Canadian Politics

1…5152545657…80

Comments

  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    NDP
    All talk
    No thought
    http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/23/ndp-candidate-sorry-for-auschwitz-joke-didnt-know-it-was-a-death-camp
    Charlie Brown Teacher
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    NDP
    All talk
    No thought
    http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/23/ndp-candidate-sorry-for-auschwitz-joke-didnt-know-it-was-a-death-camp
    Charlie Brown Teacher

    You can plug in any of the parties' names in there and it would be just as true. It's not like we're voting for the party we actually trust or believe... are we???? I thought it was understood that we're simply voting for what we consider the best of a really bad bunch.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    If no one at all voted, what would happen?
    curious
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    edited September 2015
    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    If no one at all voted, what would happen?
    curious

    I guess it would just not count and there would be another election ASAP?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited September 2015
    Mulcair.
    Is the Ultimate waffle.
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/25/ndp-leader-mulcair-stands-firm-on-allowing-veils-at-citizenship-ceremonies.html
    NDP should stick to always being in the running.
    They are experts at it because they are never in the know.
    Swearing into this country, - for 5 seconds show us the face we all want to meet.
    Then cover back up and do what you want.
    Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Actually I don't really care about uncovering the face at the citizenship ceremony because that's all it is - a pro forma ceremony with little real meaning. The meat of the matter has happened earlier and at that point the individual would need to show her face. I would say the law should compel people to affirmatively prove their identities at times when it really matters (such as when testifying in court) and ignore it when it doesn't, even if you don't like what it symbolizes.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    oftenreading said:

    Actually I don't really care about uncovering the face at the citizenship ceremony because that's all it is - a pro forma ceremony with little real meaning. The meat of the matter has happened earlier and at that point the individual would need to show her face. I would say the law should compel people to affirmatively prove their identities at times when it really matters (such as when testifying in court) and ignore it when it doesn't, even if you don't like what it symbolizes.

    I care.
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    1ThoughtKnown said:

    oftenreading said:

    Actually I don't really care about uncovering the face at the citizenship ceremony because that's all it is - a pro forma ceremony with little real meaning. The meat of the matter has happened earlier and at that point the individual would need to show her face. I would say the law should compel people to affirmatively prove their identities at times when it really matters (such as when testifying in court) and ignore it when it doesn't, even if you don't like what it symbolizes.

    I care.
    So nice to hear you care :wink:
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    edited September 2015
    oftenreading said:

    Actually I don't really care about uncovering the face at the citizenship ceremony because that's all it is - a pro forma ceremony with little real meaning. The meat of the matter has happened earlier and at that point the individual would need to show her face. I would say the law should compel people to affirmatively prove their identities at times when it really matters (such as when testifying in court) and ignore it when it doesn't, even if you don't like what it symbolizes.

    These people are still forced to pledge allegiance to the Queen of England at these ceremonies, so are already a bullshit joke. I can't imagine how someone covering their face at one matters at all. I'd favour doing away with the whole damn thing. Just get them to sign something instead, and then maybe throw a cocktail reception for them.

    That said, i disapprove of the covering if women's faces altogether. I feel offended as a woman when I see it, and I wish fundamentalist Muslim women would just say 'fuck this bullshit' and do away with it once and for all. It's just a display of male sexism that's worked it's way into their religious culture, and it sickens me.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    PJ_Soul said:

    oftenreading said:

    Actually I don't really care about uncovering the face at the citizenship ceremony because that's all it is - a pro forma ceremony with little real meaning. The meat of the matter has happened earlier and at that point the individual would need to show her face. I would say the law should compel people to affirmatively prove their identities at times when it really matters (such as when testifying in court) and ignore it when it doesn't, even if you don't like what it symbolizes.

    These people are still forced to pledge allegiance to the Queen of England at these ceremonies, so are already a bullshit joke. I can't imagine how someone covering their face at one matters at all. I'd favour doing away with the whole damn thing. Just get them to sign something instead, and then maybe throw a cocktail reception for them.

    That said, i disapprove of the covering if women's faces altogether. I feel offended as a woman when I see it, and I wish fundamentalist Muslim women would just say 'fuck this bullshit' and do away with it once and for all. It's just a display of male sexism that's worked it's way into their religious culture, and it sickens me.
    The Queen is still our head of state That is why we are still in the commonwealth.

    And secondly, if you look at a post I put in here previously about the naqib, I am glad a woman said what you said. Women should be the most upset about these issues.
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    PJ_Soul said:

    oftenreading said:

    Actually I don't really care about uncovering the face at the citizenship ceremony because that's all it is - a pro forma ceremony with little real meaning. The meat of the matter has happened earlier and at that point the individual would need to show her face. I would say the law should compel people to affirmatively prove their identities at times when it really matters (such as when testifying in court) and ignore it when it doesn't, even if you don't like what it symbolizes.

    These people are still forced to pledge allegiance to the Queen of England at these ceremonies, so are already a bullshit joke. I can't imagine how someone covering their face at one matters at all. I'd favour doing away with the whole damn thing. Just get them to sign something instead, and then maybe throw a cocktail reception for them.

    That said, i disapprove of the covering if women's faces altogether. I feel offended as a woman when I see it, and I wish fundamentalist Muslim women would just say 'fuck this bullshit' and do away with it once and for all. It's just a display of male sexism that's worked it's way into their religious culture, and it sickens me.
    Yeah, I can't say I like it, either. I'm just not convinced that this is the way to tackle that problem. I think that Muslim women are more likely to be able to take back their rights when they are citizens of Canada, whereas if removing the niqab is a condition of it they may be prevented from getting citizenship (by the men, or by their cultural beliefs) and be more vulnerable to being removed from the country by their male family members if they start speaking up.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    edited September 2015
    oftenreading said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    oftenreading said:

    Actually I don't really care about uncovering the face at the citizenship ceremony because that's all it is - a pro forma ceremony with little real meaning. The meat of the matter has happened earlier and at that point the individual would need to show her face. I would say the law should compel people to affirmatively prove their identities at times when it really matters (such as when testifying in court) and ignore it when it doesn't, even if you don't like what it symbolizes.

    These people are still forced to pledge allegiance to the Queen of England at these ceremonies, so are already a bullshit joke. I can't imagine how someone covering their face at one matters at all. I'd favour doing away with the whole damn thing. Just get them to sign something instead, and then maybe throw a cocktail reception for them.

    That said, i disapprove of the covering if women's faces altogether. I feel offended as a woman when I see it, and I wish fundamentalist Muslim women would just say 'fuck this bullshit' and do away with it once and for all. It's just a display of male sexism that's worked it's way into their religious culture, and it sickens me.
    Yeah, I can't say I like it, either. I'm just not convinced that this is the way to tackle that problem. I think that Muslim women are more likely to be able to take back their rights when they are citizens of Canada, whereas if removing the niqab is a condition of it they may be prevented from getting citizenship (by the men, or by their cultural beliefs) and be more vulnerable to being removed from the country by their male family members if they start speaking up.
    Oh, I think it's ridiculous that the government is perusing this. I am kind of shocked they are still trying. And i agree with you. I think the only way to stop this terrible custom here and everywhere is for Muslim women to fight for change themselves (with the positive encouragement of other people everywhere).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    1ThoughtKnown said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    oftenreading said:

    Actually I don't really care about uncovering the face at the citizenship ceremony because that's all it is - a pro forma ceremony with little real meaning. The meat of the matter has happened earlier and at that point the individual would need to show her face. I would say the law should compel people to affirmatively prove their identities at times when it really matters (such as when testifying in court) and ignore it when it doesn't, even if you don't like what it symbolizes.

    These people are still forced to pledge allegiance to the Queen of England at these ceremonies, so are already a bullshit joke. I can't imagine how someone covering their face at one matters at all. I'd favour doing away with the whole damn thing. Just get them to sign something instead, and then maybe throw a cocktail reception for them.

    That said, i disapprove of the covering if women's faces altogether. I feel offended as a woman when I see it, and I wish fundamentalist Muslim women would just say 'fuck this bullshit' and do away with it once and for all. It's just a display of male sexism that's worked it's way into their religious culture, and it sickens me.
    The Queen is still our head of state That is why we are still in the commonwealth.

    And secondly, if you look at a post I put in here previously about the naqib, I am glad a woman said what you said. Women should be the most upset about these issues.
    I know. My dad is a British immigrant, so I'm afraid I know way more about the dammed queen that I'd even like to, lol. I'm just anti-monarchy. I think it's ludicrous that new Canadians have to swear an oath like that. I'd love for Canada to withdraw from the Commonwealth (or better yet, if the queen wouod get over herself and allow Canada to stay in the Commonwealth without having to swear oaths to her or have her on our money, etc.... that would just be easier, lol).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    ^^^^^

    I'm not a monarchist either, but it is still our history. We seceded peacefully from Britain, and keeping the queen as the head of state is a reminder of our friendship.

    My grandfather was vacationing in England and had a medical emergency. He needed some prescription drugs. He asked where he paid for them and they told him "you are Canadian right? You don't pay anything."
    He couldn't believe it, because we are commonwealth partners, the hospital visit and prescription drugs were covered. Brilliant.

    An American would not get that treatment. Word.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    We don't need her to be the head of state to maintain a friendship with them. I hats that she is our head of state. That is the whole problem for me.
    As I said, it would be great to be in the Commonwealth and not have the queen as head of state.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    ^^^^^

    I think you missed the point... To say the least.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    edited September 2015
    1ThoughtKnown said:

    ^^^^^

    I think you missed the point... To say the least.

    No I didn't (how would that even be possible. Your point is not complicated and I know how to read). Am I just not responding the way you want?? I don't get why you think I don't understand what you are very plainly saying, lol.

    I have been to the UK 6 times, and being a citizen of the Commonwealth with a dad who immigrated from England actually automatically makes me eligible for a British passport (haven't had reason to take advantage of that so far). I'm well aware of what being in the Commonwealth means and how Canadians get along in the UK. I used to live there for montjs at a time. I am still against the Queen being Canada's head of state.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    It's a Figurehead of State. She has no power. It makes no difference.

    My grandfather is forever grateful for how he was treated. Once again, an American does not receive this treatment. In fact, in Canada you need to pay for your prescription drugs!

    You don't need the Queen to be the head of state to maintain "friendship" with them. The British and Americans are allies. Once again, my grandfather's example is one of the advantages. Visiting Europe is expensive enough. I am more likely to go to Britain knowing I am medically covered. If for no other reason, I think having the queen as head of state is worth it.
    The point you are missing is it won't change anything if she isn't. Nothing. Nada. You wouldn't notice a damned thing.

    You would save the salary and expenses of one government official, the Governor General.

    Quite frankly, there are bigger fish to fry, like abolishing the Senste. Your father is probably proud of his heritage, and you are a proud "Canadian" and do not identify yourself as British. I get that. We are a former British colony. Our parliamentary democracy is the same.

    I'm proud of the way we are revered in Europe. I have been apologized to profusely in Britain, Slovenia and Italy for being called American (instances I remember and I am not offended).

    I am not going to change your opinion of the royal family. When they come on the news, I Change the channel. My grandfather's situation is proof enough we should keep the arrangement as is, He gets emotional when he tells the story. They treated him better than he gets treated in BC. If the same thing happened to one of your family members, you would probably feel differently. He wasn't in a British hospital for a hangnail.




  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    edited September 2015
    I get the impression that you assume the kind of help available to your family member would be rendered impossible of the queen wasn't the head of state. But I've been saying that I'd like that to continue and get rid of her as head of state, so I think it's actually you who is missing my point? Which is to maintain the commonwealth membership but get rid of the governmental designation. This would obviously be done through negotiation. It's not like it's Britain being good for Canadians but Canada doing absolutely nothing for Britain.

    I know it's symbolic. That's what pisses me off, and I would like it to change. I do not like that Canada is symbolically tied to the British monarchy. That's what i have been saying all along. I don't know why you seem to think i believe there is somehow more to it. If you are not interested in the monarchy I actually have no idea why you are disagreeing with what I'm saying.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    ^^^
    It is clear you don't like Canada having ties to the monarchy.
    Stephen Harper does though - hence designating the "Royal" once again before Canadian Forces
    What is waffle and trudeaus stance on the monarchy?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories