NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I'm quite serious:

The American Monarchist Party believes:

* Modern experience shows that kings generally rule better, not worse, than do presidents
* Monarchy provides the stability which is essential to the solution of major problems.
* A king or queen is much freer than a president, in that he is not tied to any party, as a republican leader invariably is.
* Monarchy is an intelligible and honest form of government
* A king or queen is the living representative of a nation's history.


Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Monarchist_Party)--Website (http://home1.gte.net/eskandar/monarchistsociety.html)

So who would be the first monarch? Besides thyself, who would you want to be the monarch(also can't be another NSer/a close relative; ie someone famous)?

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/5782/robotnixon3ie8.gif

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/5782/robotnixon3ie8.gif

So true.

Yes, I'm quite serious:



Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Monarchist_Party)--Website (http://home1.gte.net/eskandar/monarchistsociety.html)

So who would be the first monarch? Besides thyself, who would you want to be the monarch(also can't be another NSer/a close relative; ie someone famous)?
I would not wish for a monarchy for this government to be created. I kinda thought that the whole point to this government was to prevent a monarch from having sole control of the nation.

We already had a monarch. Emperor Norton I.

Yes, I'm quite serious:



Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Monarchist_Party)--Website (http://home1.gte.net/eskandar/monarchistsociety.html)

So who would be the first monarch? Besides thyself, who would you want to be the monarch(also can't be another NSer/a close relative; ie someone famous)?becareful, because Kings are not elected. so you might end up with King G.W. Bush! ;)

"The American Monarchist Party believes:

* Modern experience shows that kings generally rule better, not worse, than do presidents
* Monarchy provides the stability which is essential to the solution of major problems.
* A king or queen is much freer than a president, in that he is not tied to any party, as a republican leader invariably is.
* Monarchy is an intelligible and honest form of government
* A king or queen is the living representative of a nation's history"

Wow, that is a bunch of bull. First of all, most Monarchy's today are constitutional Monarchies, I.E. England.

Second, let's break this down:

Modern experience shows kings rule better? BOULOCKS. Complete and utter Bullocks. Experience shows quite the opposite, with incompetent rulers left and right. The reason? Monarchs are born into their position, and it doesn't matter if they are competent or not, they have the position irregardless.

Monarchs provide "stability". Yeah. For them. Everyone else is at the whim of the Monarch.

A monarch is freer? Of course, they have complete power. However, as history shows, they use this power for their own interests, and rarely for the interests of the people.

A Monarch is an intelligable and honest form of government? HAH. THat is idiocy. Monarch will do as they wish, when they wish, however they wish, and they don't need to worry about deceiving the people, other than keeping them in line.

A Monarch is a living History of the Nation? Of course, be the History good or bad. Key word, bad.

Man, I would punch one of these morons in the face for the blatant disregard for actual facts.

"The American Monarchist Party believes:

* Modern experience shows that kings generally rule better, not worse, than do presidents
* Monarchy provides the stability which is essential to the solution of major problems.
* A king or queen is much freer than a president, in that he is not tied to any party, as a republican leader invariably is.
* Monarchy is an intelligible and honest form of government
* A king or queen is the living representative of a nation's history"

Wow, that is a bunch of bull. First of all, most Monarchy's today are constitutional Monarchies, I.E. England.

Second, let's break this down:

Modern experience shows kings rule better? BOULOCKS. Complete and utter Bullocks. Experience shows quite the opposite, with incompetent rulers left and right. The reason? Monarchs are born into their position, and it doesn't matter if they are competent or not, they have the position irregardless.Ah yes, but with the currently focus on leaders needing to be charismatic to win election then this reduces the focus on actual ability to govern. Hence, it could be said you're more likely to come up trumps with a monarch as the distribution of leadership ability is randomised. Also, a monarch has their whole life to garner experience on the job. Whereas a president has a measly 8 years.

Monarchs provide "stability". Yeah. For them. Everyone else is at the whim of the Monarch.Ah yes, but the monarch has to act in such a way as to not piss off everyone so much that they revolt. Consider the French revolution, signing of the Magna Carta and the English Civil war. Monarchs all getting their arse kicked because they acted out of line.

A monarch is freer? Of course, they have complete power. However, as history shows, they use this power for their own interests, and rarely for the interests of the people.As opposed to Presidents using their power for their own interest? Like Haliburton's numerous contracts in Iraq.

A Monarch is an intelligable and honest form of government? HAH. THat is idiocy. Monarch will do as they wish, when they wish, however they wish, and they don't need to worry about deceiving the people, other than keeping them in line. Ok, I agree with you here. But if I use the word 'relative' then it probably is honest. ie. the Monarch doesn't need to be reelected and so doesn't have to hide that they're screwing you over.

A Monarch is a living History of the Nation? Of course, be the History good or bad. Key word, bad.Everyone is the living history of their nation. Monarchs just tend to be a little more promenent.

So who would be the first monarch? Besides thyself, who would you want to be the monarch(also can't be another NSer/a close relative; ie someone famous)?

Someone with a good sense of theology and geometry. But failing that, Ignatius J. Reilly would make a splendid monarch.

The Tories ceased to be a political force since 1789. From there, things only got better.

We already had a monarch. Emperor Norton I.

Wasn't that some nutjob in San Francisco who declared himself emperor and gave people free rice or money or something. I know I read about some emperor of the US once...

no american is fit to be a monarch. we just arent raised that way.

we'd have to import some lesser son (or daughter) from one of the european monarchies.

or maybe someone from one of the south sea island monarchies, they might be more interesting....

I'll take the moderate position and say both democracy and monarchy suck.

Edit: Also, as to who I would make king? Hmmm... I'd say a Habsburg, or something. They were pretty cool.

David Spade.

We'd get tired of him in a week and this dumb idea would soon be forgotten.

I think it's a great idea. If you had a cat and make it the king of America, then everyone would stop hating your country because your ruler would be so cute. Everyone loves animals, right? How could you blame this:

http://www.portchester.bournemouth.sch.uk/StudentsArea/Projects/JPMorgan%20Project/cute%20cat.JPG

Does this party want an autocratic monarch? Or is it more like the Uk?

I'd say a Habsburg, or something. They were pretty cool.

Although they were idiots that got their arses kicked by Russia (a POOR Russia) Serbia (well, just Serbia is a good enough argument) and Italy, who have 5 reverse gears on their tanks and 1 forward gear. yes i know tanks were mainly used in the 2nd world war, but u catch my drift

How desperate our evil corporate leaders are making everyone.

Although they were idiots that got their arses kicked by Russia (a POOR Russia) Serbia (well, just Serbia is a good enough argument) and Italy, who have 5 reverse gears on their tanks and 1 forward gear. yes i know tanks were mainly used in the 2nd world war, but u catch my drift

But Franz Josef had a cool hat. C'mon... nothing else matters, as long as your hat is awesome.

Does this mean I be able to say shit like "for the Emperor!", because if so, I'm so in!

Sir Bill Gates, King of the American Empire.
It could work.

Wasn't that some nutjob in San Francisco who declared himself emperor and gave people free rice or money or something. I know I read about some emperor of the US once...

That's him.

I keep reading the title of this thread as "American Masochist Party."

We already had a monarch. Emperor Norton I.


HIH Joshua A. Norton By the Grace of God Emperor of the United States and Lord Protector of Mexico

a fine Emperor

Excellent. I'd finally be able to perform regicide in North America.

I am a democrat at heat, but if I had a say about the monarch, I'd choose RMS (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman). I mean, what can he do? Force us to be free?

I think it's a great idea. If you had a cat and make it the king of America, then everyone would stop hating your country because your ruler would be so cute. Everyone loves animals, right? How could you blame this:

http://www.portchester.bournemouth.sch.uk/StudentsArea/Projects/JPMorgan%20Project/cute%20cat.JPG

AAAAWWWWWWWW!

Sir Bill Gates, King of the American Empire.
It could work.

He'd be richer and would do nothing really to help the American people.


Hoarders can get piles of money,
that is true, hackers, that is true!
But they can not help their neighbors,
that's not good, hackers, that's not good!

It would honestly be Bill Gates. He has enough money to make buying off the American armed forces look like throwing pocket change to small children.

For my sentimental runners-up, I'd choose FDR or Nixon, since they are more suited to be rulers.

I would be the best person to rule as second Emperor of the United States. My first action is that Congress shall have to be disbanded and if needed by the marshals of his majesty's army.

It would honestly be Bill Gates. He has enough money to make buying off the American armed forces look like throwing pocket change to small children.

I do not think so. What makes you think people would WANT to make certain transactions? What makes you think people would not listen to Torvalds or RMS in such a situation?

It would have to be someone like Julius Casaer. So that the America could complete its transformation into the Roman Empire. The US Senate could become like the original Senate.

Or maybe they'd need someone like Sulla first. And if it were to be someone like Caesaer then he'd have to be a popular US general. Someone who could lead the country to war and actually get the desired outcome, and preferably lots of loot as well.

It would have to be someone like Julius Casaer. So that the America could complete its transformation into the Roman Empire. The US Senate could become like the original Senate.

Or maybe they'd need someone like Sulla first. And if it were to be someone like Caesaer then he'd have to be a popular US general. Someone who could lead the country to war and actually get the desired outcome, and preferably lots of loot as well.

Orlando Bloom!

lol:D


I say we invite Prince William to be the first King of America

Its slighty Ironic

It would have to be someone like Julius Casaer. So that the America could complete its transformation into the Roman Empire. The US Senate could become like the original Senate.

Or maybe they'd need someone like Sulla first. And if it were to be someone like Caesaer then he'd have to be a popular US general. Someone who could lead the country to war and actually get the desired outcome, and preferably lots of loot as well.

and then after 200 years, we'd collapse again

Yes, I'm quite serious:



Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Monarchist_Party)--Website (http://home1.gte.net/eskandar/monarchistsociety.html)

So who would be the first monarch? Besides thyself, who would you want to be the monarch(also can't be another NSer/a close relative; ie someone famous)?

George Washington brought back from the dead. That's the only possible good king for the US

Because he would resign ;-)

I think it's a great idea. If you had a cat and make it the king of America, then everyone would stop hating your country because your ruler would be so cute. Everyone loves animals, right? How could you blame this:

http://www.portchester.bournemouth.sch.uk/StudentsArea/Projects/JPMorgan%20Project/cute%20cat.JPG

That kitten can be vice monarch, or Duke, or Earl or something. King Rocco the Siamese will be the first American monarch. He will pass a law forbidding people from messing with Texas, and he will make catnip readily available. Also, all portraits of him must make him look like a mountain lion.

Seriously, though, unless my cat becomes king, a monarchy's a bad idea.

and then after 200 years, we'd collapse againWhatcha complaining about? That's an approximate doubling of the the survival of the US. Independence was 1776 wasn't it?