It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Are Canadians being lied to? I definitely think so. I need your opinion ATS.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by Swanfilters

We don't like being associated with a bunch of baby seal clubbing barbarians, just for the record.

LOL blame Canada!

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Swanfilters
Canadians need to remember, without the commonwealth you'd just be another client state of the US, at least the commonwealth gives you some form of distinct identity. We don't like being associated with a bunch of baby seal clubbing barbarians, just for the record.

I'm calling bu!!5h!t on this....

If it were not for the Civil war and the North being supported by the English......

Come one now....Canada has stood on it's own for 150 odd years now, we still kick EVERYONE'S a$$'s in NATO exercises at sea INCLUDING the U.S.A. Our soldiers are better trained at multitasking withing their respective trades plus infantry training to boot than any other military. I know,...I lived it 100% on posting and deployment !!

As for the Royal name being reinstated....It's just a marketing ploy and senseless spending to be part of a fad bandwagon public campaign.

We already have the Royal 22nd

and more...Why diminish that and include everyone....????

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:38 PM
I have been hearing people flub the names and add in Royal for years.

Many parts of the military are named for the royal family. So even dropping "royal" doesn't matter.

The royal designation has been dropped and returned before.

So for example, The Canadian Forces doesn't contain the "Royal" but the Infantry Personnel Branch does and the the badge has a Royal Crown, the three conjoined maple leafs are taken from the Royal Arms of Canada, and represent service to Canada, the Crown, and the Sovereign. So even without the designation, it is all still there.

Even without the "Royal" there is in the Regular Force of the Infantry the The Royal Canadian Regiment and the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI), Royal 22 Regiment, The Queen's Owns Rifles of Canada, & The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada. Only the Canadian Guards, and the Airbourne don't have a direct link to the Royal family.
edit on 2011/8/30 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

OK - to answer your question: Count me in with those opposed.

PM Harper must think being "progressive" means putting everything back to the 1950's.

Seriously - this is either a smokescreen or a diversion to get out attention off other things he's trying to do. Or possibly building support for the Monarchy in the event of a NWO centered around the British Monarchy.

There's more pressing matters at hand in the Great White. Such as how we're about to lose our Internet privacy to US-style unwarranted surveillance.

edit on 2011/8/30 by NLightN because: Spelling and Grammar

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:59 PM
So we can have dozens of Royal divisions, branches, regiments, warships, units, The Commander-in-Chief is the Queen....

but putting "Royal" back in the Overall title of the forces, that's backward thinking.

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:22 PM
I took a statistics course in university, and I can tell you by asking your neighbours and community members their opinions on the name change does not accurately reflect the opinions of the majority of the country. That's because where you live corresponds with the specific demographic you are associated with when taking statistics. This is pure speculation BUT, if you asked citizens from downtown Calgary I'm sure 8 out of 10 people would support the name change, conversely if you asked citizens in Quebec City I'm sure 8 out of 10 would not support it. So I'm afraid your argument is a bit flawed by just asking members of your community.

Also I believe you are a bit mislead on the support for the monarchy in Canada. The most recent pole I can find is an Angus Reid pole taken in July 2010. The pole was taken after the Queen's last visit and the numbers are as follows: 36% support the monarchy, 30% do not support the monarchy, 21% are ambivalent towards the issue, and 14% responded "not sure". Source

Personally I fall into the ambivalent category, because changing the whole system in my opinion would be a nightmare and a HUGE cost. I do agree that changing the name back to "Royal" is a step backwards, and as we approach our 150th birthday I believe the role of the monarchy will be questioned extensively.

Good thought provoking post OP! By the by, I think there should be a Canada Topics thread....

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
Amazing how easily the public is distracted and deluded by such a non consequential issue. Whether royal is in the name or not is trivial. In reality it is the bankers in London that control Canada and it's political system.
It has been said, and rightly so that Americans are naive but Canadians are hyper-delusional. Whose policy was it to allow unbridled immigration into Canada of excessive numbers of disparate ethnic groups, most with no means of support. This policy was so misguided that the government had to be expanded and/or native born Canadians bumped out of gov't jobs to accomodate employment needs. Doubt me, then take an international flight into Toronto and get checked in by an Immigration section that looks like a UN delegation.
In the majority of non anglo american societies immigration volumes are determined by economic necessity. people trying to immigrate into these countries must demonstrate economic independence and are typically denied naturalization, or alternatively a passports are rarely issued. In Canada you need know only one word of English to gain access and a passport; "Refugee". Canada has covered up this screwup by subjecting anyone spotlighting this non politically correct situation to a human rights or some other tribunal. Political correctness has been taken to a whole new level. Your are told to bury your tradition and culture and accept an RCMP officer with a turban. Next a camel will be substituted for a horse. I submit that the London bankers have intentionally ordered politicans to impliment such a program to create division within society and disolve the glue that binds Canadian tradition, culture and sovereignty. To investigate the cost of the immigration program to the Canadian invites retribution from the Canadian judicial system. This is because the bankers have made immigrants and their religions and cultural beliefs sacrosanct. Many immigrants are immune to prosecution. It is ok to discriminate against the WASP because he is honoured and respected only at tax time.
If you doubt what I am saying then look into the Bank of Canada, headed up by one Mark Carney, an ex employee of Goldman Sachs. Ask Mr. Carney why when the Government of Canada when it needs to borrow money, it has to go to major banks rather than get the $$ from the Bank of Canada interest free. Mr. Carney is a Bilderberger which means he dances to the drum of the London Bankers.
Why would the Bank of Canada guarantee all mortgages written by the banks. This is a setup for a future (next year) takedown of real estate in Canada which will leave the taxpayer as the bagholder.
Why are water rights in Canada being given away or sold to big corporations and individuals like Maurice Strong.
Big corporations and Bankers control the show in Canada. A good example, you, as a little guy want to do a building project. The first question is "Where is the environmental Impact Study". Huge corporations though, with $$ to throw around, can set up an environmental disaster or monumental proportions ie Tarsands and there are no questions asked. Normal Canadians are critized by their government for creating a large carbon footprint but the tarsands project creates an enormous footprint but this is politically correct.
If you are still worried about the Royal in navy or army or navy then consider this. In June of last year you hosted a G-20 meeting in Toronto followed by a G-8. When this happened in Philadelphia the year before the tab was $11 million. In Toronto it was $1 billion. What violence did they prevent; none. The police stopped a contractor and found a chainsaw in the trunk. Provocateurs who coincidently were wearing police issued footwear burned a few police cars. Did any Canadian ask where the $1 billion went; what security services were used and what they cost. This billion dollars was paid to protect the same bankers that collect enormous interest payments on public debt which is paid by you. Did Harper come and ask Canadians if they wanted to pay $1 billion to host a G-20 meeting for the benefit of 20 bankers. What infrastructure was created for the future benefit of Canadians as a result of this billion dollar expenditure. WHO GOT THE CASH?
I ask all of you Canadians that work for a living, not the parasitic class, to sit down with a pen and paper. Now write down the amount you pay in taxes in one column. In another column write down the benefits your derived from your taxes last year and how much you feel each is worth. No, garbage pickup is not a federal benefit.
Come on folks wake up and think about what issues really matter. Royal in front of anything doesn't cut it.

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by cayrichard

Wow, that is a rather long response. It was thought provoking, but I am not sure where some of it applies to the points I made. I have a feeling you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to get across. No worries though. My main concern about your post is how you mentioned the G-20 summit. Believe me, we raised a fuss about it. There are many other points in your post I would like to address but I am too tired to create a long reply. I thank you though for the effort you put into your post even though I disagree with some of your opinions. Overall though I agree with most of what you said.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in