« Home | Saskatchewan Green Party Leader Defects To Campaig... » | Tommy Douglas Predicted That Canada Would Return T... » | What Is It With American Politicians And 'Corndogs... » | Harper Turns Blind Eye To Gazebogate - That Says M... » | A Very Sad Day For One Newfoundland Family - Missi... » | Michele Bachmann Says God Sent Earthquake And Hurr... » | Brian Topp - Flashback To My July 28th Buckdog Pos... » | 77 Year Old Jean Chretien Leaps Fence To Get To In... » | The VILEST Canadian - Ezra Levant? » | Hurricane Irene Satellite Imagery - UPDATED » 

Wednesday, September 07, 2011 

Harper's 'Canada' Is Not A Real Country Anyway - UPDATED

"The Harper government, a staunch proponent of the monarchy, has ordered all Canadian embassies and missions abroad to display a portrait of the Queen by end of week. It’s the latest campaign by the Conservatives to firm up government support for Canada’s head of state."
Hang the Damned Queen For All I Care!

'Canadians' like to think that they have a great country that the whole world loves. Problem is we are just a quasi-country. Not a real country, unattached to the head of state of another country.

Monarchists and Harperites love this kind of 'pretend' country. We are kinda like a single 34 year old man who lives in his parents basement. We pretend that we are adult and have adult responsibilities and life experiences. However, the fact that mom is still upstairs leaves a great deal to be desired.

British people are wonderful people. I am not British. I would like to be a Canadian ... not some quasi-colonial.

-Former Diplomats FAIL Harper's Idiotic Portrait Directive ..

Live with it.

We'll never be rid of the monarchy for one simple reason: a lot of the early treaties with First Nations were not signed with Canada. They were signed with the King of England.

Remember, that's what the First Nations in Quebec said when separatism was all the rage: You leave Canada, we leave you. Our treaties are with the Crown, not with Quebec.

The prospect of renegotiating all those agreements is something that would have any federal bureaucrat wake up screaming at night. Though I'm sure that some at least of the First Nations would like the chance to revise the agreements.

No. You're being as bad as Harper here. A formal tie to the British Crown means little, positive or negative. I don't feel either more or less of a "national person" because of it. Obsessing over it is beside the point.

Besides, you know and I know that Harper is just doing this to piss off Quebec since it's turned into an NDP stronghold. The proper response is a collective yawn. Getting excited over it plays right into his hands by making the monarchy seem like a significant institution rather than a quaint relic of the past. Picture, schmitcture. No one ever asked me to bow to it, after all.

You say we swear oaths to the Queen as symbol of the state? So what? Who even remembers the words ten minutes afterward? We could be swearing our oaths to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. Be thankful that at least all this idiocy is built around an old lady in another country who scarcely registers on our collective consciousness, instead of being an active and malignant fetishism like the American Pledge of Allegiance.

And last but not least, digging up a frumpy picture of the Queen as illustration is more than a bit puerile. The Left is supposed to be above that sort of thing. Even the most ardent supporter of the monarchy doesn't think it's a beauty contest, so what's the point? If the Queen looked like a Playboy centerfold, the monarchy would be neither more nor less acceptable. You rightly object to global warming denialists who meet scientific proof with the sneer that Al Gore is fat; is what you are doing here any different? It reminds me of those scenes in Koyaanisqatsi where they thought it was so clever and cute to critique modern life by speeding up the film. Trouble is, put it through the same treatment and a First Nations sacred dance looks like a pack of electrified monkeys on speed. In both cases -- in all cases -- it's a consciously dishonest technique.

This comment has been removed by the author.

This comment has been removed by the author.

"Live with it." No.

"We'll never be rid of the monarchy for one simple reason: a lot of the early treaties with First Nations were not signed with Canada. They were signed with the King of England."
Simply change the other party from monarch to Canada. But that won't happen because of defeatist lowlifes like yourself.

"Remember, that's what the First Nations in Quebec said when separatism was all the rage: You leave Canada, we leave you. Our treaties are with the Crown, not with Quebec."
They would've done the same thing.

"The prospect of renegotiating all those agreements is something that would have any federal bureaucrat wake up screaming at night. Though I'm sure that some at least of the First Nations would like the chance to revise the agreements."
Renegotiating all those agreements would be necessary. And yes some of them should be revised, to make them compatible, more fair and reasonable, and to make the other party from monarch to Canada. Why not? Are you inexplicably terrified of Aboriginals?

"No. You're being as bad as Harper here. A formal tie to the British Crown means little, positive or negative. I don't feel either more or less of a 'national person' because of it. Obsessing over it is beside the point."
On the contrary, you're being as bad as Harper, but stupider. However little, it has to be severed. And if you don't feel more or less of a "national person" because of it, then GTFO.

"Besides, you know and I know that Harper is just doing this to piss off Quebec since it's turned into an NDP stronghold. The proper response is a collective yawn. Getting excited over it plays right into his hands by making the monarchy seem like a significant institution rather than a quaint relic of the past. Picture, schmitcture. No one ever asked me to bow to it, after all."
No. He's doing this because he's a royalist pig. As for proper responses, fighting this is far better than sitting on our collective asses and merely yawning. That's what he wants, and that's what we usually do whenever something awful happens, then use someone like Gandhi as an excuse the same way people generally use Hitler as a comparison when making accusations. Remember this quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Edmond Burke)

"You say we swear oaths to the Queen as symbol of the state? So what? Who even remembers the words ten minutes afterward? We could be swearing our oaths to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. Be thankful that at least all this idiocy is built around an old lady in another country who scarcely registers on our collective consciousness, instead of being an active and malignant fetishism like the American Pledge of Allegiance."
For one thing, you fail to understand the concept of monarchy itself. Second, if it's something that people would forget, why then keep it? If it's useless, why keep it?

"And last but not least, digging up a frumpy picture of the Queen as illustration is more than a bit puerile. The Left is supposed to be above that sort of thing. Even the most ardent supporter of the monarchy doesn't think it's a beauty contest, so what's the point? If the Queen looked like a Playboy centerfold, the monarchy would be neither more nor less acceptable. You rightly object to global warming denialists who meet scientific proof with the sneer that Al Gore is fat; is what you are doing here any different? It reminds me of those scenes in Koyaanisqatsi where they thought it was so clever and cute to critique modern life by speeding up the film. Trouble is, put it through the same treatment and a First Nations sacred dance looks like a pack of electrified monkeys on speed. In both cases -- in all cases -- it's a consciously dishonest technique."
Being above something usually entails that it doesn't fight back or have any power, does it? Especially in this pretend country. You're either a royalist or a defeatist coward. You don't represent the left, and even if you did, you'd still be wrong. So do us all a favour and either shut up or go back to England.

And speaking of treaties, since they kept being broken, how come the Queen has done nothing about them? Does she even care? Would she? And if so, what merit does someone unelected have in a situation like this?

Post a Comment



Follow leftdog on Twitter




About Me

BANNED FOR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR

  • -Carmichael-
  • Things I Read

    • -Canadian Political Viewpoints-
    • -ZAG-
    • -Next Year Country-
    • -Huffington Post: Canada-
    • -LEFTIST JAB-
    • -Let Freedom Rain-
    • -Informed On Information-
    • -Wellington Post-NDP-
    • -Trapped In A Whirlpool-
    • -Larry Hubich's Blog-
    • -ROGERISM-
    • -Leftdog's Daily KOS Blog Page-
    • -RIDER PROPHET-
    • -Dipper Chick
    • -Ideagist -
    • -Al Barger's MORETHINGS.COM-
    • -Canadian Cynic-
    • Saskatchewan Progressive Bloggers
    • *NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY*
    • My Zimbio
      Top Stories
    • Blogarama - The Blog Directory
    • Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites
      View blog authority
    • Display Pagerank
    • Canada's NDP
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates