Oh yeah, I ain´t. Thank you.
Still....You have to understand that monarchism is the best system for you.

why is this weighty? I'm not from the Russian Federation government but who cares about this, it's one man dying. He's a kind of weighty man but it's not like the FREAKING ECONOMIC MINISTER who got fired a few months ago, yet noone talks about that. C'mon, why you obsess over the weirdest things? I guess it's just American news that is trying to make Russia look evil and to push their war agendas.

Actually, Tsar Alexander, the II. was doing alright, and the people liked him a lot; He enacted many reforms which were good for the peasants; He invested in infrastructure; And I don´t think he executed any of his advisors; Also, what is left to do-for a monarch-when an advisor gives you a bad advise?-If he did so, he deserved punishment. And the judgement of the monarch shouldn´t be challenged. Monarchism means one person serves for his (or her) folk, for the people, and does what seems to be the best for the nation. Could there be any better system?-Everyone has a place in the monarchy, whatever one fits best.

Edited 12/23/2016 23:40:12

the people liked him a lot

yeah i hear in russia a way of showing love is by shooting or throwing grenades at you.

Well, Tabby, if you trust someone for a long time and he gives you a good advise, you´ll trust him further. But if he now intentionally advises you bad?-Wouldn´t you want to punish him?-Or at least to imprison him?

Also, to Shuctru, the people trying to assasinate him were mainly anarchists; radical extremist no one cares for. Do you really want to argue that way?-Those people are no one to depend an arguement on.

Edited 12/23/2016 23:52:59

nah now Shah Abbas I was cool, he blinded his sons in fear that they would try and kick out of the monarchy, and he was a Muslim (albeit a grave-worshipping apostate). Abbas was cool.

Shuctru, shut up now. Shut up.

Nah, yeah....That´s the point: If a monarch can´t be flexible-which surely will be the case if the monarch has to codify his/her actions-what is then the sense of reigning?-No, a monarch has to be the law, and should be able to perform as he/she needs to. Also, you have to keep in mind, what could be so bad about it for the common folk?-The people will have a lot of advantages from monarchism. Decisions can be made faster than ever; Also people don´t have to use their brains so much and can focus on working.

monarch Alexandr III of Russia was pretty felixible so he was pretty cool

If a computer system had the control over all nukes during the cold war, we wouldn´t exist anymore. Also computers can be hacked.
People don´t need to engage in politics, the monarch does the whole job.
Also the parlamentarians wouldn´t be needed and the taxes used to pay those could instead be used more wise.

^^Agreed.
To your second point: Both. It is a cycle. The subjects shall serve the monarch and the monarch rules to benefit the life of the subjects.
Third, the monarch can theoretically do whatever he/she wants. And the monarch should do so.
He/she should do as he/she pleases.

The decision of the monarch is not to be challenged. If the monarch wishes for it to be enacted, yes. It surely seems to be a good idea.

Yes. The monarch is always right.

Yes, exactly.

A cat as monarch is fine. A coala would be, too.

Go for it!!1
Feloidae for monarchism!!1

Monarchism is the only system we need.
Democracies are weak,
Dictatorships are not to be honoured,they take away the freedom
and enslave the people to their mind-f*cked ideology.
Aristocracies?-Maybe,however Monarchies are better.
Maybe they need some reforms to prevent mentally ill people from
getting the crown but except this little scratch there´s nothing
not to be liked about them.

^

Good copied and pasted, Shuctru.

nah this is 100% from the real nig

Surely, Shuctru....(sarcasm)
However I am still able to recognize where that one is from.....

yeah you totally wrote that...(sarcasm)

now here's some super racist content for you my fans