Monarchs are nothing but dictators in velvet cloaks.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

I don't see the point in supporting a Monarch.

1.You can't oust them if you disagree with them.
2.They historically abuse the people.

Discuss, are Monarchs a decent form of government or are they over-romanticised?

You seem to have "Monarch" mixed up with "Autocrat".

Also, 1. is patently not true. Ask the French. Or the Russians. Or the Spanish, Italians, English, Germans, Romanians, Greeks...

Or the Turks, or the Iranians, or the Iraqis, or the Vietnamese, or the Chinese.

[Malikov]

Not "arbitrarily". As per being one of the two people who were having a discussion on a topic when a third party tried to get involved with something that had nothing to do with what the two of us were talking about.

From what 've seen, North Suran made a valid point that you didn't like, after which you went on a tirade to discredit his argument, by attempting to impose th view that what he said had nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which it clearly did. Furthermore, you not being the OP of this thread, you are not in any position of power to say what is relevant or not. Learn some etiquette. You are not smarter then everyone in this thread, so stop trying to act like it. I find your posting manner is arrogant, pompus, annoying, lacking any attempt to move the conversation forward in a productive manner, and inflammatory.

Two people talking about dogs doesn't mean the field is open for someone to intrude into the discussion with talk about any quadrupedal mammal.

Wrong. If the conversation concerns locamotive means for dogs, then the floor could be open to quadrupeds in general. Same with anything else that might concern other quadrupalian mammals. If the topic of discussion is unique to dogs, then a comment not refering to dogs would be pointless. North Suran's points were on topic, and not an intrusion. This thread is public. If you don't want anyone else in here then tough luck. Go away and make your own.

If knowing what one is talking about is equivalent to "pompously dropping names" and "acting like an arrogant Victorian lecturer" to you, I suggest that in the future you be far, far more prudent in choosing which discussions you get into, public or not. The added disadvantage to you of the former is that the ensuing embarrassment is also public.

There is a difference between knowing what you're talking about, and acting like everyone else is a complete moron that shuold go stick their head in a tiolet. You easily could've listed your sources with out appearing as an arrogant little so-and-so, something that seems to escape your grasp at the moment. The only one embarrassing themselves is you, as your posting manner leaves much to be desired.

I don't know how to rephrase this in any other way, so I will state it one last time and end this bickering of yours: you did not grasp what we were talking about. You clearly lack the background knowledge required to understand what we were talking about, and you clearly weren't even interested in acquiring it by doing something like reading what we were talking about or even reading a link you were furnished with so you could remedy the situation. Instead you tried to enter our discussion with something that had nothing to do with the discussion we were having. Your attempt fell flat. As it will again and again in the future if you continue making the same mistake. You should consider not making it any more. For your own face's sake.

Points of interest here. North Suran was completely on topic, he clearly has a knowledgable background of the subject, and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. North Suran either already knew about the information you told him to see, or he went and read it. Either way, you're too blinded by pride and ego to realize that. He entered a public discussion, not your discussion, and his attmept clearly did not fall flat, as the last two pages show. I suggest that you stop trying to heap useless, condencending advice onto those that don't need it, and go humble yourself. People might actually think more of you if you don't try (and fail) to make people think that you are always right, and that they are complete moron's.

Now, if you're done arguing a completely off topic point (Oh the delicious irony!) i think that there is an actual conversation going on that doesn't involve you, and your extremely annoying, extremely arrogant persona (Oh, did i mention I don't like you, and probably never will, because I read only two of your posts in this thread?)

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Really? I side with Fassitude 100% in the conversation, so far. North Suran is acting like much more of a dick, and by the way the conversation in question had nothing to do with dictatorships, in that it was Fassitude explaining that democratic systems are not 100% free of oppression of any kind(infact it is usually easier for the oppression to get in in a way people consider "fair", but that's beside the point,) not about how a republic is the only system with the potential for abuses of it's people.

[Krytenia]

I don't see the point in supporting a Monarch.

1.You can't oust them if you disagree with them.
2.They historically abuse the people.

Discuss, are Monarchs a decent form of government or are they over-romanticised?

You seem to have "Monarch" mixed up with "Autocrat".

Also, 1. is patently not true. Ask the French. Or the Russians. Or the Spanish, Italians, English, Germans, Romanians, Greeks...

Or the Turks, or the Iranians, or the Iraqis, or the Vietnamese, or the Chinese.

Quite.

[North Suran]

Really? I side with Fassitude 100% in the conversation, so far. North Suran is acting like much more of a dick

I'll give snark where snark is due.

Perhaps I would be in a more congenial mood if Fass hadn't been laying down the condescencion from the very beginning of this sub-conversation.

the conversation in question had nothing to do with dictatorships, in that it was Fassitude explaining that democratic systems are not 100% free of oppression of any kind(infact it is usually easier for the oppression to get in in a way people consider "fair", but that's beside the point,)

Fass states that he dislikes democracy, laying out the reasons why.

I point out that those criticisms can equally be applied to a non-democratic system i.e. a dictatorship.
Fass miscomprehends the point and, feeling so indignant that someone would dare disagree with him on a public forum, immediately gets snarky.
Cue two pages of Fass ranting about how I cannot read and how I unqualified I am to comment and how my point which went against his view is irrelevant.

not about how a republic is the only system with the potential for abuses of it's people.

While relevant to the topic of the thread, that's totally irrelevant to the disagreement.

[Malikov]

Really? I side with Fassitude 100% in the conversation, so far. North Suran is acting like much more of a dick,

You are entitled to your opinion, but that's a borderline flame

and by the way the conversation in question had nothing to do with dictatorships,

I never said it did. In fact, I pointed out that his little rant was completely off topic (*cue ironic facepalm*)

in that it was Fassitude explaining that democratic systems are not 100% free of oppression of any kind(infact it is usually easier for the oppression to get in in a way people consider "fair", but that's beside the point,)

Did i ever say anyone else made that comment?

not about how a republic is the only system with the potential for abuses of it's people.

Again did i ever disagree?

I was merely commenting on the nature of Fassitude's posts, stating that North Suran was well within the right, and that Fass' indignant, arrogant, snarky, whiny, SOB way of posting was only causing detriment to his argument, and making him look like an indignant, arrogant, snarky, whiny, SOB. I also said I don't like him, that his argument made no sense, and that he was being intentionally thick, but that's beside the point.

[Blouman Empire]

Sigged

definetly sigged

Attributing one of the most famous Oscar Wilde quotes to me, while an honour for yours truly, reflects very poorly on both of you.

It was you that posted it on NSG was it not?

I suppose it does reflect on my poor quoting skills.

[Blouman Empire]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

[Cawnpore]

The Human Condition renders all forms of government vulnerable, no system is perfect and the 'goodness' of any system is entirely subjective. As long as mankind continues to retain its individuality then this debate will also perpetuate.

[Fassitude]

From what 've seen,

That I really couldn't care less about.

[North Suran]

I side with Fassitude 100% in the conversation, so far. North Suran is acting like much more of a dick

Ahem:

From what 've seen,

That I really couldn't care less about.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Prosecution rests.

[Milks Empire]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

[Angleter]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

Well in that case, let's replace every reference to 'birth' or 'born' in this thread to 'conception' or 'conceived'.

[Czardas]

I do so love people who arrogantly assume that they know better what someone has done than the person in question themselves.

And I do so loathe analphabets who are as clueless about their condition as you are.

You're making an unhealthy habit of toeing the line. Back off before you lose another nation because of that attitude of yours.

Correction:

Your next offense will be grounds for a Delete-on-Sight order and permanent disinvitation from NationStates. Discretion of a somewhat different order than you have so far displayed will be required if you wish to remain here.

[Milks Empire]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

Well in that case, let's replace every reference to 'birth' or 'born' in this thread to 'conception' or 'conceived'.

Not so fast... That's the exception, not the rule.

[Angleter]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

Well in that case, let's replace every reference to 'birth' or 'born' in this thread to 'conception' or 'conceived'.

Not so fast... That's the exception, not the rule.

Rules aren't meant to have exceptions, unless it's French conjugation.

[Blouman Empire]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

Well there we go it has happened before but certainly not the norm

[Milks Empire]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

Well there we go it has happened before but certainly not the norm

Read the bold - that was my point.

[Blouman Empire]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

Well there we go it has happened before but certainly not the norm

Read the bold - that was my point.

Oh I know I wasn't disagreeing with you.

Though I am amazed that no one else took control before he was born, the next in line for example.

[Milks Empire]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

Well there we go it has happened before but certainly not the norm

Read the bold - that was my point.

Oh I know I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Though I am amazed that no one else took control before he was born, the next in line for example.

He died at the ripe old age of five days. It's strongly suspected that the next in line had something to do with that.

[Blouman Empire]

Care to name any US Presidents who automatically became President from birth?

My history may be lacking as well as not knowing the details of every Royal family throughout history in the world but were there any monarchs who automatically became King/Queen/Other title from birth?

Jean I was King of France and Navarre and Count of Champagne from the day he was born - but only because his father had died before he was born.

Well there we go it has happened before but certainly not the norm

Read the bold - that was my point.

Oh I know I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Though I am amazed that no one else took control before he was born, the next in line for example.

He died at the ripe old age of five days. It's strongly suspected that the next in line had something to do with that.

Ah I see.

[New Chalcedon]

With the greatest of respect, what are the advantages of direct democracy? Given that direct democracy is otherwise known as "tyranny by majority". Also given that I'm rather sore about certain vote experiences in Maine, California etc. etc., I am increasingly soured on hte prospect of people (many of whom do not take the time to inform themselves other than listening to their favourite shock-jock) voting on what rights I do or do not have.

Whilst keeping it benevolent is an issue which must be addressed, a benevolent dictatorship may well be better, at least as far as minority rights go.

[Zarbli]

Whilst keeping it benevolent is an issue which must be addressed, a benevolent dictatorship may well be better, at least as far as minority rights go.

The problem with that is that "benevolent" is in the eye of the beholder.

I do think constitutional monarchy is a good system. The monarch gives a sense of national identity and serves as a non partisan eye on the partisan governing institutions.

I know one of such would be of GREAT benefict for my own, full of corruption everywhere country.

Monarchs are only dictators if they're absolut monarchs... and in these days such type of monarchy is present only in a few countries like Saudi Arabia and the Vatican.

[Laos Refugees]

Monarchs existed way before dictators, so they can't be dictators in velvet cloaks. Plus, there have been a few good Monarchs out there. I don't recall Queen Elizabee hurting anyone.

[The Aryan Third Reich]

the velvet cloaks make all the difference.

I want a Velvet Cloak!!