Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Ben Kenobi]

So James Stuart left Scotland (a kingdom not noticeably richly endowed by the reign of his Catholic mother) to live in 'destroyed' England. So destroyed that a lot of his Scottish followers came with him to take up residence and enrich themsleves.

The most popular books ever in the English language were published at his behest. To argue that Elizabeth gave England her language is to forget that the bible is not the Queens, but King James.

Still, Charles Stuart managed to provoke a Civil War and lose his head, and James II Stuart managed to lose a country to his daughter and Protestant Dutch husband. Hmm, cracking dynasty, those Stuarts.

As opposed to the Tudors who dissolved the monasteries, executed their own citizens, killed the priests, raped the nunneries, etc. England was far stronger prior to the Tudors than after. She even had an empire in France, but it was under the Tudors that Calais itself was lost. So I'm just not seeing why we celebrate the reign of a dynasty where England declined.

Under James, Scotland and England were united and the foundations of the Empire began that would lay across the entire world.

[Hauldren Collider]

While I've been posting a lot, I'd like to add that Elizabeth wasn't just one of England's greatest rulers; more importantly, she was one of Civ 4's greatest rulers.

QFT

[Ben Kenobi]

So the Western and Northern European Crusaders were defending themselves against the Muslim Sunni Seljuk Turks who took parts of Asia Minor and the Levant from the Byzantines and the Shi'ite Fatimids of Egypt ?

Yes, they took the Christian lands that had fallen to the Turks. Or perhaps we should forget about the fact that Alexandria and Antioch and Jerusalem were all once nearly as prominent as Rome. Not to mention Carthage.

No they weren't.

Yes they were. The only difference between Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and between Rome is that Rome survived and the other three were overrun.

After the fall of the city, the crusades sacked the city

Indeed. What was the population of Jerusalem when the Muslims first sacked it?

yeah, we forget that the Crusades simply retook Christian lands. No they didn't. But your ignorance of Mediaeval history is showing.

And you show your ignorance of antiquity. Yes, the lands were Christian, and the Christians have every right to stand up and defend themselves. But I suppose the Copts do not exist in your history.

Right, where the Catholic France fought on the other side. And ? Says much about the venality and self interest of Roman Catholic Cardinals, doesn't it ?

Hrm? If it was a religious war, then why did Catholic France intervene in favor of the Protestants?

The persecution of the Recusants. Are you seriously suggesting that the persecution of Recusants in Reformation England (many of whom simply had to pay a fine)

Again, you lie. Many priests were executed and many who chose to practice Catholicism were banished from England. I don't see any difference between the two, except that one is covered up and the other gets trotted out every time. It's no wonder because if people were taught the truth, they'd start to question why the Catholic church is considered to be the sum of all evil in the world.

Even Louis XIV's advisers thought he'd ruined France to the betterment of Protestant Europe.

As did Henry's

As indeed he and his predecessors had- the first Governor of the Bank of England had Huguenot ancestry.

And England's loss was France's gain.

Admittedly a refugee from Alva's terror in the Low Countries, but Spain's loss was England's gain.

And England's loss also the gain of Spain.

The difference is that Catholic France did not try to persecute the majority of their population as the Tudors did.

One of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence was also unenfranchised. So?

It's persecution simply because of their creed.

Unlike the Huguenots, English Catholics were not murdered en masse, nor expelled en masse.

They were expelled, en masse, and the priests were executed. Anyone who refused to convert.

What prompted Elizabeth's treatment of English Catholics ? Could it be to do with the Papal Bull 'Regnans in Excelsis'

Already cited, and the persecution of English Catholics did not begin with her. Nor was her persecution started after the Papal Bull. The Papal Bull spells out her persecution of Catholics prior to it's issuance. Again, you lie.

Papal and Spanish plots against her and her kingdom?

You mean the plots by English Catholics after they were persecuted? Had Elizabeth not persecuted them, she would not have been opposed by the oppressed. This isn't hard.

They suborned English Catholics to betray their ruler and country.

Given that they were loyal to the Crown prior to the Crown declaring them to be traitors, that's hardly the case. They are still loyal to the crown, just not the ones that have been imposed on them.

You don't think the corruption of the later mediaeval Church and the decadence of the Renaissance Papacy ahd anything to do with that?

No, because the exact same thing happened in Scandinavian countries.

How about the attraction of a faith which spoke to people in their own language

What language was this? French? Latin?

something which from Wiclif to Coverdale and Tyndale has proved strangely appealing in England.

Unfortunately, that's not how it all worked. If it wasn't for a divorce, England would still be Catholic.

They're usually to be found on the more orthodox wing of anything they convert to.

Indeed, given the origin of the Anglican church, that is to be expected.

[Ben Kenobi]

I made the facetious claim that Obama killed Osama to take his place. BK responded with "I thought the War On Terror was supposed to be Bush's fault?" A complete non sequitur, he plainly just threw out something tangentially related to muddy the waters.

It's a simple argument. Either Obama is responsible for all of the consequences of the War on Terror, or he is responsible for none of them. You can't pick and choose which consequences he can take credit for.

[kentonio]

Enjoy? You mean to say that they have a choice? Somehow I think that if they were permitted to have Home Rule, which is what they are desiring, that they would wish to do things as the rest of Ireland.

In the last poll only 33% of catholics wanted a united Ireland, they're all quite liking having a devolved assembly but staying part of Britain. It doesn't matter what you think or think they should want, the people of Northern Ireland have actually said in poll after poll that you're wrong.

The total protestants in Ireland at present is around 625k. Northern Ireland would add roughly a million. You'd have roughly 1.5 million protestants to 5.24 million Catholics. So the percentage would still remain 75 percent Catholic in Ireland.

By my count, the only dioceses in a united Ireland that wouldn't have majority Catholic, would be in Down and Connor and Dromore, at 32.1 and 44.8 respectively. That means that the only majority protestant areas are the area to the east of Loch Neagh.

So let me get this right, Northern Ireland has a population of around 1,789,000 (2009), you've previously claimed based on no evidence at all that catholics are now in the majority in Northern Ireland, yet Northern Ireland joining Ireland would add a million protestants? Once again you fail at maths. As for which areas would have majority protestants, you're completely talking out of your ass. Until the 2011 census results are released, you have absolutely nothing to support your claim other than you just making things up.

As opposed to the Irish Catholics. Again, union is at this point, inevitable. Moreso because of the collapse in the number of Presbyterians.

You mean the 'collapse' that you invented based on literally no evidence whatsoever. Not to mention the 'inevitable' union that the people who actually live in NI keep saying they have no interest in.

I'm not sure how you can pin that on the Catholics other than the fact that they were there first.

BECAUSE THEY DID IT YOU TOOL! Should we not blame the nazis for the holocaust because they just 'got there first'?!

I would argue that the violent acts instigated by Catholics must be compared with those committed by the Orange order. It makes no sense to condemn the one and not the other. Thankfully, as the Catholic population increases, the troubles go away.

Please visit NI and share your wisdom with the locals.

[kentonio]

As did Henry's

Provide evidence. I want to see several direct quotations from prominent Henry advisors saying what you just claimed they did. Otherwise you're a liar and a fantasist.

They were expelled, en masse, and the priests were executed. Anyone who refused to convert.

Act of Supremacy - 1534, Estimated population of England - 2.4 million, percentage of catholics at that time definitely above 50%. Please provide documentary evidence of the mass expelling of over a million people from England in the years following 1534.

You mean the plots by English Catholics after they were persecuted? Had Elizabeth not persecuted them, she would not have been opposed by the oppressed. This isn't hard.

You are literally one of the stupidest people alive.

Given that they were loyal to the Crown prior to the Crown declaring them to be traitors, that's hardly the case. They are still loyal to the crown, just not the ones that have been imposed on them.

So if you plot to kill the president, you're a patriot because you just don't like that particular president? Tool.

[Dinner]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#44853410

A very good report by Racheal Maddow yesterday about the systematic attempts by Republicans to prevent minorities from voting. We're looking more and more like a banana republic and it's clear Republicans aren't just bad but absolutely immoral and evil as a group. Without any hyperbole they are literally fascists.

[Elok]

It's a simple argument. Either Obama is responsible for all of the consequences of the War on Terror, or he is responsible for none of them. You can't pick and choose which consequences he can take credit for.

Yes, I forgot to add "false dilemma" to your list of favorite fallacies...

[Lorizael]

It's a simple argument. Either Obama is responsible for all of the consequences of the War on Terror, or he is responsible for none of them. You can't pick and choose which consequences he can take credit for.

[Elok]

Do you just have a program/script that quotes every short BK post and appends the LOL smiley, Lori? I mean, it's a safe bet, but there are probably better ways to spend your time than programming such things.

[Lorizael]

I've given up arguing with him. He infuriates me too much. The only response I can think of that doesn't involve heavy ordnance is laughter.

[Elok]

Dangit, now I really want to play Civ 4, but we left it home since it won't play on my wife's laptop. Molly or BK or whoever brought up Liz I, I hope you're proud of yourself.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dangit, now I really want to play Civ 4, but we left it home since it won't play on my wife's laptop. Molly or BK or whoever brought up Liz I, I hope you're proud of yourself.

That, would actually be kentonio.

[Ben Kenobi]

Provide evidence.

Uh, the same dude who wrote Utopia was just a wee skeptical.

Otherwise you're a liar and a fantasist.

The only liar here is you.

Act of Supremacy - 1534, Estimated population of England - 2.4 million, percentage of catholics at that time definitely above 50%. Please provide documentary evidence of the mass expelling of over a million people from England in the years following 1534.

So you're assuming there were no recusants?

You are literally one of the stupidest people alive.

You expect people being persecuted not to rebel? Stop persecuting them, and the rebellions go away.

So if you plot to kill the president, you're a patriot because you just don't like that particular president? Tool.

If said president signs the same laws that Elizabeth did, you can bet on that happening. But you don't care about religious freedom when the powers that be are oppressing people you hate.

Oh, btw, where's the evidence that Mary Queen of Scots was involved in treason?

[Hauldren Collider]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...show/#44853410

A very good report by Racheal Maddow yesterday about the systematic attempts by Republicans to prevent minorities from voting. We're looking more and more like a banana republic and it's clear Republicans aren't just bad but absolutely immoral and evil as a group. Without any hyperbole they are literally fascists.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that you're probably talking about requiring a government issued ID to vote. Yes, the end of our republic! Democracy is doomed! I have to get a driver's license or a passport or god forbid a DMV ID card!