Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Al B. Sure!]

You'd be perfectly okay with the government having the power to read everyone's mind? What the hell?

What? You got something to hide? Sound like a thought criminal to me.

[giblets]

What? You got something to hide? Sound like a thought criminal to me.

Oh... uh... no, no I don't! I just don't want the government spending MY TAX DOLLARS on building and distributing mind reading machines all over the country.

[Hauldren Collider]

You'd be perfectly okay with the government having the power to read everyone's mind? What the hell?

That's not exactly what I meant.

[Dinner]

In illinois the dead also vote ....only for democrats.

Yeah, that happened back in the 1960's but can you come up with an example in the last... oh, I don't know... HALF CENTURY?! Even better, something in the last 20 years?

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes?

It's just never decided the President since Nixon lost to Kennedy.

[giblets]

Yes?

It's just never decided the President since Nixon lost to Kennedy.

Could you cite some relatively recent examples of it happening? This post didn't really say much of anything.

[Dinner]

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

Not if you look over 21. I doubt there are very many 40 year olds being asked for ID when they order a beer.

[Tupac Shakur]

I'm 40 and get asked for ID all the time. I look young for my age, however, something you probably can't relate to.

[Dinner]

The City of Philadelphia thinks I'm two people. Somewhere along the lines, they mis-spelled my last name and somehow thinks there's me, and another person at the same address with my name spelled slightly differently. They also diligently send me an absentee ballot every election...

I could probably vote 3 times if I wanted to.


Get to vote 3 times? Now that's what I call voter empowerment! Right, Oerdin?

You'd get caught if you tried it in the existing system because you'd still only have one SSI number. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties routinely scorer election results just to find stuff like this. In short, if both parties are looking for it but no one has been found guilty of doing this in 20 years then it's likely just not a very common thing.

[Dinner]

I'm 40 and get asked for ID all the time. I look young for my age, however, something you probably can't relate to.

Drake, you're not Tupac and I know you're like 5 or more years younger than me.

[Tupac Shakur]

You're like 45, right? You definitely exhibit the desperate striving for youth of a man going through his mid-life crisis...

[Dinner]

The poll watcher laws which went into effect in the 1970's has virtually eliminated the classic ballot box stuffing where the dead used to supposedly vote. Now you literally have dozens of different groups watching the ballot boxes making sure that doesn't happen and that's why it hasn't happened in decades and decades. Digging up that half century old complaint is just an attempt to make a false equivalency where no equivalency exists.

[Dinner]

You're like 45, right? You definitely exhibit the desperate striving for youth of a man going through his mid-life crisis...

35, dumb ass.

[Ben Kenobi]

He disagreed to death about a point of faith, he did not say Henry was leading England to ruin

Yeah, he did believe that Henry was leading England off a cliff and opposed his policies after resigning as chancellor. Henry had him executed. Read Utopia sometime.

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

Yet, I have evidence in the form of the Queen's own law.

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

Believe it!

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.

Well I have a history degree. So if we're arguing from authority, gosh, that means you would be less reliable than me. Or we can just argue without bringing authority into it. Your choice.

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.

And Elizabeth executed more over the course of her reign. Hence she would be considered the bloody one all else being equal.

It really doesn't take a genius to work out why Mary picked up the 'Bloody' title out of the two.

So what you are saying is that history was whitewashed and ignores Elizabeth's executions?

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.

She was under confinement, which is what I said, for no other reason than the fact that she was an heir. Confinement was a specialty of the Tudors. They confined and executed most of their kin.

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.

No, I call her entirely innocent of the charges laid on her because she was entirely innocent of the charges laid on her. You've admitted that Elizabeth executed her just because she had a better claim to the English throne than her. So why are you still arguing?

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.

Uh, yeah, Elizabeth was a relative of hers. Elizabeth could have helped her but chose to confine her.

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

As far as I can see Mary Queen of Scots, has a descent through Margaret Tudor (younger sister to Henry), and through the Beaufort's through John of Gaunt.

Elizabeth is only senior if you give her heritage through the Yorkists all the way back to Edward IV and Lionel of Antwerp.

Two, she was also the senior heir from the Saxons too, through her father, James V. Her husband was also a subsidiary heir (through James II Stewart, Mary Stewart, Elizabeth Hamilton and the earl of Lennox.) Both claims were stronger than Elizabeth's claim.

Elizabeth's Saxon claim goes through Margaret, Queen of Scotland, but not through David I King of Scotland, but through his younger sister, Edith of Scotland. This is why she named James VI/I to be her successor, because he had the superior Saxon and Plantagenet line.

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.

Yes, but that's not the fault of the kin. You seem to think that merely being kin of the Tudors justifies them executing their family.

Mary was a danger because she kept claiming she had a right to the throne

She was Heir Presumptive through Margaret!

, and may well have kept getting involved in plots to kill Elizabeth.

Why would she bother when Elizabeth was unmarried, and she was 10 years younger? There's no justification for it other than the fact that Elizabeth wanted to make sure that James wasn't brought up Catholic.

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

So what you are saying is that even though Elizabeth was Heir Presumptive, Mary refrained from executing her as Elizabeth would execute Mary Queen of Scots? Apparently Bloody Mary wasn't so bloody after all.

In summary: You literally know nothing about the periods in question apart from a narrow little narrative you've picked up from catholic websites.

You seem to think that Atheists understand religion.

[kentonio]

You are literally ****ing retarded.