Pretty self-explanitory.
what is your favorite form of government?

What can I say, I like the Holy Roman Empire, but I also like democracy. Put the two together: comon elective monarchy.

A multi party publically funded election that is decided by one vote per voter in a proportional representative vote with no threshold should be the system of installing a goverment . Where all policy must be put before the entire assembly to be voted on before it can be enacted as law or official goverment policy . Of course any goverment that meets this criteria will be exterminated at any given chance by the plutocratic elite .

choose one of the given examples, please.

Nah sorry Ive never voted and I dont intend to start now either .

hmm.
good man.
really, i would've chosen absolute monarchy, but i was afraid people here would've wailed on me for being a total monarchist. people in the US are so....democracy-crazy.

brian, youd better vote, if you dont then national, or even worse, act, will win the election. for fucks sake give us either labour or the greens or that other one, (NZ 1st?) the communist one

huh. so you're marxist?
interesting.

brian, youd better vote, if you dont then national, or even worse, act, will win the election. for fucks sake give us either labour or the greens or that other one, (NZ 1st?) the communist one
I will vote for the Anti-Capitalist alliance which stood a candidate at the last election .

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC



1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

uh, cosmic, you seem to miss the fucking point.
I'll say it slooowly:
C H O O S E
O N E
O F
T H E
G I V E N
E X S A M P L E S!!

You did not put Anarchism on the poll.

because anarchy is not a government. anarchy is the 'lack of government.'

hmmmm.
can a mod mayber delete "marxist socialism" from that.
dunno why i put that there.
anti-monarchist *mumbles*

Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more, si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi.

no fucking clue what that means.
what is that, latin?
dont speak latin on my thread, boy. stick to english or german,
and choose, boy.

wait, what. why did you post the definition of "republic", cosmictraveler? was there a point?

Aquiris quodcumque rapis :p
And you poor, little, vulgar, unintelligent barbar, I have already chosen.

you do know im only in freshman year in high school, and that i have never taken a course in latin.
ive said it before at some thread.

why is no-one choosing monarchy?
what is wrong with you people?

because anarchy is not a government. anarchy is the 'lack of government.' Your right I just thought it meant what type of government you prefer including anti-government. "Anarchy is anti-government, anti-rulers, anti-dictators, anti-bosses. . . .Anarchy is the negation of force; the elimination of all authority in social affairs; it is the denial of the right of domination of one man over another. It is the diffusion of rights, of power, of duties, equally and freely among all the people." Albert Parsons on Anarchism.

why is no-one choosing monarchy?
what is wrong with you people?

1. if you ask espect any results not what you want

2. monarchy is the complete rule by one self-a-pointed ruler who has complete control

3. the list of types of government is very ...say limited

uh-huh.
1. i was just wondering why no-one was voting for monarchy, when monarchy is the best government out there.
2. monarchs are not self-appointed. they're mandated by religious institutions, such as chruches, temples, synagues, etc. thats why one is usually coronated by the pope or an archbishop(canterbury) or a patriarch(constantinople).
3. so?

2. ... so some really really rich person apoints them, then they can rule the country how ever they want!!!

thats the premise of it, yeah.
i see nothing wrong with this.

So, you haven't studied politics or law history too, if you can say such a thing.
Have to go now..

whats wrong with it is that this ruler is suppose to do good for the common person right, but they never have helped the common person

or is it that you believe in oppresion of the lower classes (if you believe that classes should exist) that is why monarchy is a good idea

lastly can you please explain in fair detail your political beliefs?

i told you, im in freshman year at high school. i dont fucking know why i have to fucking repeat it fifty fucking times.
I like monarchy, especially if im the monarch or if im at least in the upper crust of the social order. and i would be, counting that my direct ancestor was from the noble Hume clan of scotland, a moderately powerful and influential clan back inthe days of yore (the 1500s-1800s)

so you blindly believe in something, becuase you know that it could bring you a better life at the exspense of millions of others, that seems morally wrong.

so?
your point is?
my point is, choose, and tell why, then blah.

and i dont blindly believe in monarchy.
i have my reasons.

then what are your reasons

usually people in a monarchist or imperial government are happy. the French under Napoleon the 1st were very happy, and had a good legal and court system. its also a lot more stable than democracy, and usually doesnt allow a retard like Bush to come to power by vote.
i'm also decended from noblemen, so its more or less in my veins.

Have you any idea how many retard and insane kings there have been? :bugeye:
With ridiculous and just plainly idiotic laws most of which were designed to rob people.
That's basic pre-high-school medieval history.

In democracy there is a lot bigger chance to chose a better leader. Retard like Bush? In democracy people choose a leader that suits them and their intellect, in monarchy they have not such a choice. Of course they can kill the king if are able to.

which is why i like elective monarchy better than totalitarian dictatorship.

So.. why not elected parlament? You can elect one insane person, but it's harder to elect 100 or more insane persons.

elective monarchy, with the monarch elected by the people to serve a life term, and a parliament in place to keep the monarch in line, but also allowing the monarch veto powers and similar things to a president, but with a noticable and special "monarchy" sense to it.
thats what i implied as the common elective monarchy.

who voted for dictatorship?

so basically you want a presidental democracy with two presidents one of which has a life term and is called "king". Basically you are creating a gov. system which has two heads of state one of which get's a crown.
Unpractical and collision of powers by default. Not approved.
But if you have a country, by all means, do it. You'd have to overthrow a current gov. system though, which means changing a constitution, what never is easy.

what? who said two presidents?
i meant a monarch who consults the parliament for his major decisions.

so, the parlament has veto on monarch? is monarch executive power?
how can parlament limit the monarch?

if, say, the monarch were to suggest a nuclear weapons program, the would have to run it by parliament and get their approval to do so before starting a project. if the monarch were to breach the laws, he would be 'impeached' or something to a relative extent, and the parliament would vote in an interim monarch until one can be elected by the people.
same thing if the monarch wanted to declare war, unless they are are attacked, or if it is immediately urgent to do so.

So, it's a president for life with a fancy name. What's the benefit from it?

figurehead to inspire national patriotism.
no political parties that serve only special-interest groups and big business, which thereform leads to a monarch who is the 'first servant of the state' as Frederick II so eloquently put it.

Well the benifit is if it happened in america; bush could rule forever... and lead it to total destruction

im not talking about america, you dolt.
ive given up on that damn country.
i'm concentrating on Europe, in specific, Austro-Germany and Switzerland areas.

So the foundation of your system is the belief that your mentioned countries can never elect a retard moron ruler?

no, not necisarilly. hopefully, they won't, but the parliament can intervene if the current monarch become too much of a problem.
essentially, the monarch becomes a figurehead with some power. other than that, its the parliament and the people that hold the real power.
like you said, a president for life with a fancy title.
damn it!!

why didnt i just choose absolute monarchy, with me as the fuckin' monarch. thats all I want, anyway.

It's harder than to play Civilization III

im not talking about america, you dolt.
ive given up on that damn country.
i'm concentrating on Europe, in specific, Austro-Germany and Switzerland areas.

LMAO! I havent heard another person ever use the word dolt! ahahahaha cool.

civilization 3 is hard.
fuckin' hate that game.
civilization: call to power is better, and easier.

uh, cosmic, you seem to miss the fucking point.
I'll say it slooowly:
C H O O S E
O N E
O F
T H E
G I V E N
E X S A M P L E S!!


I DON"T LIKE THEM! I WILL CHOOSE THE BEST GOVERNMENT I THINK IS AVAILABLE TODAY, NOT WHAT YOU WANT ME TO CHOOSE.

then why did you post here, on a POLL??

because that is his right

screw rights, this is the internet. this isn't a country, its a computer.

thats true UN laws or the geneva convention dont apply to the internet, those with power make the rules.

possibly because no one thinks it worthy, if you wanted a poll to go your way.
you should have only put two choices monarchy, or monarchy.
it turns, out the one you wanted a moderator, to delete, is the most popular "true marxist Socialism.

Go us! <-- the communists.

exactly.
never should've put marxism there...

thats true UN laws or the geneva convention dont apply to the internet, those with power make the rules.
That's not true. If he downloaded child porn, he could (and would) still be prosecuted by the country he is located at (if that country has laws against child porn). In legal sense Internet is not another planet , the location of the user matters.

not if you delete it from your computer and purge your computer of all downloaded files.
'course, i dunno how to do this on a computer, since ive never done such a thing.
im just speculating.
the location doesnt matter. the internet is not a country, and is therefore UN or other laws do not apply, except for international copyright and hacking laws.
anyway, i should've never put marxism on there...
meh!

not if you delete it from your computer and purge your computer of all downloaded files.
If your internet provider logs are enough to prove what exactly have you downloaded, then no. But it differs from country to country.
the location doesnt matter. the internet is not a country, and is therefore UN or other laws do not apply
I study law long enough to know you're wrong. I even had Physical person data protection rights and internet as any other network (LAN too) is covered there.
If your country has a law that deals with computer networks, all the laws apply to you. Every EU country must have such laws, the USA and Canada has them too. Even Russia has one (though it's pretty ummm not working there).

p.s. Can't deal with reality (marxism)?

who...cares. if someone comes to my house to arrest me, ill shoot him. if someone tries to breach my rights, ill shoot him.

p.s) i can, i just hate marxism now.

Such a simple, primitive, uncomplicated world you have there. Don't moan when reality (or prison) hits you.

what?
im not simple and primitive.
i just hate marxism and communism. no-one benefits extraordinarily, its all equal and the same. nothing prospers.
it'd be good if there was no corruption, but there is a such thing a corruption in every government.

I'm talking about
who...cares. if someone comes to my house to arrest me, ill shoot him. if someone tries to breach my rights, ill shoot him.

I dislike communists too, but I have my own, highly personal reasons.

what if he dosnt live in a country? and exists as a form of AI in the internet , can he be prosecuted?

good for you.

hehe

what if he dosnt live in a country? and exists as a form of AI in the internet , can he be prosecuted?
There is no AI yet, so there aren't any AI specific laws, but be sure there will be once one appears.
It also is dependent on the wording of the legal text.
For example (simplified): Everyone who is located in the country of Latvia is legally binded by the Criminal Law of Latvia.
Everyone means everyone. There are other problems with particulary the criminal law, but as I said, there is no AI yet, so no need for a law about it.
Partly because nobody knows how it will be like.

I know about country based internet laws I was being annoying (and it worked).

" Everyone who is located in the country of Latvia is legally binded by the Criminal Law of Latvia."

Wow what a world we live in... I thought anyone who lived in latvia would be legally binded by the criminal law of jamaica?

okay...
after our foray insto insanity, can we return to the topic?

Everyone covers an AI too.
I was being annoying (and it worked).
Worked only in wasting my time. Good. I congradulate!

back to the topic, ya neonazi!

i bet it was you, avatar, who voted for 'totalitarian dictatorship'

back to the topic, ya neonazi!
Keep your little mouth in order. Ad hominem is bad karma you know.
It also hurts your critical thinking.
I voted for Rome, which I clearly told you by using Latin.

back to the topic, ya neonazi!
Says the one who's offtopicking almost every thread with his silly, backwards absolute monarchy.

oh. well.
nevermind then.
who the fuck voted for dictatorship?

you!

Of course it was he.

no, i voted for people-elected-the-monarch monarchy.

The martian Govt? :D

AHAHA!

This poll is so funny.

From the looks of it, its either that the marxist socialist view is more popular within the sciforum community OR that marxist socialist individuals just tend to vote more than those that believe in elections.

Peace!

no, marxist socialism is the ultimate government everything tends to it, thats why people vote for it.

or we just have a lot of little wanabee communist kiddies here
or people who want to fuck with hapsburg

but it's not...cool.
no-one has ultimate power!
no-one has priveliges or rights!
that's not cool!

Absolute Monarchy is much better, as long as you're of noble descent. If you're not of nobility, then...well, you'd have a problem. I wouldn't have that problem, though.
I am decended from a Scottish Lord, George Hume. I am also descended from King Knud the Great of Denmark.
I am nobility. monarchy is more of less in my veins.

Ahhhh... inbreeding. That explains quite a bit.

:eek: you are totally right, goofyfish!!!

inbreeding?
wtf?
my family's not inbred.
dunno wtf you're thinkin' of...

you know, there's something called "nobles marry nobles from another family"
yeah, get along now, little peasant...
:D

There certainly are a lot of nobles in the USA :rolleyes:
inbreeding diagnosed and approved

Avatar... how can being a socialist make us 'wannabe communists'?

Thats like saying that republicans (those who wish for republics) are wannabe royalists because they are losely resembling politically.

well, Avatar, if you mean "inbreeding within your own royal classification"
that'd be a no.
my grandmother wasn't of noble descent. she was related to Daniel Boone's wife's sister, but...

if you mean "interbreeding within the family"
thats also a no.
people that i know aren't that f***ed up.

To Hapsburg:

Actually, when you look at the history of royals, eventhough they married with other noble families, given that there aren't that many kingdoms in Europe and that daughters and sons where given to another country as part of peace treaties rather than pure volition, it was pretty easy to end up marrying your half brother, 2nd degree cousin etc...

This said, I would like to mention that inbreeding has been looked down upon from religion and eventualy the state (since it used to be so close to religion... yet again its making a come back). Today medical science has proven that genetic diseases and malformations are not more likely between inbreeding that any other form of breeding. The only factor that does come into play is that if a family gene has a certain weakness, that weakness is more likely to be present in the child since both parents possess that gene.

The rest is all predjudice and old folks stories.

of course.

if you look at the Egyptian Pharonic Empire, they have i dont how many dynasties, and it lasted for over 5000 years. why?
stable line of succession.
how?
pharoah married his sister, had children, et cetera.

but, as far as i know, my family has not inbreeded.

It was not one line of succession.

no, but the families did inbreed throughout the 26 (or however many) dynasties they had. it was part of thier tradition, and i left no real problems. hell, thier Empire (egypt) lasted some 5000 years!

I prefer the Roman example, where the Emperor is chosen by the army.

or by the previous emperor.
choosing a sucessor based on merit is actually much better than rule by divine will.
but, eh.
beggars cant be choosers.
except in a democra...ah, you know.

Well, chosing based on merit is very subjective. What is merit? Being the emperors' nephew? Conquering the barbarians? Creating a economic boom? Being a prominant cultural figure?
What could objectively weed out many great civil servants in order to focus on just one? Answer: preference not merit. Thats the problem with the merit system, is that the criterias to evaluate merit are always founded on the evaluators' preferences.

being good and well-versed in Politics, Military, Administration, etc etc. but also having strong morals and and a strong will.
like the Five Good Emperors near the end of the Pax Romana.

There never was a Pax Romana.

Sure there was. It was the favorite cat of Tiberius.

:m: Peace.

I'm not talking about a cat and you know it. :)

With its definition being that of stable times and relative peace that is enforced
by the military, I'd be interested to hear how those two centuries don't fit the bill...

:m: Peace.

Pax Romana requires that Rome has conquered the whole world, i.e., the whole world is Rome, so there is no need for more wars. Or so I was told in my politics classes a few years ago.

I'm not sure it has to be a global conquering so much as global domination...

------
Main Entry: pax
Pronunciation: 'paks, 'päks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin, from Latin, peace...

3 : PEACE; especially capitalized : a period of general stability in international affairs under the influence of a dominant military power -- usually used in combination with a latinized name
-----

I guess you'd be right in saying that "Roman Peace" would be a misleading way of describing the period. Plenty of foreign wars and protecting the borders kept the legions busy. But while there was not all-peace all of the time, within the empire itself the Praetorian Guard ensured that there was little social disorder. This, along with the Caesars' apparent desires to place social development (government, law, engineering, literature) ahead of conquest, seems to fit the dictionary definition.

I dunno. Your question shakes up my generally help definition, so I'll think on it a bit.

:m: Peace.

Pax Romana isn't really two words which you can explain disconnected, it's a plan of how to aquire global peace, a name, a title for the plan.
Apart from that I know what "pax" in latin means.

Pax vobiscum :m:

The problem with any form of governments is that they are all corrupt. So knowing that would you prefer just to have one choice for leader, the one who has the biggest guns, or a choice as every 2 or 4 years in electing others to steal your tax dollars and spread it out more?

ah!
exactly!
Cosmic hit the nail right on the head!
that is the precise reason why a true socialist nation cannot exist!
Far too many Stalins and Hitlers and Bushes, and one too many Kerries...

the one who has the biggest guns, or a choice as every 2 or 4 years in electing others to steal your tax dollars and spread it out more?
Whats the difference? The taxes are there either way.

But they take the tax money and distribute it to many other people, not the same regime every year.

damn democracy, damn you, and damn the Right Brothers (Bush and Jeb)...
heheheheh.
but, seriously.
if we could get democracy to work right, it'd be the perfect gov.
but, as cosmic pointed out, and as we all know very well...power corrupts.

"Totalitarian Fascist Dictatorship" all the way...

The catch of course, is that you'd need a good dictator. One who is intelligent, and not a moron.

In practice, this almsot never happens...

damn democracy, damn you, and damn the Right Brothers (Bush and Jeb)...
heheheheh.
but, seriously.
if we could get democracy to work right, it'd be the perfect gov.
but, as cosmic pointed out, and as we all know very well...power corrupts.


Democracy does exactly what it tries to do...

The real problem, is that "the people," generally speaking, are stupid retards who couldn't properly manage a teepee, let alone know what's good for an entire country.


EDIT: Apologies for the double post, forgot about the edit function

"Totalitarian Fascist Dictatorship" all the way...

The catch of course, is that you'd need a good dictator. One who is intelligent, and not a moron.

In practice, this almsot never happens...
Mussolini was actually not that bad of a fascist dictator. He didn't mass slaughter millions of people like hitler did. The only problem for him is that he allied with hitler & then fought WW2 with hitler.
Big mistake.
The people winded up rebelling against him, even though he didn't do anything remarkably terrible to his own people, unlike hitler...yet the people of germany loved hitler 'till the end.
:bugeye: :confused: :eek:

yet the people of germany loved hitler 'till the end.


See what I meant about the people? :) I'm sure those people genuinely believed the jews were evil, and the cause of all their troubles, Like American rednecks vs. illegal immigrants, for instance.

Luckily, today we know that the only really evil jews are the ones who run Israel.

Eh?
There are no evil jews, and Israel isn't an evil nation. Dunno where you get this from.

Eh?
There are no evil jews, and Israel isn't an evil nation. Dunno where you get this from.
See it from the Palestinian perspective you will refresh your attitude about Zionazi Israel .

See it from the Palestinian perspective you will refresh your attitude about Zionazi Israel .


Palestinian thought agrees with un-biased common sense on this particular matter, I'd say.

I like democracy but I would like to make a slight change in it.

There should be no single day for elections, ie we should be able to vote all the year round and a major twist is that I should be able to swap my vote any time I want. If I voted a candidate and now he is misusing his power then I should be able to change my vote against him in favour of someone else so that his support count is reduced by my single vote.

I would like to vote safely in a police station. I mean it will be greate if we can always vote in a police station with a camera in it just like an atm machine, or I can vote through a ATM. oops sorry, I went to far.

The variations in the number of votes should be displayed in a stock exchange or something similar.

I hope most of us agree with me here.

choose one of the given examples, please.

So now U want to dictate us to choose what we want ?

so you blindly believe in something, becuase you know that it could bring you a better life at the exspense of millions of others, that seems morally wrong.

Dont worry man I will suppress him becuase I can, his freedom of speech, his freedom of expression and yes his freedom of fucking and freedom using the word fucking.

... In democracy people choose a leader that suits them and their intellect...

I dont agree with you here, what people choose is a dictator in the name of leader, and thats because most of the time this leader does thing that are against the will of people and thats dictatorship, although for a specific period.

what? who said two presidents?
i meant a monarch who consults the parliament for his major decisions.

And who will decide what will be a major decision ?

possibly because no one thinks it worthy, if you wanted a poll to go your way.
you should have only put two choices monarchy, or monarchy.
it turns, out the one you wanted a moderator, to delete, is the most popular "true marxist Socialism.

It seems Hapsburg wants to become a dictator but is shy of being as known one.

Hey, what will happen to SF if Hapsburg becomes a moderator ?

That's not true. If he downloaded child porn, he could (and would) still be prosecuted by the country he is located at (if that country has laws against child porn). In legal sense Internet is not another planet , the location of the user matters.

Ya , but if your are a moderator , U can still ban a user, cut , delete or modify post. I mean can U do that in real world. Why should be something allowed on internet what is not in real world ?

...there is no AI yet, so no need for a law about it.
Partly because nobody knows how it will be like.

WHat should we call to a goverment run completely by AI ?

Let me see, how about Cyberocracy ?

Can U suggest some.

Eh?
There are no evil jews, and Israel isn't an evil nation. Dunno where you get this from.

I think thoes who cause suffering to others are reffered as Evil.

erm well nice flood of this dead thread

See it from the Palestinian perspective you will refresh your attitude about Zionazi Israel .
Um...the palestinians are terrorists. They are always biasing things against the jews, because they are pro-nazi.
If you dislike israel, you are essentially being sympathetic to the nazi's cause.
And nazism sucks, so fuck the neonazi PLO.

The only nation in the area performing a holocaust is israel. The way they treat palestinians there is also close to the way jews were treated in nazi germany. When a palestinian leaves the west bank isreali soliders mark him with chalk, to let people know he is a palestinian. He is intimidated by attack dogs while the isreali soliders shout racist slurs at him. If this is fair treatment then you are mentaly impared.

and if you think hating jews makes you a nazi then you obviously dont know what the word meens.

Well, whatever.
It's the palestinians who are bombing the Israelis and trying to kick the jews out of the area, so...the PLO is the terrorists. Dunno where you're getting this shit of the Israelis being evil. Israel kicks ass, some of my best friends are jewish.

Its Palestinian women and children who are killed every day by Israeli troops. I’ve been to the west bank, that’s where I’m getting the information from.

A lot of my best friends are Jewish as well, but it doesn’t stop me from criticising what Israel is doing in the west bank.

You seem to be forgeting: It's israel's land. They own it, and it is thiers. The PLO people doing the suicide bombings are terrorists. The Israeli's aren't terrorists.

You seem to be forgeting: It's israel's land.
Taken illegally from the native indigenous Palestinians .
They own it, and it is thiers.
Only since 1948 and not for long once America disappears from the region Jewish Only Israel will follow .
The PLO people doing the suicide bombings are terrorists.
No they are righteous defenders of the Palestinian people and Liberators of the Palestinian nation heres to pushing the Zionazi state into the Mediterrrean Sea .
The Israeli's aren't terrorists.
No they worse they are cowardly criminal Zionist Racist murderers of defenceless Palestinians .

You seem to be forgeting: It's israel's land. They own it, and it is thiers. The PLO people doing the suicide bombings are terrorists. The Israeli's aren't terrorists.Dude it's land that they stole from the Palestinians, there is Israelis terrorists as well it's not just Arabs. If I was a Palestinian I would be super pissed that they stole our homeland. Read some of Mahmoud Darwishe's poetry and enlighten yourself.

You seem to be forgeting: It's israel's land. They own it, and it is thiers. The PLO people doing the suicide bombings are terrorists. The Israeli's aren't terrorists.

First of all the land was first occupied by the assyrians who were not jews but arabs. Later loads of wars happened and so forth but eventually the land belonged to the palestinians untill after ww2 when in 1948 the land was taken from then and given to the jews to make their nation of israel, which by the way could have been in Argentina but they wanted to live at their "historical roots" which they happened to posses for about 250 years several thousand years ago in its(the area of land) several million years of existance. :eek:

Well What Israel is doing can easily class them with other terrorist groups if we follow the Oxford dictionary for the deffinition of terrorism: "The use of terror for political causes" If I was palestinian I would be terrified by the powerful israeli army and would be easily swayed into making false political decisions. so there you go... terrorists. ;)

All of this over a tiny, insignificant piece of shit strip of land in a horrible piece of shit part of the world. Oh, I forgot. There's a holy temple or something there. I am so sick of hearing about Isreal vs Palestine. If I were a dictator I'd warn everybody away from Jerusalem and nuke the whole fucked up city into a nice crater shaped hole. Then I'd give the Isrealies their own strip of land (twice the size of the current piece of shit desert they are fighting over) in some nice, temperate part of the world. Then fuck the Palestinians and let them have the arid shithole they want so desperately.

All of this over a tiny, insignificant piece of shit strip of land in a horrible piece of shit part of the world. Oh, I forgot. There's a holy temple or something there. I am so sick of hearing about Isreal vs Palestine. If I were a dictator I'd warn everybody away from Jerusalem and nuke the whole fucked up city into a nice crater shaped hole. Then I'd give the Isrealies their own strip of land (twice the size of the current piece of shit desert they are fighting over) in some nice, temperate part of the world. Then fuck the Palestinians and let them have the arid shithole they want so desperately.Wow dude that's fucked up... that is all I can say. I'm sorry but that is one the most inhumane things I have ever heard. You sound like this ass hole in one of my classes that I seriously dislike.

If I was palestinian I would be terrified by the powerful israeli army and would be easily swayed into making false political decisions. so there you go... terrorists. ;)
If I was a Palestinian living in a Zionist enforced 5th world human cage of misery and depravation on the West Bank . I would like to see someone stop me strapping a bomb to myself and detonating myself in one of those glitzy Jerusalem shopping malls payed for by the American taxpayer .

Wow dude that's fucked up... that is all I can say. I'm sorry but that is one the most inhumane things I have ever heard. You sound like this ass hole in one of my classes that I seriously dislike.
And even with his desired outcome the Palestininas still get the shit end of the deal .

This thread has derailed from the original point, somehow...
:confused: :m:

This thread has derailed from the original point, somehow...
:confused: :m:

Obviously You will complain now that you have no face left with what you set out here to achive.

Sound like " This is not the way it was supposed to be "

And even with his desired outcome the Palestininas still get the shit end of the deal .Yep..

Whatever.
I don't care about the mideast conflict anymore, I'm so confused right now on who is the good guy there (israel, government or plo, terrorists)...
but, anyway...
A federated monarchy, similar to the German Empire of 1871-1918 is a very effecient form of government. You have the stability of a hereditary monarchy with the freedom and et cetera of a federal republic. nearly perfect system, in moderation.

I'd like one of those in russia right now with Putin as Zhar :)

"If you dislike israel, you are essentially being sympathetic to the nazi's cause."


Wow...

Israel sucks and so do jews. Just look at their religions.

Avatar can you keep your latvianism to yourself please?

?? It's purely my personal view.
Jews are the cause for the three most destructive religions this planet has seen,
both in people slaughtering and destruction of spiritual and governmental freedoms.

And even with his desired outcome the Palestininas still get the shit end of the deal .

Poor Palestinians. They are sooo much more noble and admirable than the rest of us and would never do anything nasty as a means to an end. I want to be a Palestinian (vest-o-dynamite included). Or maybe a Rwandan security force soldier. At least then I'd get to see the results of my handiwork. My plan:

1) Nuke Jerusalem
2) Nuke Mecca
3) Nuke Vatican City
4) Plant hardy local vegetation in resulting craters
5) Erase the racial/religious/ethnic memory of all Christians/Muslims/Jews/Other...
6) See the earth prosper in peace.

heh, the second you wipe out religions, humanity will come up with somethign else just as destructive in its place. We're vvery good at that.

Maybe...

Maybe...

Probably. The most irrational of all faiths is "faith in humanity"

Taken illegally from the native indigenous Palestinians .
Oh, just like how your precious America was taken from the native indigenous Indians, or how your precious Britain was taken from the native indigenous Celts, or so on and so on?

Only since 1948 and not for long once America disappears from the region Jewish Only Israel will follow.
Your point being? The Democratic Republic of the Congo has only existed since 1960...saying that Israel is an illegal state merely because of it's founding date is severely retarded.

No they are righteous defenders of the Palestinian people and Liberators of the Palestinian nation heres to pushing the Zionazi state into the Mediterrrean Sea .
Oh, wake up, and stop listening to PLO propaganda. The Palestinian Arabs are rebelling, simple as that. If they didn't want retribution, they shoudn't have rebelled, they should've just learn to live among Israelis and Jews. Their lack of said ability is an indicator to the Palestinian's racism and intolerance.

No they worse they are cowardly criminal Zionist Racist murderers of defenceless Palestinians .
Have you even seen the news, retard? The rebelling Palestinians are equipped fairly well, with AKs and the like. If anyone is the criminal, it's the rebelling Palies.

i chose Constitutional/Parliamentary Monarchy best one.... no matter how bad the monarch is the parlament keeps them in line plus it has a constitution based off of the american constitution.... and england has it and there economy is more then good

What's your favorite Gov?
Anarchy.

Yaba Daba! :m: