FSTDT Forums
Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on July 16, 2018, 11:40:03 am
-
I did further research on English history and discovered that the line of succession to the Kingdom of England and the Lordship of Ireland I previously considered legitimate is illegitimate and because of that I have to confess that I made up the story about merging with my parallel self from a universe where the Yorkist heir became King of England.
King Henry II of England’s wife was Eleanor of Aquitaine. She was previously the wife of Louis VII of France who’s marriage was annulled on the grounds of consanguinity within the fourth degree as she was Louis VII’s third cousin once removed.
However she was also third cousin’s with Henry II. That means that her marriage with Henry II was also illegitimate, making their children illegitimate, making it so that every monarch after Henry II’s death in 1189 was illegitimate. Because of that, I traced who should be the legitimate monarch of England.
Henry II’s brothers were dead by the time of his dead. Because of that, the throne should have gone to Henry II Count of Champagne as he was the direct great grandson of William the Conqueror’s daughter Adela.
After his death, the throne would have went to his brother Theobald III and then his son Theobald I King of Navarre. His granddaughter Queen Joan of Navarre married Phillip IV of France.
Her son Louis X of France had King John I of France who died in 1316. Therefore the throne of England should have gone to his sister Joan II of Navarre.
In 1589 the Kingdom of Navarre was joined by France in personal Union when King Henry III of Navarre inherited the Kingdom of France becoming Henry IV of France.
The last King of France before the July Revolution of 1830 was Louis XIX who ruled for 20 minutes. After his death in 1844, the thrones of England as well as France should have went to his nephew Henry Count of Chambord. After his death in 1883, the the throne of France would go to another male relative because of French Salic law, but the throne of England would have gone to Robert I the pretender to the Duchy of Parma.
His son Elias, had Robert Hugo who died in 1974. After that the throne of England would have gone to his nephew Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria who died in 2015. Therefore the rightful King of England is Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria. He has a son, Prince Jaime born 26, June 1993.
I realized that any forced marriage due to kidnapping is null and void under Catholic Canon law, so because of that, we should wait till he gets married, and has children. The firstborn male child should be kidnapped and raised to be the future King of England. If he does not have any male children, then the first born female should be kidnapped to be raised to be Queen.
The coat of arms of Normandy should be the flag of England since the cross of St. George was introduced as a national emblem during the reign of the illegitimate monarch Edward I.
And I will be working on the national anthem which I will upload to YouTube.
-
OK, now you're just trolling.
-
OK, now you're just trolling.
How? I traced who the real legitimate heir to the Kingdom of England and the Lordship of Ireland is.
-
OK, now you're just trolling.
How? I traced who the real legitimate heir to the Kingdom of England and the Lordship of Ireland is.
Which you said you'd done how many times before this? (All the while ignoring the only legitimate source of authority and what they had to say about the matter.)
-
OK, now you're just trolling.
How? I traced who the real legitimate heir to the Kingdom of England and the Lordship of Ireland is.
Which you said you'd done how many times before this? (All the while ignoring the only legitimate source of authority and what they had to say about the matter.)
I keep discovering new information by researching more English history. This time I am certain I found who the rightful heir to the throne is. And Parliament is not a legitimate source of authority, because they did not acquire their power legally from the true legitimate monarchs of England.
-
OK, now you're just trolling.
How? I traced who the real legitimate heir to the Kingdom of England and the Lordship of Ireland is.
Which you said you'd done how many times before this? (All the while ignoring the only legitimate source of authority and what they had to say about the matter.)
I keep discovering new information by researching more English history. This time I am certain I found who the rightful heir to the throne is. And Parliament is not a legitimate source of authority, because they did not acquire their power legally from the true legitimate monarchs of England.
Parliament represents the people, you idiot.
And what the fuck made those monarchs legitimate (to exercise real power)? How bloody they could make their swords? That they had a fever dream in which some nonexistent deity said they were legitimate?
http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail/character_1612.html
(Like it or not, Dennis has a point.)
-
OK, now you're just trolling.
How? I traced who the real legitimate heir to the Kingdom of England and the Lordship of Ireland is.
Which you said you'd done how many times before this? (All the while ignoring the only legitimate source of authority and what they had to say about the matter.)
I keep discovering new information by researching more English history. This time I am certain I found who the rightful heir to the throne is. And Parliament is not a legitimate source of authority, because they did not acquire their power legally from the true legitimate monarchs of England.
Parliament represents the people, you idiot.
And what the fuck made those monarchs legitimate (to exercise real power)? How bloody they could make their swords? That they had a fever dream in which some nonexistent deity said they were legitimate?
http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail/character_1612.html
(Like it or not, Dennis has a point.)
What made those monarchs legitimate is that they came to power by legal means. England was legally a monarchy, so they legally inherited their positions of power.
And Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God and insults King Arthur who some people suspect may have been a British King after the Roman Withdrawal of Britain during the Anglo Saxon invasion. Under the restored legitimate monarchy, that movie will be banned under the blasphemy and insulting legendary national leader laws.
-
Yeah, you can't expect people to accept that somebody has supreme executive power just because
a watery tart threw a sword at them they have the right family or won a lot of battles. Unless you fell through a time warp from 1485, your ideas on what makes a government legitimate are ridiculous, outdated, and ridiculously outdated. Why don't you fester in some dark corner with the other neoreactionary tools?
-
Dude it's over. Niam fucked your second cousin.
Ironbite-it's done.
-
OK, now you're just trolling.
How? I traced who the real legitimate heir to the Kingdom of England and the Lordship of Ireland is.
Which you said you'd done how many times before this? (All the while ignoring the only legitimate source of authority and what they had to say about the matter.)
I keep discovering new information by researching more English history. This time I am certain I found who the rightful heir to the throne is. And Parliament is not a legitimate source of authority, because they did not acquire their power legally from the true legitimate monarchs of England.
Parliament represents the people, you idiot.
And what the fuck made those monarchs legitimate (to exercise real power)? How bloody they could make their swords? That they had a fever dream in which some nonexistent deity said they were legitimate?
http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail/character_1612.html
(Like it or not, Dennis has a point.)
What made those monarchs legitimate is that they came to power by legal means. England was legally a monarchy, so they legally inherited their positions of power.
And Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God and insults King Arthur who some people suspect may have been a British King after the Roman Withdrawal of Britain during the Anglo Saxon invasion. Under the restored legitimate monarchy, that movie will be banned under the blasphemy and insulting legendary national leader laws.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ! Who are you, Mary Whitehouse? I bet you'd advocate chemically castrating Graham Chairman if he weren't already dead too.
-
What made those monarchs legitimate is that they came to power by legal means. England was legally a monarchy, so they legally inherited their positions of power.
Since you can't seem to get even the most primitive notions of basic political theory through your thick skull, let me make this abundantly clear:
THERE IS ONLY ONE LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY: A CLEAR, UNCOERCED MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE YOU PURPORT TO GOVERN, WHICH CAN BE REVOKED AS THEY SEE FIT.
And Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God and insults King Arthur who some people suspect may have been a British King after the Roman Withdrawal of Britain during the Anglo Saxon invasion. Under the restored legitimate monarchy, that movie will be banned under the blasphemy and insulting legendary national leader laws.
Blasphemy laws can fuck right off. The most basic tenet of a liberal society is the right to challenge any belief or statement, and religion is necessarily the one that must most strongly be challenged because religion makes "such large claims for itself". Nobody can justly declare anything off-limits for criticism or parody.
As for insulting King Arthur, again, as with anything, everything, and everyone else, he or his legend is not immune to criticism or parody.
And banning media (that does not in its production or consumption cause real, demonstrable, and unjustifiable harm, like eight-year-olds, dude) is a sure sign of an autocratic society.
I imagine you also want to ban Life of Brian, even though if you've ever actually watched it you'd know that it depicts Jesus in a pretty positive light.
-
I did further research on English history and discovered that the line of succession to the Kingdom of England and the Lordship of Ireland I previously considered legitimate is illegitimate and because of that I have to confess that I made up the story about merging with my parallel self from a universe where the Yorkist heir became King of England.
King Henry II of England’s wife was Eleanor of Aquitaine. She was previously the wife of Louis VII of France who’s marriage was annulled on the grounds of consanguinity within the fourth degree as she was Louis VII’s third cousin once removed.
However she was also third cousin’s with Henry II. That means that her marriage with Henry II was also illegitimate, making their children illegitimate, making it so that every monarch after Henry II’s death in 1189 was illegitimate. Because of that, I traced who should be the legitimate monarch of England.
Henry II’s brothers were dead by the time of his dead. Because of that, the throne should have gone to Henry II Count of Champagne as he was the direct great grandson of William the Conqueror’s daughter Adela.
After his death, the throne would have went to his brother Theobald III and then his son Theobald I King of Navarre. His granddaughter Queen Joan of Navarre married Phillip IV of France.
Her son Louis X of France had King John I of France who died in 1316. Therefore the throne of England should have gone to his sister Joan II of Navarre.
In 1589 the Kingdom of Navarre was joined by France in personal Union when King Henry III of Navarre inherited the Kingdom of France becoming Henry IV of France.
The last King of France before the July Revolution of 1830 was Louis XIX who ruled for 20 minutes. After his death in 1844, the thrones of England as well as France should have went to his nephew Henry Count of Chambord. After his death in 1883, the the throne of France would go to another male relative because of French Salic law, but the throne of England would have gone to Robert I the pretender to the Duchy of Parma.
His son Elias, had Robert Hugo who died in 1974. After that the throne of England would have gone to his nephew Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria who died in 2015. Therefore the rightful King of England is Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria. He has a son, Prince Jaime born 26, June 1993.
I realized that any forced marriage due to kidnapping is null and void under Catholic Canon law, so because of that, we should wait till he gets married, and has children. The firstborn male child should be kidnapped and raised to be the future King of England. If he does not have any male children, then the first born female should be kidnapped to be raised to be Queen.
The royal coat of arms of adopted under Henry II in 1154 should be the flag of England since the cross of St. George was introduced as a national emblem during the reign of the illegitimate monarch Edward I. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_heraldry#/media/File%3ARoyal_Arms_of_England_(1154-1189).svg
And I will be working on the national anthem which I will upload to YouTube.
But Jaehaerys the Conciliator named his second son Baelon as heir, skipping over Rhaenys, daughter of his first son and by the succession laws of the Andals and the First Men the rightful Queen, in what many think was a desire to establish a precedent legitimising his own rule that had skipped over the daughters of his older brother Prince Aegon.
-
Thread over, Sigma wins.
-
If anyone is interested in an anime that is like Game of Thrones I recommend "The heroic legend of Arslan." It's on Netflix (at least for Finland) and it is pretty damn good.
Less sex and character deaths than GoT so if those were the main selling points for you, it is inferior but politics, treachery, struggle for power and questions of who is the rightful ruler are main points of the series. Also stuff about what makes a good ruler, lots of parallels to crusades and how religions cause wars and plenty of interesting characters. The anime does cut out a few interesting bits that the manga had but it is still pretty damn good.
I'm sure Jacob wouldn't like how the show implies that just having the right parentage doesn't automatically make you the best choice for ruler though.
-
Methinks Jacob has glommed onto this new dull set of psuedo royal lists becauase the penny has finally dropped, late as usual, that his rapey scheme to infliltrate the currently shambolic House of Commons and puruse world domination, reliant as it is on the consent of a real live woman and this forumite in particular might be a non starter.
He's like Wiley Coyote, whenever the last mad scheme goes full trainwreck he just goes back to the drawing board and cooks up a madder one!
-
What made those monarchs legitimate is that they came to power by legal means. England was legally a monarchy, so they legally inherited their positions of power.
Since you can't seem to get even the most primitive notions of basic political theory through your thick skull, let me make this abundantly clear:
THERE IS ONLY ONE LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY: A CLEAR, UNCOERCED MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE YOU PURPORT TO GOVERN, WHICH CAN BE REVOKED AS THEY SEE FIT.
And Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God and insults King Arthur who some people suspect may have been a British King after the Roman Withdrawal of Britain during the Anglo Saxon invasion. Under the restored legitimate monarchy, that movie will be banned under the blasphemy and insulting legendary national leader laws.
Blasphemy laws can fuck right off. The most basic tenet of a liberal society is the right to challenge any belief or statement, and religion is necessarily the one that must most strongly be challenged because religion makes "such large claims for itself". Nobody can justly declare anything off-limits for criticism or parody.
As for insulting King Arthur, again, as with anything, everything, and everyone else, he or his legend is not immune to criticism or parody.
And banning media (that does not in its production or consumption cause real, demonstrable, and unjustifiable harm, like eight-year-olds, dude) is a sure sign of an autocratic society.
I imagine you also want to ban Life of Brian, even though if you've ever actually watched it you'd know that it depicts Jesus in a pretty positive light.
1. Yes, Democracy is a great legitimate system of government if it is founded by legitimate means, such as the United States which won independence from the tyrannical illegitimate British government. However in the case of England, it was not founded by legitimate means, because the true heirs to the throne were deprived of what rightfully belonged to them. You do not understand basic property rights. In the medieval times, the monarchs owned and inherited the Kingdom of England. The true heirs were unlawfully barred from inheriting their own property.
2. It is the basic tenant of a liberal society, not a conservative Christian society. In a conservative Christian society, it is horribly disrespectful to Christians, and it is considered an abomination to insult the loving God who created the universe, and sent his son to sacrifice himself on behalf of humanity. When the United States was founded, while the First Amendment gave people freedom to practice their own religiou beliefs, blaspheming against the Christian God was illegal in the states, so in context, the First Amendment gives people religious freedom but not freedom to insult the God on which our nation is founded.
It is also disrespectful to historical national heroes, like King Arthur(if he existed) to make fun of them and it is also disrespectful to the nation.
-
I fail to see how Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God. The worst it does is portray him as being exasperated with people grovelling when he's trying to explain something.
-
So, democracy for me but not for thee?
Fuck off!
-
1. Yes, Democracy is a great legitimate system of government if it is founded by legitimate means, such as the United States which won independence from the tyrannical illegitimate British government. However in the case of England, it was not founded by legitimate means, because the true heirs to the throne were deprived of what rightfully belonged to them. You do not understand basic property rights. In the medieval times, the monarchs owned and inherited the Kingdom of England. The true heirs were unlawfully barred from inheriting their own property.
Holy ever-loving shit. How did they get that property? By fucking conquest. Anything that can be gained by conquest can be taken away by conquest.
2. It is the basic tenant of a liberal society, not a conservative Christian society. In a conservative Christian society, it is horribly disrespectful to Christians, and it is considered an abomination to insult the loving God who created the universe, and sent his son to sacrifice himself on behalf of humanity. When the United States was founded, while the First Amendment gave people freedom to practice their own religiou beliefs, blaspheming against the Christian God was illegal in the states, so in context, the First Amendment gives people religious freedom but not freedom to insult the God on which our nation is founded.
It is also disrespectful to historical national heroes, like King Arthur(if he existed) to make fun of them and it is also disrespectful to the nation.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DISRESPECTED.
And human sacrifice is disgusting and barbaric and anyone with any scrap of morality would have been duty-bound to prevent it were they there.
Also, the US was NOT founded on Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Negotiated under George Washington. Signed under John Adams. Ratified by the US Senate unanimously (with 9 absences--absences, not abstentions), exactly in accordance with the US Constitution (which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify a treaty). Contained within:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(emphasis mine)
As for what sort of society you want to live in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.
So imagine that you end up being an apistevist atheist antitheist in your "conservative Christian society". You wouldn't like that, would you? So why the FUCK would you want to impose that on anyone, you bigoted asshat?
Also, we should lock this thread, Sigma already won it.
-
I fail to see how Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God. The worst it does is portray him as being exasperated with people grovelling when he's trying to explain something.
Because it portrays him as being impatient and short tempered rather than being patient and slow to anger.
-
1. Yes, Democracy is a great legitimate system of government if it is founded by legitimate means, such as the United States which won independence from the tyrannical illegitimate British government. However in the case of England, it was not founded by legitimate means, because the true heirs to the throne were deprived of what rightfully belonged to them. You do not understand basic property rights. In the medieval times, the monarchs owned and inherited the Kingdom of England. The true heirs were unlawfully barred from inheriting their own property.
Holy ever-loving shit. How did they get that property? By fucking conquest. Anything that can be gained by conquest can be taken away by conquest.
2. It is the basic tenant of a liberal society, not a conservative Christian society. In a conservative Christian society, it is horribly disrespectful to Christians, and it is considered an abomination to insult the loving God who created the universe, and sent his son to sacrifice himself on behalf of humanity. When the United States was founded, while the First Amendment gave people freedom to practice their own religiou beliefs, blaspheming against the Christian God was illegal in the states, so in context, the First Amendment gives people religious freedom but not freedom to insult the God on which our nation is founded.
It is also disrespectful to historical national heroes, like King Arthur(if he existed) to make fun of them and it is also disrespectful to the nation.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DISRESPECTED.
And human sacrifice is disgusting and barbaric and anyone with any scrap of morality would have been duty-bound to prevent it were they there.
Also, the US was NOT founded on Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Negotiated under George Washington. Signed under John Adams. Ratified by the US Senate unanimously (with 9 absences--absences, not abstentions), exactly in accordance with the US Constitution (which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify a treaty). Contained within:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(emphasis mine)
As for what sort of society you want to live in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.
So imagine that you end up being an apistevist atheist antitheist in your "conservative Christian society". You wouldn't like that, would you? So why the FUCK would you want to impose that on anyone, you bigoted asshat?
Also, we should lock this thread, Sigma already won it.
1. They got it from the natural formation of a unified nation and government where there was previousy not a nation and a bunch of tribes.
2. God certainly has the right to not be disrespected and so do national heroes because of the great things they did for their country.
3. Ok the form of government was not founded on Christianity because Republicanism comes from the Romans, however it’s culture is Christian because it had a majority Christian population at that time and according to the Declaration of Independence, the idea of all men being created equal and having unalienable rights comes from the Christian God.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” There is also references to God in America’s patriotic songs. The Ten Commandments are in the US courts.
4. Atheists will be tolerated as long as they do not promote their atheism. Christianity should be promoted in society because it teaches moral values, helping the poor, and treating people with kindness.
-
You're adorable. Keep this up and you might get yourself a thread on Kiwi Farms (https://kiwifarms.net/). Maybe even a page on the Lolcow Wiki.
-
1. Still not legitimate. How do you know that those tribes weren't happy just as they are and were forcibly conquered and annexed into the new nation? Consent of the governed, cuck.
2. NOBODY AND NOTHING has the right not to be disrespected. Get that through your thick skull into your cuckold brain (though at this point I'm doubting you have one).
3. For one, "Creator" in that text is in a purely deistic sense, and in fact was added after Jefferson's initial draft:
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;
Note: no reference to a creator.
As for references to God in patriotic songs, as long as they do not have the official imprimatur of the government, they can say whatever they want. The Ten Commandments, meanwhile, have absolutely no business being in any courtroom (whatever Stephen Breyer might think), and are certainly not the basis for US law, especially when you consider that the only ones actually implemented in law (murder, theft, perjury) were already crimes under older legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, and others (like the VERY FIRST ONE) are directly contradicted by the US Constitution.
4. SO DOES SECULAR HUMANISM, and what's more secular humanists can actually make valid arguments for why their positions are correct. As for morality, remember that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, and that not one jot or tittle of it would pass away, and so all that stuff about slavery and stoning disobedient children (did you ever talk back to your parents? If so, why are you still alive?) remains in force.
"Morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion for its own purposes."
Also, if you set up a theocracy, then it lasts only until the next religion comes in and takes over. If you set up a strictly secular state, it can withstand all assaults from religion.
And did you even give a moment's thought to Rawls' Veil of Ignorance? For that matter, are you even capable of thinking as it demands one do?
-
If you're after the rightful inheritors of the Crown without conquest, surely you have to go back to the line from Alfred the Great of Wessex rather than the lineage of William the Conqueror (a norman) to get the rightful king of England?
-
If you're after the rightful inheritors of the Crown without conquest, surely you have to go back to the line from Alfred the Great of Wessex rather than the lineage of William the Conqueror (a norman) to get the rightful king of England?
We went through that, he claims that Harold's oath to William that William would receive the crown of England while Harold was a captive of William made William the rightful heir, and it didn't matter that it was under duress (ie coerced) and therefore COMPLETELY INVALID because it was made to an imaginary being.
-
If you're after the rightful inheritors of the Crown without conquest, surely you have to go back to the line from Alfred the Great of Wessex rather than the lineage of William the Conqueror (a norman) to get the rightful king of England?
We went through that, he claims that Harold's oath to William that William would receive the crown of England while Harold was a captive of William made William the rightful heir, and it didn't matter that it was under duress (ie coerced) and therefore COMPLETELY INVALID because it was made to an imaginary being.
Well shouldn't it go to Boudicca?
Or whoever the weird mob were who liked dragging stones everywhere that had the place before the Celts got to it?
-
Oh, and answer these about your preferred "system" of government:
(https://keithpp.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/democracy.jpg)
-
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.
-
Saying that the US revolutionary war is "legitimate" is like saying that if you have a shootout with your landlord and drive him out it was a perfectly legitimate way to gain legal ownership of the house...
-
Saying that the US revolutionary war is "legitimate" is like saying that if you have a shootout with your landlord and drive him out it was a perfectly legitimate way to gain legal ownership of the house...
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27488/27488-h/27488-h.htm
Chapter 2, in particular.
-
Saying that the US revolutionary war is "legitimate" is like saying that if you have a shootout with your landlord and drive him out it was a perfectly legitimate way to gain legal ownership of the house...
Somehow the US Revolution was legitimate but not the English Civil Wars and Revolutions that turned it into a parliamentary system.
Jake, care to explain how that makes any sense?
-
1. Still not legitimate. How do you know that those tribes weren't happy just as they are and were forcibly conquered and annexed into the new nation? Consent of the governed, cuck.
2. NOBODY AND NOTHING has the right not to be disrespected. Get that through your thick skull into your cuckold brain (though at this point I'm doubting you have one).
3. For one, "Creator" in that text is in a purely deistic sense, and in fact was added after Jefferson's initial draft:
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;
Note: no reference to a creator.
As for references to God in patriotic songs, as long as they do not have the official imprimatur of the government, they can say whatever they want. The Ten Commandments, meanwhile, have absolutely no business being in any courtroom (whatever Stephen Breyer might think), and are certainly not the basis for US law, especially when you consider that the only ones actually implemented in law (murder, theft, perjury) were already crimes under older legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, and others (like the VERY FIRST ONE) are directly contradicted by the US Constitution.
4. SO DOES SECULAR HUMANISM, and what's more secular humanists can actually make valid arguments for why their positions are correct. As for morality, remember that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, and that not one jot or tittle of it would pass away, and so all that stuff about slavery and stoning disobedient children (did you ever talk back to your parents? If so, why are you still alive?) remains in force.
"Morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion for its own purposes."
Also, if you set up a theocracy, then it lasts only until the next religion comes in and takes over. If you set up a strictly secular state, it can withstand all assaults from religion.
And did you even give a moment's thought to Rawls' Veil of Ignorance? For that matter, are you even capable of thinking as it demands one do?
1. It was legitimate because it was a founding of a new nation where one did not exist before.
2. God and national heroes most certainly does have the right to not be disrespected because God is our creator so we owe him praises and gratitude and we also owe that to national heroes like King Arthur.
3. Well creator is referring to God and since the vast majority of the colonists were Christian, it is a reference to the Christian God. Jefferson was a deist but George Washington and other founding fathers were Christian.
4. The problem with secular humanism is that it does not have a system for how morality can be taught and excludes the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ as well as fear of God's punishment for doing wrong. And what Jesus meant by fulfilling the law was that he was fulfilling the law of the Ten Commandments, the basic tenants of morality, and that humans are sinful people who need atonement for their sins, which is why he sacrificed himself on behalf of humanity. Those other harsh laws in ancient Israel including ones that involved Kosher diets were laws meant only for the context of the time.
-
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.
Well most of the barrons are the rightful rulers of their lands by inheritance and are part of the current House of Lords.
-
Saying that the US revolutionary war is "legitimate" is like saying that if you have a shootout with your landlord and drive him out it was a perfectly legitimate way to gain legal ownership of the house...
Somehow the US Revolution was legitimate but not the English Civil Wars and Revolutions that turned it into a parliamentary system.
Jake, care to explain how that makes any sense?
1. The British government was an illegitimate government because it did not have the rightful monarchs so it had no right to rule over the colonies.
2. The British parliamentary system was supposed to give representation to the people, so if it was to give representation, it was supposed to give the colonies fair representation which it didn't.
-
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.
Well most of the barrons are the rightful rulers of their lands by inheritance and are part of the current House of Lords.
"Most" barons, and nary a mention of the earls, dukes, marquises and other landed nobility (not to mention, the clergy), huh? In other words, just ignore everything below the king and hope it works out. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, I have to say. If you want people to get on board with your plan, you really ought to do things properly. After all, if you clearly don't give a shit, why should anyone else?
-
Okay, Cuckob Omegason, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD.
1. No, they conquered multiple independent polities. That is not a legitimate way to form a nation.
2. Respect is earned, and if your Bible accurately reflects your God, no even remotely moral person can honestly respect your God. National heroes are generally massively flawed and pointing that out is stating facts.
3. No, it was not a reference to the Christian God. The US Founders, whatever their personal religious convictions, were adamant that religion and government be separate--look especially at Virginia.
4. Not only does humanism have a system by which morality can be taught, it makes more sense, being based on reason and deduction, than any religious morality, which are based on fiat. Any system based on fear, especially fear of beings not proven to exist, is intrinsically inferior to a system based on reason.
I also noticed that you didn't address Rawls' Veil of Ignorance or Benn's Five Questions. Go think about those.
-
Okay, Cuckob Omegason, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD.
1. No, they conquered multiple independent polities. That is not a legitimate way to form a nation.
2. Respect is earned, and if your Bible accurately reflects your God, no even remotely moral person can honestly respect your God. National heroes are generally massively flawed and pointing that out is stating facts.
3. No, it was not a reference to the Christian God. The US Founders, whatever their personal religious convictions, were adamant that religion and government be separate--look especially at Virginia.
4. Not only does humanism have a system by which morality can be taught, it makes more sense, being based on reason and deduction, than any religious morality, which are based on fiat. Any system based on fear, especially fear of beings not proven to exist, is intrinsically inferior to a system based on reason.
I also noticed that you didn't address Rawls' Veil of Ignorance or Benn's Five Questions. Go think about those.
1. But those polities were not nations, they were primitive tribes.
2. The Bible shows that we should indeed respect our God, because we are all sinners unworthy of salvation but he loved us so much that he sent his son to sacrifice himself bearing the burden of all of our sins. Pointing out mistakes National Leaders made should be done in a respectful way.
3. It was indeed a reference to the Christian God because it was referring to a singular creator.
4. But people can reason that since they are not going to be held accountable for their actions, they can do whatever they want and get away with it, including theft, murder, rape. This is why society needs the fear of God’s judgement as a deterrent to preventing evil deeds from happening.
5. Ok, using the veil of ignorance principal, I could imagine myself being an atheist under a Conservative Christian Society. I would know that my rights will be respected as long as I do not promote atheism to society, so I as an atheist could still enjoy a happy life. It is atheists who need the veil of ignorance principal to rid of their biases against Christianity so that they can realize that living under a conservative Christian society is not that bad.
6. Now I will address Benn’s 5 Questions in regards of England.
“What power have you got?”
Power as the King of England to rule the Kingdom with justice.
“Where did you get it from?”
By legal inheritance.
“In whose interests do you use it?”
The interests of the nation.
“To whom are you accountable?”
God.
“How do we get rid of you?”
By deposing me and putting someone who’s next in line on the throne.
-
a) You have now claimed that some nations don't count because they are "primitive." This means that you can no longer claim that legitimacy of a nation has any meaning to you because you apparently move the goalposts and simply discount nations when you would otherwise have to admit that you are being hypocritical.
b) If deposing a ruler is acceptable, why would anyone choose the next in line to be the new ruler? The only justification for letting one family inherit rulership is that their rule is somehow better by virtue of birth. If you now admit that some of them may be bad rulers and that it is OK to depose them doesn't this mean that your entire argument for letting the family rule is flawed? Likewise if God is the only they are accountable for then how come mortals can depose them?
-
1. By what definition of primitive? And how does that give anyone the right to conquer them by force?
2. The Bible has been proven false on every testable claim it makes, and therefore cannot be regarded as true in any particular without independent corroborating evidence. As for historical figures, they are no more immune from criticism and disparagement (provided such disparagement is rooted in facts) as anyone or anything else.
3. Lots of religions posit singular creators; none have been able to prove such claims. Jefferson's original was mutilated by the Continental Congress and disrespects anyone who does not subscribe to a monotheistic religion.
4. People are held accountable for their actions; it's called the legal system. As for God, Jesus says explicitly that you can break any of the laws (which did refer to the 613; it was in the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for the Jews, who held to the 613) and still get into Heaven, you'll just be "least in Heaven", except for the singular command to worship God. As long as you do that last, you will get into Heaven, you might just have to fly coach. That is a huge disincentive for moral behaviour.
5. No, atheists still see their freedom unduly restricted under such a system, as they cannot freely express their views on certain matters. Under a secular government, Christians are still free to evangelize and proselytize; they just cannot use the government and its monopoly on legitimate force to impose their views on everyone. That is far freer than the society you propose.
6a. And when the King behaves unjustly? Absolute power of that sort is far too much power for any one person to command.
6b. Which is not a legitimate way to receive power. The ONLY (GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL YOU RETARDED MORON) legitimate source of political power is a clearly expressed, freely given, uncoerced mandate from the governed.
6c. And what happens when the King stops using his power in the interests of the nation and starts using it in his own self-interest? What prevents that? Or would you implement the autocratic principle of "L'état, c'est moi!" so that the King's actions cannot, by definition, be against the interest of the nation?
6d. Which has not been proven to exist, and indeed all the ones so far posited by humanity CANNOT exist--so, effectively, the King is accountable either to nobody or to voices in his head, which is the same thing.
6e. Which is impossible when the King commands the military, and you have no guarantee that their successor will act any differently. The only system that allows for the government to be removed from power peacefully and provides a mechanism to ensure that the new government will act in the best interests of the people is democracy. Absolute monarchy cannot provide that and is hence inferior as a system of government, and neither can theocracy.
In short, you fail on every conceivable level. You are fractally wrong. Your ideas are dangerous and deleterious to a free society.
-
1. By what definition of primitive? And how does that give anyone the right to conquer them by force?
2. The Bible has been proven false on every testable claim it makes, and therefore cannot be regarded as true in any particular without independent corroborating evidence. As for historical figures, they are no more immune from criticism and disparagement (provided such disparagement is rooted in facts) as anyone or anything else.
3. Lots of religions posit singular creators; none have been able to prove such claims. Jefferson's original was mutilated by the Continental Congress and disrespects anyone who does not subscribe to a monotheistic religion.
4. People are held accountable for their actions; it's called the legal system. As for God, Jesus says explicitly that you can break any of the laws (which did refer to the 613; it was in the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for the Jews, who held to the 613) and still get into Heaven, you'll just be "least in Heaven", except for the singular command to worship God. As long as you do that last, you will get into Heaven, you might just have to fly coach. That is a huge disincentive for moral behaviour.
5. No, atheists still see their freedom unduly restricted under such a system, as they cannot freely express their views on certain matters. Under a secular government, Christians are still free to evangelize and proselytize; they just cannot use the government and its monopoly on legitimate force to impose their views on everyone. That is far freer than the society you propose.
6a. And when the King behaves unjustly? Absolute power of that sort is far too much power for any one person to command.
6b. Which is not a legitimate way to receive power. The ONLY (GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL YOU RETARDED MORON) legitimate source of political power is a clearly expressed, freely given, uncoerced mandate from the governed.
6c. And what happens when the King stops using his power in the interests of the nation and starts using it in his own self-interest? What prevents that? Or would you implement the autocratic principle of "L'état, c'est moi!" so that the King's actions cannot, by definition, be against the interest of the nation?
6d. Which has not been proven to exist, and indeed all the ones so far posited by humanity CANNOT exist--so, effectively, the King is accountable either to nobody or to voices in his head, which is the same thing.
6e. Which is impossible when the King commands the military, and you have no guarantee that their successor will act any differently. The only system that allows for the government to be removed from power peacefully and provides a mechanism to ensure that the new government will act in the best interests of the people is democracy. Absolute monarchy cannot provide that and is hence inferior as a system of government, and neither can theocracy.
In short, you fail on every conceivable level. You are fractally wrong. Your ideas are dangerous and deleterious to a free society.
1. They were primitive in that they were tribes not nations. Civilization spread when tribes were conquered by or unified into nations an example being the great Roman Empire.
2. Prove the Bible wrong. And I think that certain great historical figures such as America’s founding fathers, should not be insulted.
3. The only monotheistic religions are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Zocrastianism. And as I said it was Christians that were the vast mast majority of the American colonists, so the creator is a reference to the Judeo-Christian God and could not be interpreted to also mean Allah or the Zocrastian God Ahura Mazda.
4. But people are willing to do evil deeds because they think that they won’t get caught and brought to justice. That is why the fear of God is needed, as an extra deterrent. The New Testament says that salvation. The New Testament says that salvation is by faith and good works and that you must avoid sinning and repent of your sins so the fear of God is an incentive for moral behavoir.
5. Why do you atheists need to express your views on religion to others?
6.
A) I already mentioned what can happen if the King behaves unjustly.
B) It is legitimate if it is a monarchy because then it is part of the nations constitution.
C) Again I already mentioned what can happen if the King does not use his power in the interests of the nation.
D) The Church can hold the King accountable by threatening to excommunicate the King if the King does something very bad. That is what the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages. The King therefore is held accountable to God.
E) Well usually when there is a horrible tyrant, many members of the military will defect in disgust and join the rebellion. And the fact that the previous King was overthrown will be used to deter the successor from acting the same way. And legitimate Democracy like in the United States is equally as great as monarchy because both have their wonderful strengths but are equally prone to corruption. While deposing a King by rebellion is less peaceful than voting out evil politicians, it is just about as easy, because it can be done at any time, while with politicians you need to wait until their term is up, and special interests groups and corporations can hijack the system to prevent opposition politicians from being elected forminag a corrupt swamp, that luckily Trump managed to win against, and now he is in the process of draining it.
Besides, under the monarchy, if the King is a good righteous monarch, his successor will be raised to be good and righteous.
-
The RCC seems pretty bloody "primitive" to me what with all its saints, lucky charms, oils, bells smells and the rest and I was christened Catholic.
Then there's the matter of the Sky Fairy, who's omniscient but needs his underlings to go on fact finding missions and then gets pissed off at the news when they report back. As your entire worldview derives legitimacy from this obviously primitive belief it's illegitimate. You can go home now!
And yeah, fear of God doesn't even stop your clergy from raping little boys and girls. So much for that.
-
The RCC seems pretty bloody "primitive" to me what with all its saints, lucky charms, oils, bells smells and the rest and I was christened Catholic.
Then there's the matter of the Sky Fairy, who's omniscient but needs his underlings to go on fact finding missions and then gets pissed off at the news when they report back. As your entire worldview derives legitimacy from this obviously primitive belief it's illegitimate. You can go home now!
And yeah, fear of God doesn't even stop your clergy from raping little boys and girls. So much for that.
God is omniscient because he is omnipresent when travelling at the speed of light and his omnipresence is occasionally broken when he has to spend a lot of time at a particular location
The reason why the fear of God doesn’t stop the modern day pedophile scandal in the Church is because the Vatican 2 clergy are wicked and do not teach that God’s will punish child rapists.
-
Er, Vatican 2 didn't remove Revelations from the scriptures or the doctrine of hell. You're full of shit.
Go and mumble some magic spells into your St Peter medallion and stuff your pockets with palm leaves you caveman!
-
Er, Vatican 2 didn't remove Revelations from the scriptures or the doctrine of hell. You're full of shit.
Go and mumble some magic spells into your St Peter medallion and stuff your pockets with palm leaves you caveman!
Yes, they didn’t remove it, but they no longer teach that child rape is a damnable mortal sin and how it is in the category of the one unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
-
When did they specifically say that was a mortal sin, when did they remove it. Citation needed!
-
When did they specifically say that was a mortal sin, when did they remove it. Citation needed!
Well rape has always been considered a mortal sin. While it is still Catholic doctrine that rape is a mortal sin, they no longer teach it to their clergy.
-
When did they specifically say that was a mortal sin, when did they remove it. Citation needed!
Well rape has always been considered a mortal sin. While it is still Catholic doctrine that rape is a mortal sin, they no longer teach it to their clergy.
They don't teach their own doctrine to their clergy? Oh go play with your magic fetishes.
And your denim one while you're at it, while dreaming about your cuz!
-
1. Being a "tribe" does not make a group primitive, or the reverse. The Aztecs, Incas, etc., had "Empires"--were they primitive? The conquistadors certainly thought so. For that matter, the Iroquois Confederacy partially inspired the US Constitution, but they've also been called primitive.
2. One, bats are not birds, two, the Bible proves itself wrong by being logically inconsistent (https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html).
3. "Creator" was, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a reference to a deistic notion (and even then was a mangling of Jefferson's original), and even so does not necessarily refer to a monotheistic creator. The religious views of the people are not relevant in this matter.
4. The New Testament says you can sin however the fuck much you want and get into Heaven as long as you kiss the invisible Jigglypuff-in-space's ass. See Matthew 5, particularly verse 19.
5. Why do you Christians need to use the government to force everyone else to act as your religion commands?
(http://godlessmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/3118698-flemming-rose.png)
6a. Which I already pointed out is a massively flawed process.
6b. ONLY IF THE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT. This is why Spain is legitimately a monarchy, as is Norway, as is Australia, as is Belgium, along with a number of other nations; however note that these countries are parliamentary constitutional monarchies, with the monarch acting as the head of state while the actual executive power is exercised by those with the democratic legitimacy to do so.
6c. See 6a.
6d. And who the fuck is the Church accountable to? The Church was just as bad then as they are now; perhaps in different ways, but they were absolutely fucking corrupt (fucking in both the literal and figurative senses). Again, nobody has ever produced a proof of God's existence (and those claiming it have the burden of proof), and any god that has been posited by humanity has been disproven.
6e. That's hardly a guarantee, especially if the monarch has acted in a way to endear the military to himself and make it clear that loyalty will be richly rewarded in the event of rebellion. As for "legitimate Democracy", the UK is a legitimate democracy (indeed no system of government that is not democratic can be legitimate, as they lack the vital popular mandate), you're just pissy about how it got there.
-
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.
Well most of the barrons are the rightful rulers of their lands by inheritance and are part of the current House of Lords.
"Most" barons, and nary a mention of the earls, dukes, marquises and other landed nobility (not to mention, the clergy), huh? In other words, just ignore everything below the king and hope it works out. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, I have to say. If you want people to get on board with your plan, you really ought to do things properly. After all, if you clearly don't give a shit, why should anyone else?
I couldn't help but notice you've yet to address this. What, you only care about one title out of hundreds? You expect fellow feudal restorationists to fight for a mere shadow of the former Kingdom of England? A thin veneer of restored nobility that neglects the rightful owners of the lands outside of the king's demesne?
You make me want to wretch.
-
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.
Well most of the barrons are the rightful rulers of their lands by inheritance and are part of the current House of Lords.
"Most" barons, and nary a mention of the earls, dukes, marquises and other landed nobility (not to mention, the clergy), huh? In other words, just ignore everything below the king and hope it works out. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, I have to say. If you want people to get on board with your plan, you really ought to do things properly. After all, if you clearly don't give a shit, why should anyone else?
I couldn't help but notice you've yet to address this. What, you only care about one title out of hundreds? You expect fellow feudal restorationists to fight for a mere shadow of the former Kingdom of England? A thin veneer of restored nobility that neglects the rightful owners of the lands outside of the king's demesne?
You make me want to wretch.
In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.
-
I can't help but notice that all of these plans seem to hinge on convincing others to put in power rulers who either are in it purely for money (and were in fact chosen in that position only because they want to get rich by becoming the new queen of a nation) or haven't actually been part of your conspiracy and will be surprised by being placed in power and most resist your stupid plan.
-
1. Being a "tribe" does not make a group primitive, or the reverse. The Aztecs, Incas, etc., had "Empires"--were they primitive? The conquistadors certainly thought so. For that matter, the Iroquois Confederacy partially inspired the US Constitution, but they've also been called primitive.
2. One, bats are not birds, two, the Bible proves itself wrong by being logically inconsistent (https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html).
3. "Creator" was, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a reference to a deistic notion (and even then was a mangling of Jefferson's original), and even so does not necessarily refer to a monotheistic creator. The religious views of the people are not relevant in this matter.
4. The New Testament says you can sin however the fuck much you want and get into Heaven as long as you kiss the invisible Jigglypuff-in-space's ass. See Matthew 5, particularly verse 19.
5. Why do you Christians need to use the government to force everyone else to act as your religion commands?
(http://godlessmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/3118698-flemming-rose.png)
6a. Which I already pointed out is a massively flawed process.
6b. ONLY IF THE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT. This is why Spain is legitimately a monarchy, as is Norway, as is Australia, as is Belgium, along with a number of other nations; however note that these countries are parliamentary constitutional monarchies, with the monarch acting as the head of state while the actual executive power is exercised by those with the democratic legitimacy to do so.
6c. See 6a.
6d. And who the fuck is the Church accountable to? The Church was just as bad then as they are now; perhaps in different ways, but they were absolutely fucking corrupt (fucking in both the literal and figurative senses). Again, nobody has ever produced a proof of God's existence (and those claiming it have the burden of proof), and any god that has been posited by humanity has been disproven.
6e. That's hardly a guarantee, especially if the monarch has acted in a way to endear the military to himself and make it clear that loyalty will be richly rewarded in the event of rebellion. As for "legitimate Democracy", the UK is a legitimate democracy (indeed no system of government that is not democratic can be legitimate, as they lack the vital popular mandate), you're just pissy about how it got there.
1. True being a tribe itself does not make one primitive, however being a tribe without there being a unified nation is 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.
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.
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.
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?
6b-That was not part of England’s original constitution
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.
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
3. But I proved that the wrote it referring to the Christian God
No. You said that. You offered literally zero proof. You gave one small, inconclusive bit of evidence, in saying "most people" were Christian. But one data point does not conclusive proof make! Also, Jefferson was a rapist bastard. Just saying that because it's true and to aggravate your stupid reverence for figures of the past.
-
If a more civilised culture supplanting a less civilised culture is ok with you then you have just rendered your sour grapes about modern British democracy supplanting your government by hang draw and quarter toffy nosed sociopaths null and void.
If your argument about the bible being the work of confused humans trying to interpret the ramblings of an incomprehensible alien were true then it'd have as much value aa that stupid teen doodle you presented earlier. Fuck all!
And the Catholic church changed it's traditions several times before Vatican 2. At one time priests were allowed to marry, then they weren't. At one time geocentricism was heresy, then it wasn't. Like most pimply young nostalgics you pine for a state of affairs that never was.
As for your "heritage" you come across like those dills you meet on St Paddy's day who think that because they skulled some Guinness and rocked out to the Dropkick Murphies they understand Ireland as well as the Irish. You are a fucking American, I doubt you've even met a real Brit which is unfortunate because they have so many words made for the likes of you.
Prat, pillock, berk, tosser, twat, twonk, muppet but most aproros of all-WANKER!!!
How's the conversion business BTW?
-
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?
The royal court will investigate.
-
3. But I proved that the wrote it referring to the Christian God
No. You said that. You offered literally zero proof. You gave one small, inconclusive bit of evidence, in saying "most people" were Christian. But one data point does not conclusive proof make! Also, Jefferson was a rapist bastard. Just saying that because it's true and to aggravate your stupid reverence for figures of the past.
Because using common sense, it is unlikely that they would be referring to an unfamiliar creator in colonies that were majority Christian.
There is no evidence that the sex he had with his slave was non consensual. Besides I am a bigger fan of George Washington because he was the more conservative Christian founder, and Jefferson was a bit to fond of the bloody French Revolution that viciously persecuted and murdered Roman Catholics in France while George Washington and the Federalists hated the French Revolution.
-
If a more civilised culture supplanting a less civilised culture is ok with you then you have just rendered your sour grapes about modern British democracy supplanting your government by hang draw and quarter toffy nosed sociopaths null and void.
If your argument about the bible being the work of confused humans trying to interpret the ramblings of an incomprehensible alien were true then it'd have as much value aa that stupid teen doodle you presented earlier. Fuck all!
And the Catholic church changed it's traditions several times before Vatican 2. At one time priests were allowed to marry, then they weren't. At one time geocentricism was heresy, then it wasn't. Like most pimply young nostalgics you pine for a state of affairs that never was.
As for your "heritage" you come across like those dills you meet on St Paddy's day who think that because they skulled some Guinness and rocked out to the Dropkick Murphies they understand Ireland as well as the Irish. You are a fucking American, I doubt you've even met a real Brit which is unfortunate because they have so many words made for the likes of you.
Prat, pillock, berk, tosser, twat, twonk, muppet but most aproros of all-WANKER!!!
How's the conversion business BTW?
1. I was trying to think of a term for not having a unified nation.
2. The evidence for Christianity being true is overwhelming and I keep trying to show you the overwhelming evidence.. Did you watch the Docmentary The Entity and see the part involving a Roman Catholic demonologist? It proves that Roman Catholicism is true.
3. The Catholic Church did not change it’s traditions, it added new ones over the years. Vatican 2 was a heretical change because it replaced the traditional Latin mass.
4. But America as a whole has common heritage with England because they share the same language and America’s culture and traditions comes from English culture and traditions.
-
Basic principle of politics: when it comes to governing, the will of the people is always the only legitimate fount of authority.
As for Matthew 5:20, look at how the scribes and the Pharisees are depicted. That's not exactly a high bar to clear.
-
Basic principle of politics: when it comes to governing, the will of the people is always the only legitimate fount of authority.
As for Matthew 5:20, look at how the scribes and the Pharisees are depicted. That's not exactly a high bar to clear.
1. So the Islamic Republic of Iran that overthrew the pro US legitimate Shah thanks to Jimmy Carter’s stupidity is legitimate because it was based on will of the crazy Muslim people of Iran? Is the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt legitimate because Obama’s stupidly let the Muslims in Egypt overthrow the pro US Mubarak and elect the Muslim Brotherhood?
2. This is what a Roman Catholic interprets the verse to mean.
“In Catholic Answers, Mark Brumley interprets this passage thus:
Jesus is "contrasting the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees with the interior righteousness that proceeds from the heart and which is to characterize his followers. Jesus is telling his disciples how to be righteous--not how to look righteous.”
-
Basic principle of politics: when it comes to governing, the will of the people is always the only legitimate fount of authority.
As for Matthew 5:20, look at how the scribes and the Pharisees are depicted. That's not exactly a high bar to clear.
1. So the Islamic Republic of Iran that overthrew the pro US legitimate Shah thanks to Jimmy Carter’s stupidity is legitimate because it was based on will of the crazy Muslim people of Iran? Is the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt legitimate because Obama’s stupidly let the Muslims in Egypt overthrow the pro US Mubarak and elect the Muslim Brotherhood?
2. This is what a Roman Catholic interprets the verse to mean.
“In Catholic Answers, Mark Brumley interprets this passage thus:
Jesus is "contrasting the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees with the interior righteousness that proceeds from the heart and which is to characterize his followers. Jesus is telling his disciples how to be righteous--not how to look righteous.”
1. The Shah was not legitimate. His grip on power arose from Eisenhower and Attlee's actions in overthrowing the legitimately elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. However, a regime, however it came to power, can lose legitimacy when it ceases to respect the popular will and behaves autocratically, both of which the current Iranian regime has done.
2. I don't give a flying fuck what the Catholic Church says (and wouldn't even if they weren't outright evil in protecting pedophiles--the canonization of Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu would be enough to damn them). If I'm deriving a "morality" from the Bible, the inevitable conclusion from those verses and the depiction of the Pharisees is that I can do whatever I want as long as I kiss the invisible skydaddy's ass.
-
If a more civilised culture supplanting a less civilised culture is ok with you then you have just rendered your sour grapes about modern British democracy supplanting your government by hang draw and quarter toffy nosed sociopaths null and void.
If your argument about the bible being the work of confused humans trying to interpret the ramblings of an incomprehensible alien were true then it'd have as much value aa that stupid teen doodle you presented earlier. Fuck all!
And the Catholic church changed it's traditions several times before Vatican 2. At one time priests were allowed to marry, then they weren't. At one time geocentricism was heresy, then it wasn't. Like most pimply young nostalgics you pine for a state of affairs that never was.
As for your "heritage" you come across like those dills you meet on St Paddy's day who think that because they skulled some Guinness and rocked out to the Dropkick Murphies they understand Ireland as well as the Irish. You are a fucking American, I doubt you've even met a real Brit which is unfortunate because they have so many words made for the likes of you.
Prat, pillock, berk, tosser, twat, twonk, muppet but most aproros of all-WANKER!!!
How's the conversion business BTW?
1. I was trying to think of a term for not having a unified nation.
2. The evidence for Christianity being true is overwhelming and I keep trying to show you the overwhelming evidence.. Did you watch the Docmentary The Entity and see the part involving a Roman Catholic demonologist? It proves that Roman Catholicism is true.
3. The Catholic Church did not change it’s traditions, it added new ones over the years. Vatican 2 was a heretical change because it replaced the traditional Latin mass.
4. But America as a whole has common heritage with England because they share the same language and America’s culture and traditions comes from English culture and traditions.
I undetstand you not seeing the change from being allowed to marry and being allowed to in medieval times a big deal because of your incurable Inceldom. I understand that when Americans and Brits say the word "fanny" they mean opposite sides of the body neither of which you'll ever find on a wonan because of the reason above.
I understand you prefer Latin mass because obfuscation and toxic nostalgia are your forte.
I understand that the British have more in common with Peru when they talk about football whereas you have more in common with Australia but when it comes to government institutions the Brits have more in common with Australia.
I understand that Youtube videos by and for lunatics are only evidence of lunacy. Show us independent verification. Published papers in respectable journals. The sort of evidence biologists would accept.
You didn't answer my question about converts, is it a lot?
-
Basic principle of politics: when it comes to governing, the will of the people is always the only legitimate fount of authority.
As for Matthew 5:20, look at how the scribes and the Pharisees are depicted. That's not exactly a high bar to clear.
1. So the Islamic Republic of Iran that overthrew the pro US legitimate Shah thanks to Jimmy Carter’s stupidity is legitimate because it was based on will of the crazy Muslim people of Iran? Is the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt legitimate because Obama’s stupidly let the Muslims in Egypt overthrow the pro US Mubarak and elect the Muslim Brotherhood?
How does overthrowing a pro-us government make a regime illegitimate? YOU want to overthrow a pro-US government and impose a theocracy.
-
Basic principle of politics: when it comes to governing, the will of the people is always the only legitimate fount of authority.
As for Matthew 5:20, look at how the scribes and the Pharisees are depicted. That's not exactly a high bar to clear.
1. So the Islamic Republic of Iran that overthrew the pro US legitimate Shah thanks to Jimmy Carter’s stupidity is legitimate because it was based on will of the crazy Muslim people of Iran? Is the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt legitimate because Obama’s stupidly let the Muslims in Egypt overthrow the pro US Mubarak and elect the Muslim Brotherhood?
2. This is what a Roman Catholic interprets the verse to mean.
“In Catholic Answers, Mark Brumley interprets this passage thus:
Jesus is "contrasting the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees with the interior righteousness that proceeds from the heart and which is to characterize his followers. Jesus is telling his disciples how to be righteous--not how to look righteous.”
1. The Shah was not legitimate. His grip on power arose from Eisenhower and Attlee's actions in overthrowing the legitimately elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. However, a regime, however it came to power, can lose legitimacy when it ceases to respect the popular will and behaves autocratically, both of which the current Iranian regime has done.
2. I don't give a flying fuck what the Catholic Church says (and wouldn't even if they weren't outright evil in protecting pedophiles--the canonization of Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu would be enough to damn them). If I'm deriving a "morality" from the Bible, the inevitable conclusion from those verses and the depiction of the Pharisees is that I can do whatever I want as long as I kiss the invisible skydaddy's ass.
1. The Shah was already Shah in 1941. He was put back into power, because there were concerns that Mohammad Mossadegh was too close to the Soviet Union. The evil Muslims of Iran support the Islamic regime so it is respecting the popular will and shows that things would be better off if the Shah’s dynasty were still in power, because they did not threaten the US, and had more rights for women and Christians. Jimmy Carter was fucking stupid for letting the Shah get overthrown by the Muslims.
Same case with Obama and Egypt. It shows that the will of the people is not always right and legitimate.
2. Yes as I said the post Vatican 2 Catholic Church is evil today for protecting pedophiles and how is the Cannonization of Mother Teresa, a nun who cared for the sick bad? And your missing the point how the message in the verse is that you should be righteous not look righteous.
-
Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu was a con artist and a fraud, and that's putting it very, very kindly. Her legacy is one of palling up to dictators, being hypocritical on divorce, and irreversible harm in India. Variously:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/07/17/this-nun-working-for-mother-teresas-charity-just-confessed-to-selling-babies/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG-lgmPvYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uxtcy4FpN8
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/MotherT/mothert.html
https://swarajyamag.com/insta/jharkhand-cm-orders-probe-after-child-trade-cases-emerge-at-shelter-run-by-mother-teresa-founded-charity
http://zeenews.india.com/india/two-missionaries-of-charity-nuns-arrested-for-selling-babies-in-jharkhand-2122489.html
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/jul/04/ranchi-sister-of-missionaries-of-charity-arrested-for-illegal-child-trade-1838304.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
And, to summarize:
Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu was a fraud who loved poverty, not the poor, and suffering, not the suffering. She took millions from the Duvaliers and set up convents in her name rather than making good hospitals. She thought that being poor and suffering in this life would lead to a greater reward in Heaven. She thought abortion was unequivocally evil and contraception was equivalent to it. The harm she did may never be reversed.
In a filmed interview, Mother Teresa says with a smile what she told a patient suffering unbearable pain from terminal cancer: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." The patient's response: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."
She ignored medical aid and made others suffer, because she believed in the myth of 'Christ's' suffering and poverty.
Endorsed evil dictators and tyrants
Accepted money from them as 'rewards'
Kept misappropriated funds not for the poor but to spread Catholic propaganda
Secretly baptized dying non-Christians
Recycled needles - without sterilizing them
Used them until they became blunt
Disapproved of safe sex and encouraged unwanted pregnancies
Even prevented abortions for rape victims
To the ignorant community, she is a saint.
But to the educated community, she is a sinner.
Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.
Everything everyone thinks they know about Mother Teresa is false. It must be the single most successful emotional con job of the twentieth century.
(Hitchens wrote an exposé of Bojaxhiu while she was still alive--the only negative coverage she ever received--and not one claim in it was ever rebutted by those who hailed her as a hero.)
This woman is no saint.
Because of her belief that suffering led to heaven hundreds of thousands of dying people were denied medical treatment and pain relief and were made to suffer even more in the name of God.
Jesus supposedly healed the sick, cured the afflicted, and alleviated suffering. Yet this woman promoted pain, and fostered suffering.
Don't allow the church to revise history. This person should not be promoted as a saint.
Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of Mother Teresa. Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu was pure, unadulterated evil. That the Catholic Church canonized her is an irredeemable black mark on that institution, and cannot be wiped away even if they were to revoke her canonization and fix all their other issues (starting with, but hardly limited to, actively aiding secular authorities in bringing all pedophiles within the clergy--including, very possibly, George Pell--to justice, along with all those who worked to cover it up or dismissed it, such as Josef Ratzinger and Jorge Bergoglio).
As for Mossadegh, the main reason he was overthrown was that he was planning to nationalize Iranian oil supplies, and British and American oil companies did not like that notion, since they'd been getting rich stealing Iranian oil. If he was being too friendly to the USSR for the US and UK's tastes, sucks for them--no country has the right to dictate another's foreign or domestic policy to it.
And as for the will of the people, a regime that, once elected, turns around and destroys democracy has lost that legitimacy it had. Political legitimacy is gained solely through democracy and retained only so long as those with it respect democracy--but it can never come through undemocratic means.
-
Again, I hate to defend Jacob, but according to r/badhistory, Mother Teresa's supposed dark side is greatly exaggerated (https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1x9hgc/its_time_for_another_historys_worst_person/). Stopped clocks and all that.
-
If Carter was "stupid" for not keeping the Shah in and the Ayatollahs out then wasn't Reagan at least just as stupid for arming them?
In any case Jacob displays the very worst of the American quirk of thinking they have the exceptional right to mess with anyone else's affairs as they see fit.
Your country's infrastructure is crumbling, its once proud educational institutions are being starved, its scholars once the envy of the world are unheeded, Fascist terrorists have their way with little fear of reprisal, your prison population is booming while your pool of skilled workers is shrinking along with your middle classes while your working classes slip into the exploding underclass. You used to top the western world in innovation, now you top it in homicide, infant mortality and sickness. Your political institutions are hopelessly corrupt and presided over by an unhinged imbecile riding a wave of sectarian and racist hatred. Your international standing declines by the day.
Get your own house in order before contemplating further wrecking things for the British or anyone else for that matter. Kthnxbye!
-
Since you have seem to have a fetish for the Ten Commandments (even though Jesus said you had to follow all 613... jk you only have to kiss Hank's ass)...
The stuff that's in the Ten Commandments, Dinesh, that isn't to do with human morality, is often highly immoral. For example, it's forbidden even to covet other people's goods or achievements--by the way, among their goods are included their wives, their womenfolk, who are lumped in with chattel, which goes to show these commandments are created by men and not by gods, they're created by the agricultural and masculine values of the time, that's not a small point--but there's nothing, for example, to condemn the abuse of children. There's only a vague demand that parents be respected; after all, this is coming from, apparently, a father. There's nothing against racism, there's nothing against slavery, there's nothing against genocide, partly because, in these and ensuing chapters all those things--racism, genocide, slavery--are actually going to be not just recommended but enjoined, made an actual injunction on the children of Israel, they're going to be told to do these things. So it seems to me very obvious that what is known as religious morality is partly man-made and it shows, it shows that it's made by a greedy and cruel, partly evolved, fairly highly evolved, let's not run ourselves down too much, primate species that turns out on examination to be, as we now know, one half-chromosome away from a chimpanzee.
(The ban on coveting is immoral, of course, because it creates thoughtcrime and effectively bans capitalism.)
-
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?
The royal court will investigate.
So, you expect the king himself to spend time and effort that you're clearly not willing to, just to empower his potential rivals? Again, have you really thought this through?
-
So, you expect the king himself to spend time and effort that you're clearly not willing to, just to empower his potential rivals? Again, have you really thought this through?
No, he's just going crazier and crazier as the realization sets in that niam really did fuck his second cousin.
-
Yeah - that and the fact that as time goes on he's realizing he really, really shot himself in the foot. His prospects every day dim just a bit more.
The internet is FOREVER, Jacob Harrison.
Before long random passersby are going to be saying "oink mr. pig" to him.
-
Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu was a con artist and a fraud, and that's putting it very, very kindly. Her legacy is one of palling up to dictators, being hypocritical on divorce, and irreversible harm in India. Variously:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/07/17/this-nun-working-for-mother-teresas-charity-just-confessed-to-selling-babies/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG-lgmPvYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uxtcy4FpN8
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/MotherT/mothert.html
https://swarajyamag.com/insta/jharkhand-cm-orders-probe-after-child-trade-cases-emerge-at-shelter-run-by-mother-teresa-founded-charity
http://zeenews.india.com/india/two-missionaries-of-charity-nuns-arrested-for-selling-babies-in-jharkhand-2122489.html
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/jul/04/ranchi-sister-of-missionaries-of-charity-arrested-for-illegal-child-trade-1838304.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
And, to summarize:
Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu was a fraud who loved poverty, not the poor, and suffering, not the suffering. She took millions from the Duvaliers and set up convents in her name rather than making good hospitals. She thought that being poor and suffering in this life would lead to a greater reward in Heaven. She thought abortion was unequivocally evil and contraception was equivalent to it. The harm she did may never be reversed.
In a filmed interview, Mother Teresa says with a smile what she told a patient suffering unbearable pain from terminal cancer: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." The patient's response: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."
She ignored medical aid and made others suffer, because she believed in the myth of 'Christ's' suffering and poverty.
Endorsed evil dictators and tyrants
Accepted money from them as 'rewards'
Kept misappropriated funds not for the poor but to spread Catholic propaganda
Secretly baptized dying non-Christians
Recycled needles - without sterilizing them
Used them until they became blunt
Disapproved of safe sex and encouraged unwanted pregnancies
Even prevented abortions for rape victims
To the ignorant community, she is a saint.
But to the educated community, she is a sinner.
Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.
Everything everyone thinks they know about Mother Teresa is false. It must be the single most successful emotional con job of the twentieth century.
(Hitchens wrote an exposé of Bojaxhiu while she was still alive--the only negative coverage she ever received--and not one claim in it was ever rebutted by those who hailed her as a hero.)
This woman is no saint.
Because of her belief that suffering led to heaven hundreds of thousands of dying people were denied medical treatment and pain relief and were made to suffer even more in the name of God.
Jesus supposedly healed the sick, cured the afflicted, and alleviated suffering. Yet this woman promoted pain, and fostered suffering.
Don't allow the church to revise history. This person should not be promoted as a saint.
Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of Mother Teresa. Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu was pure, unadulterated evil. That the Catholic Church canonized her is an irredeemable black mark on that institution, and cannot be wiped away even if they were to revoke her canonization and fix all their other issues (starting with, but hardly limited to, actively aiding secular authorities in bringing all pedophiles within the clergy--including, very possibly, George Pell--to justice, along with all those who worked to cover it up or dismissed it, such as Josef Ratzinger and Jorge Bergoglio).
As for Mossadegh, the main reason he was overthrown was that he was planning to nationalize Iranian oil supplies, and British and American oil companies did not like that notion, since they'd been getting rich stealing Iranian oil. If he was being too friendly to the USSR for the US and UK's tastes, sucks for them--no country has the right to dictate another's foreign or domestic policy to it.
And as for the will of the people, a regime that, once elected, turns around and destroys democracy has lost that legitimacy it had. Political legitimacy is gained solely through democracy and retained only so long as those with it respect democracy--but it can never come through undemocratic means.
1. As Lana said, the claims against her are greatly exaggerated.
2. But the USSR was a huge threat to the Western World, so under domino theory, all regimes friendly to them had to fall.
3. But it was the will of the evil Iranian people that an Islamic theocracy would become the government. They chose to live under Sharia law. This again shows that will of the people is not always legitimate and right. As Trump knows, in the Middle East, you need dictators to keep the Muslims in line which is why it was stupid of Bush to invade Iraq and stupid of Obama to support the Arab spring uprisings.
-
If Carter was "stupid" for not keeping the Shah in and the Ayatollahs out then wasn't Reagan at least just as stupid for arming them?
In any case Jacob displays the very worst of the American quirk of thinking they have the exceptional right to mess with anyone else's affairs as they see fit.
Your country's infrastructure is crumbling, its once proud educational institutions are being starved, its scholars once the envy of the world are unheeded, Fascist terrorists have their way with little fear of reprisal, your prison population is booming while your pool of skilled workers is shrinking along with your middle classes while your working classes slip into the exploding underclass. You used to top the western world in innovation, now you top it in homicide, infant mortality and sickness. Your political institutions are hopelessly corrupt and presided over by an unhinged imbecile riding a wave of sectarian and racist hatred. Your international standing declines by the day.
Get your own house in order before contemplating further wrecking things for the British or anyone else for that matter. Kthnxbye!
1. Reagan did not arm the Ayatollah's. Under his presidency, the US armed Saddam Hussein to stop Iran.
2. I actually heard that the US economy is going well and the unemployment rate is low, and the tariffs and Trump's policies of keeping jobs in America are helping the working class. Besides the deportation of illegal immigrants, provides American worker's with more jobs. And the travel ban is protecting America from Muslim terrorist attacks and rape unlike Europe.
You do realize a lot of blue collar workers voted for Trump right?
-
Since you have seem to have a fetish for the Ten Commandments (even though Jesus said you had to follow all 613... jk you only have to kiss Hank's ass)...
The stuff that's in the Ten Commandments, Dinesh, that isn't to do with human morality, is often highly immoral. For example, it's forbidden even to covet other people's goods or achievements--by the way, among their goods are included their wives, their womenfolk, who are lumped in with chattel, which goes to show these commandments are created by men and not by gods, they're created by the agricultural and masculine values of the time, that's not a small point--but there's nothing, for example, to condemn the abuse of children. There's only a vague demand that parents be respected; after all, this is coming from, apparently, a father. There's nothing against racism, there's nothing against slavery, there's nothing against genocide, partly because, in these and ensuing chapters all those things--racism, genocide, slavery--are actually going to be not just recommended but enjoined, made an actual injunction on the children of Israel, they're going to be told to do these things. So it seems to me very obvious that what is known as religious morality is partly man-made and it shows, it shows that it's made by a greedy and cruel, partly evolved, fairly highly evolved, let's not run ourselves down too much, primate species that turns out on examination to be, as we now know, one half-chromosome away from a chimpanzee.
(The ban on coveting is immoral, of course, because it creates thoughtcrime and effectively bans capitalism.)
The Catholic Ten Commandments separate coveting a neighbors goods and a neighbors wife and merge the one on graven images with not having gods before the one true God. And the Ten Commandments forbid murder.
-
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?
The royal court will investigate.
So, you expect the king himself to spend time and effort that you're clearly not willing to, just to empower his potential rivals? Again, have you really thought this through?
The true heirs to the baronies will be grateful that they are restored to them and therefore be loyal to the King.
-
The true heirs to the baronies will be grateful that they are restored to them and therefore be loyal to the King.
You honestly believe that? All self-respecting vassals plot in secret against their liege in the hopes that they themselves may one day rule in their place. You'd know that if you knew the first thing about how feudalism actually works.
And again, why would the king do that when, once in power, there'd be nothing to stop him from just keeping it all to himself? More importantly, why are you so desperately grasping at straws just to avoid doing the necessary work to further your own pet cause? I assure you, the only one who gives a shit is you. I guarantee you, nobody is going to do it for you.
-
The true heirs to the baronies will be grateful that they are restored to them and therefore be loyal to the King.
You honestly believe that? All self-respecting vassals plot in secret against their liege in the hopes that they themselves may one day rule in their place. You'd know that if you knew the first thing about how feudalism actually works.
And again, why would the king do that when, once in power, there'd be nothing to stop him from just keeping it all to himself? More importantly, why are you so desperately grasping at straws just to avoid doing the necessary work to further your own pet cause? I assure you, the only one who gives a shit is you. I guarantee you, nobody is going to do it for you.
But the vasals will not rule in the King’s place because of the laws of Primogeniture. They will earn enough money that they will be loyal and they will be put back in the House of Lords which they were until Tony Blair’s House of Lords Act of 1999.
-
Laws-stopping the power hungry from plotting...
Kid, you haven't worked out this whole "human beings" thing, have you?
-
He came up with a plan that includes rape, betrayal and wars but then thinks that the same people for whom a qualifying factor for getting into the band of betrayers was the willingness to betray their rightful rulers and to break several laws would not be willing to betray the ruler they just set up as a puppet because that would mean breaking laws...
-
Laws-stopping the power hungry from plotting...
Kid, you haven't worked out this whole "human beings" thing, have you?
They will have enough money as Lords to keep them happy.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
The current Barrons in England(most of whom are rightful heirs) are not like that.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
The current Barrons in England(most of whom are rightful heirs) are not like that.
Because (just like religion) they have no power and have to be nice.
Give them power and look the fuck out.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
The current Barrons in England(most of whom are rightful heirs) are not like that.
Because (just like religion) they have no power and have to be nice.
Give them power and look the fuck out.
The King will do a good job at keeping them in line like they did in the Middle Ages.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
The current Barrons in England(most of whom are rightful heirs) are not like that.
Because (just like religion) they have no power and have to be nice.
Give them power and look the fuck out.
The King will do a good job at keeping them in line like they did in the Middle Ages.
Here's a radical idea: let's stick with the system that's in place now. It works and provides far fewer opportunities for real fuckery than yours does.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
The current Barrons in England(most of whom are rightful heirs) are not like that.
Because (just like religion) they have no power and have to be nice.
Give them power and look the fuck out.
The King will do a good job at keeping them in line like they did in the Middle Ages.
The current Royal line that you're whining about supplanted their prededessors you dill, just like the Tudors supplanted the ones before them. Like any other tyrant or dictator they're often replaced violently and without regard to legal process. Where do you think George Martin got his plotlines from?
Regarding Reagan, arms for fucking hostages. That is all!
Sure, guy who gets suckered into humiliating himself on social media-belly flop into a real life Game of Thrones nest of vipers. The forumites here are kinder and gentler to you than real life aristocrats would ever be!
-
The true heirs to the baronies will be grateful that they are restored to them and therefore be loyal to the King.
You honestly believe that? All self-respecting vassals plot in secret against their liege in the hopes that they themselves may one day rule in their place. You'd know that if you knew the first thing about how feudalism actually works.
And again, why would the king do that when, once in power, there'd be nothing to stop him from just keeping it all to himself? More importantly, why are you so desperately grasping at straws just to avoid doing the necessary work to further your own pet cause? I assure you, the only one who gives a shit is you. I guarantee you, nobody is going to do it for you.
But the vasals will not rule in the King’s place because of the laws of Primogeniture. They will earn enough money that they will be loyal and they will be put back in the House of Lords which they were until Tony Blair’s House of Lords Act of 1999.
Really? How do you think your oh-so rightful heir ended up somewhere other than the throne in the first place? Furthermore, there would be no house of lords in the first place, because there is no parliament in a feudal kingdom.
Again, you still haven't answered why the king would do this in the first place instead of just keeping it all for himself. You expect the guy to, while also governing the country, to devote time and attention to empowering his potential rivals at his own expense. Why would he do that? Because you want him to? Are you truly so naive as to think he'll give a shit about you once he's in power and no longer needs you?
-
Yeah - once everyone gets what they need out of you, you'll have your throat cut in an alleyway somewhere, while the barons and dukes scheme how to align their families to best control the throne. Such as it was always.
Oh yes, the original Kingmaker was so well under control...he was hardly the first of his kind.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
The current Barrons in England(most of whom are rightful heirs) are not like that.
Because (just like religion) they have no power and have to be nice.
Give them power and look the fuck out.
The King will do a good job at keeping them in line like they did in the Middle Ages.
The current Royal line that you're whining about supplanted their prededessors you dill, just like the Tudors supplanted the ones before them. Like any other tyrant or dictator they're often replaced violently and without regard to legal process. Where do you think George Martin got his plotlines from?
Regarding Reagan, arms for fucking hostages. That is all!
Sure, guy who gets suckered into humiliating himself on social media-belly flop into a real life Game of Thrones nest of vipers. The forumites here are kinder and gentler to you than real life aristocrats would ever be!
1. Yeah there is always the risk of a future legitimate monarch being overthrown, but steps will be taken to minimize the risk and keep the legitimate line in power as long as possible, and steps taken to make the legitimate regime win popular support so that when the legitimate monarch gets overthrown, there will be a counter rebellion among other nobles and the populace to restore the legitimate monarch to power.
2. There is no evidence that Reagan armed Iran to free the hostages.
-
The true heirs to the baronies will be grateful that they are restored to them and therefore be loyal to the King.
You honestly believe that? All self-respecting vassals plot in secret against their liege in the hopes that they themselves may one day rule in their place. You'd know that if you knew the first thing about how feudalism actually works.
And again, why would the king do that when, once in power, there'd be nothing to stop him from just keeping it all to himself? More importantly, why are you so desperately grasping at straws just to avoid doing the necessary work to further your own pet cause? I assure you, the only one who gives a shit is you. I guarantee you, nobody is going to do it for you.
But the vasals will not rule in the King’s place because of the laws of Primogeniture. They will earn enough money that they will be loyal and they will be put back in the House of Lords which they were until Tony Blair’s House of Lords Act of 1999.
Really? How do you think your oh-so rightful heir ended up somewhere other than the throne in the first place? Furthermore, there would be no house of lords in the first place, because there is no parliament in a feudal kingdom.
Again, you still haven't answered why the king would do this in the first place instead of just keeping it all for himself. You expect the guy to, while also governing the country, to devote time and attention to empowering his potential rivals at his own expense. Why would he do that? Because you want him to? Are you truly so naive as to think he'll give a shit about you once he's in power and no longer needs you?
Parliaments existed in Midieval Kingdom’s as a form of bureaucracy under the King. And King’s often empowered people in exchange for loyalty, and he needs to empower some people for the Kingdom to have an efficient bureaucracy. The King will be grateful to me, for coming up with the idea that he is the rightful heir to the English throne in the first place and I will be his chief advisor.
-
Parliaments existed in Midieval Kingdom’s as a form of bureaucracy under the King. And King’s often empowered people in exchange for loyalty, and he needs to empower some people for the Kingdom to have an efficient bureaucracy. The King will be grateful to me, for coming up with the idea that he is the rightful heir to the English throne in the first place and I will be his chief advisor.
Nope on all counts. Parliament was definitely not a thing in the medieval era, autonomous vassals are most definitely not a necessity with today's technology (hence why feudalism is no longer a thing in the modern world), and no halfway competent leader will give two shits about an "advisor" who has outlived his usefulness.
Face it. You want to restore feudalism to Britain, complete with authentic nobility in terms of lineage? You're at the bare minimum going to have to do the research yourself. There's simply no way around it.
-
Parliaments existed in Midieval Kingdom’s as a form of bureaucracy under the King. And King’s often empowered people in exchange for loyalty, and he needs to empower some people for the Kingdom to have an efficient bureaucracy. The King will be grateful to me, for coming up with the idea that he is the rightful heir to the English throne in the first place and I will be his chief advisor.
Nope on all counts. Parliament was definitely not a thing in the medieval era, autonomous vassals are most definitely not a necessity with today's technology (hence why feudalism is no longer a thing in the modern world), and no halfway competent leader will give two shits about an "advisor" who has outlived his usefulness.
Face it. You want to restore feudalism to Britain, complete with authentic nobility in terms of lineage? You're at the bare minimum going to have to do the research yourself. There's simply no way around it.
Well some parts of the modern bureaucracy such as Parliament will be kept, and of course the economy will remain Capitalist because of the way modern economics work.
Since the future monarch will be a future child from the lineage of primogeniture from the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies kidnaped to be raised as a future King, he or she will consider me to be a father figure so I will definetely have a position in the government as advisor.
-
Well some parts of the modern bureaucracy such as Parliament will be kept, and of course the economy will remain Capitalist because of the way modern economics work.
Since the future monarch will be a future child from the lineage of primogeniture from the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies kidnaped to be raised as a future King, he or she will consider me to be a father figure so I will definetely have a position in the government as advisor.
So, you're going to have a feudal kingdom that retains a governing body of elected representatives and whose very stability depends on the king seeing you as his Stockholm Syndrome Daddy?
Dude, just do your homework. Nobody is buying your shitty excuses. Cut the shit and go find out the rightful heirs to each and every title, as well as the appropriate vassalages and obligations.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
The current Barrons in England(most of whom are rightful heirs) are not like that.
Because (just like religion) they have no power and have to be nice.
Give them power and look the fuck out.
The King will do a good job at keeping them in line like they did in the Middle Ages.
The current Royal line that you're whining about supplanted their prededessors you dill, just like the Tudors supplanted the ones before them. Like any other tyrant or dictator they're often replaced violently and without regard to legal process. Where do you think George Martin got his plotlines from?
Regarding Reagan, arms for fucking hostages. That is all!
Sure, guy who gets suckered into humiliating himself on social media-belly flop into a real life Game of Thrones nest of vipers. The forumites here are kinder and gentler to you than real life aristocrats would ever be!
1. Yeah there is always the risk of a future legitimate monarch being overthrown, but steps will be taken to minimize the risk and keep the legitimate line in power as long as possible, and steps taken to make the legitimate regime win popular support so that when the legitimate monarch gets overthrown, there will be a counter rebellion among other nobles and the populace to restore the legitimate monarch to power.
2. There is no evidence that Reagan armed Iran to free the hostages.
Reagan got on national bloody television and explained why he did it (https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/reagan-explains-secret-sale-of-arms-to-iran-nov-13-1986-099742) you pillock!
And those past monarchs took steps too, including the ragged house you want to restore to absolute power in a country that's not yours. They got stepped on!
Boy, you are not organising a conspiracy to retake the British Isles for your inconsequential inbred clan of toffynosed chickenfarts! You don't have the political wit, nouse or elan to pull it off. You got fooled into saying "oink" on social media for five minutes because you were jealous of the possibility of another man getting to your cousin before you did. If you start playing with the truly powerful they'll chew you up and spit out the pips, probably doing the world the one favor they would have done in their wretched lifetimes.
-
Well some parts of the modern bureaucracy such as Parliament will be kept, and of course the economy will remain Capitalist because of the way modern economics work.
Since the future monarch will be a future child from the lineage of primogeniture from the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies kidnaped to be raised as a future King, he or she will consider me to be a father figure so I will definetely have a position in the government as advisor.
So, you're going to have a feudal kingdom that retains a governing body of elected representatives and whose very stability depends on the king seeing you as his Stockholm Syndrome Daddy?
Dude, just do your homework. Nobody is buying your shitty excuses. Cut the shit and go find out the rightful heirs to each and every title, as well as the appropriate vassalages and obligations.
Well yes, but the parliament will be under the King's authority and the House of Lords will have the power that they used to have which used to be equal to the House of Commons until 1911. It will have an efficient bureaucracy.
-
And again you have zero understanding of the kinds of people who would join such a project. None would be good, noble souls. They'd mutilate and carve you to pieces if it would mean they got just a bit more.
The current Barrons in England(most of whom are rightful heirs) are not like that.
Because (just like religion) they have no power and have to be nice.
Give them power and look the fuck out.
The King will do a good job at keeping them in line like they did in the Middle Ages.
The current Royal line that you're whining about supplanted their prededessors you dill, just like the Tudors supplanted the ones before them. Like any other tyrant or dictator they're often replaced violently and without regard to legal process. Where do you think George Martin got his plotlines from?
Regarding Reagan, arms for fucking hostages. That is all!
Sure, guy who gets suckered into humiliating himself on social media-belly flop into a real life Game of Thrones nest of vipers. The forumites here are kinder and gentler to you than real life aristocrats would ever be!
1. Yeah there is always the risk of a future legitimate monarch being overthrown, but steps will be taken to minimize the risk and keep the legitimate line in power as long as possible, and steps taken to make the legitimate regime win popular support so that when the legitimate monarch gets overthrown, there will be a counter rebellion among other nobles and the populace to restore the legitimate monarch to power.
2. There is no evidence that Reagan armed Iran to free the hostages.
Reagan got on national bloody television and explained why he did it (https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/reagan-explains-secret-sale-of-arms-to-iran-nov-13-1986-099742) you pillock!
And those past monarchs took steps too, including the ragged house you want to restore to absolute power in a country that's not yours. They got stepped on!
Boy, you are not organising a conspiracy to retake the British Isles for your inconsequential inbred clan of toffynosed chickenfarts! You don't have the political wit, nouse or elan to pull it off. You got fooled into saying "oink" on social media for five minutes because you were jealous of the possibility of another man getting to your cousin before you did. If you start playing with the truly powerful they'll chew you up and spit out the pips, probably doing the world the one favor they would have done in their wretched lifetimes.
1. Well Reagan had to do it to free American hostages. You have to do what is necessary to protect Americans.
2. As I said, my plan is to found an organization that will infiltrate the US Congress and Presidency so that the US can invade the United Kingdom restoring the rightful heir. My first step of the plan is making an animated youtube movie that documents what happened in the parralel universe.
-
Is there a parallel universe where you're not a complete tool?
-
The post-truth is strong in this one.
There is no evidence that Reagan armed Iran to free the hostages.
Later...
Well Reagan had to do it to free American hostages. You have to do what is necessary to protect Americans.
Yes, a handful of Americans were protected while giving big shiny missiles to a regime that hated Americans, oh and the funds disappeared and got diverted to Contra rebels who were dealing bucketloads of coke on the side to Americans leading lots of American deaths through crime and gang violence.
The money that went into rescuing four Americans ended killing hundreds more Americans, whatta deal. No wonder they kept that fuck up under wraps and it was such a huge controversy when it came out!
As I said, my plan is to found an organization that will infiltrate the US Congress and Presidency so that the US can invade the United Kingdom restoring the rightful heir. My first step of the plan is making an animated youtube movie that documents what happened in the parralel universe.
America already has it's own royalty, they're called billionaires and the Koch brothers would laugh themselves hoarse at your demented little scheme. Soros would just stare blankly and Peter Thiel would have you abducted to a secret laboratory to have your blood drained. None of them could give a flying, Lear jet fuck about ancient British royal houses!
Yes I know the US political applecart was upset by an outsider but, as much as it isn't my cup of tea he actually appeals to some people whereas you have all the charisma of a used tampon.
The main difference between the Beltway and actual old royal courts is that you wouldn't be literally backstabbed-probably. They get their aides to do that sort of thing.
-
The post-truth is strong in this one.
There is no evidence that Reagan armed Iran to free the hostages.
Later...
Well Reagan had to do it to free American hostages. You have to do what is necessary to protect Americans.
Yes, a handful of Americans were protected while giving big shiny missiles to a regime that hated Americans, oh and the funds disappeared and got diverted to Contra rebels who were dealing bucketloads of coke on the side to Americans leading lots of American deaths through crime and gang violence.
The money that went into rescuing four Americans ended killing hundreds more Americans, whatta deal. No wonder they kept that fuck up under wraps and it was such a huge controversy when it came out!
As I said, my plan is to found an organization that will infiltrate the US Congress and Presidency so that the US can invade the United Kingdom restoring the rightful heir. My first step of the plan is making an animated youtube movie that documents what happened in the parralel universe.
America already has it's own royalty, they're called billionaires and the Koch brothers would laugh themselves hoarse at your demented little scheme. Soros would just stare blankly and Peter Thiel would have you abducted to a secret laboratory to have your blood drained. None of them could give a flying, Lear jet fuck about ancient British royal houses!
Yes I know the US political applecart was upset by an outsider but, as much as it isn't my cup of tea he actually appeals to some people whereas you have all the charisma of a used tampon.
The main difference between the Beltway and actual old royal courts is that you wouldn't be literally backstabbed-probably. They get their aides to do that sort of thing.
1. Well yeah, due to corruption, the funds ended up in criminal hands but Reagan fired officials in his administration that did that. Giving a few arms to Iran wasn’t a big deal because the US was giving much more weapons to Saddam Hussein to stop Iran.
2. Well SECRET members of the organization will infiltrate both parties, so that they will eventually have the Presidency and dominate Congress so that the invasion of the UK can happen.
-
1. Well yeah, due to corruption, the funds ended up in criminal hands but Reagan fired officials in his administration that did that. Giving a few arms to Iran wasn’t a big deal because the US was giving much more weapons to Saddam Hussein to stop Iran.
The weapons that Iraq later used to invade Kuwait setting off a chain of events which culminated into a bloody sectarian chaos spanning two countries? This should be an object lesson in how sooper seekrit conspiracies can go arse over tit!
2. Well SECRET members of the organization will infiltrate both parties, so that they will eventually have the Presidency and dominate Congress so that the invasion of the UK can happen.
You couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery or direct a deflowering in a fucking brothel you penis! You are telegraphing your sooper seekrit plans to a wide variety of folks with a wide variety of viewpoints who all loathe you on the bloody internet, one of which got you oink like a fucking pig-on Youtube. You asked for people to accept your "proofs," fail. You asked for people to convert to your religion, bigger fail. You asked for help in your demented plans, worse fail. You asked the women here to marry you, catastrophic, Titanic level, epic fail! Give up now!
-
I notice that Cuckob Toolson here hasn't responded to my radical idea.
-
1. Well yeah, due to corruption, the funds ended up in criminal hands but Reagan fired officials in his administration that did that. Giving a few arms to Iran wasn’t a big deal because the US was giving much more weapons to Saddam Hussein to stop Iran.
The weapons that Iraq later used to invade Kuwait setting off a chain of events which culminated into a bloody sectarian chaos spanning two countries? This should be an object lesson in how sooper seekrit conspiracies can go arse over tit!
2. Well SECRET members of the organization will infiltrate both parties, so that they will eventually have the Presidency and dominate Congress so that the invasion of the UK can happen.
You couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery or direct a deflowering in a fucking brothel you penis! You are telegraphing your sooper seekrit plans to a wide variety of folks with a wide variety of viewpoints who all loathe you on the bloody internet, one of which got you oink like a fucking pig-on Youtube. You asked for people to accept your "proofs," fail. You asked for people to convert to your religion, bigger fail. You asked for help in your demented plans, worse fail. You asked the women here to marry you, catastrophic, Titanic level, epic fail! Give up now!
1. Well things were relatively stable in Iraq until Bush’s stupid invasion. Things almost got stable again, until Obama stupidly withdrew troops from Iraq causing the rise of ISIS which is why Trump called Obama the founder of ISIS.
2. Well I will make the YouTube animation and found a Society which will gain followers.
-
your. your grand plan. is YOUTUBE ANIMATION? For fuck's sake.
-
Well yes, but the parliament will be under the King's authority and the House of Lords will have the power that they used to have which used to be equal to the House of Commons until 1911. It will have an efficient bureaucracy.
Even so, there's still no way the king would ever use it to empower his rivals at his own expense. Yes, even if you are his Stockholm Daddy.
How many times do I have to say it? Do your goddamn research, you lazy little prick.
-
Parliament only really gained power after the Act of Settlement settled the succession on the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover (to prevent the crown, and thus the headship of the Church of England, from falling to a Catholic) and George, Elector of Hanover became King of the United Kingdom. He basically left the actual job of governing to Parliament since he didn't know English or how their system worked or anything, and by the time George III (who spent more time in the UK than in Hanover) became King, Parliament's supremacy was established (though the supremacy of the democratic house over the undemocratic one had yet to be settled and it would take a budget crisis to force that).
-
Bushes invasion was backed in no small part by a politician beholden to theocratic, clueless voters like you and demonstrates just how chronically shit can fuck up when you embark on a wide eyed campaign to bring about your political agenda via conquest-take notes. Obama withdrew because holding a territory is harder and less sexy than an invasion, your boys start coming home in body bags, the political, strategic and financial costs mushroom and the unholy mess becomes unviable.
The Brits found that out with Ireland. Saddam found that out with Kuwait. The Americans found that out with Vietnam and Afghanistan bit the arse of the Soviets, Americans and the British twice the second time when they were riding America's coattails. If America invaded Britain they'd find invading it and keeping it are two entirely different things.
As for followers, there are plenty of idiots who have started cults and factions that got those. They had charismatic leaders that may have been terrible but at least they were able to inspire confidence in some. Look in the damn mirror-or just at that oinking video again. Not gonna happen.
-
Well yes, but the parliament will be under the King's authority and the House of Lords will have the power that they used to have which used to be equal to the House of Commons until 1911. It will have an efficient bureaucracy.
Even so, there's still no way the king would ever use it to empower his rivals at his own expense. Yes, even if you are his Stockholm Daddy.
How many times do I have to say it? Do your goddamn research, you lazy little prick.
As dpareja said, Parliament did not gain the power to challenge the King’s authority until the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. Besides over 90 percent of the Lords have probably inherited it legitimately so it would not be a big risk to empower 10 percent.
-
Bushes invasion was backed in no small part by a politician beholden to theocratic, clueless voters like you and demonstrates just how chronically shit can fuck up when you embark on a wide eyed campaign to bring about your political agenda via conquest-take notes. Obama withdrew because holding a territory is harder and less sexy than an invasion, your boys start coming home in body bags, the political, strategic and financial costs mushroom and the unholy mess becomes unviable.
The Brits found that out with Ireland. Saddam found that out with Kuwait. The Americans found that out with Vietnam and Afghanistan bit the arse of the Soviets, Americans and the British twice the second time when they were riding America's coattails. If America invaded Britain they'd find invading it and keeping it are two entirely different things.
As for followers, there are plenty of idiots who have started cults and factions that got those. They had charismatic leaders that may have been terrible but at least they were able to inspire confidence in some. Look in the damn mirror-or just at that oinking video again. Not gonna happen.
1. Well Bush was elected by making false promises such as promises to cut spending, and less intervention. It wasn’t just him that was behind the Iraq war. Most of Congress including most Democrats also voted for it. But since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, it left a power vacuum causing Al Qaeda to invade Iraq. You have to clean up your own mess, and withdrawing made the situation even worse because it caused ISIS to come to power.
2. The American’s will not keep Britain, they would put the true heir to the throne in power.
3. The oinking video is now deleted. I can gain followers through the YouTube video and my website, and then begin hosting meetings.
-
Well yes, but the parliament will be under the King's authority and the House of Lords will have the power that they used to have which used to be equal to the House of Commons until 1911. It will have an efficient bureaucracy.
Even so, there's still no way the king would ever use it to empower his rivals at his own expense. Yes, even if you are his Stockholm Daddy.
How many times do I have to say it? Do your goddamn research, you lazy little prick.
As dpareja said, Parliament did not gain the power to challenge the King’s authority until the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. Besides over 90 percent of the Lords have probably inherited it legitimately so it would not be a big risk to empower 10 percent.
And who specifically is entitled to which title according to said title's succession laws? That's for you to figure out, Jakey boy.
-
1. Well Bush was elected by making false promises such as promises to cut spending, and less intervention. It wasn’t just him that was behind the Iraq war. Most of Congress including most Democrats also voted for it. But since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, it left a power vacuum causing Al Qaeda to invade Iraq. You have to clean up your own mess, and withdrawing made the situation even worse because it caused ISIS to come to power.
You're one to talk, secrets and deception are your gameplan too. The fact that you can't see the object lesson here is telling. You think you're smarter at politics than America's political elite, to be fair they were stupid because of their own hubris but you have less of an understanding of politics but at least equal levels of hubris.
2. The American’s will not keep Britain, they would put the true heir to the throne in power.
Who would be rejected as a foreign puppet by left, right and centre. When an unpopular puppet regime doesn't have enough heft to bring the country together they have to turn to their masters for backup and it's the same old song.
Don't you think that Russia would be popping champagne corks if you did that? It'd unify the EU against the US and maybe even convince them to regard Russia as a safer bet than the US.
3. The oinking video is now deleted. I can gain followers through the YouTube video and my website, and then begin hosting meetings.
The fact that you put it up in the first place and think that all copies are gone only demonstrates your naivety and hubris. It doesn't matter that you deleted it, the internet is forever and you've only shown that you don't understand the raw fuel of politics, people.
Jacob, stick to the prank videos you've linked to. That and the mindset that goes with them is about your level. Play with the big boys and you'll get hurt!
-
1. Well Bush was elected by making false promises such as promises to cut spending, and less intervention. It wasn’t just him that was behind the Iraq war. Most of Congress including most Democrats also voted for it. But since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, it left a power vacuum causing Al Qaeda to invade Iraq. You have to clean up your own mess, and withdrawing made the situation even worse because it caused ISIS to come to power.
You're one to talk, secrets and deception are your gameplan too. The fact that you can't see the object lesson here is telling. You think you're smarter at politics than America's political elite, to be fair they were stupid because of their own hubris but you have less of an understanding of politics but at least equal levels of hubris.
2. The American’s will not keep Britain, they would put the true heir to the throne in power.
Who would be rejected as a foreign puppet by left, right and centre. When an unpopular puppet regime doesn't have enough heft to bring the country together they have to turn to their masters for backup and it's the same old song.
Don't you think that Russia would be popping champagne corks if you did that? It'd unify the EU against the US and maybe even convince them to regard Russia as a safer bet than the US.
3. The oinking video is now deleted. I can gain followers through the YouTube video and my website, and then begin hosting meetings.
The fact that you put it up in the first place and think that all copies are gone only demonstrates your naivety and hubris. It doesn't matter that you deleted it, the internet is forever and you've only shown that you don't understand the raw fuel of politics, people.
Jacob, stick to the prank videos you've linked to. That and the mindset that goes with them is about your level. Play with the big boys and you'll get hurt!
1. Well if nobody knows that future politicians are secret members of my organization, and if they infiltrate both parties, they can easily be elected.
2. Well, yes, the US would have to keep sending a lot of aid to the regime. Russia has poor relations with the EU, so they would probably just sit back and watch.
3. Well only a few people saw that video, so I doubt that someone downloaded the video.
-
1. Well Bush was elected by making false promises such as promises to cut spending, and less intervention. It wasn’t just him that was behind the Iraq war. Most of Congress including most Democrats also voted for it. But since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, it left a power vacuum causing Al Qaeda to invade Iraq. You have to clean up your own mess, and withdrawing made the situation even worse because it caused ISIS to come to power.
You're one to talk, secrets and deception are your gameplan too. The fact that you can't see the object lesson here is telling. You think you're smarter at politics than America's political elite, to be fair they were stupid because of their own hubris but you have less of an understanding of politics but at least equal levels of hubris.
2. The American’s will not keep Britain, they would put the true heir to the throne in power.
Who would be rejected as a foreign puppet by left, right and centre. When an unpopular puppet regime doesn't have enough heft to bring the country together they have to turn to their masters for backup and it's the same old song.
Don't you think that Russia would be popping champagne corks if you did that? It'd unify the EU against the US and maybe even convince them to regard Russia as a safer bet than the US.
3. The oinking video is now deleted. I can gain followers through the YouTube video and my website, and then begin hosting meetings.
The fact that you put it up in the first place and think that all copies are gone only demonstrates your naivety and hubris. It doesn't matter that you deleted it, the internet is forever and you've only shown that you don't understand the raw fuel of politics, people.
Jacob, stick to the prank videos you've linked to. That and the mindset that goes with them is about your level. Play with the big boys and you'll get hurt!
1. Well if nobody knows that future politicians are secret members of my organization, and if they infiltrate both parties, they can easily be elected.
2. Well, yes, the US would have to keep sending a lot of aid to the regime. Russia has poor relations with the EU, so they would probably just sit back and watch.
3. Well only a few people saw that video, so I doubt that someone downloaded the video.
Oh, my sweet summer child.