conservatism 14
libertarianism 17
liberalism(not american) 4
social democracy 1
authoritarianism 5
nationalism 1
anarchism 18
enviromentalism 10
neo-conservatism 4

Millionaire - Mongoloid

Due sudden lack of content: closed!

stupidity in combination with power..

I prefer the term "garantueed health care"

"Yeoman archers were important because Britain had a broader percentage of its population that was trained for war, although mostly as a very short-term force. That was one reason centralised power didnt come to britain really until the Tudors. And thats because Tudor monarchs were more able and determined to kill noble powermongers than Plantagenets would have dared. Eventually through Cromwell the political and military power of the English commons was superior in force and organization than anything King or nobles could front.  From then on the nobility was just a powerful faction that helped pick kings favorable to the masses."

I never denied that, but they're not that different from cities on continental Europe who were nearly unbeatable for a very long time. They were bastions against forces trying to limit their rights..

"Thus, a crude form of democracy was born"

I never denied that, but I wanted to show you that these yeomen archers weren't that different. I told you how democracy was born on continental europe, and how one case develloped into the first republic: The Netherlands..
Also, in the county of Flanders it was, when a direct heir wasn't available, the representational body (the members of Flanders, wich consisted solely out of representatives of the cities of Ghent, Ypres and Bruges) chose a new count, not the nobles (although they always had a candidate) or anything..

History's not as linear as Justinian I made it look in his post. I filtered out the errors and such, and tried to emphasize that democracy doesn't come from yeomen archers directly, or alone. I wanted to show that the whole of europe develloped means to defend their rights wether they're represented by those yeomen archers or by representative bodies who demanded rights in favour of money donations..

I have 1 last question/remark though, if the yeomen archers were so important for democracy, how did this system survive the introduction of firearms (or we might have seen a swing towards absolutism like in France)?

"It's with women as it is with black people. You can make fun of everything except them"

Today, you can only make jokes about straight, white, none-blonde males without getting a batch of rioting people  against you...

And I'm part of that group X(
I claim the right to make political-incorrect jokes...

"All these were proven authentic and reliable authors by experts by ways of bibliographical, internal and external testing.
The books of the New Testament were written from 40 to 90 AD, earliest copy AD 130 (40-50 years after original), 13000+ copies exist
So I'd rather put my trust in the Bible then the prisoner of azkaban "

Your arguement is false. You listed other classical books/works, and you're probably right that the Bible has indeed the best text-tradition of those. But then you make a comparison with "the prisoner of Azkaban" wich has the best possible text tradition a historian can dream of, we have the manuscript, the draft, and all possible editions..

"But did Socrates claim to be the living God? Did Socrates heal the sick? Did Socrates get persecuted, humiliated, chastised and crucified for his beliefs? Did he rise up from the dead after 3 days?
There is no doubt that Jesus' tomb was empty, the only people who had reasons to take Him out of that tomb would be the Jews so they could prove that He was just a human being and not who He said He was. Did they find His body lying there? No, He rose from the dead just as He said He would.
Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. As far as I know, noone else has ever made such a claim and backed it up as well as it's written in the Bible.
Anyway, you guys made your choice, good for you. I made mine aswell."

Nope, Socrates didn't, and there's no proof Jesus did either. In fact, the only historical facts we know about Jesus is that he existed and that he died on the cross. All the rest is made up 50 years (at least) after his death, when the 2nd generation wanted to preserve the tales of the witnesses. When we consider things from a neutral, scientific (as in historical) point of view, all that's written in the bible is worth nothing. It can't possibly be regarded as tale of facts, in any way..
On top of that, it wasn't written for our Western minds. When we read the bible, we have to interprete it as the late Greeks/Byzantians would have done. They had a completely different way of reading, full of symbols etc. Also, a Byzantian Emperor was the one who canonised the bible, and discarted other texts..

The bible, at best, is an allegory of the man Jesus, but it can't possibly be read as series of facts, let alone a biography of Jesus..

PS: Ironicly, we know more about the life and facts of Socrates then the Jesus'....

Both are old..

"that was supposed to be funny?"

In fact, I do think it's a good laugh..

And my favourite is this one Loz:
"Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first

Loz, if you don't find that funny..

http://www.andreas-fecker.de/exhibits/housewif.jpg

Corrupt memory is a possibility, a problem with the GPU too, or a problem with Windows all together...

How exactly does it crash?