Stuff that doesn't really fit in either "Examples of" thread....

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Legally they are all traitors and could be put in the tower of London and hung for treason! It is kinda like J6 for the Brits, Charles is the legal head of state and to say otherwise is treason, he is in effect the state, not merely it's head. However, those days are past, but it is in the not the too distant past and the basic law and constitution remains the same. I dunno what these people will be charged with, probably disturbing the peace or some other minor thing.

i still find it disturbing that one of our closest allies silences public free speech to protect an inbred waste of public funds.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
i still find it disturbing that one of our closest allies silences public free speech to protect an inbred waste of public funds.
As far as Canada is concerned, I'm not in favor of monarchy, but we will have serious constitutional issues if we open up a can of worms. It would be the same for the UK and probably the end of the place as a unified country. Other than cost money, the royals are apolitical or liberal and for Canada it would not be much of a financial savings to replace the GG with a ceremonial president who has the same powers. There are as many "lose ends" in Canada and the UK as there are in the US constitution and you guys can't amend yours much either lately.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
As far as Canada is concerned, I'm not in favor of monarchy, but we will have serious constitutional issues if we open up a can of worms. It would be the same for the UK and probably the end of the place as a unified country. Other than cost money, the royals are apolitical or liberal and for Canada it would not be much of a financial savings to replace the GG with a ceremonial president who has the same powers. There are as many "lose ends" in Canada and the UK as there are in the US constitution and you guys can't amend yours much either lately.
whether you open it or not, that can of worms is sitting on your kitchen counter, and it's not going to go away until you do open it.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
that two-faced both-sidesing jerk.

i believe i said it at least two years ago...sinema is for sinema...she's a narcissistic opportunist.
She'll ride the first convenient coat tail that is going her way, and gleefully hop to another half way to her destination.
Good fucking luck to her running as an independent, and that is said with all the sarcasm i can muster.
 
Last edited:

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
whether you open it or not, that can of worms is sitting on your kitchen counter, and it's not going to go away until you do open it.
It is in America too and opening it up is difficult in America, much easier in Canada. Let's say we elect a ceremonial president by direct vote, such a mandate would translate into political power that would challenge the PM who is only elected by his riding and party. If we stuck with the current method, the PM would appoint a president for a 5-year term as he does with the GG. There are other complications too like an increased role and different statues for first nations and provincial powers and prerogatives, like the not really settled "notwithstanding clause". Justin's old man Pierre was the only one in recent history who had the guts and brains to deal with it while keeping Quebec inside the country as it transformed from the Dominion of Canada to the country of Canada in the 1980s.

America has problems with democracy as currently constituted with rampant gerrymandering, a senate that represents geography and not people and a President not elected directly, but by a failed an obsolete electoral college, whose purpose was to keep Trump's out of power, not rubber stamp them in. It was a system set up by wealthy white men and partly designed to protect them and their wealth from the majority. As you know just getting rid of a bad idea like the second amendment would be impossible, at least for right now, so other work arounds must be devised.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
It is in America too and opening it up is difficult in America, much easier in Canada. Let's say we elect a ceremonial president by direct vote, such a mandate would translate into political power that would challenge the PM who is only elected by his riding and party. If we stuck with the current method, the PM would appoint a president for a 5-year term as he does with the GG. There are other complications too like an increased role and different statues for first nations and provincial powers and prerogatives, like the not really settled "notwithstanding clause". Justin's old man Pierre was the only one in recent history who had the guts and brains to deal with it while keeping Quebec inside the country as it transformed from the Dominion of Canada to the country of Canada in the 1980s.

America has problems with democracy as currently constituted with rampant gerrymandering, a senate that represents geography and not people and a President not elected directly, but by a failed an obsolete electoral college, whose purpose was to keep Trump's out of power, not rubber stamp them in. It was a system set up by wealthy white men and partly designed to protect them and their wealth from the majority. As you know just getting rid of a bad idea like the second amendment would be impossible, at least for right now, so other work arounds must be devised.
We have a can of inbred royal useless parasitical worms on our counter? I think you are mistaken, sir, we have 99 cans on our counter, but a monarchy ain't one...
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
We have a can of inbred royal useless parasitical worms on our counter? I think you are mistaken, sir, we have 99 cans on our counter, but a monarchy ain't one...
You almost had King Donald and half the country would be eager to have him again, Charlie would be an angel compared to him, inbreeding included, which tends to make them just stupid and not mean!
 

Bagginski

Well-Known Member
Last edited:

printer

Well-Known Member
A 'what if' question. If a serial killer disposed of the bodies of two street people into the ocean and the cost of a recovery, which would not be guaranteed, would be $150 million. Would it be worth doing for the peace of mind for the families or would it be better to spend the money on the living (money going to the homeless) or send it to Ukraine?
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
A 'what if' question. If a serial killer disposed of the bodies of two street people into the ocean and the cost of a recovery, which would not be guaranteed, would be $150 million. Would it be worth doing for the peace of mind for the families or would it be better to spend the money on the living (money going to the homeless) or send it to Ukraine?
that is akin to the “trolley problem” (do you sacrifice one life to save five?) but without the “either choice kills” wrinkle.

My provisional opinion is that $150 million approaches “real money”, and how the rest plays out hinges on a few undisclosed details, such as the two extreme possibilities that a) the families are quite indifferent or b) one of the street people is the escaped and not compos mentis scion of, say, a royal family.

Dismissing these boundary conditions, I’d say that the large sum is better spent on either humanitarian objective you mentioned at the end. If it were $1.5 million, and the families cared enough to donate or raise a good portion of it, my choice flips.

However I can be convinced otherwise. I have doubtless missed some possibly important considerations.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
A 'what if' question. If a serial killer disposed of the bodies of two street people into the ocean and the cost of a recovery, which would not be guaranteed, would be $150 million. Would it be worth doing for the peace of mind for the families or would it be better to spend the money on the living (money going to the homeless) or send it to Ukraine?
What if they offered the families a million each, or they could do the search? Would a million bucks salve their wounded souls?

I would consider them lost at sea, now if someone did in Donald and put him in a land fill, then they would spend a billion or ten to find his corpse, the republicans would insist!
 
Top