General Chit Chat

In Tribute to Drama, SE13 & Fabrestuta. RIP
Grab a chair, open a beer & chat away

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby Nuggets » Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:39 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
Phil71 wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
Rockape wrote:Quality insulting post there.....I wouldn’t bother replying to, DG. If you can’t debate without insulting.....hopefully the mods will sort!


What did I miss?


Can't recall exactly.

Let's just say it was a bit keyboard warrior. I think he called you a f***ing idiot.


He's only parroting what he hears his mother calling him every day........... these things rub off on our kids, unfortunately.


Classic response :rofll: :rofll: :arse fan:
Image
User avatar
Nuggets
Predictions League 2011-12, 2016-17 Winner
Predictions League 2011-12, 2016-17 Winner
 
Posts: 19727
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Sunny Turkey, now.

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby swipe right » Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:44 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.


Of course you can.

........... because your free not to "curtsy".

You should study up on what "modern" countries look like when they get rid of the royal family.

Name me a country with no Royal family which has a good non-corrupt system?

You'll struggle.

So you’re suggesting the royal family is keeping Great Britain from being corrupt? I can literally name you a dozen instances of major corruption from Barings bank to BP.


I don't know what you edited but feel free to say what you want cause I'll just turn you over like the clown you are regardless.

As to the subject, historically, the Royal Family has acted as a counter weight to Parliament the same way Parliament became the counter weight to the Royals.

I'm not saying it eradicates corruption, I'm saying there are limits to how corrupt Parliament or a Prime Minister can become because the threat of side lining Parliament and re-installing the Royal family is reality.

In America political parties are lobbied and funded to the hilt by private companies, that's illegal in the UK.

There are certain constitutional rules that were established between Parliament and the Royal's when it was agreed that we would become a constitutional monarchy.

This is not a game of opinions, mine or your's, that is a fact.

Your so called constitutional monarchy is shielding a man accused of pedophilia and sex trafficking of minors. A man who’s wife was bailed out by a convicted sex offender. His brother actively overturns bills to protect his financial interest. Yet your defense is this is better than lobbying in America and a uppity black woman?
swipe right
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:05 am

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby DiamondGooner » Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:55 pm

swipe right wrote:Your so called constitutional monarchy is shielding a man accused of pedophilia and sex trafficking of minors. A man who’s wife was bailed out by a convicted sex offender. His brother actively overturns bills to protect his financial interest. Yet your defense is this is better than lobbying in America and a uppity black woman?


So ...........

Its not "So called", it is a constitutional monarchy, when you say shielding, are they preventing the police to arrest him? no? don't have the power to do that do they?

Paedophillia, well ......... by American standards, if the girls were 16 and over then that is not paedo by our laws is it? if he did it in America well then they can arrest him can't they?

No one said anything about an uppity black woman and if you mean Meghan then she's mixed race actually, not black.

Your response was just riddled with false facts and inaccuracies, pretty much sums you up as a poster.

PS - I'd like to say for the record, I couldn't give a sht about Andrew or any member of the Royal family, I'm simply stating the facts as they are, there were wars and some of the most prominant decisions made in this countries history due to these factual events so sorry if I'm not allowing you to play fast and loose with the fiction that races through your airy head.

My statement is simply that the Monarchy is a counter weight to a corrupt Parliament, the rest of your blatthering about Paedo's and a black woman is just side salad dressing.
Last edited by DiamondGooner on Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 26056
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby DiamondGooner » Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:57 pm

Phil71 wrote:
Piss into a bottle and go and pour it down the hole.

Seriously. He'll get your scent as an apex predator and f**k off.


Are we talking about Swipe Right or the fox?

Regarding the foxes I went and looked down the hole and this little nipper was starring back at me, to cute to kill, its obviously a den of cubs, this happened a few years ago, as they get bigger they'll eventually all fk off so they have till the hot weather arriving to grow up and do one.

Other wise I'm going to have to do something about it eventually.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 26056
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby Phil71 » Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:58 pm

swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.


Of course you can.

........... because your free not to "curtsy".

You should study up on what "modern" countries look like when they get rid of the royal family.

Name me a country with no Royal family which has a good non-corrupt system?

You'll struggle.

So you’re suggesting the royal family is keeping Great Britain from being corrupt? I can literally name you a dozen instances of major corruption from Barings bank to BP.


I don't know what you edited but feel free to say what you want cause I'll just turn you over like the clown you are regardless.

As to the subject, historically, the Royal Family has acted as a counter weight to Parliament the same way Parliament became the counter weight to the Royals.

I'm not saying it eradicates corruption, I'm saying there are limits to how corrupt Parliament or a Prime Minister can become because the threat of side lining Parliament and re-installing the Royal family is reality.

In America political parties are lobbied and funded to the hilt by private companies, that's illegal in the UK.

There are certain constitutional rules that were established between Parliament and the Royal's when it was agreed that we would become a constitutional monarchy.

This is not a game of opinions, mine or your's, that is a fact.

Your so called constitutional monarchy is shielding a man accused of pedophilia and sex trafficking of minors. A man who’s wife was bailed out by a convicted sex offender. His brother actively overturns bills to protect his financial interest. Yet your defense is this is better than lobbying in America and a uppity black woman?


Andrew is not accused of anything that you've described.

Stop making up lies and writing bullshit.
User avatar
Phil71
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:04 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby swipe right » Sat Mar 13, 2021 2:07 pm

Phil71 wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.


Of course you can.

........... because your free not to "curtsy".

You should study up on what "modern" countries look like when they get rid of the royal family.

Name me a country with no Royal family which has a good non-corrupt system?

You'll struggle.

So you’re suggesting the royal family is keeping Great Britain from being corrupt? I can literally name you a dozen instances of major corruption from Barings bank to BP.


I don't know what you edited but feel free to say what you want cause I'll just turn you over like the clown you are regardless.

As to the subject, historically, the Royal Family has acted as a counter weight to Parliament the same way Parliament became the counter weight to the Royals.

I'm not saying it eradicates corruption, I'm saying there are limits to how corrupt Parliament or a Prime Minister can become because the threat of side lining Parliament and re-installing the Royal family is reality.

In America political parties are lobbied and funded to the hilt by private companies, that's illegal in the UK.

There are certain constitutional rules that were established between Parliament and the Royal's when it was agreed that we would become a constitutional monarchy.

This is not a game of opinions, mine or your's, that is a fact.

Your so called constitutional monarchy is shielding a man accused of pedophilia and sex trafficking of minors. A man who’s wife was bailed out by a convicted sex offender. His brother actively overturns bills to protect his financial interest. Yet your defense is this is better than lobbying in America and a uppity black woman?


Andrew is not accused of anything that you've described.

Stop making up lies and writing bullshit.

He’s accused of sex with a 17 year old woman who was trafficked by Epstein. This is legally documented fact. To be fair to him, it doesn’t mean he’s guilty. However, he sure seems to be avoiding the fbi. Not that it matters given he can’t be convicted in the UK - you know constitutional monarchy and all that good stuff - and they won’t extradite him to the US. You can always watch that bbc interview if you’re up for a good cringe.
swipe right
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:05 am

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby Phil71 » Sat Mar 13, 2021 2:10 pm

swipe right wrote:
Phil71 wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.


Of course you can.

........... because your free not to "curtsy".

You should study up on what "modern" countries look like when they get rid of the royal family.

Name me a country with no Royal family which has a good non-corrupt system?

You'll struggle.

So you’re suggesting the royal family is keeping Great Britain from being corrupt? I can literally name you a dozen instances of major corruption from Barings bank to BP.


I don't know what you edited but feel free to say what you want cause I'll just turn you over like the clown you are regardless.

As to the subject, historically, the Royal Family has acted as a counter weight to Parliament the same way Parliament became the counter weight to the Royals.

I'm not saying it eradicates corruption, I'm saying there are limits to how corrupt Parliament or a Prime Minister can become because the threat of side lining Parliament and re-installing the Royal family is reality.

In America political parties are lobbied and funded to the hilt by private companies, that's illegal in the UK.

There are certain constitutional rules that were established between Parliament and the Royal's when it was agreed that we would become a constitutional monarchy.

This is not a game of opinions, mine or your's, that is a fact.

Your so called constitutional monarchy is shielding a man accused of pedophilia and sex trafficking of minors. A man who’s wife was bailed out by a convicted sex offender. His brother actively overturns bills to protect his financial interest. Yet your defense is this is better than lobbying in America and a uppity black woman?


Andrew is not accused of anything that you've described.

Stop making up lies and writing bullshit.

He’s accused of sex with a 17 year old woman who was trafficked by Epstein. This is legally documented fact. To be fair to him, it doesn’t mean he’s guilty. However, he sure seems to be avoiding the fbi. Not that it matters given he can’t be convicted in the UK - you know constitutional monarchy and all that good stuff - and they won’t extradite him to the US. You can always watch that bbc interview if you’re up for a good cringe.


He's not accused of pedophilia and he's not accused of sex trafficking.

He's accused of having sex with a 17 year old when he was in his 30s. That is alleged to have taken place in the UK and so is not illegal - if it is true.
User avatar
Phil71
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:04 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby swipe right » Sat Mar 13, 2021 2:16 pm

Phil71 wrote:
swipe right wrote:
Phil71 wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.


Of course you can.

........... because your free not to "curtsy".

You should study up on what "modern" countries look like when they get rid of the royal family.

Name me a country with no Royal family which has a good non-corrupt system?

You'll struggle.

So you’re suggesting the royal family is keeping Great Britain from being corrupt? I can literally name you a dozen instances of major corruption from Barings bank to BP.


I don't know what you edited but feel free to say what you want cause I'll just turn you over like the clown you are regardless.

As to the subject, historically, the Royal Family has acted as a counter weight to Parliament the same way Parliament became the counter weight to the Royals.

I'm not saying it eradicates corruption, I'm saying there are limits to how corrupt Parliament or a Prime Minister can become because the threat of side lining Parliament and re-installing the Royal family is reality.

In America political parties are lobbied and funded to the hilt by private companies, that's illegal in the UK.

There are certain constitutional rules that were established between Parliament and the Royal's when it was agreed that we would become a constitutional monarchy.

This is not a game of opinions, mine or your's, that is a fact.

Your so called constitutional monarchy is shielding a man accused of pedophilia and sex trafficking of minors. A man who’s wife was bailed out by a convicted sex offender. His brother actively overturns bills to protect his financial interest. Yet your defense is this is better than lobbying in America and a uppity black woman?


Andrew is not accused of anything that you've described.

Stop making up lies and writing bullshit.

He’s accused of sex with a 17 year old woman who was trafficked by Epstein. This is legally documented fact. To be fair to him, it doesn’t mean he’s guilty. However, he sure seems to be avoiding the fbi. Not that it matters given he can’t be convicted in the UK - you know constitutional monarchy and all that good stuff - and they won’t extradite him to the US. You can always watch that bbc interview if you’re up for a good cringe.


He's not accused of pedophilia and he's not accused of sex trafficking.

He's accused of having sex with a 17 year old when he was in his 30s. That is alleged to have taken place in the UK and so is not illegal - if it is true.

Phil Phil Phil look at you. Defending sex with a minor to win an argument with a stranger over the internet. I’ll spare you the ignominy by ending this discussion now. See you in the Arteta thread.
swipe right
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:05 am

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby Phil71 » Sat Mar 13, 2021 2:18 pm

swipe right wrote:
Phil71 wrote:
swipe right wrote:
Phil71 wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.


Of course you can.

........... because your free not to "curtsy".

You should study up on what "modern" countries look like when they get rid of the royal family.

Name me a country with no Royal family which has a good non-corrupt system?

You'll struggle.

So you’re suggesting the royal family is keeping Great Britain from being corrupt? I can literally name you a dozen instances of major corruption from Barings bank to BP.


I don't know what you edited but feel free to say what you want cause I'll just turn you over like the clown you are regardless.

As to the subject, historically, the Royal Family has acted as a counter weight to Parliament the same way Parliament became the counter weight to the Royals.

I'm not saying it eradicates corruption, I'm saying there are limits to how corrupt Parliament or a Prime Minister can become because the threat of side lining Parliament and re-installing the Royal family is reality.

In America political parties are lobbied and funded to the hilt by private companies, that's illegal in the UK.

There are certain constitutional rules that were established between Parliament and the Royal's when it was agreed that we would become a constitutional monarchy.

This is not a game of opinions, mine or your's, that is a fact.

Your so called constitutional monarchy is shielding a man accused of pedophilia and sex trafficking of minors. A man who’s wife was bailed out by a convicted sex offender. His brother actively overturns bills to protect his financial interest. Yet your defense is this is better than lobbying in America and a uppity black woman?


Andrew is not accused of anything that you've described.

Stop making up lies and writing bullshit.

He’s accused of sex with a 17 year old woman who was trafficked by Epstein. This is legally documented fact. To be fair to him, it doesn’t mean he’s guilty. However, he sure seems to be avoiding the fbi. Not that it matters given he can’t be convicted in the UK - you know constitutional monarchy and all that good stuff - and they won’t extradite him to the US. You can always watch that bbc interview if you’re up for a good cringe.


He's not accused of pedophilia and he's not accused of sex trafficking.

He's accused of having sex with a 17 year old when he was in his 30s. That is alleged to have taken place in the UK and so is not illegal - if it is true.

Phil Phil Phil look at you. Defending sex with a minor to win an argument with a stranger over the internet. I’ll spare you the ignominy by ending this discussion now. See you in the Arteta thread.


Maybe you missed the bit where he didn't have sex with a minor.
User avatar
Phil71
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:04 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby DiamondGooner » Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:16 pm

swipe right wrote:Phil Phil Phil look at you. Defending sex with a minor to win an argument with a stranger over the internet. I’ll spare you the ignominy by ending this discussion now. See you in the Arteta thread.


The only thing I'm looking at is seeing you pathetically crumble under the weight of your own BS posts and accusations.

"If I say minor enough times it may become the truth?"

As you've been corrected multiple times by phil and myself, 17 is not a minor under English law, so if this happened on these shores its not even illegal.

Yes end the discussion now and run, your very first sentence is borderline worthy of being reviewed by a mod.

Accusing Phil of defending Paedophiles when phil has stated clearly he is referring to a 17 yr old he believes took place in the UK ..... IS NOT ..... a minor is it!

I think you owe him an apology tbf.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 26056
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby Phil71 » Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:36 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
swipe right wrote:Phil Phil Phil look at you. Defending sex with a minor to win an argument with a stranger over the internet. I’ll spare you the ignominy by ending this discussion now. See you in the Arteta thread.


The only thing I'm looking at is seeing you pathetically crumble under the weight of your own BS posts and accusations.

"If I say minor enough times it may become the truth?"

As you've been corrected multiple times by phil and myself, 17 is not a minor under English law, so if this happened on these shores its not even illegal.

Yes end the discussion now and run, your very first sentence is borderline worthy of being reviewed by a mod.

Accusing Phil of defending Paedophiles when phil has stated clearly he is referring to a 17 yr old he believes took place in the UK ..... IS NOT ..... a minor is it!

I think you owe him an apology tbf.


Thanks.

There's another troll on here who throws the same sort of nonsense around.
User avatar
Phil71
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:04 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby Ach » Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:06 pm

:rofll:
Ach
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 23287
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:25 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby LMAO » Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:15 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
LMAO wrote:lol DG stop overrating your shit ass outdated monarchy like your country would fall apart without them.

Finland
Singapore
Switzerland
Germany
Austria
Iceland
Ireland

All pretty decent places from my knowledge. Half tempted to include New Zealand, Canada, and Australia too even though Liz is technically their head of state, but they could bin the monarch and continue on just fine.



............. urhhm (bolded).

lol.

Do I need to say more?

Ireland as well had a Government in Sinn Fien which was aligned with a terrorist organisation ffs.

Keep going, also I said "you'd struggle" I didn't say there were zero examples.

Regardless, its what we choose that matters, just because America one of the most corrupt Gov'ts on earth for a Western country doesn't have a monarchy, if England chooses to have one that's our business.

This strange obsession Americans now have of trying to force their collapsing society on everyone else is bizzare, why do you care if we have a monarchy or not?


Dunno what you're lol'ing about. Germany is ranked as being perceived as less corrupt than the UK lol

Dunno what pre-1998 has to do with Ireland in 2021, but okay. Though, the UK had a government that sponsored Ulster loyalist paramilitaries, so if you want to bring up Irish paramilitary organizations, then the same knock can be used against the UK.

Bro, you can't talk about Americans being obsessed if you have a monarchy or not (though as I've said before, I don't care because it's y'all's decision by way of self-determination, even though I do think it's a bit strange to have a monarch in the present day), and then let America live rent-free in your head. Why do you care if we have lobbying and corporate donations? Why are you even bringing America up unprompted when there are plenty of more corrupt examples out there, like Brazil, China, India, and Russia? I know we have corruption, and on here, you're just preaching to the choir and don't need to bring us up every 5 minutes.
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby DiamondGooner » Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:02 pm

LMAO wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
LMAO wrote:lol DG stop overrating your shit ass outdated monarchy like your country would fall apart without them.

Finland
Singapore
Switzerland
Germany
Austria
Iceland
Ireland

All pretty decent places from my knowledge. Half tempted to include New Zealand, Canada, and Australia too even though Liz is technically their head of state, but they could bin the monarch and continue on just fine.



............. urhhm (bolded).

lol.

Do I need to say more?

Ireland as well had a Government in Sinn Fien which was aligned with a terrorist organisation ffs.

Keep going, also I said "you'd struggle" I didn't say there were zero examples.

Regardless, its what we choose that matters, just because America one of the most corrupt Gov'ts on earth for a Western country doesn't have a monarchy, if England chooses to have one that's our business.

This strange obsession Americans now have of trying to force their collapsing society on everyone else is bizzare, why do you care if we have a monarchy or not?


Dunno what you're lol'ing about. Germany is ranked as being perceived as less corrupt than the UK lol

Dunno what pre-1998 has to do with Ireland in 2021, but okay. Though, the UK had a government that sponsored Ulster loyalist paramilitaries, so if you want to bring up Irish paramilitary organizations, then the same knock can be used against the UK.

Bro, you can't talk about Americans being obsessed if you have a monarchy or not (though as I've said before, I don't care because it's y'all's decision by way of self-determination, even though I do think it's a bit strange to have a monarch in the present day), and then let America live rent-free in your head. Why do you care if we have lobbying and corporate donations? Why are you even bringing America up unprompted when there are plenty of more corrupt examples out there, like Brazil, China, India, and Russia? I know we have corruption, and on here, you're just preaching to the choir and don't need to bring us up every 5 minutes.


Why am I laughing at Germany?

Because yes they don't have a counter weight Monarchy ............ and that is one reason the Nazi's got to take over the country at gun point.

To note, the Queen is the Head of the British Army and has her own Queens Guards.

There will be no Far Right wing military takeover in this country due to the Constitutional Monarchy.

Hence my laughing when you listed Germany, a prime example of my point.

Germanies Monarchy ended in 1918 ......... 15 years later, Adolf Hitler became dictator of Germany.

You really shot yourself in the foot with that one.

PS - You think its strange to have a monarchy in today's age yet most countries actually still have one, so again, maybe its you who's strange?
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 26056
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: General Chit Chat

Postby LMAO » Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:12 am

DiamondGooner wrote:
LMAO wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
LMAO wrote:lol DG stop overrating your shit ass outdated monarchy like your country would fall apart without them.

Finland
Singapore
Switzerland
Germany
Austria
Iceland
Ireland

All pretty decent places from my knowledge. Half tempted to include New Zealand, Canada, and Australia too even though Liz is technically their head of state, but they could bin the monarch and continue on just fine.



............. urhhm (bolded).

lol.

Do I need to say more?

Ireland as well had a Government in Sinn Fien which was aligned with a terrorist organisation ffs.

Keep going, also I said "you'd struggle" I didn't say there were zero examples.

Regardless, its what we choose that matters, just because America one of the most corrupt Gov'ts on earth for a Western country doesn't have a monarchy, if England chooses to have one that's our business.

This strange obsession Americans now have of trying to force their collapsing society on everyone else is bizzare, why do you care if we have a monarchy or not?


Dunno what you're lol'ing about. Germany is ranked as being perceived as less corrupt than the UK lol

Dunno what pre-1998 has to do with Ireland in 2021, but okay. Though, the UK had a government that sponsored Ulster loyalist paramilitaries, so if you want to bring up Irish paramilitary organizations, then the same knock can be used against the UK.

Bro, you can't talk about Americans being obsessed if you have a monarchy or not (though as I've said before, I don't care because it's y'all's decision by way of self-determination, even though I do think it's a bit strange to have a monarch in the present day), and then let America live rent-free in your head. Why do you care if we have lobbying and corporate donations? Why are you even bringing America up unprompted when there are plenty of more corrupt examples out there, like Brazil, China, India, and Russia? I know we have corruption, and on here, you're just preaching to the choir and don't need to bring us up every 5 minutes.


Why am I laughing at Germany?

Because yes they don't have a counter weight Monarchy ............ and that is one reason the Nazi's got to take over the country at gun point.

To note, the Queen is the Head of the British Army and has her own Queens Guards.

There will be no Far Right wing military takeover in this country due to the Constitutional Monarchy.

Hence my laughing when you listed Germany, a prime example of my point.

Germanies Monarchy ended in 1918 ......... 15 years later, Adolf Hitler became dictator of Germany.

You really shot yourself in the foot with that one.

PS - You think its strange to have a monarchy in today's age yet most countries actually still have one, so again, maybe its you who's strange?


Your inquiry was to name a country without a royal family that "has a good non-corrupt system". "Has" is present tense, not something that ended 76 years ago. The non-royal family Germany of 2021 is perceived as less corrupt than the royal family UK of 2021. I can't help if you don't want to accept that and need to shift the goalposts.

P.S. - Nope, you're still the strange ones. There are 195 countries in the world. Only 44 have monarchies (well, 45 if you want to include North Korea, but Barbados is going to bring it back down to 44 anyway since they're waving toodaloo Lizzy toward the end of the year). 22.6% of countries is nowhere close to most.
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Harambee

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest