NationStates Jolt Archive

pfft like we would have you back :p

after the revolution we noticed we didn't have to pay for your defense and still got to have access to your markets so I guess you had better start kissing the Queens arse

edit: I claim this thread in the name of her majesty the Queen!

so you in favor of allowing a 'Royal' leadership to rule over you...hey maybe its a good idea, but I for one cannot stand to believe someone was born into leading me. Sure US democracy is failing as of late but the US was an experiment to begin with, trial and failure is the only way toward perfect and a monarchy is only a step backwards.

Rightfully the people should lead themselves, to establish a single family as the perminant leaders of your society has no worth at all except certain doom once you get into power that one child of the family that abuses his position. Now, whats sad is americans have lost intrest in their vote and so we have what we have now...truely I believe that is a main reason why our democracy is slowly failing, we've made light of our political system and simply started to believe our votes don't count and that way were slowly edging toward this sort of change, maybe eventually we'll be so lazy we'll just say fuck it just let that guy lead from now on.

I do think something has to change but stepping back into time is not going to solve anything. Fuck monarchy, fuck Britain and FUCK THE QUEEN!

are we time warping...or am I just trippin out?

so you in favor of allowing a 'Royal' leadership to rule over you...hey maybe its a good idea, but I for one cannot stand to believe someone was born into leading me.

I do believe you missed the part where the monarch is raised from birth to lead

fuck Britain and FUCK THE QUEEN!

*chokes on fish and chips*

I despise the idea of Monarchy.

I do believe you missed the part where the monarch is raised from birth to lead

No...thats what I said, and whether or not they were raised to lead they are still handed the position on a silver platter (Made of real silver...)

Leadership should be earned, not handed down..

I despise the idea of Monarchy.

its better than the idea of vanilla ice cream

Leadership should be earned, not handed down..

actually you will find that the hero fireman is not the best choice of a leader nor is some rich politician who just paid for the advertising and kissed enough arse

so you in favor of allowing a 'Royal' leadership to rule over you...hey maybe its a good idea, but I for one cannot stand to believe someone was born into leading me. Sure US democracy is failing as of late but the US was an experiment to begin with, trial and failure is the only way toward perfect and a monarchy is only a step backwards.

Rightfully the people should lead themselves, to establish a single family as the perminant leaders of your society has no worth at all except certain doom once you get into power that one child of the family that abuses his position. Now, whats sad is americans have lost intrest in their vote and so we have what we have now...truely I believe that is a main reason why our democracy is slowly failing, we've made light of our political system and simply started to believe our votes don't count and that way were slowly edging toward this sort of change, maybe eventually we'll be so lazy we'll just say fuck it just let that guy lead from now on.

I do think something has to change but stepping back into time is not going to solve anything. Fuck monarchy, fuck Britain and FUCK THE QUEEN!

http://www.uk.filo.pl/england_britannia.jpg

Britannia says 'Not without dinner first.'

are we time warping...or am I just trippin out?
Both, of course.

To the OP (which is, curiously, the post after mine) I wouldn't mind the sentiment if you were talking about a return to British rule. What you're actually talking about is the authoritarian monarchy of an absent monarch. Which is just stupid.

As an American, I am intensely dissatisfied with the state of government (especially on the Federal level.) The upcoming election does not reassure me at all, since the Democratic party has entirely failed to stop the war, and the Republican party seems intent on spending as much money as possible; most likely nothing will change from '09 onward. Since all three branches of the government appear to be entirely dysfunctional, from Kelo to Congress' funding of the war for the next year and a half to, well, pretty much everything about the executive, I think it might be a good idea to try a different system now, one that has been tried before. As such, I think it is time to restore the British monarchy over what is now the United States.

I say this because the colonies enjoyed benign neglect for much of its history under Britain, and even under George III the tax burden was less than that of Britain itself, being only about 1% of national income in the North and 2.5% in the South in 1775. My one condition would have to be that Queen Elizabeth alone would have power, and not have to share it with Parliament, since the latter doesn't seem to be any better than Congress. Also, she alone would receive any tax revenues and would be free to sell, lease, give shares, etc. with the territory as desired. Considering that A.) she would have a right to the future returns from the United States and thus would want to enhance them, and B.) George III's sovereignty was removed over a relatively miniscule amount of taxation, she would have to engage in a great deal of moderation concerning her policies in order to retain her sovereignty. As such, I would happily trade my right to vote for the status quo in order to enjoy the benign neglect that is impossible under the current system.

Who turned the time warps back on?

to the OP: Move to Canada.

so you in favor of allowing a 'Royal' leadership to rule over you...hey maybe its a good idea, but I for one cannot stand to believe someone was born into leading me. Sure US democracy is failing as of late but the US was an experiment to begin with, trial and failure is the only way toward perfect and a monarchy is only a step backwards.

Rightfully the people should lead themselves, to establish a single family as the perminant leaders of your society has no worth at all except certain doom once you get into power that one child of the family that abuses his position. Now, whats sad is americans have lost intrest in their vote and so we have what we have now...truely I believe that is a main reason why our democracy is slowly failing, we've made light of our political system and simply started to believe our votes don't count and that way were slowly edging toward this sort of change, maybe eventually we'll be so lazy we'll just say fuck it just let that guy lead from now on.

I do think something has to change but stepping back into time is not going to solve anything. Fuck monarchy, fuck Britain and FUCK THE QUEEN!
If the people are ok with it, and everything's alright: who the f cares whereither they live in a monarchy or not?

As an American, I am intensely dissatisfied with the state of government (especially on the Federal level.) The upcoming election does not reassure me at all, since the Democratic party has entirely failed to stop the war, and the Republican party seems intent on spending as much money as possible; most likely nothing will change from '09 onward. Since all three branches of the government appear to be entirely dysfunctional, from Kelo to Congress' funding of the war for the next year and a half to, well, pretty much everything about the executive, I think it might be a good idea to try a different system now, one that has been tried before. As such, I think it is time to restore the British monarchy over what is now the United States.

I say this because the colonies enjoyed benign neglect for much of its history under Britain, and even under George III the tax burden was less than that of Britain itself, being only about 1% of national income in the North and 2.5% in the South in 1775. My one condition would have to be that Queen Elizabeth alone would have power, and not have to share it with Parliament, since the latter doesn't seem to be any better than Congress. Also, she alone would receive any tax revenues and would be free to sell, lease, give shares, etc. with the territory as desired. Considering that A.) she would have a right to the future returns from the United States and thus would want to enhance them, and B.) George III's sovereignty was removed over a relatively miniscule amount of taxation, she would have to engage in a great deal of moderation concerning her policies in order to retain her sovereignty. As such, I would happily trade my right to vote for the status quo in order to enjoy the benign neglect that is impossible under the current system.

What's makes you think the Queen would be good at running a country? She has no experience in doing so.

What's makes you think the Queen would be good at running a country? She has no experience in doing so.

But, but, she's the Queen...
:rolleyes:

As an American, I am intensely dissatisfied with the state of government (especially on the Federal level.) The upcoming election does not reassure me at all, since the Democratic party has entirely failed to stop the war, and the Republican party seems intent on spending as much money as possible; most likely nothing will change from '09 onward. Since all three branches of the government appear to be entirely dysfunctional, from Kelo to Congress' funding of the war for the next year and a half to, well, pretty much everything about the executive, I think it might be a good idea to try a different system now, one that has been tried before. As such, I think it is time to restore the British monarchy over what is now the United States.


well, first you need to change your thinking. if you are dissatisfies with both Dems and Reps... why keep electing one of the two? I say effect real CHANGE. don't put either party back into power.

well, first you need to change your thinking. if you are dissatisfies with both Dems and Reps... why keep electing one of the two? I say effect real CHANGE. don't put either party back into power.

No, no, no, the obvious answer is to put into power an absolute monarch...

As an American, I am intensely dissatisfied with the state of government (especially on the Federal level.) The upcoming election does not reassure me at all, since the Democratic party has entirely failed to stop the war, and the Republican party seems intent on spending as much money as possible; most likely nothing will change from '09 onward. Since all three branches of the government appear to be entirely dysfunctional, from Kelo to Congress' funding of the war for the next year and a half to, well, pretty much everything about the executive, I think it might be a good idea to try a different system now, one that has been tried before. As such, I think it is time to restore the British monarchy over what is now the United States.

I say this because the colonies enjoyed benign neglect for much of its history under Britain, and even under George III the tax burden was less than that of Britain itself, being only about 1% of national income in the North and 2.5% in the South in 1775. My one condition would have to be that Queen Elizabeth alone would have power, and not have to share it with Parliament, since the latter doesn't seem to be any better than Congress. Also, she alone would receive any tax revenues and would be free to sell, lease, give shares, etc. with the territory as desired. Considering that A.) she would have a right to the future returns from the United States and thus would want to enhance them, and B.) George III's sovereignty was removed over a relatively miniscule amount of taxation, she would have to engage in a great deal of moderation concerning her policies in order to retain her sovereignty. As such, I would happily trade my right to vote for the status quo in order to enjoy the benign neglect that is impossible under the current system.As an American, I vote no.

Who turned the time warps back on?

to the OP: Move to Canada.He's probably just pissed that Sark has renounced feudalism.

Sure US democracy is failing as of late

Yeah...uh...how exactly?

No, no, no, the obvious answer is to put into power an absolute monarch...

like King George from the house of Bush?

like King George from the house of Bush?

0MGZ BUZH 1S A M0N4RCH D1CT4T0R W4RL0RD 3B1L M0N5TR3!!!!111

right...because he has absolute power. take a government class

so you in favor of allowing a 'Royal' leadership to rule over you...hey maybe its a good idea, but I for one cannot stand to believe someone was born into leading me. Sure US democracy is failing as of late but the US was an experiment to begin with, trial and failure is the only way toward perfect and a monarchy is only a step backwards.

Rightfully the people should lead themselves, to establish a single family as the perminant leaders of your society has no worth at all except certain doom once you get into power that one child of the family that abuses his position. Now, whats sad is americans have lost intrest in their vote and so we have what we have now...truely I believe that is a main reason why our democracy is slowly failing, we've made light of our political system and simply started to believe our votes don't count and that way were slowly edging toward this sort of change, maybe eventually we'll be so lazy we'll just say fuck it just let that guy lead from now on.

I do think something has to change but stepping back into time is not going to solve anything. Fuck monarchy, fuck Britain and FUCK THE QUEEN!

While we in Britain currently live with a monarchy, that's not to say that we all agree with it. Indeed, once Scotland chooses independence from the UK; it's my fervent hope that Scotland will decide to become a Republic (Socialist, of course).

You criticise the US's attempts at democracy. That criticism could be just as equally applied to the UK. Why else would London elect a person who espouses racism to become mayor and a political party, which not so long ago was mired in sleaze and corruption; to be the next potential Government for the UK.

At least in the UK, most people are better informed about world events than your average person in the US, still that didn't stop us from following the Americans into that evil war.....and of course, the Queen quite happily put her name to this illegal invasion.

like King George from the house of Bush?

Nah...
King Jeb.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Bushjeb17042007.jpg/393px-Bushjeb17042007.jpg

0MGZ BUZH 1S A M0N4RCH D1CT4T0R W4RL0RD 3B1L M0N5TR3!!!!111

right...because he has absolute power. take a government class
OMGZ HYP3RB0L3 F4LL4CY!!!1!!!!

Who turned the time warps back on?

The Queen of course. Eventually we will warp back to before the small insurgency of the American colonies took place.

0MGZ BUZH 1S A M0N4RCH D1CT4T0R W4RL0RD 3B1L M0N5TR3!!!!111

right...because he has absolute power. take a government class

I suggest you take a reading Comprehension class first SB. follow the conversation please.

well, first you need to change your thinking. if you are dissatisfies with both Dems and Reps... why keep electing one of the two? I say effect real CHANGE. don't put either party back into power.No, no, no, the obvious answer is to put into power an absolute monarch...like King George from the house of Bush?

if you notice, NOWHERE did I say that GWBush is a dictator, NOWHERE did I say he had absolute power. I put a King George from the House of Bush up when Dyakovo suggested that the obvious answer is to put power an absolute monarch in power. a frivolous example in line with his suggestion. so please sign up for that reading comprehension course or you can start following the line of conversation before you start jumping in with your bad lewt speak.

But, but, she's the Queen...
:rolleyes:

There's a difference between running a country and sitting on your diamond-laced chair doing bugger all for your 50 years 'in power'.

Nah...
King Jeb.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Bushjeb17042007.jpg/393px-Bushjeb17042007.jpg

...

well. at least he looks smarter... :p

The OP is the tenth post?! :eek:

I suggest you take a reading Comprehension class first SB. follow the conversation please.



if you notice, NOWHERE did I say that GWBush is a dictator, NOWHERE did I say he had absolute power. I put a King George from the House of Bush up when Dyakovo suggested that the obvious answer is to put power an absolute monarch in power. a frivolous example in line with his suggestion. so please sign up for that reading comprehension course or you can start following the line of conversation before you start jumping in with your bad lewt speak.

@ SB
The entire line was facetious, I was making fun of the OP, and JuNii was playing along...

There's a difference between running a country and sitting on your diamond-laced chair doing bugger all for your 50 years 'in power'.

Apparently not to Venn...

The OP is the tenth post?! :eek:Timewarps come in one hour differences now.

I suggest you take a reading Comprehension class first SB. follow the conversation please.if you notice, NOWHERE did I say that GWBush is a dictator, NOWHERE did I say he had absolute power. I put a King George from the House of Bush up when Dyakovo suggested that the obvious answer is to put power an absolute monarch in power. a frivolous example in line with his suggestion. so please sign up for that reading comprehension course or you can start following the line of conversation before you start jumping in with your bad lewt speak.

Honestly it could be taken either way. I took it as you saying "like Bush, who is a monarch," in response to a poster talking about putting in an absolute monarch, i.e. you were saying that America already has one. Besides, all you said was "like King George from the house of Bush?" Comprehension courses rarely teach you to follow incomplete sentences. The teacher just marks them wrong.

As an American, I vote no.

your American?!

right...because he has absolute power. take a government class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act *shrug*

Indeed, once Scotland chooses independence from the UK; it's my fervent hope that Scotland will decide to become a Republic (Socialist, of course).

like Scotland could :p

the Queen quite happily put her name to this illegal invasion.

because the alternative was a coup d'état something which I wouldn't support to save a country like Iraq

The Queen of course. Eventually we will warp back to before the small insurgency of the American colonies took place.

and you could buy a hot cross bun for a penny!

Honestly it could be taken either way. I took it as you saying "like Bush, who is a monarch," in response to a poster talking about putting in an absolute monarch, i.e. you were saying that America already has one. Besides, all you said was "like King George from the house of Bush?" Comprehension courses rarely teach you to follow incomplete sentences. The teacher just marks them wrong.Your seriously acting like a wuss when it comes to people mentioning "Bush" and "absolute power" in the same post. I mean reporting an iffy case of trolling is one thing, but jumping on everyone that mentions it?
your American?! Yes >=D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act *shrug*

The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

The act was passed by Congress. Bush didn't just do it all on his own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act *shrug*

If thats your idea of supreme authority, move to North Korea.

The act was passed by Congress. Bush didn't just do it all on his own.
Amen. It was proposed iirc by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin.

If thats your idea of supreme authority, move to North Korea.

Given your afinity to nuance and subtlety, I doubt you'd find North Korea that authoritarian.:)

well, first you need to change your thinking. if you are dissatisfies with both Dems and Reps... why keep electing one of the two? I say effect real CHANGE. don't put either party back into power.

He refuses to vote.

Amen. It was proposed iirc by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin.

:rolleyes: Do I really have to spell it out for you people?

Bush couldn't push it through. But now that Congress has done it for him...

Honestly it could be taken either way. I took it as you saying "like Bush, who is a monarch," in response to a poster talking about putting in an absolute monarch, i.e. you were saying that America already has one. Besides, all you said was "like King George from the house of Bush?" Comprehension courses rarely teach you to follow incomplete sentences. The teacher just marks them wrong.
except I quoted Dyakovo who said "No, no, no, the obvious answer is to put into power an absolute monarch..."
;)

but I can see how it could've been a suggestion that GWB is currently an absolute monarch. :cool:


Your seriously acting like a wuss when it comes to people mentioning "Bush" and "absolute power" in the same post. I mean reporting an iffy case of trolling is one thing, but jumping on everyone that mentions it?
calm down Laerod. it's a common mistake (that even I am guilty of doing.) it doesn't make anyone a wuss or troll. there are some things that just pushes people over the edge. I accept SB's reply of taking it the wrong way.

all's good. right SB?

He refuses to vote.

Refuses or isn't old enough to?

He refuses to vote.

must... resist... urge... to... say... "no... Vote... No... co"... *whew*...

that was close... :p

Your seriously acting like a wuss when it comes to people mentioning "Bush" and "absolute power" in the same post. I mean reporting an iffy case of trolling is one thing, but jumping on everyone that mentions it?
Yes >=D

A wuss? Am I afraid or not "ballsy" enough about something?

It's simply annoying for people to say Bush has absolute power when he doesn't, or is a dictator when he isn't. It's not an opinion; it's not open for debate; it's simply incorrect. Grass isn't red. You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but grass is not red, it is green. Ice cream isn't warm. It doesn't matter how much you may hate it, but it's not warm. It is cold. I don't like Bush any more than the next guy, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a democratically elected president, has nowhere near absolute power, and will be gone in a few months anyhow.

People's ignorance is tiring, and if you are to debate or talk about something, such as Bush, you should at least know what you're talking about.

I don't like Bush any more than the next guy,

Even if the next guy is Heikoku?

all's good. right SB?

Yes. I overreacted. As you said, it's just one of those things that pushes me over the edge. I suppose I got too accustomed to seeing shit on these forums that when something legitimate came along I thought it was more of the same. My apologies.

Even if the next guy is Heikoku?

...I don't get it...does he like or dislike Bush?

...I don't get it...does he like or dislike Bush?

He thinks that Bush is worse than most of the dictators in the poll.

It's not an opinion; it's not open for debate; it's simply incorrect. Grass isn't red. You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but grass is not red, it is green.

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics and beliefs. Grass IS red. My point of view should get just as much time in schools as yours, because they obviously have equal value. Kansas has already seen the light. Teach the controversy !

Or to rephrase: facts nowadays do not matter anymore. Propaganda is what rules countries and the peoples mind.

He thinks that Bush is worse than most of the dictators in the poll.

Oh dear...

Well I suppose that Bush has done more damage internationally than most of those dictators, just by the sheer size, scope, and power of the United States, but I always thought that what made a dictator "bad" is what the dictator did to his own people. Hitler wasn't "bad" because he tried to take over Europe. That's no different than the French, British, Romans, etc. in history. Hitler was "bad" because of the death camps. In turn, Bush screwed up Iraq and gave the international community a big middle finger, but internally America is still a nice safe country. The economy isn't his fault, and neither is the Patriot Act entirely. That's the difference too, because in America it's not just Bush. It's all his advisers, all of Congress, the Judicial system, etc. In Germany or other dictatorship nations it's just the dictator.

As an American, I do not have a monarch. However, I do not have a problem with the concept of monarchy. There are important benefits to a monarch as the symbol of the entire nation, and not just of those who elected them. It's not the place of any nation to decide the fate or government of any other nation. If the people want to change their government, they can revolt and change their own government, or otherwise convince their government to change itself. As long as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland supports her majesty the Queen, I have no problem recognizing her monarchy over the United Kingdom, or any of her other domains.

As a Social Democrat, I cannot say I'm happy with the government of my homeland. In fact, I can say I'm downright angry with it and about it. However, I am happy with the system which exists to select our government. In accord with this, I am sure many Britons are unhappy with the government currently in power but are happy with the system, but there are also those who want to change the system, by Scots independence and republicanism, or by abolition of the monarchy or otherwise. They are fine. If they can convince the people of the United Kingdom, or, at least, Scotland, to do so, then I will have no problem with a Scottish Republic separate from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. As for me, being of Cairloch blood, I support the monarchy and British union, but only for traditional reasons, and I admit that I have no say unless I were to return to Scotland from whence my ancestors came (actually, as an illegitimate descendant, I'd probably not be welcome :p).

But I digress. The point of my rant is that every people has the right to determine its own government, and, if they wish to change it, then it is their prerogative, and if they do not, then that is also their prerogative. If the UK, Canada, Jamaica, Australia, Belize, New Zealand and so on wish to keep Elizabeth II as their queen, then it is no one outside of those realms' business whether they do so or not. But conversely, if the U.S. chooses to keep its Electoral College, it's bicameral Congress, and so on, then that is the U.S.' prerogative.

In other words, this thread shouldn't exist because it's no one's business what someone else's government is.

Refuses or isn't old enough to?

Judging by the fact that he's an anarcho-monarchist, probably the latter.

Judging by the fact that he's an anarcho-monarchist, probably the latter.

don't be silly thats a perfectly grown up system of government that he has well thought out and shown conclusively that it would be beneficial to both the economy and well being of your average citizen :)

calm down Laerod. it's a common mistake (that even I am guilty of doing.) it doesn't make anyone a wuss or troll. there are some things that just pushes people over the edge. I accept SB's reply of taking it the wrong way.I am calm. :p
SB's just been rather jumpy when it comes to people mentioning Bush and Dictator, so "common" mistake seems like a bit of an understatement.

A wuss? Am I afraid or not "ballsy" enough about something? It's the impression that comes across when you keep hacking on people for mentioning it.
It's simply annoying for people to say Bush has absolute power when he doesn't, or is a dictator when he isn't. It's not an opinion; it's not open for debate; it's simply incorrect. Grass isn't red. You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but grass is not red, it is green. Ice cream isn't warm. It doesn't matter how much you may hate it, but it's not warm. It is cold. I don't like Bush any more than the next guy, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a democratically elected president, has nowhere near absolute power, and will be gone in a few months anyhow.

People's ignorance is tiring, and if you are to debate or talk about something, such as Bush, you should at least know what you're talking about.Yes it is. Grass, for instance, also comes in the color yellow. :p

A wuss? Am I afraid or not "ballsy" enough about something?

It's simply annoying for people to say Bush has absolute power when he doesn't, or is a dictator when he isn't. It's not an opinion; it's not open for debate; it's simply incorrect. Grass isn't red. You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but grass is not red, it is green. Ice cream isn't warm. It doesn't matter how much you may hate it, but it's not warm. It is cold. I don't like Bush any more than the next guy, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a democratically elected president, has nowhere near absolute power, and will be gone in a few months anyhow.

People's ignorance is tiring, and if you are to debate or talk about something, such as Bush, you should at least know what you're talking about.

Chill man. I'm not saying I agree. I was merely clarifying the made poin, because you seem seriously reading impaired.

Chill man. I'm not saying I agree. I was merely clarifying the made poin, because you seem seriously reading impaired.

a misunderstanding that all involved parties worked out. so can we drop this and get back to the topic of a monarchy for the USA?

Chill man. I'm not saying I agree. I was merely clarifying the made poin, because you seem seriously reading impaired.

What on Earth are you talking about? That message was not directed towards you, it was in response to Laerod. In fact, I was not talking to you at all. Yet I'm "reading impaired?"

...who are you even?

a misunderstanding that all involved parties worked out. so can we drop this and get back to the topic of a monarchy for the USA?

Please.

As far as U.S. royalty, it already exists. It's just brought on by fame and wealth instead of birthright. However, like birthright, fame and/or wealth is a pretty shitty reason to lead a nation. I neither want Britney Spears, Brangelina, Donald Trump, or Bill Gates running America. That being said, at least they're AMERICAN. The queen doesn't even come close. Thumbs down to monarchy.

so you in favor of allowing a 'Royal' leadership to rule over you...hey maybe its a good idea, but I for one cannot stand to believe someone was born into leading me. Sure US democracy is failing as of late but the US was an experiment to begin with, trial and failure is the only way toward perfect and a monarchy is only a step backwards.

Rightfully the people should lead themselves, to establish a single family as the perminant leaders of your society has no worth at all except certain doom once you get into power that one child of the family that abuses his position. Now, whats sad is americans have lost intrest in their vote and so we have what we have now...truely I believe that is a main reason why our democracy is slowly failing, we've made light of our political system and simply started to believe our votes don't count and that way were slowly edging toward this sort of change, maybe eventually we'll be so lazy we'll just say fuck it just let that guy lead from now on.

I do think something has to change but stepping back into time is not going to solve anything. Fuck monarchy, fuck Britain and FUCK THE QUEEN!What and having several actual ruling dynasties is better than one ceremonial ruling dynasty?

I do agree with your thoughts about people not believing their vote counts. Of course individual votes count. Why else would politicians go to such lengths to commit electoral fraud by registering dead people, and other disenfranchised people, to vote; rather than simply bribing the returning officer?

As far as U.S. royalty, it already exists. It's just brought on by fame and wealth instead of birthright. However, like birthright, fame and/or wealth is a pretty shitty reason to lead a nation. I neither want Britney Spears, Brangelina, Donald Trump, or Bill Gates running America.
None of them are royalty.

None of them are royalty.You're right. Maybe likening things to what they are not is only wrong if you're a "far-left loser."

You're right. Maybe likening things to what they are not is only wrong if you're a "far-left loser."

Well, duh...

None of them are royalty.

Hence his statement about it being bought by fame and wealth.

after all, most of those people (as well as the majority of Hollywood stars) all think they're above the law. :p

I don't reckon Charles is going to be so good. Give a dog a bad name and all that.

A wuss? Am I afraid or not "ballsy" enough about something?

It's simply annoying for people to say Bush has absolute power when he doesn't, or is a dictator when he isn't. It's not an opinion; it's not open for debate; it's simply incorrect. Grass isn't red. You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but grass is not red, it is green.
red grass http://www.jmt.org/journey/picgallery/gal0145L.jpg

Ice cream isn't warm. It doesn't matter how much you may hate it, but it's not warm. It is cold.
warm ice cream
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2013604/2/istockphoto_2013604_melting_ice_cream.jpg

I don't like Bush any more than the next guy,

bush lover
http://www.political-humor.info/system/items/399.jpg

but it doesn't change the fact that he is a democratically elected president, has nowhere near absolute power, and will be gone in a few months anyhow.

the bush you don't see...
http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/dictator/bush-dictator.jpg

People's ignorance is tiring, and if you are to debate or talk about something, such as Bush, you should at least know what you're talking about.
If you cant take the lulz don't come to the internet.

I despise the idea of Monarchy.

I do too, actually, but I think it's the lesser of two evils.

What's makes you think the Queen would be good at running a country? She has no experience in doing so.

Because "running a country" (i.e. running a monopoly on jurisdiction) entails being the most conniving, deceptive, silver-tongued, morally loose person you can be. Seeing as how there would not be free entry into the field of stealing as much as you can for your buddies and yourselves for power, but rather you would only have a very narrow selection based not upon one's ability to out-lie the other person but a random accident of birth that may very well turn out to be a good person.

well, first you need to change your thinking. if you are dissatisfies with both Dems and Reps... why keep electing one of the two? I say effect real CHANGE. don't put either party back into power.

Except I do not vote, as I do not want to legitimize the contest between people vying for the power to change and take away other's rights.

Except I do not vote, as I do not want to legitimize the contest between people vying for the power to change and take away other's rights.
you can see it as that way, or you can start a movement in your area to remove both Dem and Reps from power and find a candidate that you can truely back.

I do too, actually, but I think it's the lesser of two evils.
How so?
Except I do not vote, as I do not want to legitimize the contest between people vying for the power to change and take away other's rights.
So you'd rather just sit back and whine about the results rather than try and make any change?

Except I do not vote, as I do not want to legitimize the contest between people vying for the power to change and take away other's rights.The other reason being you're not old enough yet, or what?

you can see it as that way, or you can start a movement in your area to remove both Dem and Reps from power and find a candidate that you can truely back.

But I do not want to back a candidate, because he will be tempted to act just the same way as the Dems and Reps. The problems are more fundamental than the fact that Democrats and Republicans are so underhanded.

How so?

For a variety of reasons, but two of the most fundamental are that for a king their realm is their property, and they will take care of it in order to insure future returns for the good of themselves and their family, and also that a King is not selected on the basis of his ability to pander to special interests but an accident of birth, and he may well turn out to be a good person. Whereas, a President has only a few years to benefit his buddies and himself, with the long-term costs being largely externalized, and since he has to compete with a variety of people he has to appeal to the sordid demands of those in command of the political machine and basically cast aside whatever mores he has.

So you'd rather just sit back and whine about the results rather than try and make any change?

Who said voting is the only way to affect change?

For a variety of reasons, but two of the most fundamental are that for a king their realm is their property, and they will take care of it in order to insure future returns for the good of themselves and their family, and also that a King is not selected on the basis of his ability to pander to special interests but an accident of birth, and he may well turn out to be a good person. Whereas, a President has only a few years to benefit his buddies and himself, with the long-term costs being largely externalized, and since he has to compete with a variety of people he has to appeal to the sordid demands of those in command of the political machine and basically cast aside whatever mores he has.Have you had a history class yet? What if the king turns out to be a bad person? Unlike a US President, he won't be gone in 8 years.

Who said voting is the only way to affect change?

So what other than whining on internet forums have you done?

So what other than whining on internet forums have you done?

Whining on his LiveJournal?

Have you had a history class yet? What if the king turns out to be a bad person? Unlike a US President, he won't be gone in 8 years.

It'll be better than if that same person had been president, since the President's successor will like build upon that person's dark legacy. Also, with a king you have the option of tyrannicide, or rebellion, or those in line to the throne may restrain or neutralize him for their own benefit and without objection, while the bad president will be anchored by his cronies who are benefitting from him and the worst that will happen to the bad president is being voted out of office (if not in his second term), thus giving little punishment for his misdeeds and thus encouraging them.

Have you had a history class yet? What if the king turns out to be a bad person? Unlike a US President, he won't be gone in 8 years.
It's amazing how these people claim that monarchs are better people than politicians and are somehow raised from birth to lead well, but seem blind to Gyanendra, Abdullah Saud and Bhumibol Adulyadej, for example.

It'll be better than if that same person had been president, since the President's successor will like build upon that person's dark legacy. Also, with a king you have the option of tyrannicide, or rebellion, or those in line to the throne may restrain or neutralize him for their own benefit and without objection, while the bad president will be anchored by his cronies who are benefitting from him and the worst that will happen to the bad president is being voted out of office (if not in his second term), thus giving little punishment for his misdeeds and thus encouraging them.
Funny how these brainstorms never seem to work in reality.

It'll be better than if that same person had been president, since the President's successor will like build upon that person's dark legacy. Also, with a king you have the option of tyrannicide, or rebellion, or those in line to the throne may restrain or neutralize him for their own benefit and without objection, while the bad president will be anchored by his cronies who are benefitting from him and the worst that will happen to the bad president is being voted out of office (if not in his second term), thus giving little punishment for his misdeeds and thus encouraging them.Bullshit. A President has to fear regicide, rebellion or a coup just as much as a King, just like a King will be able to accumulate cronies benefitting from him. Ever heard of feudalism? No seriously, have you stumbled across the term sometime in your life?

Also, the whole tyrranicide issue smothers your "the king doesn't need to pander to..." part of your argument. If the King need fear being deposed, then yes, he will have to pander to someone, either people that help him or her avoid getting deposed or the people that might depose them.

Funny how these brainstorms never seem to work in reality.Thank goodness I'm not the only one to notice :p

Bullshit. A President has to fear regicide, rebellion or a coup just as much as a King, just like a King will be able to accumulate cronies benefitting from him. Ever heard of feudalism? No seriously, have you stumbled across the term sometime in your life?

Also, the whole tyrranicide issue smothers your "the king doesn't need to pander to..." part of your argument. If the King need fear being deposed, then yes, he will have to pander to someone, either people that help him or her avoid getting deposed or the people that might depose them.

You'll note that in addition to his ignorance, he also hasn't been able to answer my question of what he is doing to change the status quo, other than whining on internet forums.

I say this because the colonies enjoyed benign neglect for much of its history under Britain,
Yes, because they had their own colonial governments. There wasn't a void unless you moved far West (which the colonists couldn't do).

My one condition would have to be that Queen Elizabeth alone would have power, and not have to share it with Parliament, since the latter doesn't seem to be any better than Congress. Also, she alone would receive any tax revenues and would be free to sell, lease, give shares, etc. with the territory as desired.
I do not see the logic behind this line of thinking. "Because there were some monarchs in the 18th century that I feel were good leaders, their great-great-great-etc.-granddaughter should be a leader."

Considering that A.) she would have a right to the future returns from the United States and thus would want to enhance them, and B.) George III's sovereignty was removed over a relatively miniscule amount of taxation, she would have to engage in a great deal of moderation concerning her policies in order to retain her sovereignty. As such, I would happily trade my right to vote for the status quo in order to enjoy the benign neglect that is impossible under the current system.
George III lost control over the colonies for a variety of reasons, not the least of them being the colonies had no say in the Parliament that was taxing them. But you want to get rid of the Parliament. Somehow, I don't think the colonials will like that any more than a distant one.

You'll note that in addition to his ignorance, he also hasn't been able to answer my question of what he is doing to change the status quo, other than whining on internet forums.According to the stalking mechanisms available to us Generalites, he's reading the topic.

EDIT: Nope, now offline.

Thank goodness I'm not the only one to notice :p
I wouldn't worry about that.

According to the stalking mechanisms available to us Generalites, he's reading the topic. nope... I don't think so... not with gems like this.But I do not want to back a candidate, because he will be tempted to act just the same way as the Dems and Reps. The problems are more fundamental than the fact that Democrats and Republicans are so underhanded.

EDIT: Nope, now offline.

good little trolls need their sleep. :p

I'm trying to remember who he is. I think he's Greill, if only because Greill was an anarcho-monarchist. Although he was rather more eloquent.

I'm trying to remember who he is. I think he's Greill, if only because Greill was an anarcho-monarchist. Although he was rather more eloquent.
Greill replaced BAAWAKnights (or something like that), although I don't think they were the same person.

Greill replaced BAAWAKnights (or something like that), although I don't think they were the same person.

Well, BAAWAKnights wasn't particularly eloquent, so this might be him. I know he used to post here before, he said so.

It'll be better than if that same person had been president, since the President's successor will like build upon that person's dark legacy. Also, with a king you have the option of tyrannicide, or rebellion, or those in line to the throne may restrain or neutralize him for their own benefit and without objection, while the bad president will be anchored by his cronies who are benefitting from him and the worst that will happen to the bad president is being voted out of office (if not in his second term), thus giving little punishment for his misdeeds and thus encouraging them.Right, because Presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) have never (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Garfield) been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley) assassinated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy)...

I'm trying to remember who he is. I think he's Greill, if only because Greill was an anarcho-monarchist. Although he was rather more eloquent.Yes, Venndee was Greill.
BAAWA was someone else.

Bullshit. A President has to fear regicide, rebellion or a coup just as much as a King, just like a King will be able to accumulate cronies benefitting from him. Ever heard of feudalism? No seriously, have you stumbled across the term sometime in your life?

Then why hasn't anyone tried to honestly rebel against George W. Bush, but has basically consigned themselves to waiting out his fantastic two terms, even his most vocal opponents? King Louis XIV, Peter II, Ivan the Terrible, Charles I and II etc. certainly didn't have that luxury. When Presidents do get assassinated, it ends up being a national tragedy and whatnot regardless of what misdeeds they performed. And while a king does pick up allies, he does not get his office by getting their help, but through an accident of birth. Thus, a person who may be better at manipulating special interests, if he does not come out of the right woman, will never have a chance at being king, while some guy who is more interested in writing poetry than increasing his power can end up ruling and leave his subjects be in benign neglect.

Also, the whole tyrranicide issue smothers your "the king doesn't need to pander to..." part of your argument. If the King need fear being deposed, then yes, he will have to pander to someone, either people that help him or her avoid getting deposed or the people that might depose them.

The President needs to cultivate his skills and connections with special interests in the first place to get into the office and get his next term, while a King does not need them in order to be born and live. A King can get away with not putting his people under grinding taxation, in fact it will probably improve his longevity and increase his wealth in the long term, whereas a President who fails to act like a robber for his friends will most likely not get his next term.

Yes, because they had their own colonial governments. There wasn't a void unless you moved far West (which the colonists couldn't do).

But the governments of the States got progressively bigger and bigger afterwards under Hamiltonian style ideology. It was Massachussett's massive taxation, which was far worse than anything under the British, that drove Shays and the rest to rebellion.

I do not see the logic behind this line of thinking. "Because there were some monarchs in the 18th century that I feel were good leaders, their great-great-great-etc.-granddaughter should be a leader."

It was an arbitrary choice, really. Historically, the British kings ruled America, so I thought it would make more sense than Juan Carlos or someone. Though maybe the Prince of Liechtenstein would be the best choice.

George III lost control over the colonies for a variety of reasons, not the least of them being the colonies had no say in the Parliament that was taxing them. But you want to get rid of the Parliament. Somehow, I don't think the colonials will like that any more than a distant one.

Yes, and since there wouldn't be that buffer to hide behind of Parliament, whoever the ruler of America might be would have to tread far more lightly.

But the governments of the States got progressively bigger and bigger afterwards under Hamiltonian style ideology. It was Massachussett's massive taxation, which was far worse than anything under the British, that drove Shays and the rest to rebellion.

So you don't think monarchy itself is great, you just want a smaller government?

As an American, I am intensely dissatisfied with the state of government (especially on the Federal level.) The upcoming election does not reassure me at all, since the Democratic party has entirely failed to stop the war, and the Republican party seems intent on spending as much money as possible; most likely nothing will change from '09 onward. Since all three branches of the government appear to be entirely dysfunctional, from Kelo to Congress' funding of the war for the next year and a half to, well, pretty much everything about the executive, I think it might be a good idea to try a different system now, one that has been tried before. As such, I think it is time to restore the British monarchy over what is now the United States.

I say this because the colonies enjoyed benign neglect for much of its history under Britain, and even under George III the tax burden was less than that of Britain itself, being only about 1% of national income in the North and 2.5% in the South in 1775. My one condition would have to be that Queen Elizabeth alone would have power, and not have to share it with Parliament, since the latter doesn't seem to be any better than Congress. Also, she alone would receive any tax revenues and would be free to sell, lease, give shares, etc. with the territory as desired. Considering that A.) she would have a right to the future returns from the United States and thus would want to enhance them, and B.) George III's sovereignty was removed over a relatively miniscule amount of taxation, she would have to engage in a great deal of moderation concerning her policies in order to retain her sovereignty. As such, I would happily trade my right to vote for the status quo in order to enjoy the benign neglect that is impossible under the current system.

As an American, my answer is not only no, it's hell no.

Then why hasn't anyone tried to honestly rebel against George W. Bush, but has basically consigned themselves to waiting out his fantastic two terms, even his most vocal opponents? His subjects in Iraq are currently in revolt, if I'm not much mistaken.
King Louis XIV, Peter II, Ivan the Terrible, Charles I and II etc. certainly didn't have that luxury.What luxury?
When Presidents do get assassinated, it ends up being a national tragedy and whatnot regardless of what misdeeds they performed. Might have something to do with them still being popularly elected.
And while a king does pick up allies, he does not get his office by getting their help, but through an accident of birth. Thus, a person who may be better at manipulating special interests, if he does not come out of the right woman, will never have a chance at being king, while some guy who is more interested in writing poetry than increasing his power can end up ruling and leave his subjects be in benign neglect.Succession has rarely been as simple as you make it out to be.

The President needs to cultivate his skills and connections with special interests in the first place to get into the office and get his next term, while a King does not need them in order to be born and live. Kings need support from people to claim their throne. Modern Monarchs generally don't, because they have no power.
A King can get away with not putting his people under grinding taxation, in fact it will probably improve his longevity and increase his wealth in the long term, whereas a President who fails to act like a robber for his friends will most likely not get his next term.Not really.

Then why hasn't anyone tried to honestly rebel against George W. Bush, but has basically consigned themselves to waiting out his fantastic two terms, even his most vocal opponents? King Louis XIV, Peter II, Ivan the Terrible, Charles I and II etc. certainly didn't have that luxury.
The same reason you aren't.