Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Chose the Bastard by Lot for all I Care | |
Author: Steph (U.S.) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:01:35 01/09/05 Sun In reply to: Curnoack. 's message, "Not the Real Royals" on 05:44:23 01/08/05 Sat The question of blood legitimacy is totally irrelevant. The point of Monarchism is to keep the top job out of the hands of grasping politicians and to give the nation a symbol of unity above the partisan divisions. For that purpose we could chose the Monarch by lot for all I care. As for your slander against Her Majesty, it doesn’t matter. Even if as some assert the current royal family begins with Victoria, the family has done well by our people. If it goes back to the War of the Roses then the family has more to be proud of. But the fundamental point is to avoid having politicians fight over the top job and divide the nation in the process. Steph [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: The real reason is | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:20:29 01/09/05 Sun "The point of Monarchism is to keep the top job out of the hands of grasping politicians and to give the nation a symbol of unity above the partisan divisions" The real reason is to keep the money flowing into the hands of a bunch of inbred aristos. However even the inbred ones aren't always genetically first in line. The royals ARE a partisan division. They represent everything undemocratic and primitive and discriminatory in this world. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Gas dha flows! | |
|
Author: My ny vynnav kows Sowsnek. [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:15:52 01/09/05 Sun Inbreeding, eh? You seem excessively interested in that, at least half a dozen of your recent posts emphasising intra-familial sex. But then, it is a fine old Cornish tradition, isn't it? Perhaps you've been taking the fine old Cornish expression, re'th omlansyewgh vamm, a bit too seriously yourself? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Thank you | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:31:07 01/10/05 Mon "at least half a dozen of your recent posts emphasising intra-familial sex. But then, it is a fine old Cornish tradition, isn't it?" Like this kind of racism in England... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Penn kalgh | |
|
Author: Yn poynt da, meur ras. [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:05:46 01/10/05 Mon A) Do you even understand the Cornish in these posts? B) What I said was positively mild compared to some of the things which you have said about the British in your posts. C) If you can not take a little joke at your own expense now and then, then you must be a very objectionable person to talk to. Molleth Dyw dhe vab dha vamm. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn! | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:20:48 01/10/05 Mon Do you even understand the Cornish in these posts? Na lever henna! A wodhes kewsel Curnoack? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Thus, by your logic, Tony Blair == Perfect? | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:00:17 01/09/05 Sun I see. So you quite clearly believe, that all leaders voted for by the people are perfect. Tony Blair and his party are flawless. Is that what you believe? As with many things in life, a balance between depotism and democracy must be found or there's going to be a worse problem. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I can't believe I'm saying this... | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:43:36 01/09/05 Sun Aw hell, are none of my prejudices safe? Steph, what are you doing? Don't you understand I cling to my anti-Americanism as vehemently as I do to my own skin? How dare you talk such rational, well-grounded common sense! What are you trying to do to me? Next thing you know I'll even be thinking there's hope for the US! Excuse me, I have to go and have a lie down - I feel light-headed. ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Glad to help | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:05:59 01/10/05 Mon I am allways glad to help destroy prejudices especially one as pernious as anti-Americanism :-) Cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: americans... | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:42:50 01/11/05 Tue too bad you weren't alive during the revolutionary war, or you could have stopped all that republic nonsense...as for anti-americanism, i admit that i dont hold americans in very high esteem(id much rather eat my hat than talk to one) but i really dont blame people like myself for being anti-american, considering that the US does what ever the bloody hell it wants without regard for other countries. and until i see more rational people like this Steph character, i will continue to feel this way. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: anti-americanism | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:40:31 01/11/05 Tue Anti-americanism is one of those sad facts of life that many people just cant help feeling and its not there fault. I used to be very anti-ameircan, but I feel I have got over it, probably the only person who has partly as a result of Bush. Apart from some certain ideological adjustments, I honestly cant imagine doing things much different were I in the American position. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: I couldn't agree more. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:55:50 01/11/05 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: on that note... | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 07:55:04 01/13/05 Thu so the US finally stopped searching for WMDs...i could imagine doing a lot of things different if i were in there position, mainly making sure my own doorstep was clean before i went to clean other peoples, if you get my meaning... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You mean... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:31:25 01/13/05 Thu ... that Britain and America should not complain about anyone having WMDs until all of ours are dismantled first, thereby avoiding hypocrisy? It's an interesting argument. Rather like the Women of Greenham Common and all the rest of the CND mob. Also, I think we tried it in the twenties, when we were the only country to bother to keep to its Versailles Treaty amrmaments limits (frankly, I think we were glad to save the money), and it didn't work too well. THe argument, as I have always understood it, is that so long as anyone else has them we have to, because the others can't be trusted. If we say "Well, if we get rid of all our nukes, h-bombs, VX gas cylinders etc, will you guys in CHina and suchlike be good little tyrants and get rid of yours?" "Sure thing, boss." "Okay then." Not a very clever conversation. The snag is that, not even responsible governments can trust us to disarm either, so we get stalemate. If I'm honest, I acknowledge that considerably better minds than mine have pondered this problem and not reached any conclusions. Ban the Bomb! Four More Years! Hey, hey, LBJ etc. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |