Oklahomo?

[Ming]

How is it pure BS? We've been discussing Catholic countries and the general consensus is that even though many are republics now, the republicans in these countries are pretty strictly (with a few exceptions), anti clerical and anti monarchists. Spain is just yet another example, if you look at the 1931 constitution.

And yet ONE MORE TIME... How does this translate to "MOST CATHOLICS ARE MONARCHISTS"!
That statement was pure BS and YOU KNOW IT. You can try to change the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that your STATEMENT was pure BS. Just another made up Ben Fact that isn't even close to reality. Just admit it... or are just going to keep ignoring the actual statement you made!

I won't even argue that many Monarchists are Catholic... But that's NOT WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY SAID.

I'm not arguing all the other smoke screens you are trying to lay down to avoid admitting your ERROR. And you can keep talking about Spain or whatever other country until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that you were WRONG!

[Ben Kenobi]

I won't even argue that many Monarchists are Catholic... But that's NOT WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY SAID.

So I guess we're done here then!

[N35t0r]

However, Franco didn't oppose the Catholic Church at all. Nor did Diaz in Mexico.

Most, if not all, of the military juntas in south america were very pro-church ('traditional values')

[molly bloom]

I stand corrected.

Excuse me- how come you can admit (however grudgingly) you made a mistake here, but not when it comes to all your errors about Dutch and English and European history ?

Consistency can be a virtue.

[molly bloom]

It can be done.

You want me to resurrect your howling errors about William of Orange and the Elizabethan Succesion Crisis ? I'm sorely tempted, even though they may provoke a coughing fit.

[molly bloom]

That would be obvious. When's the last time the Catholics burned a heretic alive?

According to Sister Bendy's version of European history, Roman Catholics were the ones hard done by- not the people they gleefully turned into crispy critters.

[molly bloom]

I did say Most. Franco's a bit of an aberration because he represented the right opposition under the republic. .

No he didn't. That would be Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. You're an idiot.

[MrFun]

Am I the only one who finds this pissing contest between Ben on one side, and Ming and Molly on other side to be boring?

[Ban Kenobi]

Am I the only one who finds this pissing contest between Ben on one side, and Ming and Molly on other side to be boring?

It's not a "pissing contest". It's just Ben losing another argument.

[Dinner]

Speaking of OKihomo... Even the wing nuts have pretty much recognized their opposition has no legal merit so now they've gone into the throw a tempertantrum phase. The right wing in Oklahoma now wants to simply make it illegal for anyone to get married because they're so upset about the courts requiring to obey the constitution. Yeah, that will go work about as well as the segragationist threats to close all schools if negros weren't kept out.

[molly bloom]

Am I the only one who finds this pissing contest between Ben on one side, and Ming and Molly on other side to be boring?

Sister Bendy presents his failings in the history stakes as mere differences of opinion.

They aren't: whether or not William III of England had descendants is not a matter of personal belief- he didn't.

Similarly, the United Provinces were an oligarchic republic, not a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise.

Again, Elizabeth I of England did not name an heir- hence the appropriately named Elizabethan Succession Crisis. People write books just about that subject, so it's not like some secret which has been hidden from the world since the 16th Century :

The Early Elizabethan Polity
William Cecil and the British Succession Crisis, 1558–1569
£34.99
Part of Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History

Franco was not the leader of the right wing party/opposition in the first half of the 20th Century- again, not a matter of opinion, but fact, and easily checked.

[MrFun]

Speaking of OKihomo... Even the wing nuts have pretty much recognized their opposition has no legal merit so now they've gone into the throw a tempertantrum phase. The right wing in Oklahoma now wants to simply make it illegal for anyone to get married because they're so upset about the courts requiring to obey the constitution. Yeah, that will go work about as well as the segragationist threats to close all schools if negros weren't kept out.

When I first came across a headline about this Oklahoma Republican politician's proposal, I thought it was an Onion-like article. Unbelievable.

[Dinner]

But remember, they want to outlaw marriage because they love marriage and think it is so good for society. They don't even bother trying to be logically coherent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sister Bendy presents his failings in the history stakes as mere differences of opinion.

On the other hand, no one thinks Ben is even close to being historically accurate. So it basically comes across as a bunch of adults arguing with a 5 year old.

[Ben Kenobi]

no one thinks Ben is even close to being historically accurate. So it basically comes across as a bunch of adults arguing with a 5 year old.

Yes, lawyers arguing over historical accuracy. News at 11.