Yeah, this could be & probably is in the RIP Thread but I think Queen Elizabeth II deserves her own thread. She made it to 96. She had been Queen since 1952, an incredible 70 years. May she Rest In Peace. 

15 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I don't think he's wrong and not only about Americans.  He said "a" weakness - not "the" weakness.

it in no way shows any kind of weakness to enjoy or support the monarchy....

Monarchies are relics of the past. Time to do away with them entirely. You can't believe we are all born equal AND support a monarch of any kind. Ridiculous that anyone in 2022 thinks that royalty should still be a part of the modern world anywhere for any reason. Totally ludicrous. I cannot wrap my head around the love for them, never have and never will.

Any sympathy she and her family gets from me is grounded in the fact she didn't choose to be born into her family any more than we chose to be born simple peasants (in her and her ilk's eyes, anyways). That's about where it ends.

Screw kings and queens... families ordained by their imaginary friend in the sky to rule over the land in perpetuity, talk about eyes rolling out of your head jeeeeeeeez. I shed no tears for any of them, they can all go any time.

17 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said:

Monarchies are relics of the past. Time to do away with them entirely. You can't believe we are all born equal AND support a monarch of any kind. Ridiculous that anyone in 2022 thinks that royalty should still be a part of the modern world anywhere for any reason. Totally ludicrous. I cannot wrap my head around the love for them, never have and never will.

Any sympathy she and her family gets from me is grounded in the fact she didn't choose to be born into her family any more than we chose to be born simple peasants (in her and her ilk's eyes, anyways). That's about where it ends.

Screw kings and queens... families ordained by their imaginary friend in the sky to rule over the land in perpetuity, talk about eyes rolling out of your head jeeeeeeeez. I shed no tears for any of them, they can all go any time.

I have no love for the monarchy, and wouldn't care if they got rid of them, but they really aren't all that different then the love and adulation that actors, rock stars, and athletes get in todays day and age.

I mean the UK still votes for their parliament, so the royal family is just a figurehead.   

1 minute ago, Rich said:

I have no love for the monarchy, and wouldn't care if they got rid of them, but they really aren't all that different then the love and adulation that actors, rock stars, and athletes get in todays day and age.

I mean the UK still votes for their parliament, so the royal family is just a figurehead.   

I hear you, but I would argue that actors, rock stars and athletes at least have to use their gifts and talents to earn their way into the spotlight (naturally gifted though they may be, nobody hands them their career; they go out and get it). Kings and queens, princes and princesses... just need to be born lucky.

 

While we are removing figureheads, let's do away with the Governor General. Did you know they get paid over $300k annually to give royal assent and pin medals on boyscouts? How does one get THAT job?

6 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Imagine calling Viola Desmond obscure. That's some next level ignorance.

She was obscure until the ten dollar bill. The story was never taught in school and when the bill came out the majority of people only learned of that story at that point. Rosa Parks was a household name, Viola Desmond was and is not. It doesn't mean she isn't worthy of being on the bill.

Edited September 9, 20223 yr by Brandon

 

 

                                

This is the way

I'd like to see Norm MacDonald on the $100, everybody knows Norm. 😄

I would have suggested Gord Downie

I vote for Romana Didulo- the rightful queen of Canada. Just ask her!

2 minutes ago, Tracker said:

I vote for Romana Didulo- the rightful queen of Canada. Just ask her!

Tamara Lich on the penny.

16 hours ago, Noeller said:

it in no way shows any kind of weakness to enjoy or support the monarchy....

I think the guy is on the right track though. There is a segment of America that does yearn for that kind role. They put such reverence in the role of president and christ they voted for Bush Jr just because of his family... is it a flaw? Well that's the debate. 

I also guffaw at the assertion that the American revolution was something more than the wealthy elites trying to maintain their wealth. 

1 hour ago, Mark H. said:

Tamara Lich on the penny.

That's actually a really good idea if you think about it lol

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

I think the guy is on the right track though. There is a segment of America that does yearn for that kind role. They put such reverence in the role of president and christ they voted for Bush Jr just because of his family... is it a flaw? Well that's the debate. 

I also guffaw at the assertion that the American revolution was something more than the wealthy elites trying to maintain their wealth. 

A prominent American historian wrote his Phd thesis describing how the American Revolution was more about giving up their slaves, as the British did two years before and were pressuring the Yanks to do so as well. The Canadian colonists had no problem doing so, though and I suspect that is the point at which our culture diverged from the American one. 

On 2022-09-10 at 12:27 PM, Tracker said:

A prominent American historian wrote his Phd thesis describing how the American Revolution was more about giving up their slaves, as the British did two years before and were pressuring the Yanks to do so as well. The Canadian colonists had no problem doing so, though and I suspect that is the point at which our culture diverged from the American one. 

Well, Canada gave up slaves, but so did the northern states.  I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that either of them 'had no problem doing so.' 

24 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Well, Canada gave up slaves, but so did the northern states.  I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that either of them 'had no problem doing so.' 

Canada did not have a civil war over the issue of slavery, but slavery continued even in the northern states for several decades.

1 hour ago, Tracker said:

Canada did not have a civil war over the issue of slavery, but slavery continued even in the northern states for several decades.

At the time of the civil war, most slavery in the northern states had been discontinued. 

On 2022-09-10 at 8:47 AM, 17to85 said:

I think the guy is on the right track though. There is a segment of America that does yearn for that kind role. They put such reverence in the role of president and christ they voted for Bush Jr just because of his family... is it a flaw? Well that's the debate. 

I also guffaw at the assertion that the American revolution was something more than the wealthy elites trying to maintain their wealth. 

British taxes on tea & a blockade I believe.

11 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

British taxes on tea & a blockade I believe.

There is some debate on that point, it has been suggested the Boston Tea Party was a false flag event that wealthy American merchants used as an ignition point for taking over control of trade to the colonies.  Considering acquiring more wealth and resources has been the historical motivation for America to get involved in most wars, it doesn't seem that far-fetched.

11 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

British taxes on tea & a blockade I believe.

That was the cover story.

13 hours ago, Mark H. said:

At the time of the civil war, most slavery in the northern states had been discontinued. 

And that was some 70 years after the American war of independence, but there was no such resistance to the elimination of slavery in Canada. As you likely know, Canada was the northern end of the "underground railway" where runaway slaves were tolerated if not welcomed. There was some degree of resentment about Upper Canada being flooded with ex-slaves.

5 hours ago, Fatty Liver said:

There is some debate on that point, it has been suggested the Boston Tea Party was a false flag event that wealthy American merchants used as an ignition point for taking over control of trade to the colonies.  Considering acquiring more wealth and resources has been the historical motivation for America to get involved in most wars, it doesn't seem that far-fetched.

Back then, there was no American Imperialism. The Colonies were barely making it on their own. They resented British rule as wella s increased taxes & wanted to be independent from London (Monarchy & Parliament). 

17 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Back then, there was no American Imperialism. The Colonies were barely making it on their own. They resented British rule as wella s increased taxes & wanted to be independent from London (Monarchy & Parliament). 

I disagree. by the time of that 1860's civil war in the US (there were others, too) came around, the Americans were trying to conquer Canada and Mexico as per the Monroe doctrine and the policy of "manifest destiny". That militancy seems to have always been there and I seem to recall that, in the past 200 years the US has been involved in more foreign wars than any other nation on Earth.

Edited September 12, 20223 yr by Tracker

3 minutes ago, Tracker said:

I disagree. by the time of that 160's civil war in the US (there were others, too) came around, the Americans were trying to conquer Canada and Mexico as per the Monroe doctrine and the policy of "manifest destiny". That militancy seems to have always been there and I seem to recall that, in the past 200 years the US has been involved in more foreign wars than any other nation on Earth.

The Monroe Doctrine was half a century after the Civil War. The US still hadn't expanded west out of the colonial states in 1823. That would come but not yet. 

Edited September 12, 20223 yr by SpeedFlex27

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

The Monroe Doctrine was half a century after the Civil War. The US still hadn't expanded west out of the colonial states. That would come but not yet. 

There was a lot of states west of the original colonies during the civil war.

1 minute ago, Jpan85 said:

There was a lot of states west of the original colonies during the civil war.

There were as thousands migrated along the Oregon & California Trails or into Texas (which was under Mexican control) but the real push out west came with the Iron Horse in the 1870's.