Canada Day

[aeon]

Our history in dealing with natives, is still much, much better than that of our southern neighbour. Though still quite lacking, obviously.

From my point of view, we are in the same boat as the americans regardings the natives.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Re: RE: Canada Day

For the third time aeon, please present me with an example of a state that is 'better' (keeping in mind that better is a subjective term) than Canada.

I'm fairly certain that it wasn't a rhetorical question.


AEON!!!!!!!!!! Please answer the question.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Canada Day

For the third time aeon, please present me with an example of a state that is 'better' (keeping in mind that better is a subjective term) than Canada.

I'm fairly certain that it wasn't a rhetorical question.


AEON!!!!!!!!!! Please answer the question.

I thought we already covered that. :lol:

 

[Lotuslander]

Claudius wrote:

Funny. First you say this,
Quote:
Up until 2003 British subjects could vote in Nova Scotia provincial elections.

Then you say this
Quote:
I am not saying Britian votes for member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly prior to 2003, I am saying that British citizens, jamaicans, New Zealanders, Aussies and any other country which retains the Queen as head of state and who's citizens lived in NS 6 months prior to election day was eligible to vote. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


Why didn't you say that the first time? The first seems to imply something quite different. I do admit "ignorance" to this situation, but so what? I wasn't speaking about it either.

What i said the first time was quite clear. british subject has a set definition. Yes, you do possess ignornce in the situation; Which makes your jumping to conclusions all the more puzzling.

Yes, you were speaking of british subjects at first denying that we are subjects of the Queen. Then you said that what i posted about NS was inaccurate when in fact you didn't know what you were talking about much like most of your posts.

Which makes me believe I either said something you didn't like ... Who cares either way. If you had simply brought that to my attention instead of trying to act smarter than you actually are I would've been grateful...or do you think I would've argued it?

-Claudius

You're damn right you said something I didn't like. Mainly the inaccurate posts you put on this thrread. As I pointed out before the amount of incorrect historical facts is somewhat mindboggling. I was attempting to put together the complete list but, it is just taking way too long. But here are two amongst many: 1 You stat4ed the Queen is not our head of state saying" No sir, where did you get this? and 2: Stated that we didn't ratify the constitution until 1982 which is incorrect. We had long had a constitution before 82. The Constitutiona Act 1982 and associated legislation added to the documents both written and through convention whcih we already possessed. I guess my problem is you pretend to be the right. And yes I think you would have argued the point. I do not believe subtleties to be your strong suit.

It wasn't hypothetical. Western expansion was much slower than in the US. There was more RCMP and fewer people. There was less need to be armed because there was, by that time, more law. Furthermore there was nothing to indicate I thought it should be "submitted as academic writing" --- childish arrogant hyperbole is another sign of an idiot.

-Claudius

As for the west you made a number of assumption; whcih at best were speculative. No one can deny that the canadian West was slower to grow. however, your assumptions about the RCMP and the inference you make with guns is simplistic and false. In reality the opening up of the West has little to do with gun laws in this country. Or for that matter Canadians perceptions about firearms. If you are going to make statements like that, especially without any qualitative evidence to back i ttup expect it to be contentious. As for the RCMp being the reason why Canadians being so law-abidiing. You are way off. The reasoning has far more to do with where the settlers were from, Northern European countires and their own needs of social interaction.
As for the RCMP being in large numbers out West. There were very few of them ( a couple hundred, then a few thousand)to cover a vast track of land, if one wanted to be lawless there was plenty of opportunity.

As for how many cities had sprouted by 1867; this a good question. (I hope you haven't reached your academic apex) Obviously if one includes the Midwest the numbers are quite large but, if one excludes the midwest then the numbers are pretty modest like Canada's. LA was nothing SF was the major city on the coast, seattle was around along with places like Helena Montana, denver, but they were much smaller more towns than cities. As for your contentions that you could have a track of land through bribery etc... I am, sure some of that took place but for the most part the Gov't was giving it away.

Alas I could write for hours trying to correct the inaccuracies of your posts but, I'll stop here for today.

Here is what Claudius wrote regarding the West"

It should be noted that this slow evolution as it were has more to do with perpetual slow population growth. Grand changes to social structure are done on a need-to-do-it basis, the slower models have a lot to do with slow expansion. This has a lot to do actually with the difference, ever so subtle, between Americans and Canadians. For example there is the perception that Canadians have stricter gun laws, or that Americans have a gun fetish. The reality is that the Canadian West was opened up at hibernation speed compared to the American West. 1867 was not just the ratification of this colonial business deal, but also coincided with the final completion of a cross-Canada rail road, which was a contentious point between he provinces. If we had no reasonable way to share our goods or to sell internationally from either sea, why make a country at all? There would’ve been probably four countries here if they never finished that damn rail way.

Even after the railroad was built it was like pulling teeth to get people out West. They bribed and paid people to do it. You could have a track of land if you could only fence it down a plant a house on it. By the time there was any reasonable population out the RCMP was already here in decent numbers for the time and had already made a diplomatic basis between the natives. West there was less reliance on your own gun because there was law. There was less reason to war with the natives because expansion was at a drip rate instead of a bucket rate like down south.

1867? There wasn’t anything but a fort where I am now and even less everywhere else. How many cities had sprouted out already in the US West by 1867? I think San Francisco was already serving mail to Hawaii by then, no?

=Claudius

 

[Claudius]

zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

.

 

[darkbeaver]

In 1867 we defeated the Spanish Armada off the coast of Cape Breaton. Ever since that day we have got staveing drunk every July first and remained that way till the third or the fourth.

 

[Mogz]

Still waiting on the answer to LRGs question aeon, I believe he's asked it four (4) times now? My, that 145 IQ you mentioned is really starting to show....you're such a social intellectual. Answer the damned question.

 

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: Canada Day

For the third time aeon, please present me with an example of a state that is 'better' (keeping in mind that better is a subjective term) than Canada.

He can't. Quebec is merely a province.

Well, I can. TEXAS. If you don't believe it, come down here and live for 10 years, and we will have you Texanized like you wouldn't believe. Why, once you taste our TexMex/see our beautiful women/get a look at our real estate prices - you'll stay forever, and you won't ever say 'eh again. It's all good, y'all.

Uncle

 

[Nuggler]

So what do Canadians celebrate on Canada Day? I know the official version, the union of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and I forget the other province under the British North American Act of 1867, essentially maitaining loyalty to the British Crown.

So the celebration is for what? Loyalty to the Crown? The union of the Provinces? Or does it differ with each Canadian?

Hi ITN:

Quotation from some Canadian whatever:

"On June 20, l868 a proclamation signed by the Govenor General, Lord Monk, called on all Her Majesty's loving subjects throughout Canada to join in the celebration of the anniversary of the formation of the union of the British North America provinces in a federation under the name of Canada on July 1st."

The July 1 holiday was established by statute in 1879, under the name "Dominion Day".

S'all I know bout it.

We have parades, celebrate, fireworks, drinking, non drinking, sex, drugs, drive by shootings ...........all the stuff that goes with patriotism :lol:

Some of us actually fly the Canadian flag from the front porch, wear hats with flags on em, go on parade with the members of the Royal Canadian Legion, without whom our country as we know it, would not exist.

That's about it from the swamp. No doubt others do it differently.

Goin back to read from page one now.

Fishin sucks.

Ugg.
:?

 

[FiveParadox]

In relation to the exchanges above between Claudius and Lotuslander, I would like to present my own position.

The head of state of Canada, whether or not Claudius would seem prepared to concede this point, is indeed Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and the executive power of our Government of Canada is vested in her person. This is made quite clear by Section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and this point has never been amended and therefore, until such time as the Act is changed, Her Majesty continues to act as our head of state and our nexus of executive power.

In terms of saying that Her Excellency The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada has no power whatsoever is quite incorrect. Granted, it would be highly unlikely that Her Excellency would ever exercise the prerogatives of the Crown of Canada without the consent of the Ministers of the Crown, but if she decided to do so nonetheless, her order would have the force and effect of the law, notwithstanding the objections of the head of government (for example, Her Excellency could dissolve the Parliament of Canada right now, if she had a cause to do so, or she could even have permitted The Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P., the Member for LaSalle—Émard to continue as prime minister after the most recent election, and it would have been so).

In fact, Her Majesty even has certain powers that are unavailable to even the Governor General — namely, (a) the power to authorize the appointment of four or eight more Senators to the Senate of Canada, and (b) the power to veto legislation within two years of its passage.