I have never believed this and never will. Does anyone still want this. I never thought this to be an issue, but I keep hearing variations of this today.
Divine right and Asension
2,954 Views |
37 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by BluHorseShu
I think the Devine will allow me to ascend because of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.revvie said:
I have never believed this and never will. Does anyone still want this. I never thought this to be an issue, but I keep hearing variations of this today.
Sir, this is a Windy's politics board. R&P is Forum 15.
Trump will fix it.
Good answer
so you are saying it blows?techno-ag said:
Sir, this is a Windy's politics board. R&P is Forum 15.
No, absolutely not.revvie said:
I have never believed this and never will. Does anyone still want this. I never thought this to be an issue, but I keep hearing variations of this today.
Did you see what happened to Europe between 1000 and 1900 under this system?
Europe is much safer under the guidance of the EU going forward.
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
But look at the results.DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
Europe accomplished very little until 1945 when democracies and bureaucracies took over. Very little advancement was made before then, but Europe is stronger than ever under the new EU regime. Check out the latest economic numbers.
God told the Israelites they didn't need a king. Based on the ratio of good kings to bad kings they had once they got what they wanted, I'd say I'd like to continue avoiding monarchies.
DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
Because as we know, absolute power in one person is totally safe and does no damage at all.
Sapper Redux said:DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
Because as we know, absolute power in one person is totally safe and does no damage at all.
Helluva lot easier to kill a king than it is to kill a legislative, judicial and executive
DeProfundis said:Sapper Redux said:DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
Because as we know, absolute power in one person is totally safe and does no damage at all.
Helluva lot easier to kill a king than it is to kill a legislative, judicial and executive
Yeah. Civil war. That always goes well.
Wow. So edgy.
DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
In a totally unintentional way you have just made a great case against a universal suffrage democracy
Aggrad08 said:DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
In a totally unintentional way you have just made a great case against a universal suffrage democracy
In the words of George Carlin, imagine how stupid the average American is; and realize half of the population is dumber than them
Now do the Hapsburgs.
Do we want to play a game where you name a Monarch and then I name a legally elected President or member of Congress that is equally stupid?Sapper Redux said:
Now do the Hapsburgs.
The fun thing about elected representatives is that they are part of a larger body and in the case of the president, responsible to the people and term limited. Monarchs are not, no matter how inbred and ignorant they may be.
DeProfundis said:Aggrad08 said:DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
In a totally unintentional way you have just made a great case against a universal suffrage democracy
In the words of George Carlin, imagine how stupid the average American is; and realize half of the population is dumber than them
Which half are the dorks who are anti-democracy?
You have to be dreaming if you feel that our elected are responsible to the people. Look at the expense accounts of our elected officials and you'll find lavish spending that would color the face of a Borgia.Sapper Redux said:
The fun thing about elected representatives is that they are part of a larger body and in the case of the president, responsible to the people and term limited. Monarchs are not, no matter how inbred and ignorant they may be.
The greatest societies this world has ever known have had their roots in under authoritarian forms of government. Feudal Japan, Imperial China, The Catholic Kingdoms of Europe and Caliphates of North Africa and the Arabian peninsula all great engines of scientific,artistic and cultural innovation.
In the more modern period the 'Strong Man' has been a great protector when faced by marauding hordes of godless marxists. Ioannis Metaxas, Generalissimo Franco, Augosto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew, and even Pope St.John Paul II all authoritarian all great victors over the scourge of marxism.
Those are called "adults". If you think the best way to run a body is to allow everyone to have an equal say; Godspeed; but I can tell you as a business owner, if I let everyone vote for what their compensation should be we would be out of business quite soon.craigernaught said:DeProfundis said:Aggrad08 said:DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
In a totally unintentional way you have just made a great case against a universal suffrage democracy
In the words of George Carlin, imagine how stupid the average American is; and realize half of the population is dumber than them
Which half are the dorks who are anti-democracy?
Bustup, who is the owner of the government and how should that be decided?
Who do you want to answer?craigernaught said:
Bustup, who is the owner of the government and how should that be decided?
I can tell you what our founding fathers said: White men of Good character
I can tell you what the founders of Western Civilization said: The King and his first born son.
As for me, I can see the fruits of Democracy. They're not great. I have also seen Singapore; Qatar, the UAE and Oman; they seem pretty nice to me.
I want you to answer Bustup. Which you didn't.
Sure, but that's the difference between a business and a government.DeProfundis said:Those are called "adults". If you think the best way to run a body is to allow everyone to have an equal say; Godspeed; but I can tell you as a business owner, if I let everyone vote for what their compensation should be we would be out of business quite soon.craigernaught said:DeProfundis said:Aggrad08 said:DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
In a totally unintentional way you have just made a great case against a universal suffrage democracy
In the words of George Carlin, imagine how stupid the average American is; and realize half of the population is dumber than them
Which half are the dorks who are anti-democracy?
People are small-minded and greedy when it comes to business, but when it comes time for people to put on their voter hats, they change.
They become broad-minded and willing to delay gratification, focused on investing in the future and voting for responsible government.
I just don't think you like my answer. It depends on the type of government and who you ask. You act like "Who decides" isn't the quintessential answer to every form of government and can be answered with quick throwaway response.craigernaught said:
I want you to answer Bustup. Which you didn't.
Go back and read my first response on this thread. I would rather have a King then a uniparty talking head who is nothing more than a lever pulling robot for competing special interests. If I have to spell it out for you; the King would be the government, and he would govern by the consent of his subjects in that if he wasn't a good King, they would kill him as has been done numerous times throughout history.
Indeed, this is why I have no worry about social security or other entitlement programs. Surely a candidate can just make a reasoned case on why they need to be curtailed showing the outflows vs the inflows, and the voter will understand; cooler heads will prevail and it won't be kryptonite that will instantly lose 33% of the voting bloc.Serotonin said:Sure, but that's the difference between a business and a government.DeProfundis said:Those are called "adults". If you think the best way to run a body is to allow everyone to have an equal say; Godspeed; but I can tell you as a business owner, if I let everyone vote for what their compensation should be we would be out of business quite soon.craigernaught said:DeProfundis said:Aggrad08 said:DeProfundis said:
I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.
In a totally unintentional way you have just made a great case against a universal suffrage democracy
In the words of George Carlin, imagine how stupid the average American is; and realize half of the population is dumber than them
Which half are the dorks who are anti-democracy?
People are small-minded and greedy when it comes to business, but when it comes time for people to put on their voter hats, they change.
They become broad-minded and willing to delay gratification, focused on investing in the future and voting for responsible government.
DeProfundis said:I just don't think you like my answer. It depends on the type of government and who you ask. You act like "Who decides" isn't the quintessential answer to every form of government and can be answered with quick throwaway response.craigernaught said:
I want you to answer Bustup. Which you didn't.
Go back and read my first response on this thread. I would rather have a King then a uniparty talking head who is nothing more than a lever pulling robot for competing special interests. If I have to spell it out for you; the King would be the government, and he would govern by the consent of his subjects in that if he wasn't a good King, they would kill him as has been done numerous times throughout history.
Obviously I don't like your answer. It's really stupid. You've been spouting this type of nonsense for years. Eventually you break forum rules one way or the other, get banned again, and then make a new username and pretend you're someone else.
You didn't answer. Because you can't or because you think answering it will make your position look even worse than it is. Pretending that "consent of the king's subjects" is just who gets murdered is moronic. Good rulers have been murdered. Bad ones have ruled for a long time.
This place has become an absolute dumpster fire.
Again, you are making the mistake of measuring people in two different domains.
Yes, most Americans can't balance a personal budget, but that is because they are tempted by fun treats and can't resist. A little retail therapy is good for the soul!
But when it comes to voting, Americans put on their responsible citizen caps and don the virtues of patience, careful listening, and restraint. A thorough investigation of the candidates, their platforms, and potential long-term effects of any policy proposals and complex trade agreements: this is the order of the day for the responsible voter.
Yes, most Americans can't balance a personal budget, but that is because they are tempted by fun treats and can't resist. A little retail therapy is good for the soul!
But when it comes to voting, Americans put on their responsible citizen caps and don the virtues of patience, careful listening, and restraint. A thorough investigation of the candidates, their platforms, and potential long-term effects of any policy proposals and complex trade agreements: this is the order of the day for the responsible voter.
craigernaught said:DeProfundis said:I just don't think you like my answer. It depends on the type of government and who you ask. You act like "Who decides" isn't the quintessential answer to every form of government and can be answered with quick throwaway response.craigernaught said:
I want you to answer Bustup. Which you didn't.
Go back and read my first response on this thread. I would rather have a King then a uniparty talking head who is nothing more than a lever pulling robot for competing special interests. If I have to spell it out for you; the King would be the government, and he would govern by the consent of his subjects in that if he wasn't a good King, they would kill him as has been done numerous times throughout history.
Obviously I don't like your answer. It's really stupid. You've been spouting this type of nonsense for years. Eventually you break forum rules one way or the other, get banned again, and then make a new username and pretend you're someone else.
You didn't answer. Because you can't or because you think answering it will make your position look even worse than it is. Pretending that "consent of the king's subjects" is just who gets murdered is moronic. Good rulers have been murdered. Bad ones have ruled for a long time.
This place has become an absolute dumpster fire.
It's a dumpster fire because one guy doesn't agree with you?
craigernaught said:DeProfundis said:I just don't think you like my answer. It depends on the type of government and who you ask. You act like "Who decides" isn't the quintessential answer to every form of government and can be answered with quick throwaway response.craigernaught said:
I want you to answer Bustup. Which you didn't.
Go back and read my first response on this thread. I would rather have a King then a uniparty talking head who is nothing more than a lever pulling robot for competing special interests. If I have to spell it out for you; the King would be the government, and he would govern by the consent of his subjects in that if he wasn't a good King, they would kill him as has been done numerous times throughout history.
Obviously I don't like your answer. It's really stupid. You've been spouting this type of nonsense for years. Eventually you break forum rules one way or the other, get banned again, and then make a new username and pretend you're someone else.
You didn't answer. Because you can't or because you think answering it will make your position look even worse than it is. Pretending that "consent of the king's subjects" is just who gets murdered is moronic. Good rulers have been murdered. Bad ones have ruled for a long time.
This place has become an absolute dumpster fire.
I'm going to need you to go ahead and unload both barrels on your ideological conjoined twin Sapper Redux, who unless I'm mistaken might have broken a forum rule or two himself, without the class to at least pretend to be another poster.
It's very easy to call someone else stupid, you'll actually note that it's thrown around the playgrounds of elementary schools quite often; which is where your retort belongs.
Every single society on Earth has some form of limited suffrage; our government was created with an extreme form of limited suffrage, and for some reason it was mistaken as a bug rather than a feature of good government.
Democracy released Barabbas, Constantine, warts and all, empowered Christianity to spread across Europe.
Again, going back to business, me making decisions for our business is better both for myself and for the employee themselves even thought they have no say. Increasing their salaries 4-fold would be fantastic for them in the short term, but would be very bad for them in the long term as I would have to close the company. Keeping the decision making in my hands ensures that this does not happen.
He's absolutely miserable because someone has a gun to his head and makes him participate in threads he doesn't like. He's a very mature person.The Banned said:craigernaught said:DeProfundis said:I just don't think you like my answer. It depends on the type of government and who you ask. You act like "Who decides" isn't the quintessential answer to every form of government and can be answered with quick throwaway response.craigernaught said:
I want you to answer Bustup. Which you didn't.
Go back and read my first response on this thread. I would rather have a King then a uniparty talking head who is nothing more than a lever pulling robot for competing special interests. If I have to spell it out for you; the King would be the government, and he would govern by the consent of his subjects in that if he wasn't a good King, they would kill him as has been done numerous times throughout history.
Obviously I don't like your answer. It's really stupid. You've been spouting this type of nonsense for years. Eventually you break forum rules one way or the other, get banned again, and then make a new username and pretend you're someone else.
You didn't answer. Because you can't or because you think answering it will make your position look even worse than it is. Pretending that "consent of the king's subjects" is just who gets murdered is moronic. Good rulers have been murdered. Bad ones have ruled for a long time.
This place has become an absolute dumpster fire.
It's a dumpster fire because one guy doesn't agree with you?
Serotonin said:
Again, you are making the mistake of measuring people in two different domains.
Yes, most Americans can't balance a personal budget, but that is because they are tempted by fun treats and can't resist. A little retail therapy is good for the soul!
But when it comes to voting, Americans put on their responsible citizen caps and don the virtues of patience, careful listening, and restraint. A thorough investigation of the candidates, their platforms, and potential long-term effects of any policy proposals and complex trade agreements: this is the order of the day for the responsible voter.
'Responsible' added multiple times for good measure, so as not to overplay the troll (I assume).
Edit: to be clear, that word was not in your earlier response so it stands out in this one.
Yes, they are responsive to the people. Imperfection and the existence of some corruption does not place them on the same level as the dictators and murderers you admire. As for scientific, artistic, and cultural innovation, the greatest advances of these have happened in more open, pluralistic societies. Even during the early modern era, more open societies like Venice, Florence, the Netherlands, and England, saw greater cultural innovation than revanchist states. Certainly amongst your idols, the only thing they were good at was murder. Yew is the only outlier and it's not surprising that he wasn't interested in book burnings and fascism.DeProfundis said:You have to be dreaming if you feel that our elected are responsible to the people. Look at the expense accounts of our elected officials and you'll find lavish spending that would color the face of a Borgia.Sapper Redux said:
The fun thing about elected representatives is that they are part of a larger body and in the case of the president, responsible to the people and term limited. Monarchs are not, no matter how inbred and ignorant they may be.
The greatest societies this world has ever known have had their roots in under authoritarian forms of government. Feudal Japan, Imperial China, The Catholic Kingdoms of Europe and Caliphates of North Africa and the Arabian peninsula all great engines of scientific,artistic and cultural innovation.
In the more modern period the 'Strong Man' has been a great protector when faced by marauding hordes of godless marxists. Ioannis Metaxas, Generalissimo Franco, Augosto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew, and even Pope St.John Paul II all authoritarian all great victors over the scourge of marxism.
Was slavery a feature of good government in the early republic? Would slavery be best for your employees since you know better than them?DeProfundis said:craigernaught said:DeProfundis said:I just don't think you like my answer. It depends on the type of government and who you ask. You act like "Who decides" isn't the quintessential answer to every form of government and can be answered with quick throwaway response.craigernaught said:
I want you to answer Bustup. Which you didn't.
Go back and read my first response on this thread. I would rather have a King then a uniparty talking head who is nothing more than a lever pulling robot for competing special interests. If I have to spell it out for you; the King would be the government, and he would govern by the consent of his subjects in that if he wasn't a good King, they would kill him as has been done numerous times throughout history.
Obviously I don't like your answer. It's really stupid. You've been spouting this type of nonsense for years. Eventually you break forum rules one way or the other, get banned again, and then make a new username and pretend you're someone else.
You didn't answer. Because you can't or because you think answering it will make your position look even worse than it is. Pretending that "consent of the king's subjects" is just who gets murdered is moronic. Good rulers have been murdered. Bad ones have ruled for a long time.
This place has become an absolute dumpster fire.
I'm going to need you to go ahead and unload both barrels on your ideological conjoined twin Sapper Redux, who unless I'm mistaken might have broken a forum rule or two himself, without the class to at least pretend to be another poster.
It's very easy to call someone else stupid, you'll actually note that it's thrown around the playgrounds of elementary schools quite often; which is where your retort belongs.
Every single society on Earth has some form of limited suffrage; our government was created with an extreme form of limited suffrage, and for some reason it was mistaken as a bug rather than a feature of good government.
Democracy released Barabbas, Constantine, warts and all, empowered Christianity to spread across Europe.
Again, going back to business, me making decisions for our business is better both for myself and for the employee themselves even thought they have no say. Increasing their salaries 4-fold would be fantastic for them in the short term, but would be very bad for them in the long term as I would have to close the company. Keeping the decision making in my hands ensures that this does not happen.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
8h ago
4.7k
12:07
7h ago
8.1k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
22h ago
1.0k
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger