Canadians of like mind, to prove to me why we should be rid of it and more importantly provide a comprehensive plan on how we shall proceed going forward, and what the new structure of government will be and how it will function. Because you don't like it is insufficient I'm afraid.

  11. That's because they were (quoting the Liberal government at the time & the political appointee that said)

    "they are entitled to their entitlements"

    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.

  12. Obviously the voters did not think enough of this candidate to elect them to office. For the Prime Minster to turn around and give the person that lost an election their Senate seat back is a slap in the face to the people that didn't want that person as an MP. But, hey. You're right. They're representing the entire region instead of a constituency, so that makes it all better. :P

    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.

  13. Dave, you're right but it still doesn't change anything. Since they BOTH did it then it becomes irrelevant to choosing between them!

    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 consequently the party he/she leads, into a pragmatist. The LPC was the most pragmatic party in history, hence their many years of success. If the CPC continue in this manner, they may be the next "natural governing party of Canada".

  14. I know the Senate needs reform and that all the conservative appointees have promised to adhere to the term limits and reforms... however, where you all as upset when the Liberals appointed failed candidates ?

    I also agree the optics aren't good, but my understanding is that he had to do this in order to get an absolute majority before June 2nd. This in order get control of chairs and committees... a good political move on his part IMO.

    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

  15. Yes, because that would be a valid reason and would have so much to do with the power entrusted to the POTUS as Commander in Chief - and/or anything else. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    There is a requirement that the PM be a Canadian citizen. Do you see that as discrimination against all the residents of Canada who aren't citizens? Or do you see that as a reasonable job requirement?

    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 founded, we saw manifest destiny and didn't like it in the least.

    Calling the monarchy discriminatory is a ridiculous argument, no one has ever claimed it has been otherwise. If we are to get rid of the Monarchy with what shall we replace it precisely? This is an earnest question. Based on OUR system, not a presidential republic, what HONEST suggestions do YOU have given the role of our head of state? What would you be able to live with in head of state selection?

  16. Canadians elected the man who gets to appoint Senators. Canadians elected to give Harper the power to appoint these senators, hence they were elected. It's only an undemocratic process when a conservative PM gets to do it. Try to keep up.

    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.

  17. Good Lord. One. More. Time. No, it's not discrimination. Again, you fail to grasp the definition of discrimination. Requiring that a head of state be born in that state is not based on prejudice; it's based on a job requirement. It's based on the idea that the POTUS shouldn't have mixed allegiances because of the duties that the position includes. It's based on a valid reason. It's a job requirement same as other jobs have requirements. It's no more discrimination than a job that requires a university degree is discrimination.

    The fact that one can change their religion has nothing to do with it. The discrimination against the religion still exists.

    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 problem don't you? Not being catholic is a job requirement to be head of a protestant church. Wow that is indeed a novel concept!

    For the third time, disallowing someone from being head of state because of where they are born IS discrimination, they have no control over this and it runs counterman to what is supposed to be the very essence of your entire society, namely anyone can do anything in America on their own merit. POTUS notwithstanding. Why can't Alejandro Hortanado, who immigrated to the USA with his family at the age of 1 who for all intents and purposes is as American as anyone born there be POTUS? Because you discriminate on based on place of birth, something that is not under their direct control. Their education is, hell even ones religion is. Is disallowing a catholic from the throne discrimination, hell yes it is. Is that a problem, no given the other roles that the Monarch in the UK plays in the Church of England that's common sense. Is it a problem that the US requires n citizen to be born in the US, no I understand the intent behind this, something you fail to realize about the monarch apparently. But be that as it may, regardless of whether or not I think it's a good idea, or if it makes sense the limitation of being born in US IS discrimination base on place of birth.

    The difference between you and I AW is I can accept that the Monarchy is in fact discriminatory, and I also do not take issue with that. Your problem is the POTUS is discriminatory also, but because you cannot abide this thought you must make outlandish comparisons, and call it a "job requirement" to make yourself feel better about the aforementioned discrimination. Canada's head of state is not elected and need not be elected to fulfill it's role, namely to protect and maintain the state. You still have to this point failed to demonstrate any benefit of having an open and elected head of state in Canada as the role exists. You have relied heavily on your own system which does not apply to us.

    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 founded, we saw manifest destiny and didn't like it in the least.

    Calling the monarchy discriminatory is a ridiculous argument, no one has ever claimed it has been otherwise. If we are to get rid of the Monarchy with what shall we replace it precisely? This is an earnest question. Based on OUR system, not a presidential republic, what HONEST suggestions do YOU have given the role of our head of state? What would you be able to live with in head of state selection?

×
×
  • Create New...