Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Royallover

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Please stop slandering me. I'm actually a genuine monarchist. I support keeping the current European monarchies and I support restoring the Russian monarchy. 
Murtagon once asked me whether I'm an agnatic descendant of a German noble house. I replied that my mother is an agnatic descendant of a German noble house. A troll would have claimed to be an agnatic descendant of a German noble house, when asked about it. I'm bearing the surname of my German noble house. Bearing the surname of the noble house of your mother is fortunately legal in the Federal Republic of Germany. 

You are a liberal monarchist which is why the world is in the problem it is in now so you can call yourself a monarchist all you want but in my view, you are just another liberal 
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Please stop slandering me. I'm actually a genuine monarchist. I support keeping the current European monarchies and I support restoring the Russian monarchy. 
Murtagon once asked me whether I'm an agnatic descendant of a German noble house. I replied that my mother is an agnatic descendant of a German noble house. A troll would have claimed to be an agnatic descendant of a German noble house, when asked about it. I'm bearing the surname of my German noble house. Bearing the surname of the noble house of your mother is fortunately legal in the Federal Republic of Germany. 



Azadi, because I'm a pedant, I'll point your attention to the following conversation from Spider-Man (2002):

Peter Parker : Spider-Man wasn't trying to attack the city, he was trying to save it. That's slander.

J. Jonah Jameson : It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel.


That's it.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #48 
A genuine monarchist, who could care less about restoring any monarchy and is vehemently opposed to restoring that of France, on the grounds that France should be a republic for ever in order to enshrine the legacy of the French Revolution. A genuine monarchist, who continually hymns the praises of two men who overthrew monarchies, Qasim and Gadaffi. A genuine monarchist, who makes an exception to his policy of not caring about restorations (when not actively opposing them) for Russia and Iran. On the grounds that they were and would be satem monarchies. I really don't recall any actual genuine monarchist being remotely concerned with such a criterion. A genuine nobleman, who won't tell anyone about the noble house he's so proud of so they can verify the claim, but insists all the time that he has one. As if it made the slightest difference to the merit or otherwise of his arguments. A genuine troll is what I reckon.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
On the post-war consensus, I'm not a great fan of Thatcherism so there are certainly elements of that period of British history that I look back on with nostalgia, but I'm not deluded enough to think it was by any means a "golden age." Modern Britain has its problems, but at least we don't generally have to worry about the lights going out every night because of fuel shortages. I think that both post-war Britain and post-Thatcher Britain have their positive and negative points, just as I feel that there is much to pine for about the late Victorian and Edwardian period but I wouldn't cheerfully give up everything about the 21st century to get them back. The aim should be to recognise and attempt to preserve or restore the best elements of all parts of our history, as far as is possible. 


I agree. I have my misgivings about Thatcherism and neoliberalism as well, but Azadi's claims were so nakedly partisan and unsupported, it was just bizarre. Who could seriously say Britain was especially badly governed post-1979, and why right then? I think it has had problems in the post 1979 era, but the were 70s at least was known for issues in governance and the economy in Britain. Whatever else Thatcher did, she actually prevented some of these reoccurring for the time being.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I'm a staunch supporter of popular sovereignty. The constitutions of Spain and Japan recognize popular sovereignty. I want the king to be the head of state without being the Sovereign. Hereditary membership of the legislative assembly is incompatible with popular sovereignty, because legislative power ought to belong to the representatives of the people. Britain and Tonga ought to abolish hereditary membership of the parliament. 


Okay. We are all aware of your stance. The problem is you repeat it as nauseam in strong terms about other people's countries without arguing for it properly. Also, you seem to hold incompatible views, like your admiration of Putin.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


Okay. We are all aware of your stance. The problem is you repeat it as nauseam in strong terms about other people's countries without arguing for it properly. Also, you seem to hold incompatible views, like your admiration of Putin.

Putin is a dictator, but he is formally elected by the Russian people.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
A genuine monarchist, who could care less about restoring any monarchy and is vehemently opposed to restoring that of France, on the grounds that France should be a republic for ever in order to enshrine the legacy of the French Revolution. A genuine monarchist, who continually hymns the praises of two men who overthrew monarchies, Qasim and Gadaffi. A genuine monarchist, who makes an exception to his policy of not caring about restorations (when not actively opposing them) for Russia and Iran. On the grounds that they were and would be satem monarchies. I really don't recall any actual genuine monarchist being remotely concerned with such a criterion. A genuine nobleman, who won't tell anyone about the noble house he's so proud of so they can verify the claim, but insists all the time that he has one. As if it made the slightest difference to the merit or otherwise of his arguments. A genuine troll is what I reckon.

Supporting current monarchies, while not supporting restoration of monarchies, is hardly unusual. I support restoration of the Russian monarchy, because the Romanovs are my favourite royal dynasty and because restoring the Russian monarchy will be a rejection of the legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution. Cherishing the legacy of the French Revolution, while rejecting the legacy of the Russian Revolution, is hardly unusual. I'm opposed to a Capetian restoration in France, because I'm a Bonapartist. A Capetian restoration in France will be a rejection of the legacy of Napoleon. Restoration of Iranic monarchies is more important to me than restoration of non-Iranic monarchies, because the Kurds are an Iranic people.
I defend the abolition of the Hashemite monarchy of Iraq, because the Hashemite kings of Iraq oppressed the Kurds, but I have never defended the abolition of the Libyan monarchy. I prefer Old Gaddafi to Young Gaddafi, because Old Gaddafi was a Pan-Africanist monarchist and Young Gaddafi was a Pan-Arabist republican. Old Gaddafi was elected King of Kings of Africa by 200 African traditional rulers.
I don't want to reveal my surname on this forum, because Datenschutz is very important to me.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #53 
Actually, troll, supporting current monarchies while not supporting restoration of monarchies is not merely unusual on this forum, it is unique. But I suspect you only say that you support current monarchies, which in reality you don't at all, because to oppose them would be an open rule breach. Which would of course bring an end to all the fun you've been having at our expense. I can't even be bothered with the rest of the tripe.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Actually, troll, supporting current monarchies while not supporting restoration of monarchies is not merely unusual on this forum, it is unique. But I suspect you only say that you support current monarchies, which in reality you don't at all, because to oppose them would be an open rule breach. Which would of course bring an end to all the fun you've been having at our expense. I can't even be bothered with the rest of the tripe.

Claiming that I don't support current monarchies is an outrageous lie. Supporting current monarchies without supporting restoration of monarchies is hardly unusual in real life. Claiming that I don't support restoration of monarchies is wrong, because I support restoration of the Russian monarchy and the Iranic monarchies. You make outrageous claims about me without any evidence. You claim that I lie about being a nobleman without any evidence. Your vile personal attacks against me are unacceptable, because I have NEVER made any personal attacks against you. Your vile personal attacks against me are unacceptable. Please ignore me, if you dislike me, rather than making vile personal attacks against me. You don't have to reply to my posts.
Khuda hafiz Peter.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #55 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Putin is a dictator, but he is formally elected by the Russian people.
What does this even mean?
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
What does this even mean?

Comparing Putin to the hereditary peers of Britain is wrong, because Putin is elected by the Russian people, while the hereditary peers, who are members of the House of Lords, haven't been elected by the British people.
Claiming that monarchists have to support privileges of nobility is wrong, because comparing the privileges of a single family to the privileges of a social class. Granting privileges to a single family doesn't make the society hierarchical.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #57 
Yes, and Putin is a corrupt thug, whereas the hereditary peers are not. Also, the elections in Russia are not free and fair, so I have no idea why you keep harping on about this. You argument here is transparently silly: the elections are worthless. It is probably true Putin would win free and fair ones, but he has ruled out that being tested. 

No one is saying you have to support privileges of nobility; no one is saying you have to support anything. They are just offering what they think is best. It is you who keep using the imperative and talking about what must be done; it is you who argues as if Britain's current constitution is fundamentally illegitimate if we don't do our best to become like the drab republics of our neighbours. It also seems a bit tendentious to use terms like the privileges of nobility and social class. We are talking only of keeping the residual hereditary peers, not a wide area of privileges for the nobility. Britain removed most legal privileges for he nobility earlier than most European nations. I think it is also a stretch to talk about the privileges of a social class, as if this represented today some kind of caste system. The hereditary peers may be part of the upper class, but they hardly represent a rigidly hierarchical society today.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #58 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Yes, and Putin is a corrupt thug, whereas the hereditary peers are not. Also, the elections in Russia are not free and fair, so I have no idea why you keep harping on about this. You argument here is transparently silly: the elections are worthless. It is probably true Putin would win free and fair ones, but he has ruled out that being tested. 

No one is saying you have to support privileges of nobility; no one is saying you have to support anything. They are just offering what they think is best. It is you who keep using the imperative and talking about what must be done; it is you who argues as if Britain's current constitution is fundamentally illegitimate if we don't do our best to become like the drab republics of our neighbours. It also seems a bit tendentious to use terms like the privileges of nobility and social class. We are talking only of keeping the residual hereditary peers, not a wide area of privileges for the nobility. Britain removed most legal privileges for he nobility earlier than most European nations. I think it is also a stretch to talk about the privileges of a social class, as if this represented today some kind of caste system. The hereditary peers may be part of the upper class, but they hardly represent a rigidly hierarchical society today.

The elections in Russia indeed aren't free and fair, but Putin is formally elected by the Russian people. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #59 
Someone who continually spouts offensive nonsense, probably with a deliberate view to disrupting the forum, does not get to tell any particular person to stop pointing out that the nonsense is nonsense. Someone who acts exactly as a troll would act is not being defamed or personally attacked when it is suggested that maybe he acts like a troll because that is what he is. Someone who has frequently invented 'facts' to back up their positions is not entitled to have their word taken on anything. Someone who continually says 'I'm a nobleman' while absolutely declining to offer any proof of that is naturally going to be suspected of lying, especially when he is a known liar to begin with.

Someone who has repeatedly defamed the forum in general, monarchists in general and various forum members (including me, as it happens) in particular should not be over-surprised when their own tender feelings are not especially sympathised with. And, troll, I have never defamed you. I have spoken only truth, which is definitely more than you can say. In short, if you don't want me to reply to your posts, stop making any. Please.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #60 
Azadi, so what? Many dictators and authoritarian regimes oversee sham elections. It's ludicrous to see anything very redeeming in that.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.