Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Politics and Government / Re: Worst Political Cartoons
« Last post by Id82 on Today at 09:38:57 am »
Gotta love how that completely skips over how Trump asked Russia to hack the DNC and find the missing emails, how Trumps son met with a Russian woman to get dirt on Hillary. How Trump seems to not be able to say a bad thing about Putin but will trash all of our allies. How Russia interfered with our election. It's all good as long as there guy wins.
Maybe the DNC should collude with foreign countries to get dirt on the RNC since I guess it's perfectly legal to do so.
2


That word is "proof," dude.

But how do you explain what happened in the video?

I have a theory. You're so full of shit, your eyes are brown.
3
In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.
Investigation by whom, and when? Surely, you're not expecting to only bother with the king, then kick back and relax while someone else does the rest of the work, right?

Honestly, if you want me and I would image most others to even consider taking you seriously, the king is only the beginning. You need to find out who is the rightful lord of what land (according to the specific succession laws of that title), who is the rightful liege of what lord and, arguably most importantly, what exactly are each vassal's obligations and duties to his or her liege. Not just taxes and troop levies, but also things like war duties (such as commanding troops, what supplies, if any, he or she is obligated to provide to the army, in the event that it enters his or her holdings, administering the realm while the king is out on campaign, etc), maintaining highways and/or canals, whether or not a lesser noble is allowed to go to war independent of the king, be it against a fellow English lord or a foreign realm, as well as penalties for failing to meet their obligations. There's a lot more to building a feudal kingdom than merely finding out who should be king and calling it a day. That's only the very beginning of what you must do. For someone who so desperately wants England to return to feudalism for some reason, it's quite frankly a little disappointing that I have to point this out in the first place. You don't seem to realise just what it is you're arguing for, and again, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The English courts will investigate.

Lol. The "English courts". I.e. those things that don't exist in a modern sense in a feudal kingdom, because "court" refers to the local lord himself and his or her courtiers, who, let me remind you, won't exist until they, according to you, investigate and hand out their own lands and titles. Which, let me remind you, they're expected to do despite not existing yet. You see the tiny but nonetheless critical flaw in your otherwise magnificent plan?
4
In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.
Investigation by whom, and when? Surely, you're not expecting to only bother with the king, then kick back and relax while someone else does the rest of the work, right?

Honestly, if you want me and I would image most others to even consider taking you seriously, the king is only the beginning. You need to find out who is the rightful lord of what land (according to the specific succession laws of that title), who is the rightful liege of what lord and, arguably most importantly, what exactly are each vassal's obligations and duties to his or her liege. Not just taxes and troop levies, but also things like war duties (such as commanding troops, what supplies, if any, he or she is obligated to provide to the army, in the event that it enters his or her holdings, administering the realm while the king is out on campaign, etc), maintaining highways and/or canals, whether or not a lesser noble is allowed to go to war independent of the king, be it against a fellow English lord or a foreign realm, as well as penalties for failing to meet their obligations. There's a lot more to building a feudal kingdom than merely finding out who should be king and calling it a day. That's only the very beginning of what you must do. For someone who so desperately wants England to return to feudalism for some reason, it's quite frankly a little disappointing that I have to point this out in the first place. You don't seem to realise just what it is you're arguing for, and again, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The English courts will investigate.
5
1. True being a tribe itself does not make one primitive, however being a tribe without there being a unified nation is primitive.

Actually there are several definitions of the word "primitive" not just your made up one. The etymology of the word comes from the old French primitif, from Latin prīmitīvus (“first or earliest of its kind”) Considering that your entire worldview revolves around giving political power to original ruling houses of Europe it is innately primitive.

2. In the language of the time, bats were considered birds. And any contradictions in the Bible can be explained by the fact that the human writers of the Bible made mistakes. That does not change the fact that it was inspired by God.

Even a primitive culture like the ones who penned the bible had eyes, snouts are not beaks but, hey, thank you for confirming that the Bible is unreliable tosh whose conclusions can be safely ditched.

3. The majority of the colonists were Christians, not deists, and many of the founding fathers such as George Washington were Christian, so why would they have the Declaration of Independence based on deism which was a minority belief in Colonies that were majority Christian? That does not make sense.

The matter at hand is not their religion but what they wrote, what you think they were thinking is irrelevant.

4. You forgot to include verse 20.

“19He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

That shows that those who are called least in the kingdom of Heaven are not in heaven when they are called that.

Nope, according to you it shows something penned by mere humans who didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

5. Us Christians don’t use the government to force people to act as Christianity commands, we use the government to promote Christianity in a traditionally Christian nation to preserve our traditional cultural heritage which Christianity is a part of. Atheists should not interfere with traditional culture, and why should they care if Christianity is promoted by the government?

Because your mob has a history of burning competitors alive?

6b-That was not part of England’s original constitution
What original constitution? England doesn't have one, to this day.

6d-The Church is also held accountable to God because other clergy can condemn corrupt clergy, and if they are higher up, punish clergy who behave badly. Reforms have been made in the past when there was corruption in the Church such as the Council of Trent. There needs to be major reforms made to stop the horrible pedophilia scandal, such as more action being taken to defrock pedophile priests and those in the clergy that cover for them.

So reforms you don't like (Vatican 2.0) are bad but reforms you do like are good, heads I win, tails you lose kind of deal. And accountable to an imaginary being explains everything you need to know about the misdeeds of the Catholic Church.

6e-Well there will be some form of Magna Carta constitution that will prevent the monarch from acting arbitrarily. The power of the monarch will be absolute but not arbitrary.

And exactly, I am angry at the illegitimate illegal way that England became a democracy because it was not done by the legitimate monarchs.
The Magna Carta is not a constitution, it's one of many charters in English law. It says right on the tin. That's what "Carta" is!

And the will of the people will always be more legitimate than some toff wanker who's got what he has because he had a rich daddy!

Besides which, hey Seppo, what the fuck is an AMERICAN doing telling the BRITISH how they should run their own electoral affairs? You aren't from there Yankee Doodle, stop trying to do to the British what Reagan did to Chile!

1. Ok, I guess another word I could use is less civilized.

2. As I said, while it proves that the writers of the bible made mistakes, it does not change the fact that the bible is the inspired word of God.


3. But I proved that the wrote it referring to the Christian God


4. Because the other reforms did not change the Church's sacred traditions, Vatican 2 did.


5. What I mean by Constitution is legal system in how the government is run. The will of the people is only more legitimate, if the government is a legitimate democracy such as the United States.


The reason why I want the true legitimate monarchs restored to the throne of England, is because I am an Anglo American, and America and England share common heritage.   
6


That word is "proof," dude.


But how do you explain what happened in the video?
7
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/detaining-immigrant-children-is-now-a-billion-dollar-industry

You know, I honestly thought that private prison industry in USA was as bad as it could be...

Quote
In May, the agency issued requests for bids for five projects that could total more than $500 million for beds, foster and therapeutic care, and “secure care,” which means employing guards. More contracts are expected to come up for bids in October.

Because obviously this is something that should be given to private sector...

USA: Why haven't you started a revolution yet?

Because any revolution we'd start would be immediately destroyed by a little thing called the United States military.  A killing machine that can kill 24/7/365 without rest.
8
Drain the swamp, he said.
9
In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.
Investigation by whom, and when? Surely, you're not expecting to only bother with the king, then kick back and relax while someone else does the rest of the work, right?

Honestly, if you want me and I would image most others to even consider taking you seriously, the king is only the beginning. You need to find out who is the rightful lord of what land (according to the specific succession laws of that title), who is the rightful liege of what lord and, arguably most importantly, what exactly are each vassal's obligations and duties to his or her liege. Not just taxes and troop levies, but also things like war duties (such as commanding troops, what supplies, if any, he or she is obligated to provide to the army, in the event that it enters his or her holdings, administering the realm while the king is out on campaign, etc), maintaining highways and/or canals, whether or not a lesser noble is allowed to go to war independent of the king, be it against a fellow English lord or a foreign realm, as well as penalties for failing to meet their obligations. There's a lot more to building a feudal kingdom than merely finding out who should be king and calling it a day. That's only the very beginning of what you must do. For someone who so desperately wants England to return to feudalism for some reason, it's quite frankly a little disappointing that I have to point this out in the first place. You don't seem to realise just what it is you're arguing for, and again, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
10
1. True being a tribe itself does not make one primitive, however being a tribe without there being a unified nation is primitive.

Actually there are several definitions of the word "primitive" not just your made up one. The etymology of the word comes from the old French primitif, from Latin prīmitīvus (“first or earliest of its kind”) Considering that your entire worldview revolves around giving political power to original ruling houses of Europe it is innately primitive.

2. In the language of the time, bats were considered birds. And any contradictions in the Bible can be explained by the fact that the human writers of the Bible made mistakes. That does not change the fact that it was inspired by God.

Even a primitive culture like the ones who penned the bible had eyes, snouts are not beaks but, hey, thank you for confirming that the Bible is unreliable tosh whose conclusions can be safely ditched.

3. The majority of the colonists were Christians, not deists, and many of the founding fathers such as George Washington were Christian, so why would they have the Declaration of Independence based on deism which was a minority belief in Colonies that were majority Christian? That does not make sense.

The matter at hand is not their religion but what they wrote, what you think they were thinking is irrelevant.

4. You forgot to include verse 20.

“19He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

That shows that those who are called least in the kingdom of Heaven are not in heaven when they are called that.

Nope, according to you it shows something penned by mere humans who didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

5. Us Christians don’t use the government to force people to act as Christianity commands, we use the government to promote Christianity in a traditionally Christian nation to preserve our traditional cultural heritage which Christianity is a part of. Atheists should not interfere with traditional culture, and why should they care if Christianity is promoted by the government?

Because your mob has a history of burning competitors alive?

6b-That was not part of England’s original constitution
What original constitution? England doesn't have one, to this day.

6d-The Church is also held accountable to God because other clergy can condemn corrupt clergy, and if they are higher up, punish clergy who behave badly. Reforms have been made in the past when there was corruption in the Church such as the Council of Trent. There needs to be major reforms made to stop the horrible pedophilia scandal, such as more action being taken to defrock pedophile priests and those in the clergy that cover for them.

So reforms you don't like (Vatican 2.0) are bad but reforms you do like are good, heads I win, tails you lose kind of deal. And accountable to an imaginary being explains everything you need to know about the misdeeds of the Catholic Church.

6e-Well there will be some form of Magna Carta constitution that will prevent the monarch from acting arbitrarily. The power of the monarch will be absolute but not arbitrary.

And exactly, I am angry at the illegitimate illegal way that England became a democracy because it was not done by the legitimate monarchs.
The Magna Carta is not a constitution, it's one of many charters in English law. It says right on the tin. That's what "Carta" is!

And the will of the people will always be more legitimate than some toff wanker who's got what he has because he had a rich daddy!

Besides which, hey Seppo, what the fuck is an AMERICAN doing telling the BRITISH how they should run their own electoral affairs? You aren't from there Yankee Doodle, stop trying to do to the British what Reagan did to Chile!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10