On July 13, 1929, Indian revolutionary Jatin Das went on a hunger strike in Lahore prison. In order to force him to end the strike quickly, His Majesty's govt forbade him to drink water (in July of an Indian summer). He refused to eat. Finally, after 63 days of hunger strike, Jatin Das died on Sept 13, 1929.
I wonder, what did His Majesty George V, King of Canada, eat on that day of Sept 13, 1929? Did he eat well? I think he probably did. Maybe he was on a picnic or a hunting trip. I wonder if he had good wine that day.
Mr. Anonymous might not be as anonymous as he thinks. He operates -- this time at least -- from Ohio State University in Columbus. He googles 'themonarchist' -- too lazy or bright to type the URL or have the site as a bookmark, favorite, or fixed link otherwise.
My guess is that he does this whenever he feels like it, and his purpose every time is to leave behind some unfriendly comment at whatever post might be the latest.
The point in that story? I would guess it is that the monarchy -- and perhaps in particular the British Commonwealth monarchy -- lives so well and doesn't care about the grievances committed under it, and that it hence deserves to go under.
I wonder what is eaten at the White House on the days waterboarding is committed by the United States federal government. Oh, sorry! That kind of reasoning is only allowed against monarchies. Sorry, I keep forgetting. Please forgive me!
I commend you on your ability to extract something approaching a rational thought from the incoherent babble put forward by Mr. Anonymous. Clearly, your wit is sharp; far sharper, certainly, than that of your interlocutor, Mr. Anonymous. I wonder how many heads of state(republican or otherwise) refrain from eating in solidarity with those who deliberately choose to starve themselves as a protest after being arrested for conspiring to violently overthrow the regimes headed by those same heads of state. I'd wager not many.
I'll give our critic credit for one thing, however. He certainly sets the bar high.
Sincerely, Samuel C. Starrett Administrator The Rambling Royalist
Yes, sir... when you have a monarchy you should be held accountable for sins of that monarchy committed even 1000 years before. The same DOES NOT apply to countries such as the US, which has an elected President.
here is why: Obama was ELECTED! Obama is President BECAUSE he personally won an election.
In a monarchy, its the opposite. Elisabeth is queen of Canada BECAUSE she had a whole bunch of murderous imperialist ancestors.
In fact, since she doesnt play an actual role in the administration, the sole purpose of Elisabeth is to celebrate the tradition of British imperialism.
And thats why Elisabeth, the symbol of CONTINUITY with the imperialist traditions of Britain is accountable for every evil they did.
The courageous Mr. Anonymous is back. Welcome back, sir!
We were talking about sins committed during one's tenure.
Mr. Anonymous brought up something that happened during the reign of George V.
There are several things happening during the tenure of Mr. Obama. There are several wars with people being killed, and the detention camp in Cuba is still open.
The question then is: Is Mr. Obama responsible for what happens during his tenure? Or is he not?
The Queen reigns ensuring the government is formed from the majority party or coalition. The government rules so long as it has majority support in parliament.
An unjust government is the responsibility of the people to vote out, the Sovereign protects us from undemocratic behaviour but not from our own naivety and foolishness.
The dismissal of the Australian Gough Whitlam government that failed to pass their budget then lost a confidence vote proves the Sovereign has the courage to act to protect democracy and the will of the Australian people. This courage and strength of character is rare among presidents with the exception of Mr Obama.
How do I explain to someone that refuses to allow themselves to be held accountable for their opinion that decisions made by a government are the sole responsibility of the government concerned?
On July 13, 1929, Indian revolutionary Jatin Das went on a hunger strike in Lahore prison. In order to force him to end the strike quickly, His Majesty's govt forbade him to drink water (in July of an Indian summer). He refused to eat. Finally, after 63 days of hunger strike, Jatin Das died on Sept 13, 1929.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, what did His Majesty George V, King of Canada, eat on that day
of Sept 13, 1929? Did he eat well? I think he probably did. Maybe
he was on a picnic or a hunting trip. I wonder if he had good wine
that day.
Would anyone care to tell me whether he thinks Mr. Anonymous has buried a point somewhere deep, deep in that story?
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Starrett,
ReplyDeleteMr. Anonymous might not be as anonymous as he thinks. He operates -- this time at least -- from Ohio State University in Columbus. He googles 'themonarchist' -- too lazy or bright to type the URL or have the site as a bookmark, favorite, or fixed link otherwise.
My guess is that he does this whenever he feels like it, and his purpose every time is to leave behind some unfriendly comment at whatever post might be the latest.
The point in that story? I would guess it is that the monarchy -- and perhaps in particular the British Commonwealth monarchy -- lives so well and doesn't care about the grievances committed under it, and that it hence deserves to go under.
I wonder what is eaten at the White House on the days waterboarding is committed by the United States federal government. Oh, sorry! That kind of reasoning is only allowed against monarchies. Sorry, I keep forgetting. Please forgive me!
Dear Mr. Baltzersen,
ReplyDeleteI commend you on your ability to extract something approaching a rational thought from the incoherent babble put forward by Mr. Anonymous. Clearly, your wit is sharp; far sharper, certainly, than that of your interlocutor, Mr. Anonymous. I wonder how many heads of state(republican or otherwise) refrain from eating in solidarity with those who deliberately choose to starve themselves as a protest after being arrested for conspiring to violently overthrow the regimes headed by those same heads of state. I'd wager not many.
I'll give our critic credit for one thing, however. He certainly sets the bar high.
Sincerely,
Samuel C. Starrett
Administrator
The Rambling Royalist
It's about Race.
ReplyDeleteLoyalty is all about Race.
Until Americans and Canadians understsand this, nothing will be achieved.
Great work Tom - but please get some media training, asap.
ReplyDeleteYes, sir... when you have a monarchy you should be held accountable for sins of that monarchy committed even 1000 years before. The same DOES NOT apply to countries such as the US, which has an elected President.
ReplyDeletehere is why: Obama was ELECTED! Obama is President BECAUSE he personally won an election.
In a monarchy, its the opposite. Elisabeth is queen of Canada BECAUSE she had a whole bunch of murderous imperialist ancestors.
In fact, since she doesnt play an actual role in the administration, the sole purpose of Elisabeth is to celebrate the tradition of British imperialism.
And thats why Elisabeth, the symbol of CONTINUITY with the imperialist traditions of Britain is accountable for every evil they did.
The courageous Mr. Anonymous is back. Welcome back, sir!
ReplyDeleteWe were talking about sins committed during one's tenure.
Mr. Anonymous brought up something that happened during the reign of George V.
There are several things happening during the tenure of Mr. Obama. There are several wars with people being killed, and the detention camp in Cuba is still open.
The question then is: Is Mr. Obama responsible for what happens during his tenure? Or is he not?
Mr. Anonymous has twice confused reign with rule.
ReplyDeleteThe Queen reigns ensuring the government is formed from the majority party or coalition. The government rules so long as it has majority support in parliament.
An unjust government is the responsibility of the people to vote out, the Sovereign protects us from undemocratic behaviour but not from our own naivety and foolishness.
The dismissal of the Australian Gough Whitlam government that failed to pass their budget then lost a confidence vote proves the Sovereign has the courage to act to protect democracy and the will of the Australian people. This courage and strength of character is rare among presidents with the exception of Mr Obama.
How do I explain to someone that refuses to allow themselves to be held accountable for their opinion that decisions made by a government are the sole responsibility of the government concerned?