Matt

So the US, France, Germany, Russia, and all the other countries that have rid themselves of monarchy have no culture? Get a clue. Furthermore, the history of the British Empire is really nothing to be proud of being associated with. Yeah, we should know and understand it, but Canada, like most industrialized countries, should be apologizing for its history and looking to build a future. Specifically, a future without institutions that symbolize privilege, autarchy and imperialism. France doesn't have a monarchy because of a revolution, but their culture was always a strong one. But, you missed the point, we come from the British, we are British, we are also Canadian too. Canadians are different than Europe, and the U.S. worked hard by removing everything British to make a unique culture. But, hiding one side or another does little good either. Look at the U.S. system, it's not very progressive, and a government system needs to be progressive. It has to allow democracy to happen, but issues need to be resolved. Sometimes an issue cannot wait too long, and it has to be resolved sooner than later. The idea that the minority has a voice in the U.S. system is wrong too because the minority would either have to have a significant minority in the Congress or Senate there to be heard, or have a majority. However, the minority cannot have any voice beyond denying bills. Look at the Canadian Same Sex Marriage bill the "Liberals" have tried to please both the minority and the majority. For one side they are trying to have the bill pass, and for the other side they added in a portion that declares that religous institutions do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not want to. If anything, I would say our system works better, because a candidate needs plenty of votes in his riding to be elected anyways.

"Limblifter"

She can reject bills, if she does though, then the Prime Minister can have the Governor General replaced.

But both drugs have the same side effects when it comes to causing the same problems, which I have already mentioned previously.

I say that it's a good idea to keep it illegal because the government shouldn't encourage smoking pot.

I read the newspapers, but my point is that the inquiry isn't finished, and it's too early to say who's at fault for the scandal beyond some people in the "Liberals".

The same harm drunks can do, the same harm others can do too, without knowledge that they're doing it because they're under the influence of pot.

How do you know it didn't happen to them? Is the inquiry finished? No, so maybe it's not that the Liberals are corrupt, but one or two people are corrupt. Which can happen to any party.

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Please, it's well known that this would happen. Right now people are less likely to get high and drive because if they get caught they've just commited two offences, getting and impaired driving. Other crimes, can happen anyways, people could be stopped before they happen though if they catch the criminals for pot possesion and other pot related offences.

By legalizing Pot more problems can happen, like people getting high than driving, which can be just as harmful as drunk driving. There would be other problems too, there would be no way to stop people from doing harm under the influence of pot. It's likely American kids would flock here, like people flock to Amsterdam just because it's legal to get high even.

But, the other parties could have had the same thing happen to them as well.

Any change would still scare people would it not? But to make the Charter legal, the Queen had to sign it so it would have to be affected too. Doing away with the Royals are not as easy as it sounds. The Consitution Act was originally the British North America Act, which was originally made legal by Queen Victoria, bills are made legal by the Governor General (the Queen's representive for Canada). Changing one or two things around, still makes the rest of the documents fair game for being tampered with some more as well. It's not as easy as just doing away with the royalty in Canada as it might sound.

What about all the good they've done? On social issues and what not, even the other parties would have problems like the "Liberals" too since no one is perfect.

To lose the crown, would we not have to change our "Charter"? Do you think people would support that when some do not support the idea of politicians being able to use the "Not With Standing Clause". Wouldn't people be scared that if someone can change one or two portions of the charter that anything else in it is fair game too?

The "Liberals" are a real party, and they've managed the country pretty well too.

"I'm Afraid of Americans"

The U.S. are still behind Canada socially. I would rather stick to the Canadian system which allows to democracy to happen without stalling or slowing it down. I believe that having something like an elected Governor General would slow that down. Our current system does the job quite well, and other forms of government don't work. Plus our current system is also tied into our past. Tradition is apart of a country's identity and culture.

We already are a sovereign nation, we don't need to do away with tradition because that's what makes up Canadian culture. Had British soldiers, residing in Canada not created hockey we would not have hockey. The Scottish created Curling, another Canadian pasttime. Going on a tyraid to remove all things British is my destructive to the society and our culture than it is helpful. The Americans have tried to do away with as much Britishness as they possibly can, and they're behind Canada socially. How is that evolving? The Governor General is a Prime Minister appointed position. If the Prime Minister disagrees with what the Governor General is doing or has done, the P.M. can remove them at any time. For example, if the Governor General doesn't pass a bill currently, the P.M. can decide to make them no longer be the Governor General. Although I agree our current G.G. should not spend as much as she does. I believe it would also be a collosal waste of tax payer dollars to elect them. Especially considering if let's say the "Liberal Party" wins the most seats in the House of Commons, but a member of the "Conservative Party" is elected Governor General, the G.G. then could reject all "Liberal" bills flat out without having any way of reversing their decision unless someone manages to convince them otherwise. To continue this example, let's say the "Liberals" decide they will take their chances and have another election in the hopes of having a G.G. this time be elected that is also a "Liberal". They have to go to the current Governor General and ask to have a new election, the Governor General refuses, for any number of reasons, to perhaps give the "Conservatives" more time to build up more support, etc. So for maybe four or five years until an election must be called, we're stuck with a government that cannot have anything completed, close to nothing, or even nothing on the "important" issues because of the difference in party philosphies. The U.S. system works currently mainly because the "Republicans" have more members in the senate and congress so they do not have to convince as many people to have bills pass. Checks and balances can actually slow down democracy as much as they can be useful. I do not believe that the issues should be rushed into solving neccessarily, but they should not be halted indefinitely either. The issues need to be resolved as well, as they need to be thought about.

I believe we should keep the crown. How can we have a Canadian culture without having a past? How can we have a Canadian identity without having a past? It does not hold us back, Canadians have continued to evolve over time anyways. There are benefits to being in the Commonwealth too, not so much with trade anymore. But, I do not think it is worth dropping out of.

Bradford How was terrible, he just acted like a little kid the whole time. That was the beginning of the turn around. Doesn't every generation say the next generations music is crap? Is it the music station or the people listening to it?

Radiohead, is the song by any chance, Northey Valenzuela's song "Halfway to Happy"?

Also, I meant to mention earlier that "Remote Control" was originally a "Limblifter" song but was released by the AOE/recorded by them because they needed another song.

The reason the U.S. has influence over us isn't because of our military, it's because 80 percent of our goods are imported to the U.S.

Craig Northey is indeed the lead singer of the song, but the band/duo that performs it is "Northey Valenzuela". I saw the show last week (I think), and it was pretty funny, I liked how they kicked "The Tragically Hip" out of the garage, and Colin James wasn't good enough to play in the band.

I like "The Age of Electric", however "Limblifter" was created as a side project by Ryan Dahle and Kurt Dahle before "Make A Pest A Pet" was released.