Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[kentonio]

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.

You mean like Alexander Briant, one of Parsons associates? You can call them martyrs and whine about how harmless they were all you like, but as the pope was actively trying to overthrow Elizabeths rule, your argument is doomed to failure.

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.

Stop lying for goodness sake, I said "The rebellions in the north were led by catholics trying to overthrow Elizabeth and put Mary on the throne." Anyone who knew anything about the Tudors would assume I was talking about the Mary who was actually alive at the time, rather than one who had died years previously. Why don't you just admit you don't know what you're talking about?

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

Except as I've pointed on more than once now, Elizabeth spent quite a while oppressing the puritans because they were a threat to her authority.

I asked you how many. How many?

Why the **** do I care? Go do your own reading for a change, you might learn something for once.

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.

You do understand that back then someone else taking the throne usually meant that you lost your head in the process right?

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.

Mary was implicated in several plots to kill Elizabeth, and was almost certainly responsible for the death of her first husband. If Elizabeth was so eager to kill Mary, you will of course be able to explain why she was kept under house arrest for 19 years before she was executed?

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.

You're an idiot. Worse than that, you're a dishonest idiot. You're literally trying to argue that Bloody Mary was a poor persecuted angel and Elizabeth was a bloody tyrant purely because you can't stand the idea that the catholics used to be nasty ****ers. It's utterly inane.

Wow, quel surprise.

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

I'm posting in her defence because she was one of the great monarchs in my nations history and I don't appreciate her memory being rewritten by a lying idiot. It's like someone claiming Washington was genocidal or somesuch nonsense.

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.

The idea that an athiest would want to defend a protestant on religious grounds literally makes no sense.

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

You know nothing about the Tudors, nothing about England and nothing about history. Stop trying to pretend you do.

[giblets]

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

I concur.

[Dinner]

90% of blacks vote for the Democrats because they've seen first hand that Republicans are a bunch of racist bigots and that just leaves the Democrats for them to vote for. Of course, many of them can't enthusiastically get behind the dems either and that would explain the lower voter turn out rate for blacks. Well, that and the fact that racist Republican bigots CONSTANTLY try to come up with new ways to prevent black people from voting. It could be the new restrictions on absentee ballots, the restrictions on early voting, the restrictions where they reduce the number of polling stations in black areas (while increasing the numbers in white areas), the restrictions which prevent people convicted of crimes from EVER voting again (because more blacks get convicted of crimes than whites so Republicans have literally made it illegal for 1/3rd of the black male population in the south to vote), and now there are restrictions on voter registration where someone has to show a birth certificate or passport to prove they can legally vote in most Republican controlled states. It all amounts to a vast conspiracy to suppress the vote among groups which don't vote Republican. That's just down right unAmerican but Republicans usually are.

[Ben Kenobi]

You mean like Alexander Briant, one of Parsons associates? You can call them martyrs and whine about how harmless they were all you like, but as the pope was actively trying to overthrow Elizabeths rule, your argument is doomed to failure.

You mean Pius V? His Papal Bull is enlightening.

http://tudorhistory.org/primary/papalbull.html

has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives

All right there.

Stop lying for goodness sake, I said "The rebellions in the north were led by catholics trying to overthrow Elizabeth and put Mary on the throne."

Indeed, you did not specify Mary Queen of Scots. If you meant her, you should have specified her. Now, you've called me a liar, for asserting that you did not specify Mary Queen of Scots, which turned out to be true.

So, you admit then, that you did not specify Mary Queen of Scots?

Except as I've pointed on more than once now, Elizabeth spent quite a while oppressing the puritans because they were a threat to her authority.

So your argument is that her persecution of other protestants made her less, not more radical? I would argue the opposite. That she was willing to execute them indicates that she was the radical.

Why the **** do I care? Go do your own reading for a change, you might learn something for once.

So apparently it never happened. Thank you. Glad to hear your made up argument turned out not to be true.

You do understand that back then someone else taking the throne usually meant that you lost your head in the process right?

You do understand that she was the Heir Presumptive?

Mary was implicated in several plots to kill Elizabeth

By whom? Elizabeth?

and was almost certainly responsible for the death of her first husband.

1, killing her husband warrants execution?
2, *almost*, if they had evidence that she did in fact kill her husband, wouldn't it make more sense that he was executed by her enemies?

If Elizabeth was so eager to kill Mary, you will of course be able to explain why she was kept under house arrest for 19 years before she was executed?

If Elizabeth truly cared about the well-being of Mary, why did she not release her?

You're an idiot. Worse than that, you're a dishonest idiot.

I'm a historian.

You're literally trying to argue that Bloody Mary was a poor persecuted angel and Elizabeth was a bloody tyrant

Actually no. I believe I'm arguing that in comparison, if one were to apply the 'bloody' label, one would apply it to Elizabeth, not Mary. Simply because she executed more people.

I'm posting in her defence because she was one of the great monarchs in my nations history

So, you do care then after all. And are biased to believe that she's a saint, pure and Virgin Queen.

The idea that an athiest would want to defend a protestant on religious grounds literally makes no sense.

The idea that an atheists would allow their hatred of the Catholic church to override all objectivity makes complete sense. Which is what we see here.

You know nothing about the Tudors, nothing about England and nothing about history. Stop trying to pretend you do.

Well, Kentonio. I believe it's quite well argued that the best of the Tudors was either MaryTudor (sister to Henry), or Elizabeth of York (who wasn't a Tudor at all). Elizabeth is the closest thing to a Tudor saint.

[Ben Kenobi]

and now there are restrictions on voter registration where someone has to show a birth certificate or passport to prove they can legally vote in most Republican controlled states.

Oerdin, question.

I was solicited by a democrat last election. He gave me the forms and everything to file an absentee ballot.

You would be ok if I did in fact vote despite the fact that I'm not a citizen?

[Felch]

As a Catholic who strives for intellectual honesty, let me say that we don't all condone the Fourth Crusade's sacking of Constantinople. It was clearly a perversion of the true purpose of the Crusades, which were supposed to be about raping, pillaging, and murdering non-Christians. Please remember that BK does not speak for the Catholic Church.

[Ben Kenobi]

As a Catholic who strives for intellectual honesty, let me say that we don't all condone the Fourth Crusade's sacking of Constantinople. It was clearly a perversion of the true purpose of the Crusades, which were supposed to be about raping, pillaging, and murdering non-Christians. Please remember that BK does not speak for the Catholic Church.

Where did I say it was anything but a tragedy? The pope at the time condemned the whole affair. All I am arguing is that the tragedy occurred at the instigation of Alexios Angelos and his attempt to usurp the purple.

[Felch]

You have said that it was a tragedy, but you're also placing the blame squarely on the victim.

[kentonio]

Indeed, you did not specify Mary Queen of Scots. If you meant her, you should have specified her. Now, you've called me a liar, for asserting that you did not specify Mary Queen of Scots, which turned out to be true.

It's too late to worm your way out of looking like an idiot for not knowing there were two Marys. Embrace your shame and move on.

So apparently it never happened. Thank you. Glad to hear your made up argument turned out not to be true.

You are literally an idiot.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/contact.htm

1, killing her husband warrants execution?

Yes it would at that time, however that was not what she was executed for. I mentioned it in response to you claiming she hadn't commited any crimes.

2, *almost*, if they had evidence that she did in fact kill her husband, wouldn't it make more sense that he was executed by her enemies?

Which is why she then married her husbands murderer shortly afterwards, right?

If Elizabeth truly cared about the well-being of Mary, why did she not release her?

Because Mary was a direct threat to Elizabeth due to her claim on the throne and her nasty habit of conspiring to have Elizabeth killed.

I'm a historian.

No, you really are not.

Actually no. I believe I'm arguing that in comparison, if one were to apply the 'bloody' label, one would apply it to Elizabeth, not Mary. Simply because she executed more people.

Except she didn't kill that many more people than Bloody Mary and it was spread over a 45 year period that included numerous uprisings and plots and an invasion by the Spanish aided by catholic dissidents. You can't just apply a > b and think thats accurate history. Mary was a religious zealot who ordered 300 people to be burned alive in just 5 years.

So, you do care then after all. And are biased to believe that she's a saint, pure and Virgin Queen.

Enough with the stupid strawmen, Elizabeth was a strong, cunning and highly talented political operator. She lived in a time where being a woman was incredibly difficult, and held her crown for half a century. She kept England together through a time of incredible religious turmoil and she managed to defend us against the Spanish in the process.

The idea that an atheists would allow their hatred of the Catholic church to override all objectivity makes complete sense. Which is what we see here.

Stop trying to play the victim, it's pathetic. The catholic church has too much blood on its hands to claim to be the persecuted ones.

Well, Kentonio. I believe it's quite well argued that the best of the Tudors was either Mary Tudor (sister to Henry), or Elizabeth of York (who wasn't a Tudor at all). Elizabeth is the closest thing to a Tudor saint.

Argued by who exactly? Neither of them held a crown except as consort to a King. Elizabeth I ruled England alone for 45 years ffs.

[C0ckney]

I'm a historian.

in this thread you've demostrated that you know nothing about ireland, nothing about england and nothing about the forth crusade. you're a 'historian' who knows nothing about history. if you were a 'mathmetician' you'd struggle with your times tables.

[kentonio]

Where did I say it was anything but a tragedy? The pope at the time condemned the whole affair.

He condemned the whole affair right up until they delivered large amounts of cash to Rome, and then suddenly the people involved were forgiven.

[C0ckney]

What I find interesting is that Elizabeth is well-known for having been pretty moderate with respect to treatment of Catholics out of political expediency, but a hard-line against Catholics would have been expected given the external threat of Spain which galvanized domestic Catholic turmoil.

elizabeth was a religious moderate and the religious situation in england was pretty complicated at the time. even if she had wanted to really persecute catholics, it would have created far more problems than it resolved.

as for the spanish, she prefered to fight them in other ways. by supporting the dutch rebels or using privateers to attack spanish shipping and her colonies for example.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's too late to worm your way out of looking like an idiot for not knowing there were two Marys. Embrace your shame and move on.

There were only two Mary Tudors?

You are literally an idiot.

Ahh, a citation.

Cartwright was sentenced to death, but was pardoned by the Queen. Two leaders of the "Brownian Movement," John Greenwood and Henry Barrow, were hanged in 1593, and soon thereafter John Penry.

So the answer to my former question, which you failed to answer is 3. Compared with 300 for the Catholics.

Parliament decreed (1593) that anyone who questioned the Queen's religious supremacy, or persistently absented himself from Anglican services, or attended "any assemblies, conventiclers, or meetings under cover or pretense of any exercise of religion" should be imprisoned and unless he gave a pledge of future conformity, should leave England and never return, on pain of death.

And Elizabeth is the moderate? Wow.

Yes it would at that time

Methinks you lie. Evidence.

however that was not what she was executed for

Then why is it relevant? This means that the only argument you have for her execution is that someone implicated her in plots against the Queen. Again, I ask. Who implicated Mary Queen of Scots.

Why was Mary, Queen of Scots executed?

Which is why she then married her husbands murderer shortly afterwards, right?

So if her future husband killed her former husband, that means that she wasn't responsible, like you claimed she was? What's the story here? Did she kill him, or did her future husband kill him? Or did someone else kill him?

Because Mary was a direct threat to Elizabeth due to her claim on the throne and her nasty habit of conspiring to have Elizabeth killed.

How was she a threat to Elizabeth? You've argued that she was 'implicated in plots against the Queen.' Who implicated her? Elizabeth?

No, you really are not.

Yes, I am. What's your education, Kentonio?

Except she didn't kill that many more people than Bloody Mary

So you admit then, that she executed more people than the supposed 'Bloody' Mary. Thank you.

So why do you persist in arguing against my statement when you admit that my statement, is, in fact, true?

Enough with the stupid strawmen, Elizabeth was a strong, cunning and highly talented political operator.

A pure, Virgin Queen. Stained with the blood of Martyrs.

She lived in a time where being a woman was incredibly difficult, and held her crown for half a century. She kept England together through a time of incredible religious turmoil and she managed to defend us against the Spanish in the process.

And incredibly bloody executions, just for looking at her sideways.

Look, anyone remotely related to Elizabeth, wasn't exactly a healthy time to live.

Stop trying to play the victim, it's pathetic. The catholic church has too much blood on its hands to claim to be the persecuted ones.

Well, apparently I was right. Yes, Elizabeth II executed Catholics for the crime of practicing their religion. End stop.

Argued by who exactly? Neither of them held a crown except as consort to a King. Elizabeth I ruled England alone for 45 years ffs.

All the rest executed people for their faith. That speaks volumes about the Tudor 'dynasty'.

[Ben Kenobi]

He condemned the whole affair right up until they delivered large amounts of cash to Rome, and then suddenly the people involved were forgiven.

Except for the fact that he explicitly warned them against sacking Christian towns prior to the expedition leaving....

But, facts, man. Facts.

[Ben Kenobi]

you know nothing about history. in this thread you've demostrated that you know nothing about ireland, nothing about england and nothing about the forth crusade.

On the contrary, I've provided historical evidence for every one of my positions. Sure it doesn't fit the prevailing narrative of the unstained Virgin Queen, but then hey, that's facts, not fiction.