Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Burning pockets smell bad.

Don't forget to make sure you emptied their pockets before burning them at the stake. 

With the elevation of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Pope, we've reverted to our recently ancient argument: What matters more, communism or individual freedom?

He's in the communism camp — because his countrymen were such bastards!

He's in the communism camp — because his countrymen were such bastards!

but I expect him to be killed in Egypt

He was not.

As for Ersi, Barulheira and Krake, all of you are wrong.
None of you are Catholic, none of you knows what you're talking about.
The Pope needs no defense from you.

BTW: "reprentation" is a technical term…

I'm not surprised, no one here noticed…

That if enough people agree than 2+2=5, than it's true?

Does the Pope accept the concept of democracy, pure democracy?

How does the system work?
The country of 5.2 million people uses a modified proportional representation system in which 150 MPs in the 169-seat storting are directly elected in Norway’s 19 constituencies.
The remaining 19 so-called “levelling” seats are then distributed proportionately to parties that clear a 4% vote threshold so their final seat tally in the parliament fairly reflects their share of the national vote.

He was French, you know?

Piaget's theory […] was first created by the Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980).

When I teach the Constitution, I like to ask the
class this question: "When we elect a representative to Congress,
whom does he represent?" Only the occasional European or Latin
American student sees the point immediately. The American students,
suspecting a trap, are slow to give the obvious answer: He (or
she) represents the people in his district, his "constituency." They do
come forward with this answer eventually, at which point I inquire:
"'All of the people in his district--including those who voted against
him?" Yes, of course. And suddenly enlightenment dawns--the realization
that there is something special about this American assumption.
In no other country in the world does the electoral process proceed
on any such peculiar assumption. Everywhere else, elected
representatives represent mainly their parties and the ideology of
their parties, which is identified with the "public interest." Only in
America is it taken for granted that they ought to represent, first of
all, the economic interests of all of their constituents. This can be
taken for granted because it has been assumed for two centuries
economic condition within the framework of a settled way of life
than in any ideology or "cause"--or at least expect their political
representatives to work toward that economic end rather than
expending too much energy promoting any particular ideology or
"cause." Surely the main reason that the socialist idea has been so
weak in America is the fact that it necessarily violates this political
constitutional assumption.
(source)