Why Do Conservatives Support the Monarchy?

[SkyHigh]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I feel no need to explain anything in the face of the strawman you are railing against,  knock yourself out, it's has nothing to do with me.

straw man? Did you not say without the monarchy confederation flies apart?

Asking you for evidence to support your claim is not a straw man

But you just keep deflecting, you know as much as i do you don't really have a defense

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

straw man? Did you not say without the monarchy confederation flies apart?

Asking you for evidence to support your claim is not a straw man

But you just keep deflecting, you know as much as i do you don't really have a defense

I feel no need to mount a defense of my views.  

Unless you plan to attack me in person for it,  at which point you will be staring down the barrel of a three five seven magnum.

 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Argus said:

First, your belief that we can 'teach them' seems more than slightly naive. Any number of extremely religious groups have come to Canada and utterly ignored our 'teaching', ranging from the Amish and Mormon fundamentalists to the Hasidim.  By the way, if you don't think we're so much further advanced, culturally, what do you imagine we could teach in the first place?

You invest your opinions with vitriol directed at the way the Catholic Church once behaved while instantly leaping to the defense of Islam, which by any unbiased viewpoint is leagues worse than Catholicism has ever been in this country.

And it's becoming evident you're likely someone we've met before, another visitor from that other place where the far left gnashes its teeth with rage every time they hear a conservative express their views, perhaps? Care to give us your previous name or do we need to guess from your continued frothing?

They do seem peculiarly obsessed with this site over there.  They even have a thread for it.

[SkyHigh]

 

 

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I feel no need to mount a defense of my views.  

Unless you plan to attack me in person for it,  at which point you will be staring down the barrel of a three five seven magnum.

 

That's because you know you have no defence for your ridiculous statement

Oh and now you're a tough guy?? That's funny! 

You state opinions that you know you can't in anyway back up, then threaten me. How sad and weak of a man are you

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

 

That's because you know you have no defence for your ridiculous statement

Oh and now you're a tough guy?? That's funny! 

You state opinions that you know you can't in anyway back up, then threaten me. How sad and weak of a man are you

I'm an American, I feel no need to mount a defense of my views : First Amendment to the threshold of Brandenburg v. Ohio

If someone were to attack me in person for it, I would of course invoke the Second Amendment in defense of the First.

It's not about toughness, it's about being prepared to kill and die for the light of civilization itself.

If you are want to attack me for my views, so be it, but I have no compunction about shooting you as necessary therein.

Two in the chest, one in the mouth.

[Dougie93]

I'd also note that, as a Canadian veteran, no one in Canada ever had any quarrel with me mass murdering for the British Crown.

Nobody ever said it was weak to cut a man down in the name of Her Majesty.

Not sure why it would be weakness to simply defend myself by those means as well.

[SkyHigh]

50 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm an American, I feel no need to mount a defense of my views : First Amendment to the threshold of Brandenburg v. Ohio

If someone were to attack me in person for it, I would of course invoke the Second Amendment in defense of the First.

It's not about toughness, it's about being prepared to kill and die for the light of civilization itself.

If you are want to attack me for my views, so be it, but I have no compunction about shooting you as necessary therein.

50 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Two in the chest, one in the mouth.

.

Oh, the big bad keyboard gangster, you're pathetic, son

And if you think asking you to elaborate on a nonsensical comment you made is attacking you, you're a little bitch as well

Having to resort to the threat of physical violence, [even though you know as much as i do you don't have the balls to do it,  real tough guys guys don't make veiled threats behind the comfort of their computer( yours most likely in your parents basement)] further proves you're a pitiful, sad excuse for a man, and the only way you can boost your fragile inferiority complexed ego is to attempt to bring others down to the miserable level you exist on.

I normally refrain from insulting people, not only here but in real life, but your utter lack of ability to conduct yourself as an intelligent adult, (to the point of pretending to be ready to shoot me because i asked a question, seriously some funny stuff) you warrant neither respect nor any further response.

I encourage all others who read this to not engage with him either, regardless of political views. Unless is this par for this forum? I've only been here a week and find most posters to be partisan hacks. If this is normal here please tell me, i came here to both talk about various subjects with people that may, or may not share my opinion, and honestly, to work on my ability to express my views in written form(anyone with strong grammar knows it will be a long fight) , but if.  "two in the chest, one in the mouth" is considered rational conversation here, I'll just leave now. please enlighten me to the reality here. Thank you

 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

Oh, the big bad keyboard gangster, you're pathetic, son

Individual and collective self defense is no gangterism, it is an inalienable right endowed by my Creator.

If I must mount a defense of my constitutionally protected speech, so be it, the Second Amendment is for defending the First Amendment.

None of my countrymen would have any quarrel with me for invoking my rights and issuing fair warning to those who would attack me.

What some Canadian has to say about it, doesn't carry any weight where I come from.

[SkyHigh]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

First, your belief that we can 'teach them' seems more than slightly naive. Any number of extremely religious groups have come to Canada and utterly ignored our 'teaching', ranging from the Amish and Mormon fundamentalists to the Hasidim.  By the way, if you don't think we're so much further advanced, culturally, what do you imagine we could teach in the first place?

You invest your opinions with vitriol directed at the way the Catholic Church once behaved while instantly leaping to the defense of Islam, which by any unbiased viewpoint is leagues worse than Catholicism has ever been in this country.

And it's becoming evident you're likely someone we've met before, another visitor from that other place where the far left gnashes its teeth with rage every time they hear a conservative express their views, perhaps? Care to give us your previous name or do we need to guess from your continued frothing?

Someone you've met before????

Seems like you're projecting some predetermined bias you have on me, this is the first and only forum i have ever posted on, no idea what this other place you speak of is or why you're attributing any sort of political leaning to me seeing as i haven't professed any.

But you keep on making up a cabal coming after you

[SkyHigh]

9 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

leaping to the defense of Islam

Defending islam? Not even slightly. Im saying they're all bad you're determined to separate the two, im simply pointing out the similarities.

I was raised in a very religious home, and my parents were a great example of the love Christianity can inspire, but at the same time are against the civil union of same sex couples because the Bible says so. Of course they aren't actively hunting them down, but thats because in their heada god will judge them. This is two loving, accepting people that still have draconian views on many socially excepted practices. If you think pointing out the doctrine of a specific religion is bashing it, that speaks to the faith and not me quoting scripture

Edited November 14, 2019 by SkyHigh

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Seems like you're projecting some predetermined bias you have on me, this is the first and only forum i have ever posted on,

I don't believe you. The instant resort to accusations people don't like 'brown people' simply because they express a distrust for Islam is not like someone inexperienced in these sorts of on-line discussions. That is always the first resort of the far left to anyone who questions any aspect of immigration on-line.

[Argus]

Just now, SkyHigh said:

Defending islam? Not even slightly. Im saying they're all bad you're determined to separate the two, im simply pointing out the similarities.

And I'm pointing out the vast differences in how their believers behave. And yes, defending Islam. The instant I suggested that perhaps bringing in tens of thousands of extremely religious people every year might not be a good idea your knee jerked and you began whining about how I don't like brown people and that of course we must bring them in. That is hardly the response of someone who dislikes all religions. Far from it, in fact.

 

[WestCanMan]

On 11/12/2019 at 8:06 PM, PPC2019 said:

But when you're the official head of state. That is your duty.

IMO Queen Elizabeth has one of the crappiest jobs on earth. She has to be 1,000,000% politically correct every second of her life. She can never express a genuine opinion or just hop on a motorbike and go for a ride. She just has to nod and smile all the time. 

In theory she's a Queen, but in reality she lives a life of complete servitude.

If I had to meet with Adam Schiff or Justin Trudeau and pretend to respect them I'd only last .002 of a second in her job. No thanks.

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I don't believe you. The instant resort to accusations people don't like 'brown people' simply because they express a distrust for Islam is not like someone inexperienced in these sorts of on-line discussions. That is always the first resort of the far left to anyone who questions any aspect of immigration on-line.

Instant resort? i think i suggested once that may be the case, find my quote ill explain if i can.

Dude compare my vocabulary to how poor my grammar is, i written more in the last 6 days as i have in rhe last six years.

Why you feel the need to put me in some box you've invented i couldn't say, id i were to guess its easier for you to invent some enemy to justify the fact you have no real argument.

Show me one example of where i said either christanity was worse then islam and/or anywhere i said i supported anything islam teaches( the anecdote about my buddy that drinks and smokes is not)

So again, i don't like Islam and have never participated in this type of median before

[Rue]

6 hours ago, PPC2019 said:

That sounds ridiculous. You actually believe that kind of crap?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jxwulrq_KU

https://truth11.com/2016/06/12/reptilianqueen-queen-elizabeth-shapeshifting-on-live-tv-goes-viral/

https://sinnnitreee.blogspot.com/2005/02/reptilian-bloodlinesthe-illuminati.html

 

• • 

 

 

 

Who me ridiculous?

 

• 

 

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

IMO Queen Elizabeth has one of the crappiest jobs on earth. She has to be 1,000,000% politically correct every second of her life. She can never express a genuine opinion or just hop on a motorbike and go for a ride. She just has to nod and smile all the time. 

In theory she's a Queen, but in reality she lives a life of complete servitude.

If I had to meet with Adam Schiff or Justin Trudeau and pretend to respect them I'd only last .002 of a second in her job. No thanks.

It was the making of a man named : Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur John Bigge, 1st Baron Stamfordham, GCB, GCIE, GCVO, KCSI, KCMG, ISO, PC

Lord Stamfordham invented the House of Windsor.   He was a monarchist in the classical sense, he was dedicated to protecting the King.

He was the one who chose the name Windsor to replace Saxe-Coburg Gotha : in the First World War  backlash against monarchy and Germans in Britain.

He was the one who convinced George V to remake the monarchy into a rule of public service.

To appeal to the lower classes, to embrace the lower classes, to serve the lower classes, to be the People's King.

He was the one who convinced the King to throw the Czar under the bus : cannot give him sanctuary,  the people view him as a tyrant.

Worked out brilliantly, soon as they became the Windsor's and started to go out amongst the people and embrace them, George V became the People's King.

The Prince of Wales, Edward VIII did not embrace it, so that is why they forced him to abdicate, his own mother ordered it in the end.

Instead they passed the Crown onto his bother Bertie, and Bertie passes the Rule of Public Service on to his daughter Elizabeth.

 

 

[SkyHigh]

Someone asked me about wearing the burka(which i said i was against) you said "tens of thousands" the number of them is actually less by more then ten fold. You chose to to infer that a small majority of extremists are a representation of a much larger community. 

Answer me this do you think that out of a billion Christians spread out over thousands of denominations some still hold views that are literal interpretations of books like Leviticus? If the answer is yes(and it will be if you're being honest) then we agree, that's all i am or have said, again my wish is that no theocracy thrives regardless of which god it proports to serve

[Argus]

44 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Instant resort? i think i suggested once that may be the case, find my quote ill explain if i can.

I asked a perfectly reasonable question which did not insult you in any way, and you replied by insulting me.

If you feel that this and the religious values and attitude behind it have no place in a modern society, should we not, at the least, stop importing tens of thousands of people who DO believe in it into our country every year?

Its evident your slanted, self-righteous indignation, is based solely on opinion, and i would even suggest simply a ruse to go after brown people, but i may be wrong

Would you care to rephrase your answer?

Why you feel the need to put me in some box you've invented i couldn't say, id i were to guess its easier for you to invent some enemy to justify the fact you have no real argument.

I have plenty of arguments. I haven't put you into a box. You put yourself there by imitating so many others online in resorting to accusations of racism even before anyone has even mentioned race.

Show me one example of where i said either christanity was worse then islam

You haven't. But you reacted with insults when people suggested Islam is worse than Christianity, which is demonstrably true. There have been tens of thousands of terrorist attacks in the name of Islam in the last decade vs a mere handful in the name of Christianity. The Catholic church might not be willing to marry gays but it doesn't call for them to be executed. Nor do Catholic priests call for people who have blasphemed to be murdered, the way some Imams and mullahs do in the Muslim world.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Argus

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,  

Stay on topic or start a new thread.  

Avoid making the discussions personal or move on down to the Clubs section.  

[Dougie93]

The thing about George V,  was that he wasn't a great leader.   He wasn't a King who led his people, he was recluse and eccentric.

But this is why it worked, because George V was willing  to be led by his people, to let them lead him where they wanted to go.

The other monarchs insisted on being in control, which is why they were overthrown.

By just letting go, and going with the flow, George V saved his Crown.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Someone asked me about wearing the burka(which i said i was against) you said "tens of thousands" the number of them is actually less by more then ten fold. You chose to to infer that a small majority of extremists are a representation of a much larger community. 

Here's the thing. I don't know how many people come over here every year with burkas, but even one is too many. But we do bring in tens of thousands of Muslim believers every year. And most of those women wear the hadith, and most of those men and women have been raised in an Islamic doctrine which is violently homophobic, antisemitic, and hateful towards unbelievers.  You say there are a small number of extremists. But organizations like PEW research do wide scale surveys of opinions throughout the Muslim world. Those surveys show that in many Muslim countries upwards of 70-80% support death for apostates and blasphemers and adulterers. So I wouldn't call extremists a very small number. There are 57 Muslim majority countries in the world. Not one treats women equal to men in law. Not one treats non-Muslims as the equals to Muslims under the law. Not one.

5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Answer me this do you think that out of a billion Christians spread out over thousands of denominations some still hold views that are literal interpretations of books like Leviticus? If the answer is yes(and it will be if you're being honest) then we agree, that's all i am or have said, again my wish is that no theocracy thrives regardless of which god it proports to serve

You can find any number of beliefs spread through that many people. But no mainstream Christian church has attempted to preach the views of Leviticus as any sort of guide for life in a very, very long time. No mainstream Christian church ever calls for people to be persecuted, for people to be killed because their views differ. Hell, the Catholic Church in Ireland excommunicated IRA members whenever they found them. The same cannot be said of Islam and its clergy. Death for blaspheme, the criminalizing of homosexuality, the inferior status of women are not simply oddities but absolute mainstream in the Islamic world.

[Dougie93]

It's like the Royals didn't like football.   Football was the game of the lower classes.

George V insisted that they embrace football, that they attend and enjoy football, or else.

George V was he first King to ever attend a football match.

[Dougie93]

Prior to George V no monarch ever went amongst the people, the people were kept away, the King was kept out of reach.

George V changed all that,  he is the first King to go and meet face to face with his people.

[SkyHigh]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

I asked a perfectly reasonable question which did not insult you in any way, and you replied by insulting me.

 

=

You literally said im someone you know from some random website you didn't even mention how is that putting me in a box?

No mainstream church uses Leviticus? You're saying the Catholics or the baptists support same sex marriage? Thats from Leviticus or Deuteronomy take your pick

Insulted you how so? 

The hijab and the burka are very different things, how many nurses do you see wearing one, a lot here in Montreal, go to any highschool their hijab matches their nail polish. The hijab is more akin with the kippah or a crucifix something worn more from pride then obedience.

But keep calling me part of some nefarious lefty cabal, hiding in the shadows using multiple accounts to try and take you down, you may need to get some help for the paranoia though

[Argus]

Just now, SkyHigh said:

You literally said im someone you know from some random website you didn't even mention how is that putting me in a box?

No mainstream church uses Leviticus? You're saying the Catholics or the baptists support same sex marriage? Thats from Leviticus or Deuteronomy take your pick

for the paranoia though

You're truly hopeless.

You remind me of a talk Douglas Murray gave on Islam. And he said that as a gay man he wishes the Catholic church would sanction gay marriage, but they're not going to, and in the meantime, he wishes some of those people who are so proud to tell him how they protested against the pope would devote just a little of their righteous disapproval to those who want to throw him off a F**king building.