choking helplessly on coffee
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
**
That means he’s the only person in Jack Chick’s band of Merry Men who can read at an eighth grade level.
Totally non-PC, but cluing one in as to how far back one particular insult for gay people goes (and perhaps the origin of it) was the quote made in 1603 after James succeeded his “heart-of-a-king” mother’s cousin on the throne of England:
You could also argue for Queen Victoria, as was said, George V for helping the country through the first World War, George VI for helping the country through the 2nd World War, um…let’s see…hmmm.
I think it’s wrong to consider Jack Chick as stupid.
I think he knows exactly what his target market is looking for, and I think he very calculatedly gives it to them, furthering his own ends in the process.
That doesn’t make him stupid.
That would be forgivable.
He’s something much worse than stupid.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
**[sub]sulking because Andros beat her to it[/sub]
Oh, well.
http://www.chick.com/information/authors/gipp.asp
Which he then proceeds to turn into shit. 
Steve, thank you very much. It’s good to knwo that even in the midst of toasting a waste of perfectly good bilirubin like Brother Chick, we can still manage to eradicate some ignorance. Honestly, I never knew Richard was homosexual. Kinda puts Robin Hood in a different light, eh? 
No one’s mentioned William I. Or is he not considered a great monarch?
Well, thanks to Yahoo, I was able to find a collection of Dr. Gipp’s writings at his home page here:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/GippPage1.html
William I? The Conqueror himself? Class act… I’d put him in at No. 4, after Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Henry VIII. Of course, all this is pretty much subjective…
…but I’ll run a bit further, anyway. Always heard good things about Edward III. Henry II, lots of good points, got to be in the top ten somewhere. Henry VII, absolute scumbag, but a highly successful scumbag nonetheless. George III, generally positive, apart from going barmy and letting some colonial tax evaders and left-wing troublemakers get out of hand in, ohhh, about 1776. Charles II, did a good job of the Restoration. Henry I, good organizer, at least…
Doesn’t leave room in the top ten for James I. (Or Richard I either, who would probably make most people’s lists - personally, I think he’s over-rated…) So, to drag this somewhere within a hundred miles of the OP: no, in this Briton’s opinion, James I is not in the running for “one of England’s greatest monarchs”. Doesn’t even make it to the finals. No disrespect to him, he was better than a lot of the others, but… no. I’m afraid I think Jack and his mates are no better on history than they are on theology.
Not to quibble, and it’s not like us Yanks have been, or are, led by Solons, but isn’t that damning with faint praise?
What about Edward I? Conquered Wales, almost conquered Scotland, managed to restore peace to the realm…I’d put him pretty high up there.
Thought these links might be appropriate to the thread.
http://www.queenjanesversion.com/
http://www.queenjanesversion.com/preface.htm (Covers history of King James as discussed in this thread in a more insulting fashion)
Oh good GOD! Now Chick is claiming that the Vatican was behind WWI, because Kaiser Wilhelm was a “good Roman Catholic…” the FUCK?
He was NOT! He was LUTHERAN!! Good god almighty! Chick is so fucking stupid! weeping
Well, remember that (possibly bi-sexual, possibly homosexual) Gaius Julius Caesar was dogged by his enemies as “every queen’s king and every king’s queen!”
'Shame Charles I couldn’t make the list, but he had a habit of losing his head when the going got tough.
sorry. Don’t know what came over me.
Who wants to be the first to ask Cecil, “Was King James I gay?”