Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 82   1  2  3  Next >>   
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 13:14:20


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
Q&A also monarchism general.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 13:31:43


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
We need monarchism
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 13:33:09


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
I concur, it will help curb corruption if we have a codified elite class. Monarchies usually encourage Aristocracy which ofc is much better than have a class of elites who operate outside of the law.

Edited 5/31/2016 13:38:10
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 13:34:56


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
^ Yeah, better official elites than unofficial K-street lobbyists.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 13:43:12


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Yeah we should have an elite class and aristocracy like Germany did from the Middle Ages to 1871. They were really peaceful during that period!
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 13:46:42


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
Nice cherrypicking. But Monarchism has been a successful form of governance for thousands of years. I could cherrypick the Spanish civil war and say ''oh look at how peaceful republics were during that period'' but I won't because I'm not out to make myself look retarded. Also there will always be an elite class you retard we're talking about codification. Because the illegal underhanded elite classes that exist within republics today are so much better, they're just fantastic. I especially love the bribery and back room deals.

Edited 5/31/2016 13:53:02
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 17:16:47

Roland
Level 38
Report
Are there any steps taken to stop a corrupt monarch from ruling?
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 17:29:13


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
@MGSB
HRE was a) an empire and b) not really ruled by a single ruler. When it was unified by a single ruler, it ruled most of Europe. But carry on, I'm sure anarchism would've done better.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 18:21:02


BUFFALO
Level 43
Report
keel al da kins and quens
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 18:49:15


Von Jewburg
Level 35
Report
and what if this monarch is completely incompotent?
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 19:10:51


Mister Kl
Level 55
Report
Outta luck then
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 19:18:38


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
and what if this monarch is completely incompotent?

Ever looked at England? They had several terrible kings, but still worked. You have ministers and you have a few limits on depravity and you have the occasional rebellion.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 19:27:05


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
Tchaicucksky we've had a higher proportion of incompetent elected leaders as opposed to monarchs, your argument is shit.

''Are there any steps taken to stop a corrupt monarch from ruling?''
Any to prevent a corrupt politician from gaining power?

Edited 5/31/2016 19:27:50
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 19:53:21


Leibstandarte (Vengeance)
Level 40
Report
KCt4th is right...
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 20:21:02


Paugers
Level 41
Report
What if this monarch is genocidal?
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 20:23:54


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
He will be overthrown. You realize all the questions you're asking are applicable to democracies.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 20:24:40


Paugers
Level 41
Report
Kek, you can't just overthrow a monarch XD Or that's just a dictator. Idiotic argument.

Edited 5/31/2016 20:25:03
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 20:25:37


Paugers
Level 41
Report
Also, who the f are you KCt4th? I've never seen you on the forums before.

Edited 5/31/2016 20:25:48
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 20:28:14


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
God you're so dumb. Also why would a monarch be genocidal? Why would he kill his own subjects there never been 1 king who has killed his own subjects en masse in western history whereas there have been numerous democratically elected leaders who have genocided their own subjects.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 20:34:24


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
There was hundreds of German Monarchs in the HRE. They waged nearly constant war against each other for hundreds of years, resulting in millions of deaths.

Also we can test your statement Karl.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brice%27s_Day_massacre

Yep, your statement is false.

Edited 5/31/2016 20:34:44
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 20:37:24


Paugers
Level 41
Report
Thank you GeneralPE, yes, as confirmed your argument is idiotic.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 20:40:44


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
A war isn't a genocide. Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brice%27s_Day_massacre isn't a genocide of ones own people and it wasn't senseless. Once again Major looks retarded.

Edited 5/31/2016 20:41:36
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 21:05:20


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Hold it up Karl the Kuck, these were mostly non-combatants who had peacefully settled in England.


And I was talking to GeneralPE when I was talking about the awful monarchs of Germany.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 21:06:26


Genghis 
Level 52
Report
Monarchy does not exist. Oligarchy does.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 21:15:20


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
Genghis being an autist as always.

You didn't refute my counter argument Major Sweden.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 21:18:10


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
St. Brice's was against foreigners in the English lands, not the king's own people, Smedley. The "awful" monarchs of Germany were only because there was no single powerful monarch or an organized aristocracy.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 21:20:22


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
+1 PE

Edited 5/31/2016 21:20:37
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 21:37:20


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
You let them in your lands and take taxes from them, they are settlers yes, but they are your folk.

Yes and what happened when the monarchs (who killed over 11 million in the span of thirty years in the 1600s) were replaced with a centralized monarchy? WW1.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 21:38:29


Nitr01
Level 46
Report
A well-regulated monarchy with some restrictions seems to be the best form of government. Democracy is plagued with lobbyists and huge corporations that can sway the peoples' vote on a whim. The majority of the population is not educated enough to vote. A monarch and a group of aristocrats, voted in by highly educated, property owning individuals, would defend personal liberty more than a democratic form of government.

An aristocracy would eliminate corruption in the government. If already wealthy people held power, they would not be enticed by lobbyists or bribes, they stand to gain nothing from betraying their people just to get a little extra money.

A monarch would be educated their whole life on how to rule, and royal family would ideally being (genetically) intelligent and fit to rule. A monarchy also has the benefit of knowing who is next in line for power, so power struggles are limited.

And Smedley you're wrong, and beginning to sound retarded. Kings have been historically better rulers than non-monarch dictators. There are a few bad examples as with any form of government. No system is perfect but a monarchy is the best system for preserving personal libert.
Monarchist thread: 5/31/2016 21:45:35


KCt4th
Level 20
Report
WW1 happened because of English and French greed. Also not seeing a citation for the 11 million figure. Also +1 Nitr01

Edited 5/31/2016 21:45:58
Posts 1 - 30 of 82   1  2  3  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service