VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:03:22 12/17/01 Mon
Author: Andy
Subject: Re: Comments on your site
In reply to: Cosmin Smeu 's message, "Comments on your site" on 03:59:38 08/18/01 Sat

>Hi I checked your site, and here are some comments:
>(I am reposting these from REPUBLI-CANADA)
>
>I checked the site and there are some good points, and
>many bad ones. First I do agree with him that
>removing the monarchy would fix many problems
>especially the Quebec separatism.
>
>However even if we get a Canadian king, from some
>european royal family (like was the case of Greece,
>Romania, Spain, etc... even England in 1701), that
>will still leave us with a foreigner as a head of
>state. Just like England after 1701 was stuck with a
>German royal family (Victoria's first language was
>German, not English).
>
>Also just because some things don't work in a republic
>like the USA, doesn't mean the republican system is
>flawed. There are many types of republics starting
>with successful ones like Switzerland, France,
>Germany, Austria, Finland, etc... going to the worst
>republican dictatorships like Vietnam, Irak, Sudan,
>etc... The same goes for monarchies: there are
>successful ones like Sweden, Denmark, and complete
>failures like Nepal, or Botswana, etc...
>
>However the monarchy is still something from the
>feudal ages, that might still go well with european,
>asian, and african nations, that have existed for
>thousands or years, and don't want to change for some
>strange conservative reasons. In countries like
>Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc... which are young
>countries in the "new world", this "old world" system
>seems out of place. Also it defies human rights,
>equality, etc... when one person, or family is placed
>above anyone else. Why should the military, courts,
>government belong do a king/queen (like they do in a
>monarchy), when these are the rightful belongings of
>the nation as a whole. If the courts belong to the
>queen, then can she be tried by her own courts, in
>the USA if the prezident screws up, he will be tried,
>because he doesn't own any gov. institution. Why
>should immigrants swear allegiance to the queen,
>instead of Canada when they become citizens; in the
>USA they swear allegiance to the country, and its
>republican beliefs, and not to George W. Bush.
>
>Contrary to popular belief in Canada (thanks to
>monarchist anti-american propaganda) the American
>system is not bad, ineficient as people think. Down
>there they have a constitution focused on the people,
>a senate that actually does something, and the prez
>doesn't have some of the powers that the queen has
>over us.
>
>Did you know that in Canada the queen is the only one
>that can:
> - declare war in Canada's name on another country
> - capitulate (declare defeat and surrender) in
>Canada's name
> - dissolve parliament
>etc...
>
>She can do all those as she pleases, and Jean Chretien
>or anyone else can't do shit about it.
>
>In the american (and many other republican systems)
>the president doesn't have these powers. In the USA
>for example the senate (& only the senate) has the
>power to declare war or to declare capitulation. Also
>the senate can impeach the prez, but the prez can not
>dissolve the senate. In other countries like France,
>Germany, etc... they have similar rules. I like this
>system that prevents one person from becoming all
>powerful, and instead gives the senate (a group of
>people) the most important powers.
>
>In Canada the prime minister can become dictator if he
>wishes so. I don't think the parliament in Canada can
>even stop the prime minister if he chooses to abuse
>his power. True, this has never happened in Canada
>(where a prime minister abused power excessively or
>became dictatorial), but you can never be sure of what
>might happen in the future. Better be safe than sorry.
>
>So my point is, let's not judge republicanism based on
>some
>british revisionist, narrow, and superficial knowledge
>of the american system.
>
>I don't know what happens in Arizona, but if they are
>inefficient that is their problem and fault, not just
>the system ifself, they certainly have the proper
>foundation to fix those problems.



U ever heard of Nazi Germany? I am a American and after September 11th my rights mean nada anymore. It shows how alot of foriegn poeple suck up to the U.S but ironically they r passing laws to make ONLY AMERICANS to get away with anything.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

  • Re: Comments on your site -- shawn meades, 18:29:53 12/26/01 Wed
    [ Contact Forum Admin ]

    Forum timezone: GMT-8
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.