Democrats: "FAILURE IS THE ONLY OPTION!"
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
maineman
Banned
I doubt they would be so short of quality copy that they would run a story about a one hour photo guy throwing a hissy fit at the Piggly Wiggly.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It would seem that you feel that "secular" is synonymous with fair and just.
No, I think it means.... not pertaining to religion. I stated that above, perhaps you missed it. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favor with other Sunni Muslims, while discriminating brutally against Shiia Muslims, Christians, and anything other than Sunni Muslims.
In so far as Iraq's official government, it was considered a secular dictatorship, as opposed to a non-secular or religious dictatorship, or theocracy. This doesn't mean Iraq was secular in practicallity. The overwhelming majority of the country is Muslim, mostly Shiia variety, who were routinely persecuted by the Sunni dictator. This doesn't sound like "secular" to me, it sounds fairly well-rooted in religion. This is the opposite of not pertaining to religion.
Forgive my inability to swallow the koolaid here, but I can't figure out how "sectarian violence" between religious sects, can be defined as secular. It doesn't appear that Iraq is a "secular" nation at all, it appears that much of the problems in Iraq, is because of the jealousy between Sunnis, who ruled the roost under Saddam, and Shiias, who are the legitimate majority in the country. This jealousy and animosity is fueled by the nature of Saddam Hussein's rule as a Sunni Muslim dictator, in spite of the official Ba'ath Party line about secularism.
The thing that amazes me about pinheads, is how they can completely turn on a point, depending on what they are arguing at the moment... if we were discussing the strategic importance of establishing a democracy in a "secular" Arab country, unlike Pakistan, Syria, or Iran, you maintain we are going to inflame the Arab street, incite the radical terrorists, help them recruit more... for what? A secular regime with no religious ties? Yeah, right! Why would they care so much, if that were the case?
Here's some cake to go with cake you're already eating, it appears you have enough koolaid to wash it all down.
No, I think it means.... not pertaining to religion. I stated that above, perhaps you missed it. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favor with other Sunni Muslims, while discriminating brutally against Shiia Muslims, Christians, and anything other than Sunni Muslims.
In so far as Iraq's official government, it was considered a secular dictatorship, as opposed to a non-secular or religious dictatorship, or theocracy. This doesn't mean Iraq was secular in practicallity. The overwhelming majority of the country is Muslim, mostly Shiia variety, who were routinely persecuted by the Sunni dictator. This doesn't sound like "secular" to me, it sounds fairly well-rooted in religion. This is the opposite of not pertaining to religion.
Forgive my inability to swallow the koolaid here, but I can't figure out how "sectarian violence" between religious sects, can be defined as secular. It doesn't appear that Iraq is a "secular" nation at all, it appears that much of the problems in Iraq, is because of the jealousy between Sunnis, who ruled the roost under Saddam, and Shiias, who are the legitimate majority in the country. This jealousy and animosity is fueled by the nature of Saddam Hussein's rule as a Sunni Muslim dictator, in spite of the official Ba'ath Party line about secularism.
The thing that amazes me about pinheads, is how they can completely turn on a point, depending on what they are arguing at the moment... if we were discussing the strategic importance of establishing a democracy in a "secular" Arab country, unlike Pakistan, Syria, or Iran, you maintain we are going to inflame the Arab street, incite the radical terrorists, help them recruit more... for what? A secular regime with no religious ties? Yeah, right! Why would they care so much, if that were the case?
Here's some cake to go with cake you're already eating, it appears you have enough koolaid to wash it all down.
Sectarian has a religious conotation... as it means:
1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
2. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
3. narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc
Secular means:
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
So, a sectarian government would be religious, sectarian violence is of a religious nature... A secular government however does not define itself by religion.
1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
2. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
3. narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc
Secular means:
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
So, a sectarian government would be religious, sectarian violence is of a religious nature... A secular government however does not define itself by religion.
maineman
Banned
Again.... what does the fact that sunnis and shiites are killing each other after we foolishly invaded Iraq and deposed their SECULAR government have to do with the fact that Saddam and the Ba'ath party ran a secular nation-state?
What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?
Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?
Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?
Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?
No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular... all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular. Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check. We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.....
What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?
Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?
Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?
Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?
No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular... all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular. Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check. We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes
Dixie, seeing that you, like me, stayed home from Iraq and left the fighting to the "menfolk", I'm wondering, have you seen Michael Kors new lace-up boot? I'm thinking that in the soft beige, with your red, fabu.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again.... what does the fact that sunnis and shiites are killing each other after we foolishly invaded Iraq and deposed their SECULAR government have to do with the fact that Saddam and the Ba'ath party ran a secular nation-state?
Well, apparently, he didn't run a very "secular" state, because the Sunnis who are now out of power, are jealous of the Shiias who dominate. Had Saddam ruled Iraq in secular fashion, there would have been no difference between Sunnis and Shiia, and with Democracy, everyone would have an equal representation, so the Sunnis would have no problem with it. The point of contention for them now, is their lack of power, which they had under Saddam.
What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?
Well, as I said, from a purely political standpoint, Iraq was indeed considered a secular dictatorship. The Ba'ath Party does claim to be secular. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favorites with Sunni Muslims, and was more than "nasty" to shiites and kurds. Let's please be intellectually honest enough to understand, Iraq was a dictatorship, and "the government" was subject to the whim of the ruler, Saddam. His iron-fisted actions against Shiites and Kurds, is "the official government policy" under a dictatorship, that's how it works. Therefore, if Saddam wasn't secular, neither was his government.
Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?
Irrelevant.
Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?
Irrelevant.
Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?
Irrelevant.
No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular...
Really? You're not saying that? I could have sworn I've read "secular Iraq" a few times from you alone, as well as other pinheads who keep saying it.
all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular.
No, actually, they weren't, as I've gone over already. When the dictator is Sunni Muslim, and he openly persecutes and commits genocide on Shiites and Kurds who don't share his Muslim belief, that is not "secular" government, sorry.
Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check.
Saddam was brutally slaughtering his own people, feeding them into wood-chippers, and making videos to watch for entertainment, his sons routinely raped young Iraqi women, and tortured people daily. There are over 300,000 corpses in Iraq, where Saddam used poison gas to kill people like rats in the street. That's how he was "doing a great job" you fucktard! As for extremists in his country, he was allowing them to train in the Kurdish north, we know this for a fact, and you can run away from that all you like, he fucking had control over ALL his country. Iran hasn't been "in check" since 1976, we've already discussed this as well, who the hell are you trying to fool with this bunch of bullshit?
We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.
Yes, and your party was elected to help find solutions and do a better job, like you CLAIMED you could do! So far, all I see is an attempt to write off Iraq as a failure, and denial of fucking reality on what is going on there.
Well, apparently, he didn't run a very "secular" state, because the Sunnis who are now out of power, are jealous of the Shiias who dominate. Had Saddam ruled Iraq in secular fashion, there would have been no difference between Sunnis and Shiia, and with Democracy, everyone would have an equal representation, so the Sunnis would have no problem with it. The point of contention for them now, is their lack of power, which they had under Saddam.
What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?
Well, as I said, from a purely political standpoint, Iraq was indeed considered a secular dictatorship. The Ba'ath Party does claim to be secular. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favorites with Sunni Muslims, and was more than "nasty" to shiites and kurds. Let's please be intellectually honest enough to understand, Iraq was a dictatorship, and "the government" was subject to the whim of the ruler, Saddam. His iron-fisted actions against Shiites and Kurds, is "the official government policy" under a dictatorship, that's how it works. Therefore, if Saddam wasn't secular, neither was his government.
Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?
Irrelevant.
Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?
Irrelevant.
Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?
Irrelevant.
No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular...
Really? You're not saying that? I could have sworn I've read "secular Iraq" a few times from you alone, as well as other pinheads who keep saying it.
all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular.
No, actually, they weren't, as I've gone over already. When the dictator is Sunni Muslim, and he openly persecutes and commits genocide on Shiites and Kurds who don't share his Muslim belief, that is not "secular" government, sorry.
Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check.
Saddam was brutally slaughtering his own people, feeding them into wood-chippers, and making videos to watch for entertainment, his sons routinely raped young Iraqi women, and tortured people daily. There are over 300,000 corpses in Iraq, where Saddam used poison gas to kill people like rats in the street. That's how he was "doing a great job" you fucktard! As for extremists in his country, he was allowing them to train in the Kurdish north, we know this for a fact, and you can run away from that all you like, he fucking had control over ALL his country. Iran hasn't been "in check" since 1976, we've already discussed this as well, who the hell are you trying to fool with this bunch of bullshit?
We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.
Yes, and your party was elected to help find solutions and do a better job, like you CLAIMED you could do! So far, all I see is an attempt to write off Iraq as a failure, and denial of fucking reality on what is going on there.
"Yes, and your party was elected to help find solutions and do a better job, like you CLAIMED you could do! So far, all I see is an attempt to write off Iraq as a failure, and denial of fucking reality on what is going on there."
You're just not paying attention. There has been more active, vibrant discussion about different options for Iraq over the past 2-3 weeks than we've had in years under Bush; everything from partitioning, to more troops, to less troops, to withdrawal. Where have you been? Do you read any papers?
As for the "reality of what is going on there," I'd say the person who posts pictures of purple fingers & 3-year old versions of happy Iraqis isn't exactly one to expound on that one.....
You're just not paying attention. There has been more active, vibrant discussion about different options for Iraq over the past 2-3 weeks than we've had in years under Bush; everything from partitioning, to more troops, to less troops, to withdrawal. Where have you been? Do you read any papers?
As for the "reality of what is going on there," I'd say the person who posts pictures of purple fingers & 3-year old versions of happy Iraqis isn't exactly one to expound on that one.....
maineman
Banned
Again.... what does the fact that sunnis and shiites are killing each other after we foolishly invaded Iraq and deposed their SECULAR government have to do with the fact that Saddam and the Ba'ath party ran a secular nation-state?
Well, apparently, he didn't run a very "secular" state, because the Sunnis who are now out of power, are jealous of the Shiias who dominate. Had Saddam ruled Iraq in secular fashion, there would have been no difference between Sunnis and Shiia, and with Democracy, everyone would have an equal representation, so the Sunnis would have no problem with it. The point of contention for them now, is their lack of power, which they had under Saddam.
the fact that sunnis and shiites do not get along is no reflection on whether or not Saddam and his ba'ath party ran their government by any religious principles. They did not.
What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?
Well, as I said, from a purely political standpoint, Iraq was indeed considered a secular dictatorship. The Ba'ath Party does claim to be secular. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favorites with Sunni Muslims, and was more than "nasty" to shiites and kurds. Let's please be intellectually honest enough to understand, Iraq was a dictatorship, and "the government" was subject to the whim of the ruler, Saddam. His iron-fisted actions against Shiites and Kurds, is "the official government policy" under a dictatorship, that's how it works. Therefore, if Saddam wasn't secular, neither was his government.
Saddam was hardly religious in any manner. He did not follow any of the teachings of Islam.... he was the poster boy for secular dictators
Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?
Irrelevant.
not if you say that governments who discrminate are not secular
Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?
Irrelevant.
why is gassing jews any different or more "secular" than gassing kurds or shiites?
Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?
Irrelevant.
ditto
No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular...
Really? You're not saying that? I could have sworn I've read "secular Iraq" a few times from you alone, as well as other pinheads who keep saying it.
you have read "secular Iraq" from me only in terms of Saddam's regime. A few months ago, I was the one suggesting that the new government was NOT a secular government but a theocracy and you were arguing against me. Make up your fucking mind you flip flopper!
all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular.
No, actually, they weren't, as I've gone over already. When the dictator is Sunni Muslim, and he openly persecutes and commits genocide on Shiites and Kurds who don't share his Muslim belief, that is not "secular" government, sorry.
Saddam had no "muslim beliefs". He was a sunni as a matter of ethnicity, not faith.... He was an evil terrible man who avoided mosques like the plague. He was, as I have said, the posterboy for secular dictators
Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check.
Saddam was brutally slaughtering his own people, feeding them into wood-chippers, and making videos to watch for entertainment, his sons routinely raped young Iraqi women, and tortured people daily. There are over 300,000 corpses in Iraq, where Saddam used poison gas to kill people like rats in the street. That's how he was "doing a great job" you fucktard! As for extremists in his country, he was allowing them to train in the Kurdish north, we know this for a fact, and you can run away from that all you like, he fucking had control over ALL his country. Iran hasn't been "in check" since 1976, we've already discussed this as well, who the hell are you trying to fool with this bunch of bullshit?
::yawn:: Saddam had no control over the kurdish north and, as has been shown here recently, you agreed with me that he had no reason whatsoever to be nice to islamic extremists whose long range strategic goal was the dissolution of his regime. Re: Iran... 1976??????? the Iran-Iraq war went on from 1980-88.... they did not have much time for regional hegemony when they were busy fighting Iraqis, and the lack of any significant Iranian influence is noteworthy. Who's fooling whom?
We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.
Yes, and your party was elected to help find solutions and do a better job, like you CLAIMED you could do! So far, all I see is an attempt to write off Iraq as a failure, and denial of fucking reality on what is going on there.
the reality of what is going on over there is that your party has so badly fucked the region up and our standing in the world community has been so degraded that we are at a point where "winning" the Iraq war is a meaningless phrase relegated to the bone pile along with other fictional bits like Santa Claus and the fucking easter bunny. The solution is to allow Iraqis to solve the problems of Iraq. The solution is to allow Iraqis to determine their own destiny. We went in to get rid of WMD's (there were none) mission accomplished. We went in to depose Saddam (he has been sentenced to death by a -kangaroo- court of his own people) mission accomplished. We went in to establish a vibrant Jeffersonian democracy in the fertile triangle that would shine like a beacon of freedom. Well....two out of three ain't bad. We did establish an operational democracy (according to YOU, anyhow, who claim that two elections and a bunch of purple fingers a democracy doth make)...we have spent over two years training an Iraqi army of 300K soldiers. We don't spent one eighth that time training our own soldiers before shipping THEM off to die in Iraq, why should the ragheads need anymore time? THe insurgency (according to you) is a handful of deadenders in their final throes..and now that we got all that cool info when we killed Zarqawi, the insurgency is going to be dead any day now (arccording to you).... so all in all...I'd say it's time to stop spilling American blood. (unless YOU care to go over and spill some of that yellow stuff of yours) and bring our boys home and let Iraqis settle their differences in their own way. THAT is MY idea of a great way to stop the losses we are suffering there because of YOUR fuckup.
Well, apparently, he didn't run a very "secular" state, because the Sunnis who are now out of power, are jealous of the Shiias who dominate. Had Saddam ruled Iraq in secular fashion, there would have been no difference between Sunnis and Shiia, and with Democracy, everyone would have an equal representation, so the Sunnis would have no problem with it. The point of contention for them now, is their lack of power, which they had under Saddam.
the fact that sunnis and shiites do not get along is no reflection on whether or not Saddam and his ba'ath party ran their government by any religious principles. They did not.
What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?
Well, as I said, from a purely political standpoint, Iraq was indeed considered a secular dictatorship. The Ba'ath Party does claim to be secular. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favorites with Sunni Muslims, and was more than "nasty" to shiites and kurds. Let's please be intellectually honest enough to understand, Iraq was a dictatorship, and "the government" was subject to the whim of the ruler, Saddam. His iron-fisted actions against Shiites and Kurds, is "the official government policy" under a dictatorship, that's how it works. Therefore, if Saddam wasn't secular, neither was his government.
Saddam was hardly religious in any manner. He did not follow any of the teachings of Islam.... he was the poster boy for secular dictators
Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?
Irrelevant.
not if you say that governments who discrminate are not secular
Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?
Irrelevant.
why is gassing jews any different or more "secular" than gassing kurds or shiites?
Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?
Irrelevant.
ditto
No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular...
Really? You're not saying that? I could have sworn I've read "secular Iraq" a few times from you alone, as well as other pinheads who keep saying it.
you have read "secular Iraq" from me only in terms of Saddam's regime. A few months ago, I was the one suggesting that the new government was NOT a secular government but a theocracy and you were arguing against me. Make up your fucking mind you flip flopper!
all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular.
No, actually, they weren't, as I've gone over already. When the dictator is Sunni Muslim, and he openly persecutes and commits genocide on Shiites and Kurds who don't share his Muslim belief, that is not "secular" government, sorry.
Saddam had no "muslim beliefs". He was a sunni as a matter of ethnicity, not faith.... He was an evil terrible man who avoided mosques like the plague. He was, as I have said, the posterboy for secular dictators
Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check.
Saddam was brutally slaughtering his own people, feeding them into wood-chippers, and making videos to watch for entertainment, his sons routinely raped young Iraqi women, and tortured people daily. There are over 300,000 corpses in Iraq, where Saddam used poison gas to kill people like rats in the street. That's how he was "doing a great job" you fucktard! As for extremists in his country, he was allowing them to train in the Kurdish north, we know this for a fact, and you can run away from that all you like, he fucking had control over ALL his country. Iran hasn't been "in check" since 1976, we've already discussed this as well, who the hell are you trying to fool with this bunch of bullshit?
::yawn:: Saddam had no control over the kurdish north and, as has been shown here recently, you agreed with me that he had no reason whatsoever to be nice to islamic extremists whose long range strategic goal was the dissolution of his regime. Re: Iran... 1976??????? the Iran-Iraq war went on from 1980-88.... they did not have much time for regional hegemony when they were busy fighting Iraqis, and the lack of any significant Iranian influence is noteworthy. Who's fooling whom?
We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.
Yes, and your party was elected to help find solutions and do a better job, like you CLAIMED you could do! So far, all I see is an attempt to write off Iraq as a failure, and denial of fucking reality on what is going on there.
the reality of what is going on over there is that your party has so badly fucked the region up and our standing in the world community has been so degraded that we are at a point where "winning" the Iraq war is a meaningless phrase relegated to the bone pile along with other fictional bits like Santa Claus and the fucking easter bunny. The solution is to allow Iraqis to solve the problems of Iraq. The solution is to allow Iraqis to determine their own destiny. We went in to get rid of WMD's (there were none) mission accomplished. We went in to depose Saddam (he has been sentenced to death by a -kangaroo- court of his own people) mission accomplished. We went in to establish a vibrant Jeffersonian democracy in the fertile triangle that would shine like a beacon of freedom. Well....two out of three ain't bad. We did establish an operational democracy (according to YOU, anyhow, who claim that two elections and a bunch of purple fingers a democracy doth make)...we have spent over two years training an Iraqi army of 300K soldiers. We don't spent one eighth that time training our own soldiers before shipping THEM off to die in Iraq, why should the ragheads need anymore time? THe insurgency (according to you) is a handful of deadenders in their final throes..and now that we got all that cool info when we killed Zarqawi, the insurgency is going to be dead any day now (arccording to you).... so all in all...I'd say it's time to stop spilling American blood. (unless YOU care to go over and spill some of that yellow stuff of yours) and bring our boys home and let Iraqis settle their differences in their own way. THAT is MY idea of a great way to stop the losses we are suffering there because of YOUR fuckup.
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
Dixie, you fucking moron.
You are trying to pretend that "secular nation" means "The people of the nation aremostly not religious. That is utter bullshit.
The US is a SECULAR nation. Turkey is a SECULAR nation. Iraq WAS a SECULAR nation.
A SECULAR nation is one in which the GOVERNMENT is not founded it religion.
It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE OPOPULACE IS RELIGION.
As per usual, you stick your foot in your mouth trying to make those you dislike look bad...and, as per usual, you only manage to have it joined by the other foot.
You are trying to pretend that "secular nation" means "The people of the nation aremostly not religious. That is utter bullshit.
The US is a SECULAR nation. Turkey is a SECULAR nation. Iraq WAS a SECULAR nation.
A SECULAR nation is one in which the GOVERNMENT is not founded it religion.
It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE OPOPULACE IS RELIGION.
As per usual, you stick your foot in your mouth trying to make those you dislike look bad...and, as per usual, you only manage to have it joined by the other foot.
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
Ooh, the typo demons are fucking with me.
It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE OPOPULACE IS RELIGION. = It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE POPULACE IS RELIGIOUS.
Enjoy, Dixie. My typing skills have almost degraded to the point where they are only several orders of magnitude above and beyond your reasoning capacity.
It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE OPOPULACE IS RELIGION. = It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE POPULACE IS RELIGIOUS.
Enjoy, Dixie. My typing skills have almost degraded to the point where they are only several orders of magnitude above and beyond your reasoning capacity.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It happens when you post drunk, I understand.
maineman
Banned
what then, pray tell, is YOUR excuse? That it happens when you post stupid?
Hey, it's pretty hard to type on that waterproof keyboard as you live your entire life at the bottom of a giant vat of koolaid, much less see what you're typing (pretty dark down there in all of that Goofy Grape...)