The disgusting witch hunt against Prince Andrew - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15052667
ness31 wrote:I wish Prince Andrew had just been given the opportunity to explain what he meant when he referred to his “tendency to be too honourable”. I truly believe there is something in that statement.

It’s a shame he didn’t recognize the zeitgeist and understand he was obligated to explain what he meant.

He had the opportunity, during that car crash interview he gave. And don't these people have advisers? Did he just not listen to them or something? :eh:
#15052673
This thread is the most bootlicking cuck shit I've ever read. Anyone who watched that interview and still thinks he's anything other than a rapist piece of shit should be put against the wall with him.

You guys aren't even making the same arguments that the accused made. Why aren't you bringing up the infamous malady of the Falklands War - the no-sweats?
#15052688
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Prince Andrew inherited money that belong to the state

trump inherited money from his father

Prince Andrew inherited nothing from the state. The Queen has always paid him a rather generous allowance for carrying out his royal duties out of her private wealth. I'm guessing that may soon be cut back somewhat in the light of recent events.... Lol.
#15052691
Red_Army wrote:This thread is the most bootlicking cuck shit I've ever read. Anyone who watched that interview and still thinks he's anything other than a rapist piece of shit should be put against the wall with him.

Spare me the faux concern for women and girls. There's no evidence that he's a rapist. Martin Smith, on the other hand, almost certainly was a rapist. I'm referring to the one time leader of the (British) Socialist Workers Party, not the one time TV psychic who was convicted of rape. Far left leaders and the leaders of terror organisations that they support like the Provos, get away with all sorts of sexual abuse. And that's in democracies, who knows what they got away with in the Soviet Union, I suspect Lavrentiy Beria was just the tip of the iceberg.

But thanks, your readiness to kill me has been duly noted, don't expect any apologies if we anti Communists choose to take our own pre-emptive action. However while I'm happy to shoot Communists without trial in an emergency situation. I would not support shooting Communists 17 year old daughters or their 15 year old sons just on the basis of their parentage.

Personally I'd be happy to abolish the monarchy tomorrow. And if I had my way the Queen would not get to keep most of her accumulated private wealth. However I see no need for vindictiveness, the current members of the Royal family should get generous pensions. I wouldn't give Prince Andrew any less than his current allowance. All of the current Royals were born after the introduction of universal male suffrage (and women over 30). They have remained Royals because the people have wanted them to remain Royals. It makes no more sense to murder them, than murdering the long-standing cast members of Coronation Street.
#15052693
Potemkin wrote:Prince Andrew inherited nothing from the state. The Queen has always paid him a rather generous allowance for carrying out his royal duties out of her private wealth. I'm guessing that may soon be cut back somewhat in the light of recent events.... Lol.


and where the queen is taking money from? it all comes out from the state eventually
the royals are leeches
#15052695
Zionist Nationalist wrote:and where the queen is taking money from? it all comes out from the state eventually
the royals are leeches

Granted, but lots of people are leeches. By your logic, if we are justified in getting rid of the Royal Family, then we are also justified in getting rid of those other leeches as well. We call this a 'revolution', ZN. I always knew you were really one of us! :up: ;)
#15052702
Potemkin wrote:Prince Andrew inherited nothing from the state. The Queen has always paid him a rather generous allowance for carrying out his royal duties out of her private wealth. I'm guessing that may soon be cut back somewhat in the light of recent events.... Lol.


I doubt his £34m net worth comes from that. But I guess inherited is the wrong word, more like gifted.
#15052704
Rugoz wrote:I doubt his £34m net worth comes from that. But I guess inherited is the wrong word, more like gifted.

I strongly suspect that most of his fortune originated as 'loans' he cadged off some of his billionaire buddies, on the understanding that he would never have to pay them back. All he had to do was keep turning up to their parties. "You simply must come, old chap! Prince Andrew will be there, don't you know...." Deffo worth it for them, and cheap at, say, half a million a year.... Lol. :lol:
#15052705
Zionist Nationalist wrote:and where the queen is taking money from? it all comes out from the state eventually
the royals are leeches

True. Exactly like any other landowner or owner of any other state-issued and -enforced privileges like bank licenses, IP monopolies, broadcast spectrum allocations, oil and mineral rights, etc.
#15052706
Potemkin wrote:Granted, but lots of people are leeches. By your logic, if we are justified in getting rid of the Royal Family, then we are also justified in getting rid of those other leeches as well. We call this a 'revolution', ZN. I always knew you were really one of us! :up: ;)

Overturning privilege will definitely take a revolution, but first and foremost an intellectual revolution. It only has to be violent if the privileged resist justice by violence, as in the US Civil War.
#15052712
Potemkin wrote:I strongly suspect that most of his fortune originated as 'loans' he cadged off some of his billionaire buddies, on the understanding that he would never have to pay them back. All he had to do was keep turning up to their parties. "You simply must come, old chap! Prince Andrew will be there, don't you know...." Deffo worth it for them, and cheap at, say, half a million a year.... Lol. :lol:



Epstein knew how to make money squeaky clean.
#15052723
Potemkin wrote:And don't these people have advisers? Did he just not listen to them or something? :eh:


A woman at work said his advisor quit after Andrew refused his advice about doing the interview. :lol:

Red_Army wrote:This thread is the most bootlicking cuck shit I've ever read.


I know. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Except ZN's posts, I'm agreed. Fuck the monarchy, off with their heads, etc.
#15052765
skinster wrote: Fuck the monarchy, off with their heads, etc.

Even Meghan ?
But.. she is a woman and a person of colour !
She used her looks, her fame and her cunt to enter a life of luxury.
Maybe we should let her be.

Harry is the fruit of a stray fuck between Diana and her body guard, not a drop of Windsor (AKA Von Saksen Coburg) blood in his veins, so both Harry and Meghan should not be considered royalty. He is also off the hook.

With the rest, do as you please.
#15052808
Interesting that so many posters are eager or at least tolerant of exterminating people based on their biological heritage.

There are certainly cases where it makes sense to seek the death of a head of state without a trial. I have argued that the Liberal Democracies should have sentenced Adolph Hitler to death in March 1939 and all gone to war to achieve that end. I don't have a problem in principle with executing Tsar Nicholas II, if the population had backed such an action through the Constituent assembly. Again without a trial, I find such trials like the Nuremberg show trials utterly ridiculous and argue they should be treated with utter contempt. I also wouldn't have a problem with executing the Thai King, he has clearly been complicit in the overthrow of democracy there.

But what have the British monarchy done in recent times? If anything when the monarchy have intervened in politics in the last 180 years its been to undermine aristocratic privilege not to enhance it. The British monarchy in the last 180 years have never used dictatorial power to defend monarchical privilege, because the British Parliament has never sought to abolish it. As far as I can make out it was the current Queens personal decision to give up the last de-facto monarchial power within the British system, there was no pressure either from the elected representatives or a popular movement.

Calling for the death of the British Royals exposes the moral bankruptcy of the left, when Jeremy Corbyn hasn't even refused to take the oath of allegiance. I would happily vote for Jeremy Corbyn or even the SNP or the IRA if they would refuse to take the oath of allegiance, but seek to force their way into Parliament and force the government to arrest and imprison them.

This is not Socialism it is Social-Democracy. In W[…]

@Zionist Nationalist You have an Ideology of 1[…]

A well needed slap in the face. That said, I thi[…]

USA and Taliban sign Peacedeal

The Afghans have to negotiate a peacedeal when the[…]