|
Kurtofan posted:Is this the thread for freep-like poo poo family member say? "we're going to have to become Muslim and Yellow as they're taking over" (they is "Arabs" and "China" respectively) Haha good old grampa  Parallel Paraplegic posted:How do you become yellow 
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:How do you become yellow Ask James Bond in You Only Live Twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:How do you become yellow Liver failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:Liver failure. Self-fulfilling prophecy, then. Drink up, lads!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Pretty sure he means the Articles of Confederation, which we tossed in favor of the current Constitution because the loving thing didn't work and got to be such a massive headache that George Washington himself (among others) demanded that we come up with something better. Some The Articles of Confederation would be even less apt for a king though. I'm sure he did mean the Constitution just...only the first 10 amendments (Since people don't know what "Amendment" means). They absolutely would bring back slavery and takeaway voting from Women, it's the only choice that makes "sense".
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:27
|
|
STATES RIGHTS!!!
|
RagnarokAngel posted:The Articles of Confederation would be even less apt for a king though. I'm sure he did mean the Constitution just...only the first 10 amendments (Since people don't know what "Amendment" means). They absolutely would bring back slavery and takeaway voting from Women, it's the only choice that makes "sense".
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Sure, taking voting
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:"If only we could reverse women's suffrage, then we would truly be living in the land of the free." --Something a Freeper literally said (or close to it)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:"If only we could reverse women's suffrage, then we would truly be living in the land of the free." --Something a Freeper literally said (or close to it) That was said by Ann Coulter.  e,fb
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
It was also heavily echoed by freep after the 2012 results--even by the few female posters. Damned overemotional womenfolk getting seduced by the black man 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Jagged Jim posted:That was said by Ann Coulter. Freep has since turned on Coulter. I think it was something birth control related. Maybe immigration. On my phone so I can't look it up easily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Freep has since turned on Coulter. I think it was something birth control related. Maybe immigration. On my phone so I can't look it up easily. It was backing Chris Christie over Romney during the primaries, saying that Romney would lose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Obviously that just means we'll have to cut the evil EBT programs Over my dead body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:It was backing Chris Christie over Romney during the primaries, saying that Romney would lose. That's amazing. I'll remind everyone that supporting Mitt was zot-worthy during the primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:That's amazing. I'll remind everyone that supporting Mitt was zot-worthy during the primary. Did they every reinstate anyone zotted over Romney after Jimrob did his 180? (doubt it)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Did they every reinstate anyone zotted over Romney after Jimrob did his 180? (doubt it) I don't believe they did, and some freepers who pointed it out got banned themselves if I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Did they every reinstate anyone zotted over Romney after Jimrob did his 180? (doubt it) Nope, but they did zot anyone who brought up reinstatement. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Freep has since turned on Coulter. I think it was something birth control related. Maybe immigration. On my phone so I can't look it up easily. She spoke at GOProud in 2010. Never mind that she said the same lovely Ann Coulter things she normally does, it was all over for Freep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I don't believe they did, and some freepers who pointed it out got banned themselves if I remember right. Not only that but SavageSusie or someone was denying that Jimrob ever voted for Romney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Georgia Peach posted:Yeah, growing up Southern Baptist, it was pretty much taught that if you don't support Israel and the chosen people, God will gently caress you up. This little tract by Jack Chick gives a pretty solid breakdown.  http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp Among the high points:   ...  ...  ... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
"Egypt relies on others for aid, unlike Israel"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
But, creating a modern Israeli state was Great Britain's idea?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But, creating a modern Israeli state was Great Britain's idea? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
If the Jews are God's chosen people, shouldn't we all be Jewish then? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:If the Jews are God's chosen people, shouldn't we all be Jewish then? The Jews are God's chosen people, but they were supposed to accept Christ when he came. The good Jews have converted or will convert, while the bad Jews are spiting God by continuing to be Jewish. This is literally what they believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
I love it when people say "Lo and behold all these empires collapsed because they didn't follow my belief system" as if there are any civilisations that haven't collapsed a few times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Wasn't Rome more or less supportive of Christianity and Judaism come the end of the empire?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Wasn't Rome more or less supportive of Christianity and Judaism come the end of the empire? Christianity was the state-sponsored religion of late Rome, so I think it's safe to assume so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Wasn't Rome more or less supportive of Christianity and Judaism come the end of the empire?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Rome became explicitly Christian (as in, the Emperor declared in the state religion and closed all the old pagan temples) around 320AD. It fell (at least, in the West) about 130 years later, and the adoption of Christianity has been cited as a major reason why. Note: it is widely considered that "Christianity made it fall" was total bullshit made up by some historians a few centuries ago who were angry at churches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Rome became explicitly Christian (as in, the Emperor declared in the state religion and closed all the old pagan temples) around 320AD. It fell (at least, in the West) about 130 years later, and the adoption of Christianity has been cited as a major reason why. Nooooo it is not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
As much as I highly distrust organised religions, I'd have to agree with Kyonko on this one. Rome's collapse was more about an enormous, beleaguered bureaucracy coupled with over-extension and expansion, topped off with untold decadence and corruption. For all its faults, Christianity couldn't have toppled one of the largest ancient empires by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Smeep posted:She spoke at GOProud in 2010. Never mind that she said the same lovely Ann Coulter things she normally does, it was all over for Freep. I have zero problem with her trolling GOProud. gently caress GOProud and anyone one else who responds to being on the receiving end of oppression by going "The only problem with America relentlessly making GBS threads on powerless groups is that I personally am exluded from the ranks of the oppressors." WarpedNaba posted:As much as I highly distrust organised religions, I'd have to agree with Kyonko on this one. Rome's collapse was more about an enormous, beleaguered bureaucracy coupled with over-extension and expansion, topped off with untold decadence and corruption. For all its faults, Christianity couldn't have toppled one of the largest ancient empires by itself. Wasn't it an explicitly fascist talking-point that Christianity ruined Rome because it preached equality, elevated the weak, and told the Supermen to help the needy rather than pursue power and glory? Anyway, fortunately as we saw in the colonial era, Christianity can be easily adapted to support imperial exploitation and slavery
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
It weakened it a lot at a time when Rome couldn't afford it. Christianity was supposed to unify the empire, but it didn't, because early Christians were a fractious, sectarian lot, and the empire was soon riven with theological arguments and declarations of heresy and ecumenical councils and on and on that required direct intervention from the Emperor to deal with (such interventions would often lead at least one side feeling badly betrayed and hey presto: unrest and rebellion). The adoption of Christianity also kicked away one of the empire's more important strengths, its general religious and cultural tolerance (as long as you remitted your taxes, didn't rebel, and paid lip service to the deified Imperial cult, they didn't care if you worshipped Jove, Isis, Zoroaster, Baal, Woden, Mithas, Sol Invictus, or whoever - and that was now replaced with great pressures for conversion and conformance to a single religion). One reason they could never really integrate and settle the Goths into the population of the Empire was that the Goths practiced the Arian form of Christianity, which had been declared the worst kind of heresy in the empire. Finally, when the empire required a strong central leadership to deal with an escalating series of crises, the church created a parallel, independent, and competing structure of authority and legitimacy - the Emperor needed a free hand to deal with all the problems, and he had keep turning to the Bishop Ambroses of the world in order to get anything done. It wasn't the main source of the empire's fall, but it was definitely a drain on imperial strength and capabilities at a time when Rome needed everything it had to deal with the barbarian crises.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
FMguru posted:
Well its good to see things have changed! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
I love this. This line is not in the bible at all. The actual passage labeled Revelation 6:8 in the most hallowed KJV is King James Version posted:And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Chick Tracks are full of these, completely making poo poo up and claiming its in the bible because they know most modern Christians are way to lazy to actually look things up and just go along with authoritative figures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Could you imagine how baffling it would haven if the line was in the Bible? For two thousand years it'd be the biggest biblical mystery ever and we'd call every war WW1 to try and hasten things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anyway, fortunately as we saw in the colonial era, Christianity can be easily adapted to support imperial exploitation and slavery And to Pat Robertson and Mobutu Sese Seko running a diamond mine together! Like good Christian brothers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anyway, fortunately as we saw in the colonial era, Christianity can be easily adapted to support imperial exploitation and slavery
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
FMguru posted:It weakened it a lot at a time when Rome couldn't afford it. It's also at least worth noting that although Christianity wasn't the cause of the disastrous loss of Egypt to the Arab invasion, the general populace did welcome in the Muslims because at least the Caliphate would let you alone to practice your religion as long as you paid your taxes, which was way better than the constant Roman inquisitions and suppressions of the largely Monophysite Egyptians. After the conquest there was basically no significant resistance because no one wanted invite those Roman assholes back in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 10:43
|
|