Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2014, 06:19 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(05-01-2014 07:51 AM)morondog Wrote:  Hey OP, you gonna make a case or were you just posting a lame OP so you can say...

No, I am not making a case or attempting to argue a point. I'm explaining my position and thoughts, as requested by Revenant77x.

(04-01-2014 09:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok lets start with an easy one you said you favor a catholic monarchy, why is this?



- - - - -


(05-01-2014 05:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Communism best represents the hierarchy one can expect in Heaven.
No, I'm not talking about the economic model that will be followed in Heaven, but it's an interesting thing to ponder. "Will there be possessions?" I know I've read that we get mansions, and that we inherit crowns according to our deeds in this life, which we throw at the feet of Christ. But Heaven and Hell's economic models are another thread entirely.

- - - - -


(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So basically you accept choosing a ruler based on who their parents were rather than on their qualifications?

Yes, essentially. It is a political model based on that of the Almighty. The Father, Creator of the Universe, and His Son, Christ. And, of course, let us not forget Jesus Christ's Holy Mother, Mary, Queen of Heaven.

Qualifications? Those become built in to the education of the children inheriting the position.

Here on earth, it is a political model, not a recipe for perfection. I do not believe that utopia can be reached in this fallen world. Mortal men are left to themselves to run things, leaving room for imperfections--all you need for that example is to look at all of the Church's dirty laundry, of course. But in my opinion, it is best to find the most ideal model and do our utmost with it.

(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ... and you do so based on the idea that revolutions often don't really benefit the people?

Revolutions? I never stated I wanted a king through revolution. Revolutions have typically ended up badly. We were fortunate here in America, I suppose. For the most part, I view revolutions as a satanic thing.

(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ...and you think that if you have a hereditary monarch people will rebel more and the king would have to comply with the will of the people more?

The people might rebel more. Who knows? A Catholic monarch on this continent will never happen in my lifetime, and I cannot predict that scenario. But no, the king would not have to comply with the will of the people.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. My shift from Ron Paul Republican to pro-Catholic Monarchy was a transformation in my thought. I do not want now what I used to.

Before, I thought that the will of the people would be best represented through Ron Paul. But now, I acknowledge that President Obama is precisely what this country wants. In our "democratic republic," who am I to deny the majority?

But now, as I apply my Christian thought to it and recall that the majority of people are wrong--then I DO NOT want the majority to have their way. I would prefer that--ideally--a Catholic Monarch would run things in a Catholic manner. Because, of course, I believe that the pure institution of the Catholic Church is flawless. Of course, in reality men are flawed and it wouldn't run so idealistically, but it'd be something to shoot for.

(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  And you also think this logic applies in heaven? You think that God will have to comply with the will of the people?

No. Again, my mind changed over these past few years. I am no longer interested in the will of the people. I am interested in the Will of God. In Heaven, the people will have to comply with God's Will, and that is what I want to ultimately see.


- - -


(05-01-2014 08:00 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  That means that I am also ok with monarchy as long as the monarch is appointed by the people, like it is in Spain, The Netherlands and Sweden, and it means that a monarchy must have a constitution that limits powers as well.
Interesting. I do not know how, ideally, I would want a monarch appointed, nor do I know what limits to his powers I would want. I haven't thought through it this much because I don't see it as being feasible. But it's something to consider in the future.

Quote:You seem to believe in that outdated concept that a party - as soon as it is elected - can do however it want until reelected. The concept is authoritarian and does not belong into any democratic society. Compromising with the opposition is an essential part of any democratic society if it wants to work.
I do not know where you got that idea. First of all, I'm making it clear that I do not have faith in any of the parties. But I never said that once Ron Paul hypothetically got elected, he'd transform the country effortlessly into a libertarian utopia. He'd probably have opposition every single day—hourly, even—and he would hardly get anything done at all. The Congress, the media, Hollywood—everything would be against him if he actually became president. But he did not.

Quote:Yes! I see it as your countries greatest weakness that you have a two party system and that your state electoralseat ways of electing a president makes no sence.
Yeah. This whole idea of two parties, Republicans and Democrats, is just a big stupid game of lies.

Quote:Dont get this wrong.
I wont watch it.
Because I dont accept videos or historic quotes as arguments in a debate. If there are important arguments in this video, please summerise them.
Again, I'm not debating. I'm explaining my thoughts and answering questions. I doubt I will sway anyone on this forum at all.
But you really should watch the video. It's interesting. I provided it for intellectual amusement. Coulombe contrasts the practicality of the previous British monarch with the rash revolutionary government that took over.
I think one of the most interesting statements that Coulombe made was something like: "It's far better to be ruled by a King who has the fear of God, than by a committee or system that does not." Or something like that. Meh. Coulombe is a witty guy.

Quote:Not everyone believes in your religion and what you believe heaven is like.

Well, yes. I am aware of that. When I idealize about a Catholic Monarchy ruling this nation, I do so ideally. In reality, we're getting Hillary in 2016 because the people and the powers that be want her in office for when the economy collapses.

Quote:catholic rule over protestants and protestant rule over catholics in Europe has caused some of the worst and bloodiest attrocities in European history.

When the protestant Dutch demanded independence from catholic Spain, the Pope sentenced all Dutch people to death and started a very bloody 80 year war

Now, this is interesting. Do you have any citations of that pronouncement? Or perhaps an article? I genuinely am interested to read your source. The Protestant Revolt is a new fascination for me these past few years.

Quote: In fact for the past 400 years, from the Hugenot massacres in France to the brutal supression of catholicism in Poland after it`s partition, almoust all wars in Europe were fought between catholic and protestant nations.

Nifty to hear someone refer to the Hugenots. My 12th great grandfather died in the Battle of Dreux, or so I'm told. And yet, another 12th great grandfather was an English Recusant, courtesy of Queen Elizabeth.
Let's not forget the Soviet takeovers of Eastern Europe, or Hitler for that matter.

If we go beyond that 400-year limitation, we have other conflicts, such as the Moslem invastion of Spain and France, the Norman Invastion, and Troy, to name a few. Rome seemed to be rather imperial, too.

I just figure that rulers kill people to ensure their interests, no matter what they are. It is not a Catholic invention. (Nor a Protestant one.)

Quote:It is the reason why all European countries are secular, not because the state is atheist, but because all should be treated equal. Which is a lesson learnd out of 400 very bloody years of conflict between catholics and protestants.

I am uncertain I agree that this is the way things should be, which brings up another interesting question: should all states be treated equally? I'm doubtful, right now.

Quote: A seperation of religious power from governance is required to ensure that secterian conflict is not caused.
I fully disagree with this.

-

Excl On the ignore list: Taqiyya Mockingbird, Hafnof, Bucky Ball, Minimalist, and DemonicLemon
-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 06:31 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
these religious politic scientists wannabes are worse than natural sciences religious wannabes (creatards, YECs, et al) because these can actually achieve power and enforce their biblical nonsense

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
05-01-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(05-01-2014 06:19 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 07:51 AM)morondog Wrote:  Hey OP, you gonna make a case or were you just posting a lame OP so you can say...

No, I am not making a case or attempting to argue a point. I'm explaining my position and thoughts, as requested by Revenant77x.

(04-01-2014 09:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok lets start with an easy one you said you favor a catholic monarchy, why is this?



- - - - -


(05-01-2014 05:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Communism best represents the hierarchy one can expect in Heaven.
No, I'm not talking about the economic model that will be followed in Heaven, but it's an interesting thing to ponder. "Will there be possessions?" I know I've read that we get mansions, and that we inherit crowns according to our deeds in this life, which we throw at the feet of Christ. But Heaven and Hell's economic models are another thread entirely.

- - - - -


(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So basically you accept choosing a ruler based on who their parents were rather than on their qualifications?

Yes, essentially. It is a political model based on that of the Almighty. The Father, Creator of the Universe, and His Son, Christ. And, of course, let us not forget Jesus Christ's Holy Mother, Mary, Queen of Heaven.

Qualifications? Those become built in to the education of the children inheriting the position.

Here on earth, it is a political model, not a recipe for perfection. I do not believe that utopia can be reached in this fallen world. Mortal men are left to themselves to run things, leaving room for imperfections--all you need for that example is to look at all of the Church's dirty laundry, of course. But in my opinion, it is best to find the most ideal model and do our utmost with it.

(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ... and you do so based on the idea that revolutions often don't really benefit the people?

Revolutions? I never stated I wanted a king through revolution. Revolutions have typically ended up badly. We were fortunate here in America, I suppose. For the most part, I view revolutions as a satanic thing.

(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ...and you think that if you have a hereditary monarch people will rebel more and the king would have to comply with the will of the people more?

The people might rebel more. Who knows? A Catholic monarch on this continent will never happen in my lifetime, and I cannot predict that scenario. But no, the king would not have to comply with the will of the people.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. My shift from Ron Paul Republican to pro-Catholic Monarchy was a transformation in my thought. I do not want now what I used to.

Before, I thought that the will of the people would be best represented through Ron Paul. But now, I acknowledge that President Obama is precisely what this country wants. In our "democratic republic," who am I to deny the majority?

But now, as I apply my Christian thought to it and recall that the majority of people are wrong--then I DO NOT want the majority to have their way. I would prefer that--ideally--a Catholic Monarch would run things in a Catholic manner. Because, of course, I believe that the pure institution of the Catholic Church is flawless. Of course, in reality men are flawed and it wouldn't run so idealistically, but it'd be something to shoot for.

(05-01-2014 07:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  And you also think this logic applies in heaven? You think that God will have to comply with the will of the people?

No. Again, my mind changed over these past few years. I am no longer interested in the will of the people. I am interested in the Will of God. In Heaven, the people will have to comply with God's Will, and that is what I want to ultimately see.


- - -


(05-01-2014 08:00 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  That means that I am also ok with monarchy as long as the monarch is appointed by the people, like it is in Spain, The Netherlands and Sweden, and it means that a monarchy must have a constitution that limits powers as well.
Interesting. I do not know how, ideally, I would want a monarch appointed, nor do I know what limits to his powers I would want. I haven't thought through it this much because I don't see it as being feasible. But it's something to consider in the future.

Quote:You seem to believe in that outdated concept that a party - as soon as it is elected - can do however it want until reelected. The concept is authoritarian and does not belong into any democratic society. Compromising with the opposition is an essential part of any democratic society if it wants to work.
I do not know where you got that idea. First of all, I'm making it clear that I do not have faith in any of the parties. But I never said that once Ron Paul hypothetically got elected, he'd transform the country effortlessly into a libertarian utopia. He'd probably have opposition every single day—hourly, even—and he would hardly get anything done at all. The Congress, the media, Hollywood—everything would be against him if he actually became president. But he did not.

Quote:Yes! I see it as your countries greatest weakness that you have a two party system and that your state electoralseat ways of electing a president makes no sence.
Yeah. This whole idea of two parties, Republicans and Democrats, is just a big stupid game of lies.

Quote:Dont get this wrong.
I wont watch it.
Because I dont accept videos or historic quotes as arguments in a debate. If there are important arguments in this video, please summerise them.
Again, I'm not debating. I'm explaining my thoughts and answering questions. I doubt I will sway anyone on this forum at all.
But you really should watch the video. It's interesting. I provided it for intellectual amusement. Coulombe contrasts the practicality of the previous British monarch with the rash revolutionary government that took over.
I think one of the most interesting statements that Coulombe made was something like: "It's far better to be ruled by a King who has the fear of God, than by a committee or system that does not." Or something like that. Meh. Coulombe is a witty guy.

Quote:Not everyone believes in your religion and what you believe heaven is like.

Well, yes. I am aware of that. When I idealize about a Catholic Monarchy ruling this nation, I do so ideally. In reality, we're getting Hillary in 2016 because the people and the powers that be want her in office for when the economy collapses.

Quote:catholic rule over protestants and protestant rule over catholics in Europe has caused some of the worst and bloodiest attrocities in European history.

When the protestant Dutch demanded independence from catholic Spain, the Pope sentenced all Dutch people to death and started a very bloody 80 year war

Now, this is interesting. Do you have any citations of that pronouncement? Or perhaps an article? I genuinely am interested to read your source. The Protestant Revolt is a new fascination for me these past few years.

Quote: In fact for the past 400 years, from the Hugenot massacres in France to the brutal supression of catholicism in Poland after it`s partition, almoust all wars in Europe were fought between catholic and protestant nations.

Nifty to hear someone refer to the Hugenots. My 12th great grandfather died in the Battle of Dreux, or so I'm told. And yet, another 12th great grandfather was an English Recusant, courtesy of Queen Elizabeth.
Let's not forget the Soviet takeovers of Eastern Europe, or Hitler for that matter.

If we go beyond that 400-year limitation, we have other conflicts, such as the Moslem invastion of Spain and France, the Norman Invastion, and Troy, to name a few. Rome seemed to be rather imperial, too.

I just figure that rulers kill people to ensure their interests, no matter what they are. It is not a Catholic invention. (Nor a Protestant one.)

Quote:It is the reason why all European countries are secular, not because the state is atheist, but because all should be treated equal. Which is a lesson learnd out of 400 very bloody years of conflict between catholics and protestants.

I am uncertain I agree that this is the way things should be, which brings up another interesting question: should all states be treated equally? I'm doubtful, right now.

Quote: A seperation of religious power from governance is required to ensure that secterian conflict is not caused.
I fully disagree with this.

So you have dramatically shifted your political view but yet don't even know how you would prefer your "Perfect" system to be set up? I asked this of you because I figured you might have some kind of reason but it appears you don't. You heard 1 fat dude bitch whine and moan about the majority and that is as far as you thought it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 06:42 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(05-01-2014 06:19 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  
Quote: A seperation of religious power from governance is required to ensure that secterian conflict is not caused.
I fully disagree with this.

Then you ignore history, you ignore the reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-01-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
What would prevent any monarchy from becoming corrupt?


Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
05-01-2014, 09:39 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(05-01-2014 06:19 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  Interesting. I do not know how, ideally, I would want a monarch appointed, nor do I know what limits to his powers I would want. I haven't thought through it this much because I don't see it as being feasible. But it's something to consider in the future.

Well that did technicaly exist as far as I know in a country that seems to be forgotten by most people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%8...mmonwealth

Alot of people dont know that before the 18th century partition of Poland and the subjugation of the Polish people, Poland was a mjor European superpower of the medieval era and the renaissance.
To be fair it wasnt just Poland but a union out of Poland and Lithuania. In this country they had a kind of council of all noble families in the country and they would elect the king of the country once every (forgotten) years. I was a kind of early proto-democracy. Which is obviously outdated today, especialy when considering how modern the Venician republic already was back then.

Yet it would still not fit into your destinctively theocratic concept of statehood because the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth is famous here especialy for signing the Warsaw Confederation. A declaration of state which formed the first secular constitution by guaranteeing all religions the freedom to practice their faith without fear of prosecution. A concept which would be copied all across Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Confederation

Today monarchs are appointed for example in Spain. And one could say that that monarch was literaly appointed. He was made the successor of state by the brutal fascist dictator Franco, but instead reeinterduced democracy to Spain, which also explains why the Spanish monarchy is so popular in Spain.

In Sweden it is done as a legal formality to guarantee the secular nature of the constitution of the country.

The earliest historic example of a monarch being appointed by the people is the King of Scotland Robert de Bruce. When the other King of Scotland was held in France and was not willing to fight the English occupyers in Scotland, the nobility and clergy of the country made the radical step of writing a declaration that declared that a King who is unwilling to protect and serve the Kingdom of Scotland can be replaced by the people with a King who is willing to protect and serve the Kingdom and is therefor more fit for the throne.

It is known as the declaration of Arbroath and is believed to be in it`s wording one of the legal texts that inspired the constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath

Quote:I do not know where you got that idea. First of all, I'm making it clear that I do not have faith in any of the parties. But I never said that once Ron Paul hypothetically got elected, he'd transform the country effortlessly into a libertarian utopia. He'd probably have opposition every single day—hourly, even—and he would hardly get anything done at all. The Congress, the media, Hollywood—everything would be against him if he actually became president. But he did not.

Your party has a completly screwed two party system. It is the one big weakness of your country. As a liberterian candidate he would have had more of a chance. I believe your country would be better off with 4-5 parties in congress.


Quote:Yeah. This whole idea of two parties, Republicans and Democrats, is just a big stupid game of lies.

The best working countries in Europe have at least 3 parties in parlaiment. It forces people to compromise and debate and eliminates thikheaded idiots who insist on having everything done their way from the political process.

Quote:Again, I'm not debating. I'm explaining my thoughts and answering questions. I doubt I will sway anyone on this forum at all.[/color]
But you really should watch the video. It's interesting. I provided it for intellectual amusement. Coulombe contrasts the practicality of the previous British monarch with the rash revolutionary government that took over.
I think one of the most interesting statements that Coulombe made was something like: "It's far better to be ruled by a King who has the fear of God, than by a committee or system that does not." Or something like that. Meh. Coulombe is a witty guy.

Fear from god? My countries president is a protestant pastor who was a leading figure in the resistance against communism in the east. Yet does him being a pastor make him a better person and politician?????

Some of the greatest leaders aswell as the worst have been atheist and some of the greatest leaders and some of the worst have been religious.

I forgot to mention that in my country, parlaiment (congress) has the ruling power which it shares with the states, the president is merely a ceremonial figure.

Quote:Well, yes. I am aware of that. When I idealize about a Catholic Monarchy ruling this nation, I do so ideally. In reality, we're getting Hillary in 2016 because the people and the powers that be want her in office for when the economy collapses.

Are you saying you would want to have it despite opposition if it were possible?


Quote:Now, this is interesting. Do you have any citations of that pronouncement? Or perhaps an article? I genuinely am interested to read your source. The Protestant Revolt is a new fascination for me these past few years.

Citation? The 80 years war, also known as the Dutch war of independence is famous and I am suprised you dont know about it.

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War

The papal death sentence is something I got from the british educational program QI on the BBC:

http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/9/16/


Quote:Nifty to hear someone refer to the Hugenots. My 12th great grandfather died in the Battle of Dreux, or so I'm told. And yet, another 12th great grandfather was an English Recusant, courtesy of Queen Elizabeth.
Let's not forget the Soviet takeovers of Eastern Europe, or Hitler for that matter.


The soviet take over came out of something essential = WW2. I aswell as every sane person on the planet thinks of Stalin as a brutal mosnter and one of the worst human beings on the planet, but if he had not defeated the Nazis on the eastern front this world would be a much more terrible place.

Nazism wasnt unreligious or atheistic. I am German, I read Mein Kampf and know more about the subject than most non Germans. Hitler rejected various scientific revelations, such as evolution because he believed that all races were created by a god and that it was a godly duty to keep them pure. And he rejected modern physics because he believed it to be a jewish conspiracy.
It is known that various parts of the founding nazis in Bavaria were very catholic and that the catholic antisemitsm of the time fueld the situation alot. The catholic church was divided at that time with some in support and some in resistance to fascism. Yet one cannot deny that religion did play a role in it, especialy when looking at the treatment of the jews as a people and religious community and the fact that the nazis encounterd more resistance in protestant regions than in catholic regions.

One should also remember that the only 2 fascist regimes that survived the war were destinctively catholic - like Francos Spain.

Quote:If we go beyond that 400-year limitation, we have other conflicts, such as the Moslem invastion of Spain and France, the Norman Invastion, and Troy, to name a few. Rome seemed to be rather imperial, too.

And you will also find wars between eastern orthodox and western catholic christians. Other than that, the muslims were at war with European countries even after 1600. The famous Turkish-Austrian wars of the 17th and 18th century, The Russian-Turkish wars that happend pritty much once every 20 years from the 17th to the beginning of the 20th century. And of course the Greek war of independence and the Rumanian and Bulgarian war of independence.

But other than that, well... frontlines such as between France and Germany or Austria and Germany or Sweden and Russia or Sweden and Poland or Poland and Russia or Poland and Germany were drawn initialy by religious differences and these reasons would only start to crumble during the era of revolution in the early 19th century.

Quote:I just figure that rulers kill people to ensure their interests, no matter what they are. It is not a Catholic invention. (Nor a Protestant one.)

And if a government should ever considere killing people then it should be only as a last option and it should benefit the country and not the government.


Quote:I am uncertain I agree that this is the way things should be, which brings up another interesting question: should all states be treated equally? I'm doubtful, right now.

Look at the Warsaw Declaration I posted a link to above. It was writen in 1593 and does not mention atheism. It is however the first ever secular constitution because it guarantees the free practice of religion for all faiths.

Quote:
I fully disagree with this.

Ok. How will you ensure that interducing strickt catholic laws will not cause discontent and protests amongst protestant?

And how do you interpret the 30 years war and others?

(22-05-2014 06:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I abstain from all forms of sexual acts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Germans are coming's post
05-01-2014, 11:49 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
[Image: there-was-a-time-when-religion-ruled-the...design.png]

[Image: racktorture.jpg]

[Image: article-1319804-0B955F01000005DC-985_634x757.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
06-01-2014, 12:09 AM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 02:53 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(05-01-2014 06:19 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  It is a political model based on that of the Almighty. The Father, Creator of the Universe, and His Son, Christ. And, of course, let us not forget Jesus Christ's Holy Mother, Mary, Queen of Heaven.

Qualifications? Those become built in to the education of the children inheriting the position.

Here on earth, it is a political model, not a recipe for perfection. I do not believe that utopia can be reached in this fallen world. Mortal men are left to themselves to run things, leaving room for imperfections--all you need for that example is to look at all of the Church's dirty laundry, of course. But in my opinion, it is best to find the most ideal model and do our utmost with it.

Blah blah blah....
[Image: 612c2a41963c779a0477c6d5b91959a36ab2b351...3127c7.jpg][Image: 552.jpg][Image: ngbbs4bfa8a6888ea9.jpg][Image: epicfail1.jpg][Image: Too+_f6be8c3067bd93de6370b7f74187b6cc.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 02:22 AM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 02:26 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Nah.

Heaven is definitely operating on Communist principles.

I read it in an old book so it must be true.

Yes

Everyone is equal there.

Except the dear leader and his glorious son and the holy imperial guard.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like DLJ's post
06-01-2014, 02:42 AM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 03:06 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(06-01-2014 02:22 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Nah.

Heaven is definitely operating on Communist principles.

I read it in an old book so it must be true.

Yes

Everyone is equal there.

Except the dear leader and his glorious son and the holy imperial guard.
[Image: 6qLjt.gif]

















...because Google search didn't have any sort of .gif I had in mind, of the Weasley Twins blurting, "FUCKING BRILLIANT!"

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: