National Intelligence Director = Big Brother?

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Arrrggghhh, explain to me how, through reincarnation the old monarchies system worked, because THAT is how the caste system works.

As you gain a life level (through reincarnation) you rise on the caste scale. Would you say that you know of ANY monarchy that has EVER worked like that?

Regarding Buddhism and Bushido you are correct though.

Again, you should read some. Many societies have/had caste systems. Japan had a caste system. Monarchies are a type of caste system. Slavery was a caste system.

You're only focusing on one caste system, obviously the most well-known one.

No, you don't get it, many societies have had CLASS systems but the caste system is only in place in hinduist societies.

You can read your eyes out if you want without EVER being able to find anything about monarchies and the caste system (and there are no "systems" it is ONE system only working one way in only one single religion).

I have tried to explain, in several posts now, including an explanation how it works in the religion it works in but you refuse to listen so i am done arguing with you.

You can call ANY system whatever you want if you want i guess, but if you want to use the correct definitions you need to understand them and you DON'T.

The CLASS system hasn't been in place in any monarchy i know of for at least 100 years either, so not even if you should suddenly realize that what was in place in Europe at the time was a Class system you would have a valid argument.


You can argue with yourself about the class and the caste system from now on, i have educated you some about it but i don't have the time to keep educating you.

Nope. It seems anthropologists use it as I have been doing in this thread, too. Maybe you should write a paper on it and submit it to journals for publication.

Supply a link and you bet your butt i will question them directly, it would be a factual error.

I am well educated in both Hindu religion and European religion, and any scientist worthy of his phd would never EVER confuse the caste and the class system.

That would be interesting for you to tell an anthropologist that he is wrong. It seems to me that you have a Google education. It's interesting how you're saying anthropologists are wrong and you're right. Must be nice to think you're the king of the world.

Do a search on Amazon or any textbook site for 'caste' and you'll get a lot of matches for books, many about other caste systems.

Actually, i would think it would be more interesting if an antropologist ever stated that, i have yet to see it happen.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I doubt America would become like that. I think other nations would fall much before the US if that became some sort of global trend. Many nations such as Canada, UK, etc. are already ruled by monarchies so it's not too much of a stretch for them.

What is the NID supposed to do? How would it take away rights? Is it like the Patriot Act?

You are wrong about the UK and Canada. The monarchy in the UK has no power whatsoever, they are only for show.

No law in britain is valid unless she signs.

Yet she/he has no veto power or influence when it comes to writing laws and no power to enforce those laws that she/he signed. Which essentially means that they are there for show when they need to have a ceremony for the signing in of laws or appointing of Prime Ministers and thus have no power whatsoever in the UK government.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I doubt America would become like that. I think other nations would fall much before the US if that became some sort of global trend. Many nations such as Canada, UK, etc. are already ruled by monarchies so it's not too much of a stretch for them.

What is the NID supposed to do? How would it take away rights? Is it like the Patriot Act?

You are wrong about the UK and Canada. The monarchy in the UK has no power whatsoever, they are only for show.

No law in britain is valid unless she signs.

Yet she/he has no veto power or influence when it comes to writing laws and no power to enforce those laws that she/he signed. Which essentially means that they are there for show when they need to have a ceremony for the signing in of laws or appointing of Prime Ministers and thus have no power whatsoever in the UK government.

And anyone who isn't delusional gets that the power of the monarchies of Europe is nada and none in reality.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I doubt America would become like that. I think other nations would fall much before the US if that became some sort of global trend. Many nations such as Canada, UK, etc. are already ruled by monarchies so it's not too much of a stretch for them.

What is the NID supposed to do? How would it take away rights? Is it like the Patriot Act?

You are wrong about the UK and Canada. The monarchy in the UK has no power whatsoever, they are only for show.

You think or know that I'm wrong. I think or know I'm right. Nevertheless, I think nations with caste systems such as monarchies will be the first to fall to a complete police state. Everything is already set up and ready for a single ruler to take charge. Most also have their own forms of Patriot Acts and other forms of restrictive legislations. Seems to make a perfect match for police state.

You could say the samething about this country. In fact it would be more valid here since the main figure head in our goverment actually has been given more power then the founding fathers of this Republic would of allowed. The power and scope of our federal goverment has spiral way out of control and it's increase sheer bureaucratic offices and appointments have also sky rocketed out of control not to mention the gastly huge increase in goverment spending.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I doubt America would become like that. I think other nations would fall much before the US if that became some sort of global trend. Many nations such as Canada, UK, etc. are already ruled by monarchies so it's not too much of a stretch for them.

What is the NID supposed to do? How would it take away rights? Is it like the Patriot Act?

You are wrong about the UK and Canada. The monarchy in the UK has no power whatsoever, they are only for show.

No law in britain is valid unless she signs.

Yet she/he has no veto power or influence when it comes to writing laws and no power to enforce those laws that she/he signed. Which essentially means that they are there for show when they need to have a ceremony for the signing in of laws or appointing of Prime Ministers and thus have no power whatsoever in the UK government.

And anyone who isn't delusional gets that the power of the monarchies of Europe is nada and none in reality.

Agreed

 

[NoReMoRsE]

Exactly, as I said before, the Queen is a figurehead, nothing more, in Canada and the UK.

And about the culture thing, Canadians pride ourselves on our diversity of cultures (not homogeny of culture as Can o'Worms and others seem to be insinuating), whereas the U.S. is well-known to be a melting pot of cultures (i.e. you lose your culture and attain an "American" culture).

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well, theoretically, all executive power is reposed in the Queen.

Theoretically a lot of things that can be proven otherwise are true.

Should we stick to reality or should we dance around and pretend what could be?

We are in reality. In reality, the queen really does have a lot of power, as it is written.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: NoReMoRsE
And about the culture thing, Canadians pride ourselves on our diversity of cultures (not homogeny of culture as Can o'Worms and others seem to be insinuating), whereas the U.S. is well-known to be a melting pot of cultures (i.e. you lose your culture and attain an "American" culture).

Americans are proud of the cultural diversity as well. The 'melting pot' is just a term that doesn't really mean much. It is foolish to think that there is only one distinct culture in a country with such different types of people. It is allowed to evolve as the people choose.

Canadian culture, on the other hand, is partly dictated by the government.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Arrrggghhh, explain to me how, through reincarnation the old monarchies system worked, because THAT is how the caste system works.

As you gain a life level (through reincarnation) you rise on the caste scale. Would you say that you know of ANY monarchy that has EVER worked like that?

Regarding Buddhism and Bushido you are correct though.

Again, you should read some. Many societies have/had caste systems. Japan had a caste system. Monarchies are a type of caste system. Slavery was a caste system.

You're only focusing on one caste system, obviously the most well-known one.

No, you don't get it, many societies have had CLASS systems but the caste system is only in place in hinduist societies.

You can read your eyes out if you want without EVER being able to find anything about monarchies and the caste system (and there are no "systems" it is ONE system only working one way in only one single religion).

I have tried to explain, in several posts now, including an explanation how it works in the religion it works in but you refuse to listen so i am done arguing with you.

You can call ANY system whatever you want if you want i guess, but if you want to use the correct definitions you need to understand them and you DON'T.

The CLASS system hasn't been in place in any monarchy i know of for at least 100 years either, so not even if you should suddenly realize that what was in place in Europe at the time was a Class system you would have a valid argument.


You can argue with yourself about the class and the caste system from now on, i have educated you some about it but i don't have the time to keep educating you.

Nope. It seems anthropologists use it as I have been doing in this thread, too. Maybe you should write a paper on it and submit it to journals for publication.

Supply a link and you bet your butt i will question them directly, it would be a factual error.

I am well educated in both Hindu religion and European religion, and any scientist worthy of his phd would never EVER confuse the caste and the class system.

That would be interesting for you to tell an anthropologist that he is wrong. It seems to me that you have a Google education. It's interesting how you're saying anthropologists are wrong and you're right. Must be nice to think you're the king of the world.

Do a search on Amazon or any textbook site for 'caste' and you'll get a lot of matches for books, many about other caste systems.

You can't supply ONE single link?

Sure, here are some at Amazon:

Black Trials : Citizenship from the Beginnings of Slavery to the End of Caste

Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class

Race, Caste and Status: Indians in Colonial Spanish America

I guess you still think you're right though since everyone is always wrong in your world. I don't mind. I still stand by my statement that monarchies are a caste system.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: NoReMoRsE
Exactly, as I said before, the Queen is a figurehead, nothing more, in Canada and the UK.

And about the culture thing, Canadians pride ourselves on our diversity of cultures (not homogeny of culture as Can o'Worms and others seem to be insinuating), whereas the U.S. is well-known to be a melting pot of cultures (i.e. you lose your culture and attain an "American" culture).

I'm not saying that she's too much more than a figurehead right now. However, she has the ability to just take over. That, along with controlled media, controlled culture, her image everywhere, etc. all seems like a police state.

I'm not saying anything about Canadian culture other than that the government tries to control some of it. Nobody loses their culture in the US. It sounds like your post came from a Canadian pride TV commercial.

 

[Kibbo]

If the govenor general ever tried to enforce her ceremonial powers in a real way, the government would just ignore her, and appoint someone else.

Her role is not written in any law, it is merely a tradition. To get rid of her wouldn't even take a constitutinal amendment or change.

And if it was tested in the courts, it would have to pass a clause in our Charter of Rights that stipulates that all laws must be consisten with a "free and fair democracy." Overriding a democratically elected body would not satisfy that.

Also, the tie between the GG's authority and the queen is also only traditional, not legal, so the face on out currency hs no direct legal tie to the GGs actions.

And our media is only controlled in two ways:

1. It must be licenced. I beleive that this is true in your country as well.
2. There are canadian content restrictions. These restrictions only apply to the nationality of the people involved in the creation of the content, not the nature of the content itself. There is no way to apply these laws in a way that restricts the opinions of Canadians.

We also have a clause in our Charter of Rights that recognizes freedom of expression as a "fundamental freedom."

The only tool the government could use to restrict the media's content would be the deprivation of licences. And this is the same in all countries that licence media outlets. Tell me how this is different in your country? Remember the Jackson Boobie incident, and the reaction of your licencing authority.

So, after what I have stated, how could "she just take over?" There is no legal mechanism that allows the Queen to have any legislative or executive authority here in Canada. Theoretically, the Governor General does. But that power is undercut due to the fact that her position is at the behest of the Prime Minister.

Edit: And all of this would have to pass the court's approval, which would not be able to be rationalized by ignoring our very powerful Charter of Rights.

Now, compare this to your country, where there have been mutterings about delaying the election, and where your 100% corporate controlled media willfully stopped criticizing the government for a frighteningly long time.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
If the govenor general ever tried to enforce her ceremonial powers in a real way, the government would just ignore her, and appoint someone else.

Her role is not written in any law, it is merely a tradition. To get rid of her wouldn't even take a constitutinal amendment or change.

And if it was tested in the courts, it would have to pass a clause in our Charter of Rights that stipulates that all laws must be consisten with a "free and fair democracy." Overriding a democratically elected body would not satisfy that.

Also, the tie between the GG's authority and the queen is also only traditional, not legal, so the face on out currency hs no direct legal tie to the GGs actions.

And our media is only controlled in two ways:

1. It must be licenced. I beleive that this is true in your country as well.
2. There are canadian content restrictions. These restrictions only apply to the nationality of the people involved in the creation of the content, not the nature of the content itself. There is no way to apply these laws in a way that restricts the opinions of Canadians.

We also have a clause in our Charter of Rights that recognizes freedom of expression as a "fundamental freedom."

The only tool the government could use to restrict the media's content would be the deprivation of licences. And this is the same in all countries that licence media outlets. Tell me how this is different in your country? Remember the Jackson Boobie incident, and the reaction of your licencing authority.

So, after what I have stated, how could "she just take over?" There is no legal mechanism that allows the Queen to have any legislative or executive authority here in Canada. Theoretically, the Governor General does. But that power is undercut due to the fact that her position is at the behest of the Prime Minister.

Isn't the GG named by the monarch on the advice of the PM? She can just choose to ignore his advice.

Her role is defined by law. The Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't have authority over it as decided by a court. All soldiers, immigrants, etc. swear allegiance to the Queen as the legal sovereign of Canada. (I'm not going to pretend I know much about Canadian government beyond what I read on the Internet, but this comes up in a simple search).

Anyways, I think these conditions are closer to a police state than probably most other Western countries.

 

[Kibbo]

Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Booyah.

Edit: That was fun, I always knew we could get rid of her if ever we wanted to, the debate comes up occasionally, but I never knew how. Thanks for making me look it up.

2nd Edit: I think that the Act of Settlement of 1701 was superceded by the British North America Act of 1867, now the Constitution Act of 1867. Where did you find a ruling that said it had priority over the Charter? There are some laws in there that are specifically anti-Catholic, and it would be funny to find out if they were still valid. Also, only the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982 are recognized in the '82 act.

3rd Edit: The Act of Settlement was a British act, and probably no longer applies here in Canada, after the BNA of 1867. The BNA reasserts the executive power the Queen, but Section 44 would apply if she got uppity.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Booyah.

Edit: That was fun, I always knew we could get rid of her if ever we wanted to, the debate comes up occasionally, but I never knew how. Thanks for making me look it up.

2nd Edit: I think that the Act of Settlement of 1701 was superceded by the British North America Act of 1867, now the Constitution Act of 1867. Where did you find a ruling that said it had priority over the Charter? There are some laws in there that are specifically anti-Catholic, and it would be funny to find out if they were still valid. Also, only the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982 are recognized in the '82 act.

3rd Edit: The Act of Settlement was a British act, and probably no longer applies here in Canada, after the BNA of 1867. The BNA reasserts the executive power the Queen, but Section 44 would apply if she got uppity.

Of course you could get rid of her if it's unanimous among all provinces. However, her role is defined by law and is firmly entrenched despite what you said about easily getting rid of her. Nevertheless, it still sounds like a police state if you think about it. If you read the Canadian constitution it even sounds like a autoritarian regime.

Yes, there was a course case involving the anti-Catholic laws in 2002 or 2003 and they ruled that the Charter had no power over the Act. Another reason to disband this caste system - blatant discrimination.

 

[Kibbo]

What I am saying, is that if she overrode the democratically elected gov't, the people wouldn't stand for it. And they have a simple method of removing her.

And I will again ask for proof that the Act of Settlement is still law. It is not recognized in the Constitution Act, so I want proof. That's all. And yes, the Act of Settlement does read like a dictatorship. It was one (sort of). It's purpose was to consolidate the power of the ruling house at the time. I am saying it doesn't apply now.

And remember, historically dictatorships generaly rise from republics, like Wiemar Germany or Rome. Often when the people gather around a strong figure who promises to protect them from a threat.

Edit: also, she can't pass laws with out the support of parliament, or even hold a government without the confidence of the house.

2nd edit: Just looked it up, and it is still a recognized part of out constitution. The thing is, the only part in it which still applies is the part that prohibits Catholics from acending to the throne. This would create a bizzarre situation where our monarch could be different from Britain's. However, this point is moot for this discussion, because the Queen acts appropriately and takes all reccommendations from Parliament. So we wouldn't want to have a different monarch. Well, we might, but the matter is hardly pressing. If ever she acted inapporopriately, we could remove her executive power. Then, we could change the discriminatory provisions in the Act of Settlement.

That court case is a joke. That was some Toronto politician who was upset because the Act of Settlement prevented him from ever becoming King. Also, it hasn't been heard by the Supreme Court, so we don't know how they would rule on the matter.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
What I am saying, is that if she overrode the democratically elected gov't, the people wouldn't stand for it. And they have a simple method of removing her.

And I will again ask for proof that the Act of Settlement is still law. It is not recognized in the Constitution Act, so I want proof. That's all. And yes, the Act of Settlement does read like a dictatorship. It was one (sort of). It's purpose was to consolidate the power of the ruling house at the time. I am saying it doesn't apply now.

And remember, historically dictatorships generaly rise from republics, like Wiemar Germany or Rome. Often when the people gather around a strong figure who promises to protect them from a threat.

Edit: also, she can't pass laws with out the support of parliament, or even hold a government without the confidence of the house.

I don't think getting all the provinces to unanimously get rid of her is an easy solution. Quebec is the only province that is significantly more pro-republic than pro-monarchy.

link

As the Act of Settlement impacts on the crown in the Commonwealth realms the act's anti-Catholic provisions have also been asubject of debate outside of Britain. In 2003, Canadian politician Tony O'Donohue filed a courtchallenge arguing that the Act of Settlement's anti-Catholic provisions were a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights andFreedoms . However, the court ruled that the Act of Settlement was part of Canada's written constitution and dismissed the case as one part of the constitution cannot be used to invalidate anotherpart.

Since you bring up history, historically, most monarchies were dictatorships/authoritarian.

I think it's fairly obvious that Canada seems like a police state with an authoritarian figure, authoritarian-sounding constitution, government controlled media access, government controlled culture, leader's figure everywhere, etc. Even healthcare is dominated by the government, so they decide if you're going to live or die. Is it a police state? No. But I'd think it's closer to one than most other Western nations.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Arrrggghhh, explain to me how, through reincarnation the old monarchies system worked, because THAT is how the caste system works.

As you gain a life level (through reincarnation) you rise on the caste scale. Would you say that you know of ANY monarchy that has EVER worked like that?

Regarding Buddhism and Bushido you are correct though.

Again, you should read some. Many societies have/had caste systems. Japan had a caste system. Monarchies are a type of caste system. Slavery was a caste system.

You're only focusing on one caste system, obviously the most well-known one.

No, you don't get it, many societies have had CLASS systems but the caste system is only in place in hinduist societies.

You can read your eyes out if you want without EVER being able to find anything about monarchies and the caste system (and there are no "systems" it is ONE system only working one way in only one single religion).

I have tried to explain, in several posts now, including an explanation how it works in the religion it works in but you refuse to listen so i am done arguing with you.

You can call ANY system whatever you want if you want i guess, but if you want to use the correct definitions you need to understand them and you DON'T.

The CLASS system hasn't been in place in any monarchy i know of for at least 100 years either, so not even if you should suddenly realize that what was in place in Europe at the time was a Class system you would have a valid argument.


You can argue with yourself about the class and the caste system from now on, i have educated you some about it but i don't have the time to keep educating you.

Nope. It seems anthropologists use it as I have been doing in this thread, too. Maybe you should write a paper on it and submit it to journals for publication.

Supply a link and you bet your butt i will question them directly, it would be a factual error.

I am well educated in both Hindu religion and European religion, and any scientist worthy of his phd would never EVER confuse the caste and the class system.

That would be interesting for you to tell an anthropologist that he is wrong. It seems to me that you have a Google education. It's interesting how you're saying anthropologists are wrong and you're right. Must be nice to think you're the king of the world.

Do a search on Amazon or any textbook site for 'caste' and you'll get a lot of matches for books, many about other caste systems.

You can't supply ONE single link?

Sure, here are some at Amazon:

Black Trials : Citizenship from the Beginnings of Slavery to the End of Caste

Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class

Race, Caste and Status: Indians in Colonial Spanish America

I guess you still think you're right though since everyone is always wrong in your world. I don't mind. I still stand by my statement that monarchies are a caste system.

That was interesting, three links regarding which monarchies? none? and is even ONE of these books written by an antropologist? No?

So *sigh* keep trying, everyone who knows ANYTHING regarding religion knows that the CASTE SYSTEM IS A PART OF HINDUISM, anyone who states otherwise is a complete moron.

 

[Klixxer]

After reading the last replies from CanOWorms i have decided to give up, he won't realize what is true if you took it, placed it on his head and pounded it in with a sledgehammer.

Reality escapes such minds and so CanOWorms, i will not, ever again reply to you.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Arrrggghhh, explain to me how, through reincarnation the old monarchies system worked, because THAT is how the caste system works.

As you gain a life level (through reincarnation) you rise on the caste scale. Would you say that you know of ANY monarchy that has EVER worked like that?

Regarding Buddhism and Bushido you are correct though.

Again, you should read some. Many societies have/had caste systems. Japan had a caste system. Monarchies are a type of caste system. Slavery was a caste system.

You're only focusing on one caste system, obviously the most well-known one.

No, you don't get it, many societies have had CLASS systems but the caste system is only in place in hinduist societies.

You can read your eyes out if you want without EVER being able to find anything about monarchies and the caste system (and there are no "systems" it is ONE system only working one way in only one single religion).

I have tried to explain, in several posts now, including an explanation how it works in the religion it works in but you refuse to listen so i am done arguing with you.

You can call ANY system whatever you want if you want i guess, but if you want to use the correct definitions you need to understand them and you DON'T.

The CLASS system hasn't been in place in any monarchy i know of for at least 100 years either, so not even if you should suddenly realize that what was in place in Europe at the time was a Class system you would have a valid argument.


You can argue with yourself about the class and the caste system from now on, i have educated you some about it but i don't have the time to keep educating you.

Nope. It seems anthropologists use it as I have been doing in this thread, too. Maybe you should write a paper on it and submit it to journals for publication.

Supply a link and you bet your butt i will question them directly, it would be a factual error.

I am well educated in both Hindu religion and European religion, and any scientist worthy of his phd would never EVER confuse the caste and the class system.

That would be interesting for you to tell an anthropologist that he is wrong. It seems to me that you have a Google education. It's interesting how you're saying anthropologists are wrong and you're right. Must be nice to think you're the king of the world.

Do a search on Amazon or any textbook site for 'caste' and you'll get a lot of matches for books, many about other caste systems.

You can't supply ONE single link?

Sure, here are some at Amazon:

Black Trials : Citizenship from the Beginnings of Slavery to the End of Caste

Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class

Race, Caste and Status: Indians in Colonial Spanish America

I guess you still think you're right though since everyone is always wrong in your world. I don't mind. I still stand by my statement that monarchies are a caste system.

That was interesting, three links regarding which monarchies? none? and is even ONE of these books written by an antropologist? No?

So *sigh* keep trying, everyone who knows ANYTHING regarding religion knows that the CASTE SYSTEM IS A PART OF HINDUISM, anyone who states otherwise is a complete moron.

Yes, all of these authors and experts are dumb compared to an Internet brute such as yourself. Your Google education surpasses the education of experts.

The US Deep South isn't in India. Colonial Spanish American isn't in India. Those topics aren't related to Hinduism. Yet they are mentioned as caste systems.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
After reading the last replies from CanOWorms i have decided to give up, he won't realize what is true if you took it, placed it on his head and pounded it in with a sledgehammer.

Reality escapes such minds and so CanOWorms, i will not, ever again reply to you.

That's nice. I provide proof and state facts.

Look at your own statements. You've stated that you would tell anthropologists that they're wrong about caste systems because your Google education teaches you otherwise. It seems that you're the one that won't realize what is true even if a sledgehammer pounds it in your head. I think this is pretty obvious.

This is probably your way of realizing you're wrong - just bowing out of a thread screaming insults.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms


I don't think getting all the provinces to unanimously get rid of her is an easy solution. Quebec is the only province that is significantly more pro-republic than pro-monarchy.


Since you bring up history, historically, most monarchies were dictatorships/authoritarian.

I think it's fairly obvious that Canada seems like a police state with an authoritarian figure, authoritarian-sounding constitution, government controlled media access, government controlled culture, leader's figure everywhere, etc. Even healthcare is dominated by the government, so they decide if you're going to live or die. Is it a police state? No. But I'd think it's closer to one than most other Western nations.

1. Quebec is significantly more republican than monarchist AS IT STANDS NOW. This is in a situation where the Queen plays here role apprpriately. No Province would stand for her infringing on their executive power.

2. Yes, they were authoritarian, but since the monarchy has relinquished its executive power, there is no possibility of a charismatic figure assuming that role. Whereas there are many examples of that happening in Republics. The odds of a person being a Hitler and being a prince are mathematically low. But charismatic dictators get elected. Look at Mugabe.

I have cited law that can prevent the Royal Family from reasserting power. I have tried to explain to you the complexity of having a multi-document constitution, some of which is out of date. I have drawn parallels to the media control in our two countries, which you have not addressed. Show me the structure that affects the political content of the media in my country. I have shown you what structures we have, and you ignored that part of my post. There is no mechanism in our country's government that allows for political interference in the content of the media. At least, none that is not available in your country. Apart from those structures, how does the government control "culture?" The effect of the Queen's face on our money has never been elaborated by you. And the health care is controlled by a separate level of government than the security forces, and those two levels of gov't are set up to be in conflict with one another.

Here's a realistic narrative for yoiur country: Time of crisis, a cowed legislature grants more and more powers to the executive. The charismatic president issues referenda to a panicked public to push through measures that Congress opposes. Your democratic rights are constrained on all sides. Media outlets who criticize are denied licencing. The courts become co-opted by the appointment powers of the executive. Nothing can stop him.

Now, the same thing could happen in our country. But there is nothing in any of what you say that demonstrates that this is made more likely with a Queen. This requires a charismatic person at the helm. If anything, keeping a bunch of inbreds at the top of our chain makes this less likely.

Now, this is how

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: CanOWorms


I don't think getting all the provinces to unanimously get rid of her is an easy solution. Quebec is the only province that is significantly more pro-republic than pro-monarchy.


Since you bring up history, historically, most monarchies were dictatorships/authoritarian.

I think it's fairly obvious that Canada seems like a police state with an authoritarian figure, authoritarian-sounding constitution, government controlled media access, government controlled culture, leader's figure everywhere, etc. Even healthcare is dominated by the government, so they decide if you're going to live or die. Is it a police state? No. But I'd think it's closer to one than most other Western nations.

1. Quebec is significantly more republican than monarchist AS IT STANDS NOW. This is in a situation where the Queen plays here role apprpriately. No Province would stand for her infringing on their executive power.

2. Yes, they were authoritarian, but since the monarchy has relinquished its executive power, there is no possibility of a charismatic figure assuming that role. Whereas there are many examples of that happening in Republics. The odds of a person being a Hitler and being a prince are mathematically low. But charismatic dictators get elected. Look at Mugabe.

I have cited law that can prevent the Royal Family from reasserting power. I have tried to explain to you the complexity of having a multi-document constitution, some of which is out of date. I have drawn parallels to the media control in our two countries, which you have not addressed. Show me the structure that affects the political content of the media in my country. I have shown you what structures we have, and you ignored that part of my post. There is no mechanism in our country's government that allows for political interference in the content of the media. At least, none that is not available in your country. Apart from those structures, how does the government control "culture?" The effect of the Queen's face on our money has never been elaborated by you. And the health care is controlled by a separate level of government than the security forces, and those two levels of gov't are set up to be in conflict with one another.

Here's a realistic narrative for yoiur country: Time of crisis, a cowed legislature grants more and more powers to the executive. The charismatic president issues referenda to a panicked public to push through measures that Congress opposes. Your democratic rights are constrained on all sides. Media outlets who criticize are denied licencing. The courts become co-opted by the appointment powers of the executive. Nothing can stop him.

Now, the same thing could happen in our country. But there is nothing in any of what you say that demonstrates that this is made more likely with a Queen. This requires a charismatic person at the helm. If anything, keeping a bunch of inbreds at the top of our chain makes this less likely.

Now, this is how

ok, thanks for the essay.

What I'm saying is that they are closer to a police state right now, which is pretty obvious if you look at everything as a whole. There IS a law and the royaly does have power. That along with all the other factors means that Canada is closer to a police state than most other Western nations. If you didn't have that flag tied around your head maybe you'd see it.

I don't care for excuses. We could depose the Queen? COULD. As of right now that's not the situation. Anyone can just say we COULD assassinate a dictator and then say that they're less like a police state. But that's just a ridiculous excuse. As it is right now, I think it's pretty obvious Canada is closer to a authoritarian police state - monarch, her image everywhere, control of culture, control of media access, control of healthcare, etc.

Please note that I'm not saying that Canada is a police state right now. Just that it's closer to one than most other developed nations.

 

[oreagan]

And get it RIGHT, caste is related to hinduism, nothing else.

Incorrect.

 

[Kibbo]

Ok, I get it, we were getting bogged down too much in details.

If you look at your Patriot Act, police powers were vastly expanded. Would this not bring you closer to a police state than having healthcare? Or domestic content restricions on media?

Police state = Police powers over individual.

Edit: To have political power means to be able to do things. I hope that I have proven that she effectively can't, no matter what the formalities are.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Ok, I get it, we were getting bogged down too much in details.

If you look at your Patriot Act, police powers were vastly expanded. Would this not bring you closer to a police state than having healthcare? Or domestic content restricions on media?

Police state = Police powers over individual.

Edit: To have political power means to be able to do things. I hope that I have proven that she effectively can't, no matter what the formalities are.

Yep, the Patriot Act brings us closer to a police state.