# The Constitution of Iraq  Is this what our soldiers died for?



## rdean (Oct 27, 2009)

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

The conservative right has insisted time and again that we won in Iraq.  Everyone can now enjoy freedom without the fear of religious persecution.  

A nations constitution is a framework for how that nation is governed and provides insight as to what living there would be like.

When looking at a constitution, its almost like first come, first serve.  If there is a statement at the beginning and a little farther down, there appears a statement that seems to contradict the first statement; it is generally assumed that the first statement takes precedence.

Example, take a look at Article 2, the entire Article:
Article 2: 
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: 
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. 
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established. 
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established. 

Notice First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
Then A: No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Those are clear.  The national religion is Islam and the fundamental source of legislation and there can be no law that contradicts Islam. Then, it goes on to say that no law can contradict democracy can be made.  But notice, it doesnt describe democracy and this is worded in such a way that there is this (false) impression that Islam is somehow democratic.  We know from religion in our own country that religion is the opposite of democracy.  Rules are laid out following religious text and NOT voted on.

Then, under C.: No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established
Unless, that law contradicts the established provisions of Islam.  It all goes back to Islam.

This is why gays and adulterers are now murdered.  50% of married Americans cheat or have cheated.  What if the penalty for adultery in this country were death? 
A woman now has to be escorted if she goes out in public (Islamic law).  If a woman has to be escorted, can she hold down a job?  Visit the doctors office?  Or even see a male doctor?  Of course not.

The Christian population has been annihilated since 2003.  Are there protections for them?  What does Islam say about other religions and that is your answer.

Is this what our soldiers died for?  Is this the definition of we won?  Hard questions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

Religions:

Muslim 97% (Shia 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

Wow. 97% of Iraqis are Muslims, never saw that coming.  Wow.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

See, without the Constitution they'd still have Islam, now they have a Constitution and Islam.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 27, 2009)

rdean said:


> Example, take a look at Article 2, the entire Article:
> Article 2:
> First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
> 
> ...



Nice!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

It's clear that the OP has a fundamental disagreement with Islam as a religion


----------



## judyd (Oct 27, 2009)

The US gave them their freedom to write their own constitution.  So apparently it's what they want.  But, on the up side, they also wrote in free healthcare for everyone!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

judyd said:


> The US gave them their freedom to write their own constitution.  So apparently it's what they want.  But, on the up side, they also wrote in free healthcare for everyone!



The OP agrees with Ann Coulter that we should have converted them all to Christianity


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2009)

The OP would be complaining that the US war threw all the grave diggers out of business because they wouldnt have a steady source of business without Saddam.
Talk about carping.


----------



## rdean (Oct 27, 2009)

Our soldiers died to create a fundamentalist Islamic government and the right is OK with that?  They slaughtered their Christian population from 1.2 to 1.4 MILLION to probably less than 400,000 and that's OK?  That's their right?  Pointing out that genocide is evil means I have a problem with ISLAM?

Who agrees with Anne Coulter?

You do know that we killed at least 10 times more Iraqi's than Saddam did in his entire life?  Right?
Plus, we leveled the country.  

Do you guys even read what you wrote?  You think you are throwing out barbs, but you are making yourselves look like fools.


----------



## rdean (Oct 27, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's clear that the OP has a fundamental disagreement with Islam as a religion



You write as if you think the things you say are intelligent.  

If people want "Islam" as a religion, that's fine, but when the US supports shackling a country it claims it's "liberating" by making it a religious theocracy, it's just over he top.  

Don't you know the reason people in Iran are rebelling is because they want to get away from the type of government we just installed in Iraq?   Just the fact that you don't know that proves you don't know anything.

Now, you will want to come back with another barb, but your others were as sharp as oatmeal.


----------



## Chris (Oct 27, 2009)

Our soldiers died to create a Shia theocracy allied with Iran.

Is this a great country or what?


----------



## rdean (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris said:


> Our soldiers died to create a Shia theocracy allied with Iran.
> 
> Is this a great country or what?



From what Republicans seem to be writing on this board, I believe that was the plan all along.

The reason that Republicans can't seem to understand why supporting the creation of a religious theocracy in Iraq is a bad thing, is because they want to do the same here, but with a Christian theocracy.  

They simply don't understand what is wrong with declaring this country a "Christian Nation", making "Christianity" the National Religion and aligning laws with the "10 Commandments". 

It's like "heaven".  Ask 10 Christians what "heaven" is like and you will get ten different descriptions.  Since all of them are imaginary, they would all be exactly correct and equally likely.  

But in the "real" world, a theocratic US would no longer be recognized as the United States or a very nice place to live.  Republicans Christian conservatives don't believe it.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 27, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's clear that the OP has a fundamental disagreement with Islam as a religion



Wrong, asshat.

It's clear that the OP has a fundamental disagreement with state sponsored religion.

And theocracies.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2009)

The Iraqi shi'ite "democracy" will officially ally with Iran after the U.S. withdraws.

Of course that is what our soldiers died for.  Didn't GWB send them there after all?  Not Clinton, not the Dems, not Powell, not you or me.  The President did, and the blood of those men and women and all of the Iraqi citizens will drag him to the hell of history as the worst Republican President who ever served.  Maybe he was even worse than James Buchanan.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 1, 2009)

Our soldiers died in the first battle of a long war in the Middle East, a war Bill Clinton led us into. 

Shia or Sunni, I say Shia, the Iranian leaders are nuts but the people are pretty good folks for the most part, the Shia deseerve to have access to Iraq, who are the Sunni to deny the Shia this right. 

Bush screwed up by not marching our boys into Iran to take out the leadership. 

As far as Iraq abusing women, I say we crush them again, and again, and again if that is what it takes, too bad women dont get it, it disgusts me everytime I see women wearing burquas or hijabs, that is why women are abused, the ignorant refuse to recognize that women in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, etc, etc. are forced to wear the hijab or burka or whatever the hell its called, its not a choice, its a demand, and in solitary with the men who abuse little girls women in the western world argue this as a right, even the stupid ass OBAMA calls it a right, not a sign of oppression which is what it is.

Our boys died in a battle, the outcome is far from over, lets see if the first black president can man up and be an american and put an end to the horror that is life in the middle east. I doubt it, Obama did bow to the Saudi's. 

How can Obama negotiate with Shia Iranians when Obama bowed to a Wahabbi Sunni?

I would take Shia over Sunni any day and I would take the Jews over the Sunni or Shia.


----------



## jreeves (Nov 2, 2009)

rdean said:


> Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com
> 
> The conservative right has insisted time and again that we won in Iraq.  Everyone can now enjoy freedom without the fear of religious persecution.
> 
> ...



We eliminated a torturing and terror collaborating regime. Islam isn't evil, it is only evil, when some pervert it with radicalism.


----------



## theHawk (Nov 2, 2009)

rdean said:


> Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com
> 
> The conservative right has insisted time and again that we won in Iraq.  Everyone can now enjoy freedom without the fear of religious persecution.
> 
> ...



Once again you start an arguement over the false premise of what you think conservatives believe in.

Our soldiers died from Islamic terrorists, Iraq's constitution has nothing to do with that.  Sure, we "won the war" against Saddam's Iraq, but now we are in another war against the Islamic Jihadists.  We've had two Presidents unwilling to attack the source of our enemies, namely Iran and Syria, which is why the war has dragged on.


----------



## rdean (Nov 7, 2009)

theHawk said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com
> ...



Our people died from right wing religious extremists.  Putting the religious in charge of a country will be turning Iraq into Iran.  The "source" of our enemies is "religious extremism".

The fact that Iraq has pretty much wiped out it's Christian population pretty much tells us how "tolerant" they are.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> See, without the Constitution they'd still have Islam, now they have a Constitution and Islam.




Lol...dumbest fucking post I've seen in a while.  This new Constitution makes iraq an Islamic Theocracy.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

theHawk said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com
> ...





If Russia invaded and occupied the US would you label all Americans who fought against the occupation as Christian Terrorists?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

Rampant moral equivalency sighted!  Man the decks!

Are you still insisting, against all evidence, that Iraq is a theocracy?  Didn't I kick your ass enough to penetrate your understanding that you are wrong?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Rampant moral equivalency sighted!  Man the decks!
> 
> Are you still insisting, against all evidence, that Iraq is a theocracy?  Didn't I kick your ass enough to penetrate your understanding that you are wrong?




Did you ever see Dodgeball?  You are exactly like ben stiller's character.  You never kick anyone's ass......and your opinion is so fucking pathetically irrelevant that i'd be an idiot to continue your shit.


----------



## manu1959 (Nov 11, 2009)

rdean said:


> Our soldiers died to create a fundamentalist Islamic government and the right is OK with that?  They slaughtered their Christian population from 1.2 to 1.4 MILLION to probably less than 400,000 and that's OK?  That's their right?  Pointing out that genocide is evil means I have a problem with ISLAM?
> 
> Who agrees with Anne Coulter?
> 
> ...



10 times what saddam killed.....ya the us is way worse than sddam...

leveled the country....ya nothing there but sand now....

you are a loony.....


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Rampant moral equivalency sighted!  Man the decks!
> ...



I spend my time reading, not watching Ben Stiller movies.  That's why I can recognize a theocracy and you can't.


----------



## manu1959 (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



like the vatican....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 11, 2009)

Oh, not like the Vatican at all, pardner.  Not at all.


----------



## rdean (Nov 11, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I guess you could say the Vatican is a theocracy, but could you say it's a "country"?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 11, 2009)

The Vatican still has international status.

Iraqis, however, are still engaged in religious slaughter as the two Muslim factions try to define their theocracy.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



'Zactly.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 11, 2009)

Rab, what do you not understand about theocracy?  It is the fusion of state and religion.  The Vatican is a theocratic state that has no great army or major weapon systems, while Iraq is busily building a modern armed forces.  The Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other.  Their Constitution protects Islam.  What do you not understand?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

rdean said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The Vatican is a City-State so in terms of sovereignty yes it is it's own "country."

What makes a Nation a theocracy is if it proclaims religion has legislative authority.  Since iraq's constitution clearly states islam is a "fundamental source of legislation" it is a theocracy.  Some people wrongly think a theocracy has to be totalitarian, like a Fascist State in order to be a theocracy but they are simply ignorant.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



No.
What makes a nation a theocracy is if the founders and leaders practice the same religion.  Since almost every president and founder was a Christian of some kind, that makes the US a theocracy.

Wow, redefining things is fun!!


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

The Argentine Constitution invokes "God, the source of all reason and judgment."


> We, the representatives of the people of the Argentine Nation, gathered in General Constituent Assembly by the will and election of the Provinces which compose it, in fulfillment of pre-existing pacts, in order to form a national union, guarantee justice, secure domestic peace, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, to our posterity, and to all men of the world who wish to dwell on argentine soil: invoking the protection of God, source of all reason and justice: do ordain, decree, and establish this Constitution for the Argentine Nation.



It also:





> The Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion.



So Argentina is a theocracy!  Whodathunkit!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

The·oc·ra·cy*(th&#65532;-&#65532;k&#65532;r&#65532;-s&#65532

n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies 

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

2. A state so governed.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


If a Nation states in its Constitution a specific religion is a fundamental source of legislation that would make said nation subject to religious authority.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 11, 2009)

CurveLight, I promise you that Rab is not going to understand this.  But your comments will stand as testimony against his obstinate unwillingness to reason according to fact and evidence.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight, I promise you that Rab is not going to understand this.  But your comments will stand as testimony against his obstinate unwillingness to reason according to fact and evidence.




Thank you for the affirmation but I posted it mainly for people who read but don't post.  He will not admit iraq is a theocracy because doing so means we shed American blood to install the same institution they say our Troops died for fighting against: Islamic extremism.


Have you ever noticed the complete silence regarding our long standing alliance with the most brutal islamic theocracy in the world?  War supporters are generally ignorant of such information.  Sometimes it is genuine but in other cases it is active, and that is sad.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

Maybe we should fight against the Islamic extremists in Turkey next?

You are a buffoon.  You cannot define victory, except to say that we didnt achieve it.  You define theocracy in a way that could apply to Argentina as well.  You refuse to see the obvious differences between a real theocracy, like Iran, and a state that bases itself on religion, like Iraq.  Or Argentina. Or Monaco.
You have to do this because to do otherwise is to give one inch in your fantasy that the US has lost this war.  This had plausability when Harry Reid announced it a year ago or more but events have proven him, and you, wrong beyond your imagination.  So the only thing left is to deny reality.


----------



## rdean (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Maybe we should fight against the Islamic extremists in Turkey next?
> 
> You are a buffoon.  You cannot define victory, except to say that we didnt achieve it.  You define theocracy in a way that could apply to Argentina as well.  *You refuse to see the obvious differences between a real theocracy, like Iran, and a state that bases itself on religion, like Iraq. * Or Argentina. Or Monaco.
> You have to do this because to do otherwise is to give one inch in your fantasy that the US has lost this war.  This had plausability when Harry Reid announced it a year ago or more but events have proven him, and you, wrong beyond your imagination.  So the only thing left is to deny reality.



*You refuse to see the obvious differences between a real theocracy, like Iran, and a state that bases itself on religion, like Iraq. *

Does that make any sense?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

rdean said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe we should fight against the Islamic extremists in Turkey next?
> ...



Perfect sense.  I've explained this before.  The differences are obvious to anyone not set on a Bush-bashing agenda.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Maybe we should fight against the Islamic extremists in Turkey next?
> 
> You are a buffoon.  You cannot define victory, except to say that we didnt achieve it.  You define theocracy in a way that could apply to Argentina as well.  You refuse to see the obvious differences between a real theocracy, like Iran, and a state that bases itself on religion, like Iraq.  Or Argentina. Or Monaco.
> You have to do this because to do otherwise is to give one inch in your fantasy that the US has lost this war.  This had plausability when Harry Reid announced it a year ago or more but events have proven him, and you, wrong beyond your imagination.  So the only thing left is to deny reality.




I didn't invent the definition of a theocracy.  

I can define victory where the concept is plausible.  It's hilarious you ignored it over 8 times when I asked you to define victory only to accuse someone else of what you're guilty of.

Iran and Iraq have the same constitutions.  Both legislative structures are based in Islam as being the fundamental source of their laws.  Both have democratic elections.  Both allow other religious groups to exist.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Okay everyone. Let's bow down to Rabbi and ask for his forgiveness.  It's a shameful admission but I cannot deny his clear intellectual superiority and the iron clad presentations of political equations that dwarf Einstein's achievements.  I must concede his comprehension of geo-politics is so far advanced I shall not waste one superfluous breath doing anything but reading all of his previous posts while gleefully anticipating all future posts.  Thank you so much Rabbi, your revelation that bush-bashing is at the heart of the matter is my political salvation. Please kind and wise sir, if there is anything I can do to show my devoted gratitude then please let me know.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Good.
Will you stop posting and go away now?


----------



## rdean (Nov 11, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe we should fight against the Islamic extremists in Turkey next?
> ...



That describes the situation in a very "simple" manner.  And this is the problem with the right in this country.   The explanation is "simple" and "absolutely true".  For them, that's enough.  Story over. 

Then you start looking a little deeper.  The candidates in the "democratic" election have to be "approved" by the clergy.  With such limits, there is not a lot of room for "independent thought", but that's OK.  Independent thought has been the enemy of religion for as long as there have been religion.

Sure, other religious groups exist.  But barely.  And to exist, many have to "pay" under the table to the corrupt in the government.  And believe me, religious governments are some of the most corrupt in the world.  Look at Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson and Jim Baker.  Imagine if they had free reign.

Before the US invaded Afghanistan, the clergy would even patrol soccer games.  If anyone was caught "cheering" the clergy would run over and whip them with a stick.  When the poor could barely find food, the clergy rode in luxury vehicles.

When US soldiers entered Afghanistan, they found Taliban clerics living in luxurious compounds.  Refrigerators filled with foreign foods.  Porn.  Satellite TV.  

Now that women in Iraq are back in bags and not allowed to work or go out without a male relative, it won't be long until Iraq it seen as a hard right religious theocracy.

The reason the right in this country has a very small problem with this type of government, is because it's what they think they want to see in this country, only Christian instead of Islam.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 12, 2009)

Rabbi's mindset would make him a wonderful fundamentalist imam in Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan, "a recognized authority on Islamic theology and law and a spiritual guide" to all of us. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


So if something is absolutely true then its problemmatic for you?
This is the issue with the Left: they let ideology get in their way of viewing the facts.  If one Black is denied a job because of race then the U.S. is a racist society.  If Iraq's government doesn't look like Switzerland then the whole thing is a failure.  If Hugo Chavez got medicine to one village then he is a great hero.
It is a cherry picking of facts to support an argument that cannot be supported by the general picture.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 12, 2009)

More unsupported generalizations from the king of unsupported generalizations, RabbiontheRun!


----------



## rdean (Nov 12, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



That's the problem with thinking in terms of "absolutes".  They don't exist.  Everything is shades of gray.  You see the "good" that was done in Iraq.  Getting rid of Saddam, but fail see the consequences.  No, not fail, "REFUSE" to see the consiquences.  

In the Republican mindset, everything is "either/or".  That's it, just one of two choices.  Everything is reduced to it's most "simple" form.

This is referred to as "simpleton".


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2009)

Actually it is referred to as "clarity of vision."
The Dums during the Cold War (the uber liberal variety anyway) engaged in exactly the kind of prevaricating you are here about the Soviet Union.  Was it really so bad?  WHat were their true intentions?  Were they just reacting to our militarism?  Didn't they help 3rd world countries more than we did?  Maybe we can reach accomodation.  Maybe we can bargain away our nuclear forces.  etc etc.
Reagan came in and reminded us of the truth: The Soviet Union is an evil empire that has enslaved and made miserable millions of people over the globe and it needs to go.
Sometimes the truth really is that simple.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 12, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




The problem here is context.  I was simply showing the similarities between one government that is recognized as a theocracy and one that is denied while both have the same fundamental tenets.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2009)

Just like Argentina, which has the same fundamental tenets as the ones you mentioned, right?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 12, 2009)

rdean said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




Please show how I'm a simpleton?  It's pretty funny you refer to people who make absolutes as simpletons while in the process of making an absolute claim about Republicans.


----------



## rdean (Nov 12, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Their may be some Republicans left who have independent thought and who have a "clarity of vision", but their voice is silent within the current party. 

At one time, the Republican party was known as the "party of ideas".  Republican stategists were known to be "intellectuals".  Where has all that gone?

During the election, I watched Bay Buchanon say that "intellectuals were NOT welcome in the Republican Party" on Anderson Cooper's 360.  The guy nearly choked and asked her to repeat that claim, which she did and more.

Look at the "leaders" put forth by the party, Bush (below average student supported by daddy), McCain (5th from the bottom out of a class of 899), Palin (5 years at 4 colleges for a degree in some kind of public speaking from the University of Idaho - claims to be a journalist, but never wrote a single article in any school paper - it's like getting a degree in art and never drawing a single picture - she proudly announed that she recieved a D in economics).

And that's the problem with these people, they are proud of incompetence and being less than average.  Even after scandals such as the Keating 5 and SEC investigations and being caught in lies, as long as you are pro religion, anti gay and speak in a "simple" manner, the Republican base loves you.  

So when I'm asked the question, "All Republicans?" The answer is, "As long as the teabaggers and birthers and chicken hawks speak for the Republican party with no voice of dissent that I can hear, then "yes".


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 12, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




I'm not happy with the status quo and wish the liberals would get the hell out buy your attempt to justify your broadbrushing is a bit on the scary arrogant side.  There are plenty of voices of dissent that have published books and articles but since you have not "personally" encountered them on a frequent basis, tailored to your own liking, they don't count.  If someone shoots someone else with a gun but you don't hear the shot does that mean it didn't happen?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 12, 2009)

I'm not happy with the status quo and wish the liberals would get the hell out but your attempt to justify your broadbrushing is a bit on the scary arrogant side.  There are plenty of voices of dissent that have published books and articles but since you have not "personally" encountered them on a frequent basis, tailored to your own liking, they don't count.  If someone shoots someone else with a gun but you don't hear the shot does that mean it didn't happen?


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2009)

rdean said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



dont you mean Rat Buchanan, power coirrupts, money corrupts, its in human nature, the entire problem is both parties are corrupted, I aint saying you stated this at all but it seems you are touching on this. 

No party is pure, no party is without corruption, Both parties are 93% corrupt and unredemable, the parties are lost on both sides


eliminate the parties.

one term in congress, one term as president

no retirement

take away the tax code,

no four year commercial marketing propaganda campaigns

no adverstising to be a politician

change the name of all television news broadcasts to bullshit broadcasts, that includes FOX

The corporations own us and the politicians, demorat and repubic are corporate puppets.

Wake up you lousy morons, on both sides, your pitted against one another and the rats slip by while you argue, dumb fuck suckers, republicans and democrats.

Wake up, neither party will save us, both are infected, both are diseased, time to cut off the leper infected political parties, there is no saving them, we will vote in republicans and get more of the same

We argue endlessly and the politicians get richer and the rich laugh.


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

rdean said:


> Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com
> 
> The conservative right has insisted time and again that we &#8220;won&#8221; in Iraq.  Everyone can now enjoy &#8220;freedom&#8221; without the fear of religious persecution.
> 
> ...



*uuhhh actually the reason was weapons  of mass destruction that were not there...*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VD1gOhpRSU[/ame]

*this is what they died for...*


----------



## rdean (Nov 20, 2009)

eots said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com
> ...



Cheney's Halliburton stock options went up 5,000%.  Who knows what Bush got?  I'm sure that somehow, he's still laughing, all the way to the bank.  

In the meantime, Conservatives on this board say things like, "No one said Saddam was connected to 9/11 and anyone who thought that is a fool and an idiot".  

Since a Zogby international poll taken during the invasion showed that 90% of the troops believed we were invading Iraq as retribution for 9/11, I just wonder who those conservatives are talking about?


----------



## rdean (Dec 1, 2009)

Do conservatives only pretend to support the soldiers?  I think so.


----------



## Munin (Dec 18, 2009)

rdean said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Our soldiers died to create a Shia theocracy allied with Iran.
> ...



Yes but didn't they already partly succeeded in creating the image that the US is a Christian theocracy?

Let s see what happend during the recent elections:

Mccain supporter stating that Obama is a bad man and should not be president because "he s an Arab" (clearly wanting to say muslim, indicated by the other Mccain supporters during the rallies), Mccain replies by saying: "no, mam. He s a decent man"

Abortion: religious or not? (face it: a lot of the political motivations of the republican party are religious) 

There is nothing wrong with having 1 christian party, but if you have a two party system and 1 of them is the "christian party" then how much choice do non-christians have? Not to forget that every presidential candidate has to say he loves god (and also say that he s a christian) or doesn't even get a chance to get elected (Mccain being the exception, but then trying to improve him by his VP pick).


----------

