Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Al B. Sure!]

True, but the reason that they did that to your family, is because you hired them. You'd be held responsible by the court for hiring the person in the first place.

Hiring the person to open the lock?

It's negligence at worst.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except you wouldn't and thats just stupid. Nice to see you've stopped making things up about history and moved onto making things up about law instead.

So go ahead and try that, and see where it gets you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hiring the person to open the lock?

Hiring a known criminal?

It's negligence at worst.

Refusing to pay him?

What happens if the criminal were to testify that he simply, let you into the house?

[Al B. Sure!]

Well wait... the analogy is changing now... known criminal? I mean sure the crusaders were ******* invaders who slaughtered and pillaged but I'm surprised you, of all people, would characterize them as 'known criminals'.

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh wait yeah... Ben's morality... the same morality that condones Dave Floyd calling me a sand ****** but demands my death for implying that Floyd wouldn't back up his talk in person.

[kentonio]

Elizabeth was responsible for her share of them. She killed more than the so called 'bloody Mary'. If her policy was 'moderate', than so was Mary Tudor.

The Elizabethan executions took place over 45 years and were generally only in response to rebellions. Mary burned 300 people to death in 5 years as part of a mass reign of terror. It's not complicated.

You said Mary. You did not say Mary, Queen of Scots.

I'd expect a historian to know there was more than one, particularly when the first one was already dead.

Yes, her support came from radical protestants after Edward died.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Elizabeth's support came from the puritans? Seriously?

How many protestants did she execute in her reign?

Quite a few, look up the Brownian Movement.

Which is what happened, isn't it? She killed Mary Queen of Scots, and the Armada invaded. Seems to me a pretty good way to understand her reign is oppressive to Catholics, for which Spain intervened.

Except that Elizabeth had no desire to kill Mary, and put it off for a very long time until the endless plotting of rebellion became too much.

Again, she was far from moderate.

Elizabeth is only extremist if you look at it in a revionist manner by todays standards. By the standards of her own time, she was extremely moderate.

You're the one claiming her execution of Catholics was moderate but her execution of protestants was 'oppressive'. Doesn't work that way, sorry. She was simply oppressive.

I actually said that she oppressed them, I didn't originally mention her executions of protestants at all.

Bear in mind I'm an English athiest. I have literally no reason to care whether the protestants or catholics were bigger bastards to each other back then. I do however care about historical accuracy, and painting Elizabeth as a tyrant and trying to airbrush over Bloody Mary's reign just because you're a Catholic is extremely dishonest.

Who killed far fewer than Elizabeth killed. The Tudor period is probably the darkest period of English history. The result destroyed England, and she recovered during the reign of the Stuarts.

Destroyed England? Have you ever actually heard of Henry VIII, or indeed that Elizabeth I is considered one of the greatest monarchs in English history?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ozzy's analogy, had you going to a known criminal to help you break back into your house. Two ways you could be screwed over.

1, if the criminal testifies that he simply let you into the house.
2, if the criminal testifies that your instructions to him were to do a hit on your family.

The only one who's got the evidence to exonerate you in either case, is the criminal. With the second, you're going away for conspiracy to commit murder. With the first, you could get the murder rap.

See, this is the problem. The intent of Angelos was to use the Crusaders to take back the throne, this means using them to invade Greek territory. So at best, even if everything wroked, he'd be using the Greek treasury to pay Latin Crusaders for attacking other Greeks successfully.

Angelos' brilliant plan worked in that they put him on, but the treasury didn't have enough to pay for his extravagant promises. So now, his options are:

Backstab the Latin Crusaders by appealing to the guys he just kicked out to turn against the Latins, or two, rob the temples and the churches until you have enough to pay the Crusaders. Guess which one Angelos chose?

So now you've got Latin Crusaders raiding Greek churches with the approval of the Emperor to pay them off. And then it backfires spectacularly out of control, and he managed to get killed, and the Latins took over Constantinople and elected their own Latin Emperor.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh wait yeah... Ben's morality... the same morality that condones Dave Floyd calling me a sand ****** but demands my death for implying that Floyd wouldn't back up his talk in person.

You would lie and smear someone if it served your purposes, especially if that person had helped or assisted you in the past.

You, would, and have, gone out of your way to hurt that person, for nothing more than to look big in front of other people.

I learned awhile back, that this is the kind of person that Albert Speer is, and why nobody wants to get too close to you. You would sell someone for everything they had, if you felt it would earn you a promotion.

So yeah, I would rather be David Floyd's friend than yours. He's had my back many times. When the crunch came, he helped. I'd expect you to be nowhere to be found.

[Asher]

Ben Kenobi, revealing his true colours once again.

I would genuinely not be at all surprised to see Ben's pictures up on news websites as someone who has murdered not only abortion doctors, but women who have gotten abortions.

[kentonio]

He's already murdered history, law and morality in this thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Elizabethan executions took place over 45 years and were generally only in response to rebellions. Mary burned 300 people to death in 5 years as part of a mass reign of terror. It's not complicated.

So because her reign of terror was longer that makes her a moderate?

Look of that list of 300 martyrs. Do any of these men strike you as particularly dangerous to her? No. What they were, is Catholic, and refused to convert, so they were executed.

I'd expect a historian to know there was more than one, particularly when the first one was already dead.

I'd expect that if someone were referring to Mary Tudor, Queen of England, that they would refer to her as such, rather than Mary Queen of Scots. Apparently I'm supposed to be able to read minds.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Elizabeth's support came from the puritans? Seriously?

I'm arguing that the men who supported her were radical protestants, willing to execute Catholic recusants to enforce their will.

Quite a few, look up the Brownian Movement.

I asked you how many. How many?

Except that Elizabeth had no desire to kill Mary, and put it off for a very long time until the endless plotting of rebellion became too much.

For someone who lies and claims that she had no desire, she sure did a lot of brutal things. No, she offed Mary Queen of Scots, for no other reason than to ensure that she did not take the throne and succeed her. Mary's only crime was that she was Catholic, and that she would have brought James up Catholic. By executing her, Elizabeth was able to ensure that James was raised by Protestants, and loyal to Elizabeth, not to Mary.

Elizabeth is only extremist if you look at it in a revionist manner by todays standards. By the standards of her own time, she was extremely moderate.

No, the only revisionists are those who twist history to maintain that Elizabeth was a saint and Queen Mary was a sinner. Unfortunately, history says quite the opposite. Elizabeth was a brutal queen and her executions indicate this as such. For someone who had 'no desire' to kill anyone, she sure killed quite a few people who were no threat to her.

I actually said that she oppressed them, I didn't originally mention her executions of protestants at all.

You said she oppressed the protestants, but apparently loved Catholics. Loved them, to death. You have a funny worldview. Executing protestants = oppressive. Executing Catholics = benevolent.

Bear in mind I'm an English athiest.

Wow, quel surprise.

I have literally no reason to care whether the protestants or catholics were bigger bastards to each other back then.

Yeah, you do. If you sincerely didn't care, you wouldn't be posting in Elizabeth's defense.

I do however care about historical accuracy, and painting Elizabeth as a tyrant and trying to airbrush over Bloody Mary's reign just because you're a Catholic is extremely dishonest.

Arguing that as an atheist that you are therefore neutral, is the silliest argument ever. If anything, we would expect exactly what we get, virulent hatred of the Catholic church.

Destroyed England? Have you ever actually heard of Henry VIII, or indeed that Elizabeth I is considered one of the greatest monarchs in English history?

Henry VIII was a terrible king. The best of all the Tudors wasn't a Tudor at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would genuinely not be at all surprised to see Ben's pictures up on news websites as someone who has murdered not only abortion doctors, but women who have gotten abortions.

That should be a bannable offense.

[Asher]

I agree that murdering people should be a bannable offense here.

[Ben Kenobi]

I agree that murdering people should be a bannable offense here.

So what about someone who kills unborn children?

[Tupac Shakur]

Quite a few, look up the Brownian Movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion