The Politics of Members

[The Colonel]

Fascist

Stalfos
Fred

Extreme Nationalist

ZiaAries
myron myron
Big Ben

Conservative

The Chairman

Liberal Centre

Ivan Diederhoff
Cambridge

Socialist

The Colonel
franfran

Radical Parties/Green

Beekeeper

Communism

None

Add yourself in, etc.

[Stalfos]

PROOF THAT I'M A FAŞCIST.

The Colonel desperately wants to believe in this idealistic utopia, where all fellow retards are equal and everybody superior is an extremist "rightist". He thinks that all atheists are the same. The funny thing is, I'm an atheist myself, which totally rapes his idealistic utopia for one. Click here to see the evidence.

The Colonel desperately needs a big government to babysit him. He is not man enough to take care of himself. Thence his support for oligarchy and collectivism.

Check out how he fails to reply to my post in which I completely r**** his views on the UK, his queen, etc.

Is it not funny how he ignores my reply in this thread as well?. Every time, this retard gets owned and he still tries to pretend like is the man. He got owned on the homosexuality issue, bible issue and everything else.

The Colonel, what a liberal piece of S***.

Thread: Better start teaching the Koran to your kids!

I will defend the Crown.

My reply to that which you have been dodging:

First of all, a monarchism is wrong and that's putting it lightly. Monarchism is nepotism. It favors people from a particular family because they are from that family. That's 100% wrong because if you are talented in doing something, that doesn't mean that your children will be equally talented. Talent and intelligence is not being passed down from one generation to another. It can have influence, but it is not being passed down from one generation to another. That's a scientific fact. Thus, monarchism, like anything else that is nepotism, is wrong and makes no sense. It's dangerous to give someone without having any intelligence or talents so much power. The queen or king may have the IQ of a mentally retarded person and still be given such powers. That's insane.

Secondly, monarchism is also oligarchism, which means that monarchy is the "rule of a few". Only a particular group of people is given certain ruling rights. That is always wrong. Collectivism and oligarchism can only lead and operate under a big government. By default, an oligarchy is a form of autocracy. Thus, a type of dictatorship because only a few are in charge. The government must be small and serve only to protect its people. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything more than a small government means automatically that there will be less individual rights and freedoms.

With that said, it is no surprise that the UK has no freedoms or individual rights. There is no such a thing as the First Amendment in the UK, like there is in the USA. The UK law is crap and makes no sense. That's why Jacqui Smit is able to r**** freedom of speech in the UK. Nobody can sue her because the UK law guarantees no freedom of speech. The UK had adopted the EU constitution crap on freedom of speech but that's good enough for the UK, it offers too much freedom. Thus, the UK has imposed a number of addition restrictions on free speech, which literally put religion ABOVE the freedom of speech. UK laws on freedom of speech are without a doubt the worst in the West. Contrary to what you claim, the UK is not civilized. A civilized country guarantees individual rights and freedoms to its people. The UK does not do so.

You have recently posted a message containing verses from the Bible, in order to proof it violent and whatnot. So under the "free speech" laws of the UK, you can be persecuted. That's right. Go on most defending your noble and sovereign lady and lords, while you violate their laws. THEY PUT UNPROVEN CLAIMS ABOVE THE HUMAN RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Even worse, the UK is in DEFENSE of Muslims. The UK is full of Muslims. Islam has only one goal in the UK: the overthrow of the UK government. Islam instructs its followers to overthrow all constitutions and states in favor of an Islamic state and the Shariah law (which sentences people to beheadings and amputations). But you are not allows to criticize them because you have a piece of S*** law and no freedom of speech in your "civilized" country. According to the law of the UK, you are worse than the Muslims.

The UK is a disgusting country with disgusting laws. It's a dictatorship run (literally) by retards. No individual rights, no freedoms.

Admit defeat or defend your arguments

[The Chairman]

...

[Stalfos]

The UK is a disgusting country with disgusting laws. It's a dictatorship run (literally) by retards. No individual rights, no freedoms.

What qualifies you to make that statement..?

Ah, finally a bit of a normal question, but that question requires you to answer one first: why should I answer or respond to whatever you, an authoritarian, says? Why should you be taken serious if you don't accept opposing views?

What else can a country be called that bans Geert Wilders and Michael Savage for their opinions? But then again, you are an authoritarian, so I don't except you to value freedoms.

First of all, a monarchism is wrong and that's putting it lightly. Monarchism is nepotism. It favors people from a particular family because they are from that family. That's 100% wrong because if you are talented in doing something, that doesn't mean that your children will be equally talented. Talent and intelligence is not being passed down from one generation to another. It can have influence, but it is not being passed down from one generation to another. That's a scientific fact. Thus, monarchism, like anything else that is nepotism, is wrong and makes no sense. It's dangerous to give someone without having any intelligence or talents so much power. The queen or king may have the IQ of a mentally retarded person and still be given such powers. That's insane.

Secondly, monarchism is also oligarchism, which means that monarchy is the "rule of a few". Only a particular group of people is given certain ruling rights. That is always wrong. Collectivism and oligarchism can only lead and operate under a big government. By default, an oligarchy is a form of autocracy. Thus, a type of dictatorship because only a few are in charge. The government must be small and serve only to protect its people. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything more than a small government means automatically that there will be less individual rights and freedoms.

With that said, it is no surprise that the UK has no freedoms or individual rights. There is no such a thing as the First Amendment in the UK, like there is in the USA. The UK law is crap and makes no sense. That's why Jacqui Smit is able to r**** freedom of speech in the UK. Nobody can sue her because the UK law guarantees no freedom of speech. The UK had adopted the EU constitution crap on freedom of speech but that's good enough for the UK, it offers too much freedom. Thus, the UK has imposed a number of addition restrictions on free speech, which literally put religion ABOVE the freedom of speech. UK laws on freedom of speech are without a doubt the worst in the West. Contrary to what you claim, the UK is not civilized. A civilized country guarantees individual rights and freedoms to its people. The UK does not do so.

You have recently posted a message containing verses from the Bible, in order to proof it violent and whatnot. So under the "free speech" laws of the UK, you can be persecuted. That's right. Go on most defending your noble and sovereign lady and lords, while you violate their laws. THEY PUT UNPROVEN CLAIMS ABOVE THE HUMAN RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Even worse, the UK is in DEFENSE of Muslims. The UK is full of Muslims. Islam has only one goal in the UK: the overthrow of the UK government. Islam instructs its followers to overthrow all constitutions and states in favor of an Islamic state and the Shariah law (which sentences people to beheadings and amputations). But you are not allows to criticize them because you have a piece of S*** law and no freedom of speech in your "civilized" country. According to the law of the UK, you are worse than the Muslims.

The UK is a disgusting country with disgusting laws. It's a dictatorship run (literally) by retards. No individual rights, no freedoms.

[The Chairman]

...

[Stalfos]

Geert Wilders and Michael Savage..? 2 men qualify you to insult Britain..? Friendly fire would qualify me to insult yours but I don't stoop that low.

Read the entire post before you ask me dumb ass questions:

First of all, a monarchism is wrong and that's putting it lightly. Monarchism is nepotism. It favors people from a particular family because they are from that family. That's 100% wrong because if you are talented in doing something, that doesn't mean that your children will be equally talented. Talent and intelligence is not being passed down from one generation to another. It can have influence, but it is not being passed down from one generation to another. That's a scientific fact. Thus, monarchism, like anything else that is nepotism, is wrong and makes no sense. It's dangerous to give someone without having any intelligence or talents so much power. The queen or king may have the IQ of a mentally retarded person and still be given such powers. That's insane.

Secondly, monarchism is also oligarchism, which means that monarchy is the "rule of a few". Only a particular group of people is given certain ruling rights. That is always wrong. Collectivism and oligarchism can only lead and operate under a big government. By default, an oligarchy is a form of autocracy. Thus, a type of dictatorship because only a few are in charge. The government must be small and serve only to protect its people. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything more than a small government means automatically that there will be less individual rights and freedoms.

With that said, it is no surprise that the UK has no freedoms or individual rights. There is no such a thing as the First Amendment in the UK, like there is in the USA. The UK law is crap and makes no sense. That's why Jacqui Smit is able to r**** freedom of speech in the UK. Nobody can sue her because the UK law guarantees no freedom of speech. The UK had adopted the EU constitution crap on freedom of speech but that's good enough for the UK, it offers too much freedom. Thus, the UK has imposed a number of addition restrictions on free speech, which literally put religion ABOVE the freedom of speech. UK laws on freedom of speech are without a doubt the worst in the West. Contrary to what you claim, the UK is not civilized. A civilized country guarantees individual rights and freedoms to its people. The UK does not do so.

You have recently posted a message containing verses from the Bible, in order to proof it violent and whatnot. So under the "free speech" laws of the UK, you can be persecuted. That's right. Go on most defending your noble and sovereign lady and lords, while you violate their laws. THEY PUT UNPROVEN CLAIMS ABOVE THE HUMAN RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Even worse, the UK is in DEFENSE of Muslims. The UK is full of Muslims. Islam has only one goal in the UK: the overthrow of the UK government. Islam instructs its followers to overthrow all constitutions and states in favor of an Islamic state and the Shariah law (which sentences people to beheadings and amputations). But you are not allows to criticize them because you have a piece of S*** law and no freedom of speech in your "civilized" country. According to the law of the UK, you are worse than the Muslims.

The UK is a disgusting country with disgusting laws. It's a dictatorship run (literally) by retards. No individual rights, no freedoms.

[The Chairman]

...

[Stalfos]

Geert Wilders and Michael Savage..? 2 men qualify you to insult Britain..? Friendly fire would qualify me to insult yours but I don't stoop that low.

What questions..? You already said you wont answer them.

When have I said that I will not answer your questions?

[The Chairman]

...

[Stalfos]

Geert Wilders and Michael Savage..? 2 men qualify you to insult Britain..? Friendly fire would qualify me to insult yours but I don't stoop that low.

What questions..? You already said you wont answer them.

When have I said that I will not answer your questions?

When you said that I was an "authoritarian"...you must have a short memory.

What a debater you are: "When you said that I was an "authoritarian"...you must have a short memory". Wow.

[The Chairman]

...

[DanMc]

Fascist

Stalfos
Fred

Extreme Nationalist

ZiaAries
myron myron
Big Ben

Conservative

The Chairman

Liberal Centre

Ivan Diederhoff
Cambridge

Socialist

The Colonel
franfran
DanMc

Radical Parties/Green

Beekeeper

Communism

None

Add yourself in, etc.

[Stalfos]

Fascist

Stalfos
Fred

Extreme Nationalist

ZiaAries
myron myron
Big Ben

Conservative

The Chairman

Liberal Centre

Ivan Diederhoff
Cambridge

Socialist

The Colonel
franfran
DanMc

Radical Parties/Green

Beekeeper

Communism

None

Add yourself in, etc.

PROOF THAT I'M A FAŞCIST.

[Colonel Angus]

- If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.

[Lena]

Practical liberal...............

PROOF THAT I AM A PRACTICAL LIBERAL .