Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[DaShi]

Grand Fascist Party!

[Tupac Shakur]

The Republicans can't be fascist; they don't even support trains.

[Egbert]

I clearly said that you need a driver's license to get into bars; I didn't say anything about drinking beer. Thank you for proving my point about Australian intelligence, though.

I know what you said. We are taught to read. We actually have schools of our own.

[Dinner]

I clearly said that you need a driver's license to get into bars; I didn't say anything about drinking beer. Thank you for providing a demonstration of Aussie intelligence in action, though.

It's not just about the driver's license, you stupid red neck from Nebraska. The voter suppression tactics have been clearly detailed for you so why not respond to them or STFU?

[Tupac Shakur]

I already responded to them, you idiot.

[kentonio]

That, would actually be kentonio.

Actually no, it was you in response to someone mentioning the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Thus proving you are literally physically incapable of telling the truth about anything.

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

Thomas More was a close friend and mentor of Henry who couldn't deal with the Act of Supremacy. Please cite where he stated that Henry had 'ruined England to the betterment of Catholic Europe'.

So you're assuming there were no recusants?

Pure Ben. You make a ridiculous statement, and when its pointed out that if you were right it'd mean that a million+ people had been driven out of England in a vast evacuation that simply never happened, you fall back on a stupid 'so you believe noone was' position. That is so you.

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

That period in history was an almost non-stop sequence of rebellions caused by families trying to raise their position, poor people tired of staving to death for cruel masters and a host of other reasons, of which religious persecution was only one. As pretty much every historian in the world agrees (no you are not a historian) Elizabeths time was well known for being pretty moderate. You can try and say otherwise, but you just sound like a ****ing idiot every time.

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.

Stop trying to play the victim card you silly little man. This was an age when the King or Queen could have you burned alive on little more than a whim and where having a different religious opinion to the monarch (and daring to reveal it) were usually sure fire ways to find yourself being tortured and horribly executed. Bloody Mary was a prime example of this, and Henry was pretty brutal too. Compared to both of them, Elizabeth was a ***** cat.

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

The letters from the Babington Plot. She also had associations with Roberto Ridolfi which was damning enough.

To be fair however, the evidence was pretty irrelevant. Mary had openly claimed previously that she was the rightful heir to the English throne, and was the focus point of numerous rebellions intended to replace Elizabeth with her. Any other monarch would have killed her years before, and if you really need any more proof that Elizabeth was a moderate of her time, the fact Mary lived for 19 years under house arrest should be conclusive proof.

[Hauldren Collider]

Did you watch the video? Among other things someone wanted to stop mailing ballots to soldiers serving overseas.

Oh, well that's stupid. I know in Virginia ID's are required but absentee ballots are pretty easy to get. I just mailed out my request form, actually.

[Hauldren Collider]

By the way, why would the GOP want to stop soldiers from voting? Soldiers tend to vote republican..I'm skeptical that they're really trying to disenfranchise the military.

[giblets]

By the way, why would the GOP want to stop soldiers from voting? Soldiers tend to vote republican..I'm skeptical that they're really trying to disenfranchise the military.

It's been a few hours since I saw the video but I think it was soldiers from a specific county that had a lot of hispanics.

[Hauldren Collider]

How could anybody possibly drink a beer if he can not prove he is capable of driving a motor vehicle?

You can also get state ID cards in most states. They're basically driver's licenses except without the whole "allowed to drive" thing.

You need a driver's license to get into bars.

And to get into most federal buildings.

[Zevico]

Australia has voter ID laws. You must present your ID before having your name marked on the electoral roll. I don't see anyone crying racism or class-ism at that. Not having them is a recipe for voter fraud.
If the concern is that people won't get them due to expense--I can't speak to whether that concern is valid--then as a compromise a State can simply offer free ID cards to those on the electoral roll, or at any rate, those over 18 generally.

[Hauldren Collider]

I honestly think that absentee ballots should be handled by certified mail at the post office or something.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thomas More was a close friend and mentor of Henry who couldn't deal with the Act of Supremacy.

The man was willing to die for his beliefs because he believed they were contrary to the Act of Supremacy. So, yeah. Not enough proof for you that he opposed Henry's policies to the gallows?

Pure Ben. You make a ridiculous statement,

I stated, that the policy of Elizabeth's government, as already cited and demonstrated was to expel anyone who continued to practice their faith in public. Many left voluntarily, many were exiled, many chose to die in jail. Some were executed. Many chose to defy her laws in secret, and continue to practice their faith.

Over time, the number of Catholics due to the harsh repression of Elizabeth dwindled. It wasn't all at once and fleeing for their lives didn't take the time to check to make sure that it was ok by Elizabeth before they left.

and when its pointed out that if you were right it'd mean that a million+ people had been driven out of England in a vast evacuation that simply never happened,

Unfortunately that is not what I argued, and you are distorting what actually did happen to attempt to bolster your argument. Unfortunately that's not what actually happened. The difference between your argument and mine is that I have the documented policy of Elizabeth's government to do what I said she did, expel those who refused to accede to her wishes.

you fall back on a stupid 'so you believe noone was' position. That is so you.

You simply don't understand what the term recusant means. Not all the Catholics left, a great many stayed, so your numbers are completely off. You were assuming that all of them were banished, when that was not the case at all. Nobody but you is making that terrible argument.

That period in history was an almost non-stop sequence of rebellions

That's what tends to happen when you repress the majority of the population to enforce your religious views.

caused by families trying to raise their position, poor people tired of staving to death for cruel masters and a host of other reasons

Nonsense. They were angered that Elizabeth was hanging, executing and persecuting people for their faith and sought to resist. They failed, which is why we don't call them heroes. Oh wait, yes we do. They were martyred for their faith. Why is the Rising of the North against Elizabeth circumspect, but everyone celebrates good ol' William Wallace?

As pretty much every historian in the world agrees (no you are not a historian)

What are your credentials Kentonio? You've been asked, you declined to answer the question. Yes I am one, and no, the narrative you were taught about the pure unstained Virgin Queen is a myth. Like people riding dinosaurs. An appealing myth for sure, but still a myth.

Stop trying to play the victim card you silly little man.

I call it as I see it. You have stated that you believe the execution of priests and the oppression of Catholics, and the denial of their civil rights to be 'moderate'. I call that radical.

This was an age when the King or Queen could have you burned alive on little more than a whim and where having a different religious opinion to the monarch (and daring to reveal it) were usually sure fire ways to find yourself being tortured and horribly executed. Bloody Mary was a prime example of this, and Henry was pretty brutal too. Compared to both of them, Elizabeth was a ***** cat.

Again, the argument doesn't hold. Elizabeth executed more people than Mary, she was the bloody one, not Mary. You've even admitted this was true, so I'm not sure why you are still arguing.

The letters from the Babington Plot. She also had associations with Roberto Ridolfi which was damning enough.

She was unaware of the plot because she was already in jail. She can't be blamed for plots she had no involvement in. Entirely innocent. Oh and her confinement started well prior to Babington, so that doesn't justify her imprisonment and execution.

To be fair however, the evidence was pretty irrelevant.

Sokath, his eyes uncovered!

Mary had openly claimed previously that she was the rightful heir to the English throne

Which is entirely true. She is a more senior descendant to the Plantagenets than Elizabeth.

Any other monarch would have killed her years before

So all the monarchs executed their peaceful family simply because they had a claim to the throne? Balderdash.

Queen Mary didn't execute Elizabeth, did she?

[Ben Kenobi]

By the way, why would the GOP want to stop soldiers from voting? Soldiers tend to vote republican..I'm skeptical that they're really trying to disenfranchise the military.

It's Oerdin. Remember when Al Gore tried to toss out all the military ballots in Florida?

[kentonio]

The man was willing to die for his beliefs because he believed they were contrary to the Act of Supremacy. So, yeah. Not enough proof for you that he opposed Henry's policies to the gallows?

He disagreed to death about a point of faith, he did not say Henry was leading England to ruin at the expense of Europe as you claimed. Once again you were talking bull****.

Over time, the number of Catholics due to the harsh repression of Elizabeth dwindled. It wasn't all at once and fleeing for their lives didn't take the time to check to make sure that it was ok by Elizabeth before they left.

You're a ****ing idiot who makes up a picture in his own head and then argues it must be true. Grow the **** up.

You simply don't understand what the term recusant means. Not all the Catholics left, a great many stayed, so your numbers are completely off. You were assuming that all of them were banished, when that was not the case at all. Nobody but you is making that terrible argument.

Stop trying to put your ridiculous claims and nonsense arguments onto me you illogical, irrational, dishonest ****wit.

Nonsense. They were angered that Elizabeth was hanging, executing and persecuting people for their faith and sought to resist.

I literally cannot believe you just said that religious oppression was the only reason for rebellion in that time period. You ****ing tool.

What are your credentials Kentonio? You've been asked, you declined to answer the question. Yes I am one, and no, the narrative you were taught about the pure unstained Virgin Queen is a myth. Like people riding dinosaurs. An appealing myth for sure, but still a myth.

I'm not a historian. I'm an amateur who's spent 25+ years reading anything historical I could get my hands on. I'm certainly not an expert on the Tudors, but compared to you I know infants who would be considered historical experts.

Again, the argument doesn't hold. Elizabeth executed more people than Mary, she was the bloody one, not Mary. You've even admitted this was true, so I'm not sure why you are still arguing.

One more time I will try and explain something so blindingly obvious that a small child could grasp it. Mary burned alive 300 people in 5 years. That's 60 people a year. Elizabeth executed possibly slightly more in total but over 45 years. 300 over 45 years is about 6 people a year. It really doesn't take a genius to work out why Mary picked up the 'Bloody' title out of the two.

She was unaware of the plot because she was already in jail. She can't be blamed for plots she had no involvement in. Entirely innocent. Oh and her confinement started well prior to Babington, so that doesn't justify her imprisonment and execution.

She wasn't in jail you ****wit, she was kept at various castles and other locations where she would have access to visitors and basically be treated with all the deference of a lady of high breeding. That's why I said house arrest. The fact you call her 'entirely innocent' is because you want her to be innocent because it fits your pretty little 'catholics are angels' story. Again, grow the **** up. I already pointed out how she almost certianly had her husband killed.

You also skipped over the part where the whole reason she was in England is because she ran asking Elizabeth for help because she'd been deposed by the scots.

Which is entirely true. She is a more senior descendant to the Plantagenets than Elizabeth.

No she wasn't you idiot. She was only above Elizabeth if Elizabeth was illegitimate.

So all the monarchs executed their peaceful family simply because they had a claim to the throne? Balderdash.

This period is full of monarchs killing off potential threats to their thrones, as you'd know if you had the faintest bit of knowledge about the time. Mary was a danger because she kept claiming she had a right to the throne, and may well have kept getting involved in plots to kill Elizabeth. It was more than enough justification for the time to kill her.

Queen Mary didn't execute Elizabeth, did she?

Elizabeth didn't claim to be the rightful Queen over Mary.

In summary: You literally know nothing about the periods in question apart from a narrow little narrative you've picked up from catholic websites. To you everything has to fit into your tiny little vision of the world, where catholics must always be the good guys, and anything that disagrees must be a lie. You debate in the manner of a petulant four year old, changing the subject, distorting the truth and telling downright lies that even contradict what you said just a few posts ago. Just stop and go back to lying about something else for a change other than talking bull**** about English history. Oh and please stop claiming you're a historian, it makes you sound like a total *****.