Conquer Club

heavycola wrote:charles marries a horse

Cruel, but quite frankly, true.

XenHu wrote:Really? Give me one example where peace gets things done faster the violence.-X

Sure, Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler...err, never mind.

Spuzzell wrote:

XenHu wrote:

Vincent M wrote:

XenHu wrote:Yes, violently..

Unfortunately, in our world, violence is the only action that gets things done.


-X

Thats BULLSHIT... ...... ...... GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.....

Really? Give me one example where peace gets things done faster the violence.

-X

Uh, ok.

1: India + years of peaceful protest = independent country.

Palestine + years of violence = not.

2: South Africa + years of peaceful protest = end of apartheid.

Zimbabwe + years of violence = racist, divided and fucked.

3: The welsh + peaceful protest = protected language, autonomy.

ETA (basque separatists in Spain)+ years of violence = nothing.

Now please give me examples where violence has worked faster than negotiation.

Or, in fact, worked at all.

American Revolution.

Forcing Germany out of France in world war II

Anytime you want to conquer something.

Winning a game in conquer club (Virtual violence)

dealing with a guy who intends to kill you.



anyways peace is great but in this world it is unrealistic to think that it is always the best answer.

Stopper wrote:

Spuzzell wrote:Now please give me examples where violence has worked faster than negotiation.

Or, in fact, worked at all.

I realise that was in response to Xenhu - but both of you have taken falsely-polarised positions. Fact is, good outcomes have come both from violence and peaceful protest.

Examples of violent & murderous conflicts with (arguably) good outcomes:

1. American Revolution,

2. French Revolution,

3. American Civil War,

4. Second World War.

Oh, and South Africa - the ANC were a terrorist organisation right up until the early '90's. We know, because Mrs Thatcher told us so.

Spuzzell wrote:We're a progressive society with inherent respect and pride in our past, and the monarchy is the embodiment of that.

Yes, we're very good at cherry-picking our past, and throwing away the bits we don't like. And quite how a boot-faced old bat who never smiles embodies our progressiveness is beyond me.

French revolution was good at first but it kind of turned sour. Civil War I could go either way on.

strike wolf wrote: French revolution was good at first but it kind of turned sour. Civil War I could go either way on.

Yeah, that whole liberte, egalite, fraternite crap really put the world on a bad note.

Got Yankees thinking they could take away our slaves!

btownmeggy wrote:

strike wolf wrote: French revolution was good at first but it kind of turned sour. Civil War I could go either way on.

Yeah, that whole liberte, egalite, fraternite crap really put the world on a bad note.

I was talking more about the reign of terror.

btownmeggy wrote:Got Yankees thinking they could take away our slaves!

Basically what I am saying is that it's good that we kept the nation from dividing, it's good that we ended slavery, but it's kind of like doing the right thing at the wrong time type scenario. From what I've seen the Civil War left many Southerners with a bitter hatred of the North, that tended to be taken out on former slaves.

For the record I'm pro-monarchy. As heavycola said, they do little enough harm and its certainly more interesting with them. Its not like they get an easy ride what with everything you do being under constant scrutiny...

perchorin wrote:The point is, monarchy = imperialism, end of story, you lose. Come back when you graduate!

As for this... Have you graduated?

This is Wiki's definition of Imperialism (although I will say that it is a very hard term to define, as is 'empire' itself - this is as good a simple definition as any though):

Wikipedia wrote:Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Now does that sound like the current British monarchy (not a century ago but now...)

In fact... what country does fit that definition in the world today?

Imperialism is a completely separate concept to Monarchy. Anyway we are a constitutional Monarchy. The Monarch really has no say in government other than to ratify laws and declare war and suchlike. Anyhow, if we wanna look at it completely materialistically then the country makes more off of tourism from the royals than it does paying for them (its something like 80p a year per person I think).

Guiscard wrote:For the record I'm pro-monarchy. As heavycola said, they do little enough harm and its certainly more interesting with them. Its not like they get an easy ride what with everything you do being under constant scrutiny...

I wasn't sure exactly if heavycola came out republican or monarchist actually - but if both of you are pro-monarchist, but at the same time acknowledging the amount of scrutiny they get from the media, which I'm sure you'll agree is disgusting - then shouldn't the royal family be abolished on human rights grounds?

EDIT: Sorry, that came out wrong. I didn't mean actually abolish the family, you know, the Romanov way - I meant the institution...

It's not as if they all asked to join, now, is it? You probably think I'm joking again, but, really, sacrificing one family's happiness for a whole nation's - for no good reason? Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

What I mean is that I support the monarchy as the traditional figurehead for Britain, and that the amount of scrutiny and pressured lifestyle is more than enough to balance out any positives they may have. I respect them a lot simply for not withdrawing completely and denouncing royal titles. Most of the royals could easily do that and still be financially sound for life, yet they continue to do their duty and present a generally respectable, dignified and stately image. Apart from Philip's gently silly racism the Royals are great ambassadors for Britain.

I'd like to wade into this debate also (its shaping up nicely!)
I'm unionist but strongly anti-monarchy.
I've heard all the arguments before about royals bringing in more money through tourism etc to the economy than we pay out, frankly I don't care. I personally would pay double or 10 times the amount per year to get shot of them. I also here what you say Guiscard about the royals being ambassadors to other countries, corporations etc but again I really do not care about this.
What does concern me is the fact of the inherent inequality of our system. These people are unelected (whether you believe they have exercisable constitutional powers or not), and the system is set up so that an ordinary citizen has no achievable way to this position. Say what you will about the US, but in theory any American citizen could run or become President - I believe this is a great leveller which promotes social inclusion. In the UK, the fact that there are positions were only an elite few could ever hope to fill props up the whole notion of an aristocratic class, and thus perpetuates the entire class system. They make me feel like a second class citizen in my own country!
Would you stand for a system where only people born on a Monday could vote? Or only people born in Slough could be Mayors? These types of restrictions are of course ridiculous, why then do we tolerate the fact that to be the head of the country you have to be born in one family?
And as for the argument of would replace their position as head of state? Again I do not care, as long as it is a position that could theoretically be filled by any man or woman in the UK regardless of birthright. Sod it, if it’s just a figure-head position make it random - everyone takes a lottery ticket and one person gets to be king or queen for a year, anything would be better that this throwback to the feudal system.

Good man! But still no mention of Prince Will's sartorial cluelessness. Which, might I remind you all, is why I started this thread.

I suppose it might be a good idea to skip Charles... His ears would never fit on the back of coins!

Guiscard wrote:I suppose it might be a good idea to skip Charles... His ears would never fit on the back of coins!

Actually I don't mind Charles to much, he's one of the better ones - a bit too wooly on his green approach, but his heart's in the right place. I think the press give his such a bad rap just 'cause he split with Di :oops:

I think all you limeys should count your blessings. Here in america we have a cheesewanker with a phoney Texas accent. Trade us your queen for our wanker, please.

NO THANKYOU!

you can say what you like about our queen but at least she's not George Bush

too true or reagan for that matter. he was a dithering idiot and a shit actor to boot.

Why do you all hate America?

Dmunster wrote:Why do you all hate America?

Because every year, "America" breaks into my bank and pilfers it.

Because every year, "America" knocks me down, and rapes my wallet with its gigantic (albeit, mostly impotent) money grubbing cock.

Because every four years, some jerk off decides to get onto the soap box and start changing the way "America" works, just as I was getting used to it.

f*ck America.

f*ck America with a big, flesh tearing, cement dildo.

Jesse that is the first post of yours that i like. The main reason that i have contempt for america is having to live among thousands of Bush loving, flag waving hypocrites who could care less when their constitution is raped.

b.k. barunt wrote:Jesse that is the first post of yours that i like. The main reason that i have contempt for america is having to live among thousands of Bush loving, flag waving hypocrites who could care less when their constitution is raped.

Living in Oklahoma, I see that everyday.

Hypocrisy is the essence of america. We have far outstripped the rest of the world there. Still passing out the kool-aid.

I'm sorry but there are plenty of topics where you can discuss how america sucks already. Can we please just get back to our plan to take over the monarchy?

First off, I would like to thank Spuzzel and perchorin for their excange. One of the funniest things I saw on CC, it was.

Personally I am all for Monarchy. Monarchy is based on truth: one group of people is put on higher position then the rest of people and they aknowledge it. Someone wrote that "in America, theoretically anyone could become the President". Bullshit! How many poor Presidents was there? In Democraty leaders are ellected through a competition among interest groups, while the people belive that they belive that THEY have ellected them. Since I belive that nothing corrupts human spirit as much as hypocrathy, I find Monarchy to be a lot less corrupt system the Democrathy.

mandalorian2298 wrote:First off, I would like to thank Spuzzel and perchorin for their excange. One of the funniest things I saw on CC, it was.

Personally I am all for Monarchy. Monarchy is based on truth: one group of people is put on higher position then the rest of people and they aknowledge it. Someone wrote that "in America, theoretically anyone could become the President". Bullshit! How many poor Presidents was there? In Democraty leaders are ellected through a competition among interest groups, while the people belive that they belive that THEY have ellected them. Since I belive that nothing corrupts human spirit as much as hypocrathy, I find Monarchy to be a lot less corrupt system the Democrathy.

Well, It's a good thing that we are ruled by a Democracy and not a democrathy.

mandalorian2298 wrote:First off, I would like to thank Spuzzel and perchorin for their excange. One of the funniest things I saw on CC, it was.

Personally I am all for Monarchy. Monarchy is based on truth: one group of people is put on higher position then the rest of people and they aknowledge it. Someone wrote that "in America, theoretically anyone could become the President". Bullshit! How many poor Presidents was there? In Democraty leaders are ellected through a competition among interest groups, while the people belive that they belive that THEY have ellected them. Since I belive that nothing corrupts human spirit as much as hypocrathy, I find Monarchy to be a lot less corrupt system the Democrathy.

Oh lawdy. I take it you haven't read Hobbes, Locke, Bastiat, Rothbard, or Marx, or have a modern grasp of logic. Monarchy =/= unequivocal truth.

On another point, we've had several poor presidents, foremost in my mind being Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Jame Buchanan, and Ulysses S. Grant.