Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Chaoswizkid]

The Crusades were political weapons used by the Church to exert control over the infighting in Europe and focus their might to reclaim targets that were deemed important, such as Jerusalem. In return for attacking targets set by the Church, each crusader would be absolved of all the filthy sins they had currently and had no other hope of dealing with.

That was the core of the Crusades.

[Lagslayer]

The Crusades were political weapons used by the Church to exert control over the infighting in Europe and focus their might to reclaim targets that were deemed important, such as Jerusalem. In return for attacking targets set by the Church, each crusader would be absolved of all the filthy sins they had currently and had no other hope of dealing with.

That was the core of the Crusades.

That explanation paints only one side as assholes, when both sides were.

[lue]

Apparently Hillary Clinton is doing some political-work in Virginia. It's for the gubernatorial election there, mind, but naturally everybody's freaking out at this display of politicking from her.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Crusades were political weapons used by the Church to exert control over the infighting in Europe and focus their might to reclaim targets that were deemed important, such as Jerusalem. In return for attacking targets set by the Church, each crusader would be absolved of all the filthy sins they had currently and had no other hope of dealing with.

That was the core of the Crusades.

That explanation paints only one side as assholes, when both sides were.

It's mostly pointless to argue morality on something as far back in time as the Crusades. Rape, murder, and genocide were the order of the day in those times, and there existed effectively no groups that can be approved of under 21st century Western morality.

At most, it demonstrates the destructive and conflicting nature of universalizing religions.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

A Republican congressman's reasons for voting against the debt deal.

I think I need to get back off the internet.

Two weeks and you people added 60 pages to this topic? How am I supposed to keep up? Grumble grumble. How'd everyone like the shutdown?

[Darvi]

It got fun once people brought Majora's Mask into the mix.

[Chaoswizkid]

The Crusades were political weapons used by the Church to exert control over the infighting in Europe and focus their might to reclaim targets that were deemed important, such as Jerusalem. In return for attacking targets set by the Church, each crusader would be absolved of all the filthy sins they had currently and had no other hope of dealing with.

That was the core of the Crusades.

That explanation paints only one side as assholes, when both sides were.

Here's how the first crusade went down.
Muslims: Well, we got kicked from Europe. Oh well. We still own Anatolia!
Byzantines: No, we want Anatolia back! Now we own Anatolia!
Muslims: Woah! Not cool! We want that back!
Pope: Woah! Not cool! Muslims and Byzantines fighting and Muslims are winning? Hey, Catholic Europe, stop fighting for a second!
Catholic Europe: What's up?
Pope: Muslims are beating up Byzantines!
Catholic Europe: Well, that sucks for them. Can we go back to killing eachother?
Pope: No! You see, you're all full of sin, but if you go and help the Byzantines and kill the Muslims, you'll get a guaranteed place in Heaven!
Catholic Europe: ...  ...  ...  WOO! TIME TO UNIFY AND KILL SOME MUSLIMS!
Pope: ... my God... there's so many of them... we could... we could even... we could even take back Jerusalem...
Crusade: YEEEAAAHHH!! TAKE THAT MUSLIMS! YOU HAD THIS CITY FOR LIKE 400 YEARS BUT ITS OURS NOW!

And then in other crusades other things happen. The Muslims, in this instance, didn't do anything terrible. They didn't commit mass murder of Christians or Jews, not even the ones still living in Jerusalem, unlike the Crusaders who did murder Christians, Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem. The Byzantines got some of their land back, the Seljuq Turks fought for the land that was lost by them and other countries, they started winning a bunch and a crusade was called to help the Byzantines.

Apparently Hillary Clinton is doing some political-work in Virginia. It's for the gubernatorial election there, mind, but naturally everybody's freaking out at this display of politicking from her.

Ugh. I hope she doesn't run. I will register just to vote against her. She's such a nasty person. Please tell me the Dems have someone else so she doesn't even get a shot at the White House.

[lue]

Apparently Hillary Clinton is doing some political-work in Virginia. It's for the gubernatorial election there, mind, but naturally everybody's freaking out at this display of politicking from her.

Ugh. I hope she doesn't run. I will register just to vote against her. She's such a nasty person. Please tell me the Dems have someone else so she doesn't even get a shot at the White House.

Woah. Um, care to elaborate?

(In the interest of full disclosure, ahead of time, I've only ever been politically cognizant while Hillary was Secretary of State. In any case, she seems like a wonderful presidential candidate to me, or at the least not deserving of the descriptor "nasty person".)

(And to answer your "please tell me...", I will say Joe Biden is another good candidate for president. Biden v. Clinton would be one tough primary vote for me.)

[kaijyuu]

She has some bad history with video game censorship, and has had a good share of gaffs in her time, but past that she seems okay to me too.

[Descan]

One can only hope Warren puts her hat in the ring.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My main issue with Hillary Clinton is that her relation to Bill Clinton ties her pretty strongly with the Centrist Democrats. I think the political climate is right for a Progressive Democrat to fix the rightward shift that Reagan caused, and that this opportunity should be taken.

I don't care very much about her having been for video game censorship, partly because it has been a long time since then, but mostly because the Supreme Court has codified video games as receiving first amendment protections. Besides, at this point trying to get rid of video games means losing the youth vote, and Democrats thrive on the youth vote. It's ideologically and pragmatically unsound.

[Max White]

Do you guys actually have any good politicians? This isn't some rhetorical question to imply that there are none, but seriously is there anybody in the higher levels of US politics that isn't a douche?

[Descan]

Well, as I said, Elizabeth Warren is a pretty good "High-end politician who isn't an enormous douchenozzle".

[Chaoswizkid]

Her aides don't like her, she's been on camera with a hateful expression on her face or bitching (because yelling does not adequately describe it) at someone until an aide mentions to her she's on camera and then she turns and smiles sweetly... she's just so fake. I don't have all of the details or the links at the moment, but I'll go and dig them up later.

It's not her political ideals, it's not that she's a woman, it's that she's just a flat-out bad person that I don't think should ever get near the White House.

Do you guys actually have any good politicians? This isn't some rhetorical question to imply that there are none, but seriously is there anybody in the higher levels of US politics that isn't a douche?

How about a black woman for president? I'd vote for Condoleezza Rice. Very intelligent, politically brilliant, disparaging of the gameyness of politics itself... but because of those things she'll probably never run.

Other than that... no, not really. Just greater and lesser evils.

[Max White]

Honestly, both 'black' and 'women' are both qualities I think are totally irrelevant in a leader. It just sets the precedent that you are allowed to judge people on these qualities, rather than their actual merit.