Canadian Politics
Comments
-
Oh dear. There's no-one named "waffle" running in this election. I think you may be confused. Perhaps it was the beating you took last night? You should get that looked into.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
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?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
mulcair isn't named a waffleoftenreading said:
Oh dear. There's no-one named "waffle" running in this election. I think you may be confused. Perhaps it was the beating you took last night? You should get that looked into.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
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?
he is one
This election is a formality.
0 -
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.0 -
Waffle lol. That's a great nicknamePJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
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?0 -
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-niqab-neil-macdonald-1.3246179
"It's not am I comfortable or not" with women covering their faces, he said. "Makes no difference at all. It's a question of rights and it will be for the court to decide."0 -
Hard to argue with Neil Macdonalds logic. Unless, of course, you have a problem with our charter of rights and freedom.0
-
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I have my doubts that Trudeau would have a clue what he's doing
All Mulcair does is moan about everyone else. I have no idea what his platform is. I just know what it isn't.
Harper is a controlling psychopath who needs to leave office.
I nominate Gord Downie.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I guess you didn't read what I said either.HughFreakingDillon said:
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
yes I did. I apologize if I missed something. not trying to be combative.PJ_Soul said:
I guess you didn't read what I said either.HughFreakingDillon said:
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I went back and re-read. All that I found was that her head of state-ness being symbolic pisses you off. But why?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
The part you missed is that I said IF Canada could still be a commonwealth without the Queen as head of state, that's what I want. I talked about working out a deal, etc. IF. I.e., things would have to different than they are now.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes I did. I apologize if I missed something. not trying to be combative.PJ_Soul said:
I guess you didn't read what I said either.HughFreakingDillon said:
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Because why in the fuck should I or any Canadian be a servant to the Queen of England, symbolically or otherwise??HughFreakingDillon said:I went back and re-read. All that I found was that her head of state-ness being symbolic pisses you off. But why?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I didn't miss that. I just didn't think it answered my question. Why does it bother you that the queen is head of state?PJ_Soul said:
The part you missed is that I said IF Canada could still be a commonwealth without the Queen as head of state, that's what I want. I talked about working out a deal, etc. IF. I.e., things would have to different than they are now.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes I did. I apologize if I missed something. not trying to be combative.PJ_Soul said:
I guess you didn't read what I said either.HughFreakingDillon said:
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I was responding to the first paragraph of your previous post.HughFreakingDillon said:
I didn't miss that. I just didn't think it answered my question. Why does it bother you that the queen is head of state?PJ_Soul said:
The part you missed is that I said IF Canada could still be a commonwealth without the Queen as head of state, that's what I want. I talked about working out a deal, etc. IF. I.e., things would have to different than they are now.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes I did. I apologize if I missed something. not trying to be combative.PJ_Soul said:
I guess you didn't read what I said either.HughFreakingDillon said:
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
BTW, this is the oath that new Canadians have to swear, and that all Canadians are supposedly beholden to:
"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen."
Ummmmmm NOPE.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
fair enough. but why no queen as HOS?PJ_Soul said:
I was responding to the first paragraph of your previous post.HughFreakingDillon said:
I didn't miss that. I just didn't think it answered my question. Why does it bother you that the queen is head of state?PJ_Soul said:
The part you missed is that I said IF Canada could still be a commonwealth without the Queen as head of state, that's what I want. I talked about working out a deal, etc. IF. I.e., things would have to different than they are now.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes I did. I apologize if I missed something. not trying to be combative.PJ_Soul said:
I guess you didn't read what I said either.HughFreakingDillon said:
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Answered.HughFreakingDillon said:
fair enough. but why no queen as HOS?PJ_Soul said:
I was responding to the first paragraph of your previous post.HughFreakingDillon said:
I didn't miss that. I just didn't think it answered my question. Why does it bother you that the queen is head of state?PJ_Soul said:
The part you missed is that I said IF Canada could still be a commonwealth without the Queen as head of state, that's what I want. I talked about working out a deal, etc. IF. I.e., things would have to different than they are now.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes I did. I apologize if I missed something. not trying to be combative.PJ_Soul said:
I guess you didn't read what I said either.HughFreakingDillon said:
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
well don't all countries have something similar? if you weren't beholden to the Queen, you'd be to Stephen Harper.PJ_Soul said:
Answered.HughFreakingDillon said:
fair enough. but why no queen as HOS?PJ_Soul said:
I was responding to the first paragraph of your previous post.HughFreakingDillon said:
I didn't miss that. I just didn't think it answered my question. Why does it bother you that the queen is head of state?PJ_Soul said:
The part you missed is that I said IF Canada could still be a commonwealth without the Queen as head of state, that's what I want. I talked about working out a deal, etc. IF. I.e., things would have to different than they are now.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes I did. I apologize if I missed something. not trying to be combative.PJ_Soul said:
I guess you didn't read what I said either.HughFreakingDillon said:
why would his grandfather have received free healthcare from Britain if we were no longer part of the commonwealth? because if you pitch the queen as head of state, we aren't in the commonwealth anymore.PJ_Soul said:
Wtf? Are you even reading what I'm saying??1ThoughtKnown said:
I'll spell it out for you. He.Would.Not.Have.Gotten.That.Treatment.Had.The.Queen.Not.Been.Our.Head.Of.State.PJ_Soul said: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.
I don't question why that is, I just know that's they way it is.
it's not like canada is ruled by the monarchy in any way shape or form. you have stated our association with the british royals pisses you off, but I don't believe you've stated WHY it pisses you off. care to elaborate?
for the record, I think the royal family is a joke. I don't get why anyone gives a flying shit about them. they are nothing. medievil rich people living in modern times. but I get the history, and why they still have a seat at the table, even if that seat is basically the same seat as your crazy old uncle at thanksgiving. nice to have him there, but he's not making any familial decisions, but piss him off, and he might shit in your mashed potatoes.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help