Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Do we need Royalty


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-44 of 44 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012 18:35:21 BDT
richard says:
well if it's your burglar they must be using their toes to count by now!

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012 20:07:18 BDT
You can keep the premiums down that way, and possibly even dispense with window locks!

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012 20:20:16 BDT
Spin says:
Charliost: Because one fascist decided the other was not doing his job. I lived in a Spanish territory for a few years during the Franco reign. (Las Palmas, off the coast of Africa).I must admit, the social order was excellent despite the political tyranny. No drunken foreign tourists, for a start...=)

Posted on 8 May 2012 20:22:41 BDT
Actually the Qu'ran makes a lot of suggestions you wouldn't necessarily comply with, and sometimes says 'you are in the presence of the prophet'. Of course you are not, as the last prophet died in 6th century Arabia. I still haven't got my head around chopping off a hand and a foot on opposite sides of mischief-makers but I'm working on it.

Posted on 9 May 2012 14:39:07 BDT
Two words: 'President Cameron.'

Get rid of the monachy tomorrow, and that will be the result.

Posted on 9 May 2012 14:55:10 BDT
DP Laing says:
Apart from their charity/referent roles, monarchies have a very important function keeping the newly wealthy ethical.
When remuneration committees for CEOs and their illk are in the royal sphere, they will interact with influential shareholders and desist from their extreme case (current) predation of shareholders a bit.
Equally important is the role of monarchy attesting the victory of the should-be much superior separation of powers of monarchies over republics and their main, invariably anti-theist thinkers, like Machiavelli (the infamous 1500s Vatican Raid commissioner minster of war/mongering), Kant, Hegel, Karl Marx, Nietzsche and their communist and fascesist followers. There is a major problems with deified (powermad and irrational) Great Leaders in republics. Constitutional monarchy wins.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 16:05:54 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 May 2012 16:07:04 BDT
TomC says:
"Two words: 'President Cameron.'"

Well, yes; people always say that. At one time it was "President Thatcher", which as a deterrent was considered even more effective.

The thing is, though, whether it's "President Cameron", "President Johnson" or even "President Clarkson", they will have been put there by a process in which we have all expressed a preference, and they can be removed in the same way. It's called democracy; the argument that democratic choice should not extend to head of state because some people will find the result not to their liking is not one that I find a compelling one.

With the lucky dip that is monarchy, on the other hand, nobody gets to express a preference - not directly, anyway - and the results are often less than engaging. Sadly, you can't get rid of the b*ggers, either.

Posted on 9 May 2012 19:46:43 BDT
Spin says:
People are looking for leadership and direction. Unfortunately no-one in the population of any western nation can provide that. Why? Because populations have been conditioned to accept the status quo. Any alternate political, religious or social philosophy is instantly derided and dismissed. It will take an extraordinary person to tear you from your mindset...

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 20:43:49 BDT
TomC says:
"People are looking for leadership and direction. "

Well, they aren't going to get any from Queenie, are they? She's just made a speech directing the affairs of the country for the next 2 years; every word was written down for her.

"populations have been conditioned to accept the status quo. "

Well - all except you, of course.

"It will take an extraordinary person to tear you from your mindset..."

I have a feeling I may regret this question, but did you have anyone particular in mind?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 21:03:54 BDT
Spin says:
Tom; Yes. I do have someone in mind. Me. Unfortunately, I have a problem walking on water, feeding the starving and resurrecting myself in the morning...

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 21:06:17 BDT
TomC says:
You have just confirmed my worst fears.

Fortunately, treatment is available for your condition.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 21:40:01 BDT
Spin says:
Tom: Are not "your worst fears" exactly the basis of your religious and political beliefs? =) As for my treatment, do you suggest electric-shock therapy or burning at the stake?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 21:53:14 BDT
I'd recommend "the comfy cushions", till you beg for mercy or fall asleep.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 22:28:58 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 May 2012 22:32:14 BDT
TomC says:
"As for my treatment, do you suggest electric-shock therapy or burning at the stake?"

Why do I have to choose? Can't I recommend both?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 22:29:23 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 10 May 2012 00:06:25 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 22:55:53 BDT
I'll delegate that task to my glamorous assistant, Ms. Susan Boyle.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 23:14:12 BDT
Spin says:
Notre: Sorry but I was deleted by Amazon and I forget what my post was...=) Obviously, whatever it was, it offended Western christian and democratic society...But if your reply concerns Susan Boyle, I do not think it was that terrible....(Not that I give a momkeys, but I am wondering how one of my posts resulted in the mention of Susan Boyle. Thanks Amaqzon...)

In reply to an earlier post on 12 May 2012 07:17:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 May 2012 07:20:29 BDT
Hi Spin,

You had suggested that your chosen method of demise would consist of a popular sexual practice which involves oral contact with the male genitalia, performed upon your good self until death resulted.

It certainly sounds preferable to the majority of ways we can "shuffle off this mortal coil".

We'll see if this post sneaks past the puritans.

"Puritanism - The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy"

H. L. Mencken.

Posted on 13 May 2012 23:03:00 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  44
Initial post:  5 May 2012
Latest post:  13 May 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions