If you go down to the woods today, you better not go alone
It's a lovely day in the woods today, but safer to stay at home
BECAUSE EVIL FREEN IS KILLING ALL THE TEDDY BEARS AT THEIR PICNIC
If you go down to the woods today, you better not go alone
It's a lovely day in the woods today, but safer to stay at home
BECAUSE EVIL FREEN IS KILLING ALL THE TEDDY BEARS AT THEIR PICNIC
If ya didn't use such backward measurements, it wouldn't have been a problem.
The 19th century called, they want their system of measurements back.
If you go down to the woods today, you better not go alone
It's a lovely day in the woods today, but safer to stay at home
BECAUSE EVIL FREEN IS KILLING ALL THE TEDDY BEARS AT THEIR PICNIC
Beatles has got it in a nutshell. While metric is a far superior system of measurements (because it actually makes sense, and, hell, even your own scientists down south despise the imperial measurements), the eternal presidential vs. parliamentary democracy debate is far more subjective.
... anyway, why do I have this strange urge to attack this thread with my awesome pwn risk armies from that game we just finished?
If you go down to the woods today, you better not go alone
It's a lovely day in the woods today, but safer to stay at home
BECAUSE EVIL FREEN IS KILLING ALL THE TEDDY BEARS AT THEIR PICNIC
Speaking of metric, what's the deal with measurements of time? It's something that would make sense for metric-dealing countries to have developed metric time measurements long ago.
Anyway, whether you find monarchys better or not, I'm sure we can all agree that it's most certainly better for your country's leader to at least live there.
I know the voices in my head arn't real but they usually have some pretty good ideas.
There's no such thing as metric time, unfortunately. It would make time-based calculations much easier, as there would be one less step for there to be an error in.
In Canada, it's our "Head of State" that lives overseas, and exercises no real power. Our acting head of state lives in Canada, but also exercises very little power. Our leader is the Prime Minister of Canada, who does exercise quite a bit power. Besides which, using the example of Canada is far too specific. There are multitudes of parliamentary democracies that are constitutional monarchies in Europe, where the monarchs (who exercise no real power) do live in the countries they "lead".
Of course, if we want to get into the points of the systems of specific countries, I really must ask... What is up with the electoral college system? I mean, I thought the primary advantage of the presidential system was supposed to be that the people directly elect the leader via the popular vote. That's what they do in South America, but not in the US... Why?
Before we get into a war of systems, let me just say that I hardly think the Canadian system is perfect. I'm rather on the fence with regards to the monarchy, but I do think the senate could use with quite a bit of reform (or perhaps be abolished) and I think we should move to a MMP system of electing our parliaments. Still, I like the parliamentary system at its roots, which is why I speak of reform rather than completely switching to a system that is probably no better.
So, yes, both have merits and both have drawbacks, but we're not going to be able to convince eachother that a particular one is superior. To be honest, they're completely different, and the validity of the system depends on the particular nation in question.
If you go down to the woods today, you better not go alone
It's a lovely day in the woods today, but safer to stay at home
BECAUSE EVIL FREEN IS KILLING ALL THE TEDDY BEARS AT THEIR PICNIC
To be honest, except for the monarchists, most people don't give a whit about the Queen. Heck, I can use all the terms like "Crown" and the such without even thinking about the roots behind it.
It's actually an interesting problem, if Canada were to abolish the monarchy. All government documents, etc, have the language referring to the "Crown" and so forth. What would the economic and, dare I say, social cost of changing such a basic institution? Again, I'm neither for or against it, but I do have to wonder.
If you go down to the woods today, you better not go alone
It's a lovely day in the woods today, but safer to stay at home
BECAUSE EVIL FREEN IS KILLING ALL THE TEDDY BEARS AT THEIR PICNIC
