Would you turn from the US Government and allow a king to rule over you if you believed or had even a little reason to believe that he could in turn save millions of lives and improve the quality of life over all if the only trade off was that you could not teach the bible in general was not God's word, a ban on abortion, witchcraft (as the bible defines it) and making it legal for males and females who have reached puberty to decide who they want to marry without their parents permission (and before saying no consider your children base their decisions on how well you instilled morals into them and what type in the first eight years).
The only conceivable reasons for which I might acknowledge a sovereign over the U.S.A. (unless coerced to do so) would be: 1) The given individual can grant me immortality. 2) I am the given individual.
sacrifice the kids? wow, you'd sacrifice the lives of millions of babies, kids, and adults? by the way Jesus offers immortality, go to my site at and click what every christian should know, bye! Link removed --- Do not spam!
I'll investigate this "Jesus" of yours, though I must admit that this seems too suspicious, too inscrutable, to be veritable. Sounds like an occultist hoax.
HAHAHA THIS IS AN ASININE AND SUPERFLUOUS THREAD. HAHAHAHAHAHA THE YEARS WENT BY AND I WAS LOOKIN' THROUGH A GIRLY MAGAZINE, AND THERE'S MY HOMEROOM ANGEL IN THE PAGES IN BETWEEN. MY BLOOD RUNS COLD! MY MEMORY HAS JUST BEEN SOLD! MY ANGEL IS THE CENTERFOLD! MY ANGEL IS THE CENTERFOLD! A PART OF ME HAS JUST BEEN RIPPED THE PAGES FROM MY MIND ARE STRIPPED OH NO, I CAN'T DENY IT GUESS I GOTTA BUY IT! I'm sorry but I had to write that . . . I love that song.
Of all the nine reasons on the list, I think government corruption is the most significant thing to be curbed. If so, many other problems could be solved, such as the conspiracy to hide the cures for cancer and AIDS. (If it's not already happening, it will; the government will profit from these ailments not having cures.) So, my vote goes to the "reduce corruption" option.
You all understand that riding the world of half it's AIDS carriers really wouldn't do shit, right? Cause if the king rid the world of half there would still be the other half as carriers, and they would spread it, so in time, there will be that same original number again, you fools.
You didn't build the stupid poll correctly. I kept trying to submit my vote with no boxes checked, and the damn thing wouldn't let me. How clever of you to construct this poll so that people who want to vote NONE OF THE ABOVE are not allowed to be counted! You should work for the government, that was a pretty neat trick. We have absolutely no idea how many people came here and wanted to vote NONE OF THE ABOVE. You make it look like everybody would be willing to hand over their destiny to a monarch if he just made the right promises. I've got two things to say to you. 1. POWER CORRUPTS. It might take two or three generations or it might only take a few years, but before long that dear monarch of yours will be just as imperious and uncaring as all rulers who are unaccountable to their subjects. 2. YOU CAN NEVER DO JUST ONE THING. It might look like a good idea to surrender all our rights to a dictator (let's call a spade a spade, shall we?) because we're in a crisis. But we're not paying attention to the negative effect of that move. I would be very interested to see the results of this poll if you had constructed it honestly and honorably. For all I know, the majority of the members might actually be willing to live under an autocratic government. After all, how many of them even bother to vote? Especially now. When people get scared they all run over to the first bully they can find and beg him to defend them, forgetting that his favorite pastime is beating them up and stealing their lunch money. "People who are willing to give up a little bit of freedom in order to gain a little bit of security invariably end up with neither. And that's actually just fine, because it's exactly what those people deserve."
From that first word: "WOULD" I might have assumed that among those choices there should have been an answer of "no", but unfortunately for me it was not so. I believe that having a king that would rule the entire country by himself would never be more effective than the democracy type of government. When people have that much power for so long they tend to get this fear that their power would get taken from them, so they do all these foolish things to make sure their power stays their's. Then again, that's only my opinion.
