The Politics of Diversion!

Dude no offense but you need to STFU now since if you believe in the rule of law your are detracting from it's cause (*pst the Declaration of Indenpendence doesn't have anything to do with our rule of law.. period.. not even in question .....our CONSTITUTION embodies the rule of law, the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE was our declartion of war on Britian 200+ years ago ) stop fuckin' trying to conflate the two documents since such attempts just embarrasse all the conservatives that might otherwise agree with you.


Argueing otherwise invaldates whatever else you have to say as pure nonsense.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I have no intention of STFUing anytime soon. I never said the DoI has basis in the rule of law. The Constitution does, and its basis is the DoI. The two documents DO go together, they were largely written and conceived by the same people, and serve as the foundational underpinning for our nation.

Now, I don't care if you want to play like you are a conservative who is outraged at other conservatives for believing in what our nation stands for, it won't change my resolve one bit, nor will it change the resolve of millions of other conservatives just like me. So, run back over to DailyKos or wherever the fuck you slithered in from, and tell them this little charade isn't working. mmmk?
 
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I have no intention of STFUing anytime soon. I never said the DoI has basis in the rule of law. The Constitution does, and its basis is the DoI. The two documents DO go together, they were largely written and conceived by the same people, and serve as the foundational underpinning for our nation.

Now, I don't care if you want to play like you are a conservative who is outraged at other conservatives for believing in what our nation stands for, it won't change my resolve one bit, nor will it change the resolve of millions of other conservatives just like me. So, run back over to DailyKos or wherever the fuck you slithered in from, and tell them this little charade isn't working. mmmk?

Wow congratulations Dude you and this "evice" character from this site are so wrapped up in your own little extremist realities that you fail to recognize the reality that the rest of humanity lives in , congratulations, it must take a lot of effort to be as totally clueless as you both are , not to mention the cost, the separation and the pain that such narrowed minded extremism imposes on your life, but hell you're doing it for all our benefit right ? ROFLMAO .. .fuckin' lefties like you are so cute.

BTW let us all know when you finally figure out the difference between the text of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and that of U.S. CONSTITUTION since you're the first moron I've ever seen that ever tried to argue that THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS was part of the constitution... LOL, maybe after the "rapture" you'll come back as the legal scholar you obviously wannabe.
 
Wow congratulations Dude you and this "evice" character from this site are so wrapped up in your own little extremist realities that you fail to recognize the reality that the rest of humanity lives in , congratulations, it must take a lot of effort to be as totally clueless as you both are , not to mention the cost, the separation and the pain that such narrowed minded extremism imposes on your life, but hell you're doing it for all our benefit right ? ROFLMAO .. .fuckin' lefties like you are so cute.

BTW let us all know when you finally figure out the difference between the text of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and that of U.S. CONSTITUTION since you're the first moron I've ever seen that ever tried to argue that THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS was part of the constitution... LOL, maybe after the "rapture" you'll come back as the legal scholar you obviously wannabe.

One thing I've discovered on message boards... pinheads can't hide their pinheadedness, it comes out every time, to expose them for the frauds they are. You probably thought it would be easy to come here and pull the wool over everyone's eyes, make them think you are an objective-minded person who can totally relate to the conservative views, in fact, you are a conservative who shares some of those views... but for some reason, you can find disagreement with the social conservatives at every turn.

You, sir, are a pinhead liberal trying to fool people. Your last post demonstrates what an absolute fraud you are. You can't help it, you see.... your pinheadedness has to come out... you have to interject a personal jab at someone's 'inferior' intellect, and present some ridiculous response to something they said a little bit out of context. That's the mark of a true pinhead, and you just exposed yourself... thank you for doing that!

Evince is our favorite nut case, she used to go by "Deshrubinator" ...get it? She is a devoted DNC hack, and nutbag conspiracy believer. I guess you would call her "extreme" but I think she is that way because the DNC is extreme, and she just followed along. I am a Conservative, not an extremist, just a Conservative. None of my personal "social" views are extreme in any way, in fact, they are quite moderate-to-libertarian. I see value in having social conservatism, and I am not afraid to stand up for those principles, just as I stand up for fiscal conservatism, they all go hand-in-hand with me. I am a Conservative!

I will NOT be cajoled and manipulated by frauds pretending to be Conservative, and spewing anti-conservative nonsense. If you don't believe in the principles of Conservatism, that is fine, but don't try to fool people and trick them into believing you are a Conservative! Because you are going to get busted every time, as soon as your pinheadness starts to spill out. Now, I gotta hand it to whoever came up with the idea, it's pretty clever... infiltrate mainstream conservatives with an injection of "reason" from the "moderate" voice of reason.... lmfao... what a joke! You probably voted for Nader!!
 
I've already addressed it. Our Constitution doesn't articulate the advocacy of a particular religion, the Declaration of Independence establishes that we are forming a nation based on the principle that All Men are Created Equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights... that is the basis for our founding, and why there was a Constitution written. Some people do indeed think this makes us a theocracy, but it doesn't.

A theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. That is not the case with Iraq, it is not a theocracy. They have an elected representative body, a president, a prime minister, and various other elected officials, chosen by the people of Iraq in free and open democratic elections. They have adopted and ratified a Constitution, again, by the will of the people in Iraq, not the Church or a Deity. Yes, they do base their laws on Islam, just as many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles. Yes, the wording of their particular Constitution makes the connection to religion a little more profoundly than our own, but that is to be expected in a devoutly religious area of the world. If our Founding Fathers could have imagined some of the deplorable immorality our future generations would have thrust upon them, perhaps they would have included such a line in our Constitution as well. In any event, what you posted, doesn't make Iraq a theocratic government.

expressing the existence of a creator is a far cry from stating that Christianity itself is the basis for our government and all its laws. If our constitution required that all laws passed would have to be approved by a body of Christian clerics, one could make a strong case for the fact that our government was theocratic in nature.

Oh...and you totally avoided the discussion about Iran's democratic form of government too.... you just like to bluster about shit that you think makes your case and always slink away quietly from stuff that messes you up. :pke:
 
expressing the existence of a creator is a far cry from stating that Christianity itself is the basis for our government and all its laws. If our constitution required that all laws passed would have to be approved by a body of Christian clerics, one could make a strong case for the fact that our government was theocratic in nature.

Oh...and you totally avoided the discussion about Iran's democratic form of government too.... you just like to bluster about shit that you think makes your case and always slink away quietly from stuff that messes you up. :pke:

So the question would seem to be...
1..Were the founding fathers of this country Christians....?
2. Were the founding fathers of this country anti-Christian ?
3. Did the founding fathers express and hold Christian values?
4. Did the founding fathers generally believe in a Creator?

Notice, I didn't say they were religious.

They ALL came from the same general ancestry and backgrounds, European Christians....
Honest answers to those questions points directly to the conclusion that this nation and its Constitutional Laws, Proclamations, and Amendments were authored by people with a certain and obvious moral code, and value system..... call it what you will but the answer is obvious....and undeniable,...... except to hacks
 
So the question would seem to be...
1..Were the founding fathers of this country Christians....?
2. Were the founding fathers of this country anti-Christian ?
3. Did the founding fathers express and hold Christian values?
4. Did the founding fathers generally believe in a Creator?

Notice, I didn't say they were religious.

They ALL came from the same general ancestry and backgrounds, European Christians....
Honest answers to those questions points directly to the conclusion that this nation and its Constitutional Laws, Proclamations, and Amendments were authored by people with a certain and obvious moral code, and value system..... call it what you will but the answer is obvious....and undeniable,...... except to hacks


Our constitution does NOT say that in America, Christianity is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation. Does it?
Our constitution does NOT say that No law that contradicts the established provisions of Christianity may be established. Does it?

The Iraqi constitution says:
"Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."

can you see the difference, or are you so much of a partisan hack that you refuse to?
 
The confusion is my fault I guess. I was only responding to the first line of your post and not the ongoing arguement in the thread, my bad...
----------
Originally Posted by maineman :
expressing the existence of a creator is a far cry from stating that Christianity itself is the basis for our government and all its laws.
-----------

I was contending that it is a fact, that the basis for our nations culture and laws, is Christian values and Christian morals... its founding fathers all having European background and having those things in common.

It certainly isn't required that it be stated in the written documents of the nation to be fact....just a reading of the founding fathers personal documents where morals and values are expressed and the nations Constitution, etc. make it plain our country is founded on those values and morals....though not at all religious in nature....

ps...sorry for the intrusion
 
Our constitution does NOT say that in America, Christianity is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation. Does it?
Our constitution does NOT say that No law that contradicts the established provisions of Christianity may be established. Does it?

The Iraqi constitution says:
"Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."

can you see the difference, or are you so much of a partisan hack that you refuse to?

so you admit that bush did not nation build.....ironic given your past posts.....wow, you admit that bush took out a murderous dictator and allowed the people of iraq to have their own constitution.....

how evil of bush.....

can you see the reality...or are you such a partisan hack you can't see the difference?
 
so you admit that bush did not nation build.....


you as numb as a pounded thumb. where in the post you just copied from me, did I say ANYTHING about Bush nation building?

I make the case that the Iraq constitution and its establishment of the primacy of Islam as the source for ALL LEGISLATION makes Iraq a de facto theocracy.... care to discuss that?
 
The confusion is my fault I guess. I was only responding to the first line of your post and not the ongoing arguement in the thread, my bad...
----------
Originally Posted by maineman :
expressing the existence of a creator is a far cry from stating that Christianity itself is the basis for our government and all its laws.
-----------

I was contending that it is a fact, that the basis for our nations culture and laws, is Christian values and Christian morals... its founding fathers all having European background and having those things in common.

It certainly isn't required that it be stated in the written documents of the nation to be fact....just a reading of the founding fathers personal documents where morals and values are expressed and the nations Constitution, etc. make it plain our country is founded on those values and morals....though not at all religious in nature....

ps...sorry for the intrusion

I have never argued that the founding fathers were no moral men... only that they did not set up a government giving primacy to Christianity and making Christianity the source of ALL legislation. Iraq did that for Islam...that makes it a de facto theocracy.... it may be a constitutional theocracy and the constitution may have been ratified by popular vote, but making Islam the source for all laws pretty much fits the definition of theocracy, even if it is willingly embraced by a majority of the population.
 
I have never argued that the founding fathers were no moral men... only that they did not set up a government giving primacy to Christianity and making Christianity the source of ALL legislation. Iraq did that for Islam...that makes it a de facto theocracy.... it may be a constitutional theocracy and the constitution may have been ratified by popular vote, but making Islam the source for all laws pretty much fits the definition of theocracy, even if it is willingly embraced by a majority of the population.

The founders argued America would fail if it strayed from Christianity, and left it up to us to pass/fail.
 
you as numb as a pounded thumb. where in the post you just copied from me, did I say ANYTHING about Bush nation building?

I make the case that the Iraq constitution and its establishment of the primacy of Islam as the source for ALL LEGISLATION makes Iraq a de facto theocracy.... care to discuss that?

You didn't say anything about Bush nation building, but it is apparent by the case you made... unless Bush established Iraq as a de facto theocracy, he didn't nation build. So, by your own assessment, you admit that Bush didn't nation build in Iraq. Quite remarkable, given your previous comments.
 
You didn't say anything about Bush nation building, but it is apparent by the case you made... unless Bush established Iraq as a de facto theocracy, he didn't nation build. So, by your own assessment, you admit that Bush didn't nation build in Iraq. Quite remarkable, given your previous comments.

Bush certainly facilitated the creation of a de facto theocracy in Iraq when he arbitrarily and capriciously invaded Iraq and overthrew its existing government and then provided military support while the shiite majority created a shiite-friendly theocratic constitution.

I am glad to see that you finally admit that a government that is established with Islam as the source for all legislation is, in fact, a de facto theocracy. Quite remarkable, given your previous comments.
 
Bush certainly facilitated the creation of a de facto theocracy in Iraq when he arbitrarily and capriciously invaded Iraq and overthrew its existing government and then provided military support while the shiite majority created a shiite-friendly theocratic constitution.

I am glad to see that you finally admit that a government that is established with Islam as the source for all legislation is, in fact, a de facto theocracy. Quite remarkable, given your previous comments.

Problem is, I didn't claim that, you did. I merely pointed out, if what you claim is so, then Bush didn't "nation build" ...unless he built a muslim theocracy, which is absurd.

And, oh by the fucking way... he didn't "arbitrarily" or "capriciously" invade Iraq. He and Colin Powell attempted for nearly two years, to go through the UN in order to get Saddam to cooperate, and he refused every effort at diplomatic solutions. Bush then formed a coalition, the second largest coalition in the history of the world for such and endeavor, and he took the necessary military action. This is a FAR cry from what Obama has planned for Pakistan... no diplomacy... no UN... no talking to our allies... he just outright announced we were going into Pakistan! ...THAT is ARBITRARY... THAT IS CAPRICIOUS!
 
Last edited:
"he didn't "arbitrarily" or "capriciously" invade Iraq. He and Colin Powell attempted for nearly two years, to go through the UN in order to get Saddam to cooperate, and he refused every effort at diplomatic solutions"

What an interesting version of history you have.

Just an FYI - as of March, 2003, U.N. inspectors had unfettered access to all suspected weapons sites. Oh - and after we invaded, we found absolutely no WMD's.

What else were you & Bush looking for Saddam to do?
 
Bush certainly facilitated the creation of a de facto theocracy in Iraq when he arbitrarily and capriciously invaded Iraq and overthrew its existing government and then provided military support while the shiite majority created a shiite-friendly theocratic constitution.

I am glad to see that you finally admit that a government that is established with Islam as the source for all legislation is, in fact, a de facto theocracy. Quite remarkable, given your previous comments.

And just what do you think Clinton enforcement of the no-fly zones accomplished ?\
I'll tell you....they provided military support; ...protection for Shiite's in southern Iraq...EXACTLY what you claim Bush did by 'invading'....

Yet you support Clinton and bitch about Bush...when in your own words they both used military support to provide protection for Shiites...
Is it too confusing for you?
 
And just what do you think Clinton enforcement of the no-fly zones accomplished ?\
I'll tell you....they provided military support; ...protection for Shiite's in southern Iraq...EXACTLY what you claim Bush did by 'invading'....

Yet you support Clinton and bitch about Bush...when in your own words they both used military support to provide protection for Shiites...
Is it too confusing for you?

to suggest that flying CAP over Iraq in support of UN no-fly zones was EXACTLY what Bush did by sending 150K combat troops to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq is beyond insulting and all the way to hilarious.

Can you type that stuff with a straight face?
 
Last edited:
to suggest that flying CAP over Iraq in support of UN no-fly zones was EXACTLY what Bush did by sending 150K combat troops to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq is beyond insulting and all the way to fucking hilarious.

Can you type that shit with a straight face?


Lets see....SHIT....I did it...

Now...UN no-fly zones ???..In your world maybe ...

Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998.

While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization.

The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger

Those no-fly zones ?
 
Originally Posted by maineman View Post
Bush certainly facilitated the creation of a de facto theocracy in Iraq when he arbitrarily and capriciously invaded Iraq and overthrew its existing government and then provided military support while the shiite majority created a shiite-friendly theocratic constitution.

Any way ,,,It was YOU that claimed the invasion gave military support for the Shiites...

Is that not what you mean...
 
Any way ,,,It was YOU that claimed the invasion gave military support for the Shiites...

Is that not what you mean...
We booted the sunni leadership out of power and allowed the shiite majority to take control of the government. I thought you KNEW this stuff.
 
Back
Top