User:Pierius Magnus/Various discussions which don't belong on talk pages of newspapers

From Talk:The Noble City Times

 * Just for the record: there is no legal clause that says the king should be neutral. It's my own choice not to be partisan. I could never be "neutral". Being neutral and being in Congress would be stupidest combination ever  13:44, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Live to serve" should be the motto of any self-respecting monarch. You're ought to stand above party politics - you, as a monarch, should take no sides. You are already a Member by Right: there is no need for you not to be impartial. With great power comes great responsibility, remember? Pierius Magnus 13:54, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is utter nonsense (read that again, it's fun: utter nonsense) to consider a monarch only a good one if he does not choose. I am a Member by Right and as all members, I will represent the people whose king I am. To represent them, as all MOTCs must do, I must interpret what's going on and must make an opinion about what has to be done. I could conclude (but I don't) that we should increase market freedom to guarantee welfare. In that case, I would "take sides" with the classical liberals. I could also be more Keynesian and be considered a social-democrat. We must all interpret. An impartial king, that is he who would abandon his "great responsibility". 14:01, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't take this too personal please, but you finally admit that you can't be neutral; impartial as a King, who's completely involved in national politics. Cristian Latin 14:39, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I admire your honesty, Dimitri. Although I was always very well aware what your personal convictions are. Pierius Magnus 14:44, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * It has taken some time for me too to realize impartiality is either a hoax or a failure. I am however nonpartisan and I will pursue to write nonpartisan bills. The state reforms for example, have all been carried by a wide majority of people from all parties.
 * Especially in these election days, I find it terribly hard not to comment on campaigns. It is very unnatural not to comment on people saying things that go against all laws, and who pretend they do know the laws. And that's what I see and hear a lot.
 * Another thing is that I feel sympathy for some people, and less so for others. Can't and won't hide that. It's impossible to like no-one as it would be impossible to like all of them. I'm not talking about friends and "vriendjespolitiek" here. I hardly know the new Hillbillykid, but I like the way he does what he does. 14:58, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * "I will represent the people whose king I am." How exactly are you to do that? You are explicitly saying that you have a position, that you must make decisions, yet at the same time you represent the people. Unless you're going to bring up sun-king "l'etat c'est moi" nonsense, you can very well agree that such an argument is not sound. A leader of the people who is really to take decisions, and at the same time represent the people, cannot be put in such a position unless put there by those who are represented. Not to be getting off-track, but it's yet another suggestion that we should be moving away from a monarchy (I figured out that you expected this to happen since the beginning, Dimi, when you showed me the way the Nation Infobox worked. :D). I'm not accusing anything of the leader of the institution, but rather the institution itself. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:14, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * You rather question the institute of democracy than that of the monarchy. Our Prime Minister, who is only elected by a sheer section of the population, also "represents the people". If a person like the king was (btw) elected by the people, his claim of representing the people would be less valid. Not being elected, allows him to represent the people instead of his constituency (of course, within the methodological boundaries of the possible). Hillbilly Boy 09:51, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I myself have, believe it or not, always supported the monarchy. Of course this would require the monarch I support to represent all of his citizens, not just those whose ideas and ideals are similar to his own (read: leftists and liberals). Pierius Magnus 10:00, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Suffering from lacunar amnesia, Pierius "IGP" Donia? 10:38, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

"Double standards"
Nice try... I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have been in contact with Mr. Honecker once. It was on another wikia - I was, at the time being, banned from wikination. On Lovia, I was never in any way associated with him nor the IGP. I have never been a member of the IGP nor ever supported it in any way. The conversation I had with this gentlemen a full year ago, is of no importance. Only one former IGP-member (and leader) is still active; McCrooke. He may even become our PM. People are very, very forgiving. Their forgiveness, though, is selective. Pierius Magnus 10:42, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * We all know Pierlot's faults. I've known him for three years now and he has caused trouble (both big and small) for three years. He's been anti and pro in practically every case. He's ambiguous and can be a real rebel. We know that. And yes, we are forgiving. We've been forgiving towards OWTB too, who once had a sockpuppet. We really don't care about those events after all these years. What we don't like however (or what I don't like) is that you cover it all up by saying "oh it was another wiki", "oh it was just once", oh I've always been honest." Let us not be phonies. 10:48, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not cover up anything, Your Majesty. I never denied having been into contact with Honecker. Never. The only thing you can accuse me of, is bagatalizing the situation, at best. Pierius Magnus 10:52, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Help me out here :
 * "I myself have, believe it or not, always supported the monarchy"
 * " Then, the monster will show his true face to the world!" with the monster being me
 * Am I missing something?  10:58, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * You must not take things out of context. You know very well that when I said the first sentence (over a year ago) I had just been kicked of the site by you. At that moment, that was an accurate description of how I felt. What I find very strange is that Pierlot was never banned for using those sockpuppets - it almost appears as if it's a big cover-up: accounts blocked, user page deleted and never again mentioned. Are you perhaps using a double standard? It sure looks that way. Pierius Magnus 11:07, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are measuring with double standards, these facts you can’t deny:
 * Pierlot has had five sockpuppets (that we know of):
 * User:Kloast
 * User:Piercet
 * User:KelvinW
 * User:McCrooke
 * User:PatatjeOorlog
 * Now take a look at his block log…
 * I see many blocks. Not one of them is for sockpuppetry – despite you having blocked all five of his sockies and deleted their talkpages, redirecting the userpages to Pierlot’s. Also I noticed none of his blocks were longer then one week. In spite of numerous warning being given for removing content from pages, vandalism, inappropriate behaviour and so forth. Pierius Magnus 11:20, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Pierius. That's all very convincing. Have you ever been blocked for one year? Guess not, right. You really annoy me to death. 11:56, January 4, 2011 (UTC)