User talk:G2bambino/Archive 4

Monarchy of Canada

Hello G2. Do you have any smelling salts for me? We've got a Canadian republican agreeing with a British monarchist at the article in question. Oh well, everybody has a right to express their views on an article's makeup. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

? I missed that one. --G2bambino (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

MC Rufus has agreed with Tharky's views, that Elizabeth II's is not the Canadian monarch, but rather the British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yea; that is a little wierd, but not completely surprising. A British nationalist who wants to keep the Queen all his, and a Canadian republican who wants to give her all to Britain. Strange where you can find common interests, eh? --G2bambino (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! I agree with him 100% It's their monarchy. Let them have it. What kind of sad excuse for a nation has such little confidence in its own culture that it has to adopt another country's monarchy and then have the gaul to call it their own? Pathetic. No other word for it. - MC Rufus (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada is a constitutional monarchy, with Elizabeth II as its monarch. One can protest it, call it silly, etc; but that doesn't change the facts, MC. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And it takes a culturally weak nation to throw off its deeply rooted institutions with cries of "we're not sharing anymore!" and "its another country's monarchy!" all while pushing to adopt another country's form of republic... whichever one that is... in order to gain an independence that was already established some time ago. Spin, spin, lies and spin; and juvenile, bitter spin at that. Makes one wonder where the pathetic label should really be applied. --G2bambino (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer Canada bestow the HoS position on the Prime Minister (keeping the title PM) & continue the Parliamentary system. It would be an original setup (I think). GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

*Shudder* Firstly, Prime Minister would be a misnomer for such a post; the definition of a minister is one who advises or directs. In your scenario, who would the prime minister be ministering? Secondly, without adopting an American-style congressional system, how would the PM/President be kept in check? --G2bambino (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To G2: My second choice would be the French model. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder how the provinces would feel about that. --G2bambino (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll never know, until a Referendum is set up & held. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a referendum would be held until there was a model to vote on, which would need the provinces' approval before-hand. --G2bambino (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia considered this issue recently, as you both know. One of the models proposed was a Westminster-style democracy, changing the Constitution very little. The president would have had the same powers as the GG. In fact that was the model we voted on. The only sticking point was the manner in which he would be appointed.--Gazzster (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true; though there was that other sticky point of the royal prerogative, which would have to be codified in a republican constitution, and that means a pretty extensive re-write. --G2bambino (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right G2, unlike now, where the PM is kept in check? LOL! Incidentally, Commonwealth nation South Africa already uses the President/parliament formula quite effectively. They dropped the monarchy back in the 60s, making their GG a ceremonial president (like Ireland). Then they merged the president and PM offices. And, I don't disagree that Canada is a monarchy. I just think it's a joke to call it Canadian. - MC Rufus (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unlike now.

There appear to be no ultimate checks on a South African president's power. --G2bambino (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I resent the implication that I'm a "British nationalist". If you want to share our monarchy that's fine, but let there be no mistake - those who pay the bills, call the shots. We fought this out 350 years ago. The monarchy exists because the British people want it to. If we decided to scrap it, yours would disappear in a puff of constitutional smoke like the legal fiction that it is. TharkunColl (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Baseless ramblings of a Victorian imperialist. Damn colonies... mutter mutter... hrumph. --G2bambino (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is in the natural order of things for teenagers to assert their independence and yet in most cases keep hold of the apron strings. Do you have any idea how amusing all this is to us? TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I care not one bit. --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you ought to. The monarchy you so passionately worship is our monarchy. Legal niceties aside, you know it - and more importantly we know it. Why don't you just grow up. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I oughtn't to. Canada has a monarchy, legal niceties, costs, and all. All grown up. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How much does Canada contribute to the upkeep of the Queen and her family? TharkunColl (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

$34 million a year, at last count. --G2bambino (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does that money actually go? TharkunColl (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In my pockets (I wish). GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To fund the institution of the monarchy: the Queen, the royal family, the viceroys, residences, state visits, ceremonies, offices, etc., etc. --G2bambino (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So what it actually funds is Canadian officials - plus the odd state visit. How much do Canadians pay for the upkeep of the royal family? Your problem, I fear, is that you are unable to distinguish between the institution and the actual monarchy, because you only have the former. TharkunColl (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Canadian officials, that's correct; I wouldn't imagine anyone other than a Canadian official going on a state visit for Canada. I don't know what segment of the $34 million goes specifically to the royal family. I suppose it varies from year to year, as it does in the UK. The institution is the monarchy and vice versa. --G2bambino (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, pedantry strikes again. The Canadian officials I was referring to were people other than the royal family. The Canadians fund state visits of the Queen and co. to Canada - i.e., they put them up and pay for security etc. I think that's also the case when the Queen goes to any other country. They do not fund the royal family's everyday living expenses. TharkunColl (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Queen doesn't make state visits to her own countries, silly boy. Canada funds the royal family's living expenses when whatever member of the royal family is on Canadian business. That's exactly as it is in the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I assure you she does indeed make state visits to Canada, Australia, etc. I've seen it on the news. And as for living expenses, what about when they're not representing the country at all, just - you know - living? Who pays for that? TharkunColl (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I assure you she doesn't; your news is wrong. They pay for when they're just, you know, living. --G2bambino (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So does the Canadian government send monies to the British government to contribute towards the civil list? TharkunColl (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, just as the British government doesn't contribute towards the Canadian funding of the monarchy. --G2bambino (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But the Canadians don't fund the monarchy. They pay for state visits of the Queen to Canada (like any country would, Commonwealth or not), and they pay for Canadian officials who represent the monarchy. They don't pay anything towards the royal household. TharkunColl (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadians fund the monarchy of Canada. Like the UK, Canadians pay when the Queen or any member of the royal family travels abroad on behalf of the country. Like the UK, Canadians pay for the royal households in Canada, whether they're occupied by the Queen herself, a viceroy, or a member of the royal family. --G2bambino (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there you have it you see - you are choosing to make no distinction between a "viceroy" and the Queen herself. Of course Canada pays for its GG - just like it would a president. What I'm talking about is not the Queen and her official duties, but her actual household. I suspect you find it difficult to appreciate the difference. If you lived in a country that actually had its own monarchy, rather than borrowing that of the mother country, you would know that the royal family - consisting of real people - are with you full time. TharkunColl (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't ask for a distinction between the viceroy and the monarch, you simply asked about royal household expenses. In both countries these expenses are official; taxpayers, in either country, do not fund the Queen's private homes. --G2bambino (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I really take exception to G2's remark: "Like the UK, Canadians pay when the Queen or any member of the royal family travels abroad on behalf of the country." What a load of crap! No member of the British royal family represents Canada during international travels. Ever. -- MC Rufus (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

British Royal Family... no, of course not. But, King Edward VIII, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Anne, Prince Charles, and Prince Edward, at least, have represented Canada abroad. --G2bambino (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Tharky's back. G'day!--Gazzster (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought, you two: instead of ridiculing the idea of a Canadian or Australian monarchy, why not ridicule your sovereign who perpetuates the 'farce'?--Gazzster (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of ridicule, as pointing it out for what it is - the politics of influence. So long as the British establishment believes it to be in its own best interests to promote the idea that the Queen is still sovereign of a bunch of ex-colonies, they will continue to do so. Notice how state visits to Australia, for example, often come just after the latest wave of republican sentiment? If and when the British decide that they no longer wish to prostitute their monarchy in this blatant fashion, the arrangement will cease. TharkunColl (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More pseudo-Victorian rigamarole. Yes, yes, send Her Majesty to calm those damn colonials, I say! Wot, wot? They don't appreciate her? Excommunication! Ban them from the Empire! Hrmph.

I suppose it would surprise you to know, Sir Thark, that the Queen attends events in her non-UK realms at the counsel of her ministers in that country, not at the behest of the British government; hence, they're not state visits. See? --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A hypothetical situation: What would happen if Elizabeth II chose to abdicate - the British Parliament approved, but the 15 other realm Parliaments refused approval (keep in mind the Edward VIII situation). GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would merely highlight the absurdity of the situation. They would retain the Queen as monarch in more or less the same way as she was Queen of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1970. In such a situation the only likely outcome would be the abolition of the monarchy in those realms. But here's another hypothetical for you - what if a British judge decided, under the EU human rights acts etc., that the Act of Settlement was sexist and anti-Catholic? He could theoretically overturn it just by saying so. TharkunColl (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In either situation, nothing would change in the other realms. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, that in real life, everything would change - just as quickly as their laborious entrenched constitutions allowed. TharkunColl (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A clairvoyant Victorian. Interesting. --G2bambino (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your trouble, G2, is that you appear to believe that law defines reality. So you say things like "nothing would change" when it is obvious that it would, or "the Canadian monarchy is totally separate to the British monarchy" when it is obvious that it isn't. TharkunColl (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay - nothing would change at the moment of abdication in the UK; Elizabeth II would remain Queen of Canada, and queen in her other realms, in every way, shape and form. GoodDay was quite right to point out the example of Edward VIII. Beyond that, who knows? --G2bambino (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetic situation II: The Succession - What if the some of the realms alter the succession. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The shared crown splits. Though not exactly the same, it would be akin to the breaking of the personal union between Norway and Sweden. --G2bambino (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So we could have simultanously a Charles III of the UK, a William V of Canada, a Henry IX of Australia etc (if those realms so chose). GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. Though I think he's be Henry I of Australia. ;) But, really, in such a situation, how long would it be before the lineages converged again simply by nature of all those monarchs being related to each other? --G2bambino (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The UK is the only realm that would bother altering the succession. Any others would simply take the opportunity to abolish the monarchy. They most certainly would not put up with a resident monarch. TharkunColl (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get your crystal ball, Thark? I'd love one. --G2bambino (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's called common sense. Anyway, here's another hypothetical - what would happen if the UK added a clause to the Act of Setllement stating that the monarch must not be monarch of another country, nor heir to such a position? TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask what you named your crystal ball, I asked where you got one.

Anyway, the only thing that'd happen is that the UK would put itself in a bind. The change in law there would have no effect anywhere else (Statute of Westminster), and so the UK would be bound to have a sovereign descended from Sophia, Electress of Hanover, but, at the same time, who can't be monarch of another country, when 15 other countries also stipulate that their monarch be descended from Sophia, Electress of Hanover. Quite the Catch 22. --G2bambino (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No Parliament can bind its successor. The UK could simply repeal - or, far more likely, slightly amend the Statute of Westminster allowing it to legislate for the monarchies of the other realms. TharkunColl (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The Statute of Westminster is a part of each realm's constitution now; the UK cannot legislate for any other country unless said country permits it to. The alteration to the SoW in the UK would not change the SoW in the other countries. --G2bambino (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Now who's doing the crystal ball gazing? The UK parliament set those constitutions up, so why can't it alter them? We cannot know if such ammendments would take legal effect or not until they were tested in the courts. TharkunColl (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The British Parliament gave up parliamenty powers over Canada in 1982. The Canadian Parliament decides for Canada. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The British parliament does not have the power to bind future parliaments. All acts can be altered or repealed. TharkunColl (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just telling you the law as it is. The clauses are very specific: No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof. Even if the UK repealed that section, it would remain in effect elsewhere, and thus the UK parliament could "legislate" on behalf of any country it wanted, but the laws would mean nothing beyond Britain's borders. --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You are crystal ball gazing. Such a situation would have to be tested in the courts. And what does "requested by a Dominion" mean? Can the Canadian PM override his own parliament by securing a British act? Actually - thinking about it - according to the precise wording of that clause, all that needs to be done is to state (in the act) that a Dominion has requested such an act for it to be effective there. Regardless of whether the dominion really had requested the act! Devious British, eh? TharkunColl (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting law is not crystal ball gazing. The law is what it is.

That said, there would have to be record of a realm consenting to the application of a UK act to its jurisdiction; Canada passed the Succession to the Throne Act 1937 to do just that. Could a PM give such consent without parliamentary approval? Perhaps. But, if he did, he'd face the House over it. --G2bambino (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my laymanship on this topic, gentelman. But, I think there'd be quite a fight, if the UK Parliament tried to tell the 15 other Cr Parliaments what to do. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You got that right. --G2bambino (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The clause simply says that for the act to be effective in that dominion, it must state that it has been requested by that dominion. So merely stating that it has been requested - whether or not it actually has - fulfills the criteria. TharkunColl (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it says the "Dominion" had to have consented to the application of the law to its jurisdiction. Without that actual consent, the laws of the realm in question would counteract the UK's attempts to impose its laws on said realm. --G2bambino (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The bit you quoted doesn't say that at all. TharkunColl (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a reciprocal thing, Thark. If the UK said the realm had consented, but the realm said it hadn't, then the realm won't recognise the law. Besides, it states clearly in the preamble of the SoW: And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion. So, it isn't just that the UK parliament can say consent was given, but that request and consent is required before-hand. And, further, even if the UK tried to override that convention and make a law for another country, section 2.2 still allows the realm to repeal the law or pass an overriding one. --G2bambino (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, so we fall back to a position whereby the UK would have to amend the SoW in order to pass a law in a dominion. You argue that such a law would be ineffective, but you cannot know this until it had been tested in the courts of that dominion. TharkunColl (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a judge, but the law is pretty clear, and the sovereignty of the realms has already been established in a number of courts in various countries. With that precedent alone, a law passed in the UK that attempted to apply itself to another realm, without that realm's permission, would have no effect outside the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I've said, if the UK Parliament repealed those clauses in earlier acts restricting its right to pass such laws, and then passed such a law, it would have to be tested in the courts. We may be fairly sure of the outcome, but we cannot know. Just as we may be fairly sure of the outcome should the UK alter the Act of Settlement - and that of course was the point I was making. TharkunColl (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The law stipulates what will and will not happen. Beyond that, everything is speculation. --G2bambino (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In both cases we were speculating on what would happen if the UK changed one of its laws - the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster respectively. TharkunColl (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but with certain givens in hand. --G2bambino (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no givens until such actions are tested. TharkunColl (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the sovereignty of the realms has already been tested, and affirmed. --G2bambino (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

At least we can agree on one thing, gentlemen. Such changes would be peaceful. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And also highly unlikely. But not impossible. One can imagine situations in which the British felt it their duty to intervene in a former colony. TharkunColl (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please foresee one situation in which the Great White Mother would feel it their duty? I know what would happen in Australia if the UK Parliament tried to bind Australia - a great collective '**** off'! Theoretical or not, it's a toothless dragon. You don't have to go to any court to show that.--Gazzster (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of admitedly very unlikely scenarios such as the installation of a fascist dictatorship or some other such thing. Incidentally, the "toothless dragon" (i.e. the UK) is the only commonwealth realm with a fleet of submarines with nuclear missiles patrolling the oceans of the world, able to hit any target it likes. Not quite so toothless. TharkunColl (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just getting bizarre, Thark. The UK Parliament couldn't impose a dicatorship on itself let alone a former colony (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and all that). So we should be wary that a future Charles III might go bananas, overthrow Britain's constitution, and bring back the Empire by threatening the colonies with nuclear bombs? And I suppose George Bush's son is running the United Hippy States of America by this time?--Gazzster (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant a dictatorship in one of the former colonies. Grenada springs to mind. Thatcher was beside herself with rage - so the story goes - that Reagan sent in the troops without asking her permission, and US/UK relations were quite frosty for some time because of it. Imagine a scenario something like that. TharkunColl (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny, and yet the US was asked to assist by the Governor General of Grenada, not the British PM. I guess the country was independent after all. Oh, and how many former colonies are dictatorhsips now? Please. --G2bambino (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan? Does that count? TharkunColl (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reagan didn't need her permission, as Grenada was a sovereign country. But the scenario is still unlikely.The Commonwealth realms have stable governments because of their constitutions. And if such a realm were in the hands of a dictatorship, do you imagine the UK overturning Westminster would have the slightest effect on said dictator?--Gazzster (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher believed she should nevertheless have been consulted, and Reagan apologised. I agree though that the UK would probably just send in the troops in such circumstances rather than fannying around with the law. TharkunColl (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you agree that repealing Westminster would be null and voidd for the former colonies.--Gazzster (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, my point is that we simply don't know until it has been tried and tested in the courts. It is, of course, extremely unlikely that this will ever happen. TharkunColl (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. But to go back to what you were saying about British seuzerainty then (if I understand you correctly): it's (according to you) so theoretical and untested as to be meaningless?--Gazzster (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In real life it will never be tested. Just like in real life the commonwealth realms will never have a monarch who is not also monarch of the UK. This is why I brought it up, as an example of the difference between what might be legally possible, and what actually is possible in the real world. TharkunColl (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Gazzster, the sovereignty of the realms has been tested in courts of law, and is well established. Thark is just trying to undermine the decisions of these judges - and parliaments, governments, constitutional scholars, etc., etc. - with hypothetical ramblings. --G2bambino (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The 15 other Commonwealth realms would argue- the abolishment of the UK monarchy, wouldn't effect their monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes it would, because, I imagine, they would ask the Queen if she intended to continue reigning over them. But the abolition would not abolish the other realms unless the Queen abdicated or was legally deposed elsewhere.--Gazzster (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh! of course. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the chances of the UK abolishing the monarchy are about zilch (we tried it once a long time ago and didn't like the results), this again is nothing more than hypothetical speculation. What is slightly more possible, though again pretty unlikely, is that we might alter the Act of Settlement to render it non-sexist. However, since this would not affect the position of either Charles or William, I think it's pretty safe to assume that by the time it might have an effect the other realms will have become republics anyway. The current situation is a transitional phase in the long and excruciatingly slow process of dismantling what used to be called the British Empire. TharkunColl (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything's a transitional phase into something else. --G2bambino (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The only question is which realms will keep the monarchy the longest. My bet is Canada - they were the first, and will be the last. TharkunColl (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Tharky, not while I'm eating my Wendy's hamburger. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Pages

No problem G2. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've noted that fact, to MC Rufus. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but, meh... I don't much care what he thinks. --G2bambino (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm optimistic that the both of you will get along someday. Afterall, we're Canadians (monarchists & republicans). GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll try, GoodDay, the best I can given what there is to work with. --G2bambino (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For the brief few minutes that this message will remain here before it's deleted; if anyone wants to read my previous message that G2bambino deleted from this page (twice), you can read it at User_talk:MC_Rufus#Monarchist_propaganda The only reason I can think of as to why he removed it is that he seems to think it's his mission to prevent anything irrefutably critical of his monarchist dogma from being read. He can try, but we will not be silenced. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! Oh, shit, that's hillarious! --G2bambino (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh, laugh it up. While you're "on the floor" with the rest of your fellow servile subjects, republicans choose to stand up and show some dignity. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sure... go ahead. Phew! Funny stuff! --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re to G2: That's cool, laughter is the best medicine. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad laughter isn't a cure for institutional Stockholm Syndrome - MC Rufus (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK now, things are starting to get 'unfunny'. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)