• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Favorite/best form of government?

Favorite/best form of government?

  • Democracy/republic

    Votes: 26 76.5%
  • Monarchy (constitutional/absolute)

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Theocracy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Anarchy

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • Other (explain in post)

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Total voters
    34

(R)IGHTeous 1

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Location
southeast PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Call me old fashioned, whatever, but I gotta serious soft spot for monarchy/royalty, constitutional of course.

I enjoy the ceremonial glamor, honor, tradition, etc. A monarch exudes more strength, and inspires more pride from me, then an elected head of state does. Serving one seems cooler than serving say....Obama.

The British government model seems pretty perfect to me.

Yall?
 
Call me old fashioned, whatever, but I gotta serious soft spot for monarchy/royalty, constitutional of course.

I enjoy the ceremonial glamor, honor, tradition, etc. A monarch exudes more strength, and inspires more pride from me, then an elected head of state does. Serving one seems cooler than serving say....Obama.

The British government model seems pretty perfect to me.

Yall?

As the UK and many other countries have shown, a constitutional monarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

That being said, I hate the idea of serving any single titular head of state. The President serves the people, not the other way around, as should a good monarch.
 
As the UK and many other countries have shown, a constitutional monarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

That being said, I hate the idea of serving any single titular head of state. The President serves the people, not the other way around, as should a good monarch.

I believe Elizabeth serves her people fine. Hell, Obama seems FAR more power hungry and power drunk than she does.....
 
I say a republic. Unless I get to be in charge, in which case, I choose dictatorship :lol:
 
I believe Elizabeth serves her people fine. Hell, Obama seems FAR more power hungry and power drunk than she does.....

1) I was merely objecting to your use of the word "serve" in the OP. None of us serve Obama. We are not his servants. Neither do British citizens and commonwealth citizens "serve" Queen Elizabeth.

2) It's a pretty ****ty comparison with Elizabeth. Her role is, by nature, limited by the British Constitution (hence the phrase "constitutional monarchy"). Her role as head of state is pretty much titular/symbolic and not much else. You're much better off comparing Obama to Gordon Brown or David Cameron.
 
Last edited:
Call me old fashioned, whatever, but I gotta serious soft spot for monarchy/royalty, constitutional of course.

I enjoy the ceremonial glamor, honor, tradition, etc. A monarch exudes more strength, and inspires more pride from me, then an elected head of state does. Serving one seems cooler than serving say....Obama.

The British government model seems pretty perfect to me.

Yall?

I prefer Democracy/republic. I do not like monarchies, the idea of being ruled by some rich inbred piece of **** who thinks it is their god given birth right to rule over me and be the biggest welfare recipients in the country does not sound appealing.
 
1) I was merely objecting to your use of the word "serve" in the OP. None of us serve Obama. We are not his servants. Neither to British citizens and commonwealth citizens "serve" Queen Elizabeth.

2) It's a pretty ****ty comparison with Elizabeth. Her role is, by nature, limited by the British Constitution (hence the phrase "constitutional monarchy"). You're much better off comparing Obama to Gordon Brown or David Cameron.

I was just saying that Elizabeth does indeed serve her people too. She represents Britain well on the world stage. The way Obama governs....sure looks like he wants us to serve him, or the federal government, but ok.
 
The most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.
 
I prefer Democracy/republic. I do not like monarchies, the idea of being ruled by some rich inbred piece of **** who thinks it is their god given birth right to rule over me and be the biggest welfare recipients in the country does not sound appealing.

That aint entirely fair man. The British royal family brings in many millions in revenue. The royal wedding brought in much. They help pay their way too.
 
That aint entirely fair man. The British royal family brings in many millions in revenue. The royal wedding brought in much. They help pay their way too.

Not to denigrate the royal family, but how many taxpayer dollars go towards maintaining Buckingham Palace and the royals' lifestyle?
 
Call me old fashioned, whatever, but I gotta serious soft spot for monarchy/royalty, constitutional of course.

I enjoy the ceremonial glamor, honor, tradition, etc. A monarch exudes more strength, and inspires more pride from me, then an elected head of state does. Serving one seems cooler than serving say....Obama.

The British government model seems pretty perfect to me.

Yall?

I agree too. I like royal families/a constitutional monarchy.
 
Not to denigrate the royal family, but how many taxpayer dollars go towards maintaining Buckingham Palace and the royals' lifestyle?

That's already been brought up. I was merely pointing out that that aint a 1 way street.
 
I believe Elizabeth serves her people fine. Hell, Obama seems FAR more power hungry and power drunk than she does.....

...
I'm not even sure what to say to that, man. You do realize that the British monarchy are pretty much just state supported celebrities, right? And seriously, what is it with you guys and Obama? The guy is the most spineless president since Carter. I really don't see how you turn him into some sort of evil tyrant who will seize absolute power given half the chance.
 
Not to denigrate the royal family, but how many taxpayer dollars go towards maintaining Buckingham Palace and the royals' lifestyle?

Not that much. The queen & royal family have a very large personal forture, a lot of it from the crown dependencies.
 
...
I'm not even sure what to say to that, man. You do realize that the British monarchy are pretty much just state supported celebrities, right? And seriously, what is it with you guys and Obama? The guy is the most spineless president since Carter. I really don't see how you turn him into some sort of evil tyrant who will seize absolute power given half the chance.

LOL dude your comment is so flawed. Obama was elected as a celebrity pop star too. Our tax dollars go to fund the federal government, WHICH HE HEADS. Him and his family reap the benefits of our tax dollars one way or another.

Alotta gray area here....
 
LOL dude your comment is so flawed. Obama was elected as a celebrity pop star too. Our tax dollars go to fund the federal government, WHICH HE HEADS. Him and his family reap the benefits of our tax dollars one way or another.

Alotta gray area here....

I'm sorry. You're continued comparison of Obama to Queen Elizabeth is what's flawed.
 
Anyway, responding to the OP, I prefer a democratic republic, but with a different separation of powers than we currently have. A single ruler can always be better than a group, but he can also be worse as well. Have the president write the laws, and then give veto power to a congress. That uses the best attributes of both systems.
 
I'm sorry. You're continued comparison of Obama to Queen Elizabeth is what's flawed.

They're both heads of state. You also have yet to really explain how it's flawed. Another similiarity is that Obama's executrive powers are also limited by our own constitution.

Your apology is accepted tho lol. Try again man.
 
LOL dude your comment is so flawed. Obama was elected as a celebrity pop star too. Our tax dollars go to fund the federal government, WHICH HE HEADS. Him and his family reap the benefits of our tax dollars one way or another.

Alotta gray area here....

file.php

No, there's really not.
 
Not that much. The queen & royal family have a very large personal forture, a lot of it from the crown dependencies.

Thanks for this. I did a little research and it seems to be true that the Royal family gives out a lot more than it takes in.
 
Back
Top Bottom