PDA

View Full Version : ... you might be a moonbat.



LWW
08-04-2012, 07:52 AM
Yes folks, as a public service I have devised this simple test.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #1:</span>

If you believe that the right thing to do is to punish a company because the CEO personally dsapproves of gay marriage, yet you think it is the wrong thing to do to punish Islamic regimes that execute gays because they are gay ... ... you might be a moonbat.

LWW
08-04-2012, 08:28 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #2:</span>

If you believe that the right thing to do is have faith based initiatives funded by the state as Obama is doing, yet you think it is the wrong thing to have faith baised initiatives funded by te state as Bush was doing ... you might be a moonbat.

LWW
08-04-2012, 08:31 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #3:</span>

If you believe that it is abolutely necessary to run the four largest in US history as Obama has done, but it was criminal to run deficits as small as the Bush era shortfalls ... you might be a moonbat.

Soflasnapper
08-04-2012, 08:33 AM
Ha ha!

Then no one qualifies as a moonbat, under this #1 test.

For certainly, the very same people in this case would be completely down with boycotting all the fast food chains such evil Islamic regimes may own or co-own in this country. Just point them out, and the people will do the same thing!

Completely consistent!

LWW
08-04-2012, 08:34 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #4:</span>

If you believe that Bush wanted to install an American theocracy because he prayed to God, but believe Saddam Hussein was a secular leader even though he had a copy of the Koran made written in his own blood ... you might be a moonbat.

LWW
08-04-2012, 08:38 AM
Are you seriously that daft?

Most of the world's oil comes from Arab lands.

The US could severely damage tyrannical Islamic states by opening US oil production ... yet I haven't seen a single moonbat protesting that we should open US production and boycott oil from such thug states.

Reject the spoon and think for yorself ...just once.

Soflasnapper
08-04-2012, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #4:</span>

If you believe that Bush wanted to install an American theocracy because he prayed to God, but believe Saddam Hussein was a secular leader even though he had a copy of the Koran made written in his own blood ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>

Saddam was a secular leader. As a scam, he eventually pretended piety, and cast himself as a great spiritual bulwark for Sunni Islam against Shi'i'a Islam (almost all the Arabs vs. the Iranians). He did this to claim his territorial and regional power war vs. Iran was on behalf of all the other Arabs (who then should pay him back for the crippling costs of his military efforts).

A. Scam.

Which is proven by his blasphemous commission of this work, forbidden by all forms of Islam. It proves he was not religiously faithful to Islam, and is not proof that he was.

LWW
08-04-2012, 01:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #4:</span>

If you believe that Bush wanted to install an American theocracy because he prayed to God, but believe Saddam Hussein was a secular leader even though he had a copy of the Koran made written in his own blood ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>

Saddam was a secular leader. As a scam, he eventually pretended piety, and cast himself as a great spiritual bulwark for Sunni Islam against Shi'i'a Islam (almost all the Arabs vs. the Iranians). He did this to claim his territorial and regional power war vs. Iran was on behalf of all the other Arabs (who then should pay him back for the crippling costs of his military efforts).

A. Scam.

Which is proven by his blasphemous commission of this work, forbidden by all forms of Islam. It proves he was not religiously faithful to Islam, and is not proof that he was. </div></div>

That was just precious.

Gayle in MD
08-04-2012, 02:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #4:</span>

If you believe that Bush wanted to install an American theocracy because he prayed to God, but believe Saddam Hussein was a secular leader even though he had a copy of the Koran made written in his own blood ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>

Saddam was a secular leader. As a scam, he eventually pretended piety, and cast himself as a great spiritual bulwark for Sunni Islam against Shi'i'a Islam (almost all the Arabs vs. the Iranians). He did this to claim his territorial and regional power war vs. Iran was on behalf of all the other Arabs (who then should pay him back for the crippling costs of his military efforts).

A. Scam.

Which is proven by his blasphemous commission of this work, forbidden by all forms of Islam. It proves he was not religiously faithful to Islam, and is not proof that he was. </div></div>

Yes, and who propped up Saddam in the first place? Who had been secretly fooling around with Iranian leaders long before he was president???

Who ignored what happened to our marines who were mowed down in their sleep. who failed completely to respond to the TWA disaster?

Why did neither Bush, or Reagan ever respond to any terrorist attacks from Middle East terrorists?

Who ignored all of the 9/11 warnings?

Who was in bed with the bin Laden family?

Who was in bed with Hitler?

This entire U.S. against Iran BS, for the last thirty years, was all orchestrated by Reagan, Bush and Bush, and for what????

Not hard to figure that out, is it?

Why did Kissenger push Nixon into linking up with China?

How did Reagan have so much influence with Iran that he got them to wait until he was sworn in, before releasing our people?

There are so manny pictures of all of the Bush/Reagan/Bush operatives hugging and kissing Saudis and Iranians and Saddam, and Communists we could open up a damn museum with them!

G.

LWW
08-04-2012, 04:44 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #5:</span>

If you swear that you never read anything someone posts, never read any of the threads that person starts and have that member on TOTAL IGNORE yet shadwpost behind thm whining about how you are being victimized ... you might be a moonbat.

Qtec
08-05-2012, 12:27 AM
If you believe that the right thing to do is to punish French restaurants in America, owned by Americans, because the French Govt refuses to go along the Bush rush to war, then you might be a moonbat.

Q...freedom fries anybody?

LWW
08-05-2012, 03:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you believe that the right thing to do is to punish French restaurants in America, owned by Americans, because the French Govt refuses to go along the Bush rush to war, then you might be a moonbat.

Q...freedom fries anybody? </div></div>

I love French food and have never been in a French restaurant that serves French fries, nor have I ever heard of a boycott against French restaurants in the USA.

There was a boycott against French wine, which in reality is grotesquely overpriced bilge water compared to premium US domestic wines. French wine is sold primarily to far left poufy haired fancy boys who believe that buying solely on high price equals sophistication.

If you believe "FRENCH" fries are French cuisine ... you might be a moonbat.

Qtec
08-05-2012, 03:49 AM
I thought you were a fan of Newsmax?
Have you been asleep for the last 12 years-you don't have to answer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'> NewsMax's Boycott Socks French Businesses in U.S</span>.

Jeff McKay, CNSNews.com
Monday, April 14, 2003

NEW YORK CITY – France's diplomatic stare-down with the United States over Iraq continues to hurt French businesses on American turf - especially those in New York City.

On Thursday came the announcement that one of New York City's premier French restaurants is closing down. Lespinasse, in the St. Regis Hotel, announced it would close next week because of the economic and political climate.

"We carried it as long as we could. Any reopening will be determined by the pace of the economic recovery,'' said Guenter Richter, managing director of the hotel.

He declined to specifically address a boycott of French establishments. But a New York City distribution company recently announced it would not sell its inventory of imported French wine, taking its $2 million supply off store shelves.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Internet Web site NewsMax.com has announced a "Boycott France" campaign featuring a published list of French goods and services owned by French companies. Ads have appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Times.

Concern about the fate of French restaurants in New York City, an industry worth $12.5 billion a year, has become so pronounced that more than 100 restaurateurs from the city gathered at the famed LeCirque 2000 to announce plans to oppose such a boycott.</span>

NYC & Company, the city's tourism agency, unveiled a new ad campaign that will start running in the coming weeks. The ad will read: "17,312 restaurants in the city all serve the same thing. New York."

"We are going to be working together quite closely to combat the negativity that New York City French restaurants have had to deal with," said Cristyne Lategano Nicholas, president of NYC & Company. Some restaurants reported patronage to be down as much as 20 percent.

New York City restaurants are not the only businesses feeling the anti-French sentiment, which stretches across the United States.

During a recent talk program airing on New Jersey FM radio station WKXW, host Alan David Stein was inundated with callers supporting a boycott of French products.

"The feeling of these people is that the way to show the French their position against America is absolutely wrong, especially after all [the U.S.] has done for them, is to hit them in their wallets," said Stein. "Only one person said he was against the French product boycott, and he was French. </div></div>


Remember now?

Q......... News max (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/14/95814.shtml)

LWW
08-05-2012, 03:57 AM
Fair enough ... that woud still fall under free choice.

I missed where the French had their retaurants vandalized. What's that? Their weren't any instances.

You also missed where French restaurants were closed due to bomb threats. What's that? That didn't happen either.

Perhaps then you will cite where employees of these restaurants were bullied? Huh? That didn't happen either?

So what is your moral equivalence argument actually based on? What's that? Moonbattery.

If you actually believe there is a moral equivalence between the two instances ... you might be a moonbat.

Qtec
08-05-2012, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love French food and have never been in a French restaurant that serves <span style='font-size: 23pt'>French fries</span>, </div></div>

Good to know <span style='font-size: 23pt'>but I never said French fries</span>.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'><span style="color: #990000">Freedom fries. Let me help you.</span> </span>

Copy Freedom Fries.

Paste it into google and you come up with this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Freedom fries is a political euphemism for French fries used by some people in the United States as a result of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>anti-French sentiment during the controversy over the U.S. decision to launch the 2003 invasion of Iraq.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">France expressed strong opposition in the United Nations to such an invasion.</span> </span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some frowned upon the French position, leading to campaigns for the <span style="color: #3333FF">boycotting of French goods and businesses and the removal of the country's name from products.</span></span> </div></div>

Surprised?





Q


Here, something else you don't know.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

News
World news

French fries protester regrets war jibe

Share 2
Email

Jamie Wilson in Washington
The Guardian, Wednesday 25 May 2005 00.02 BST

It was a culinary rebuke that echoed around the world, heightening the sense of tension between Washington and Paris in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But now the US politician who led the campaign to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" has turned against the war.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification".</span>

Mr Jones, who in March 2003 circulated a letter demanding that the three cafeterias in the House of Representatives' office buildings<span style='font-size: 17pt'> ban the word french from menus</span>, said it was meant as a "light-hearted gesture".

But the name change, <u>still in force,</u> made headlines around the world, both for what it said about US-French relations and its pettiness.

Now Mr Jones appears to agree. Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God's hand and a constituent's request - he replied: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"I wish it had never happened."</span>

Although he voted for the war, he has since become one of its most vociferous opponents on Capitol Hill, where the hallway outside his office is lined with photographs of the "faces of the fallen".

"If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong," he told the newspaper. "Congress must be told the truth."
</div></div>

Qtec
08-05-2012, 04:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough ... that woud still fall under free choice.
</div></div>

BINGO.
You obviously HATE Capitalism.
Here people are demonstrating with their wallets. Pure unadulterated Capitalism at work and you are against it.


LOL


Q

Gayle in MD
08-05-2012, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #5:</span>

If you swear that you never read anything someone posts, never read any of the threads that person starts and have that member on TOTAL IGNORE yet shadwpost behind thm whining about how you are being victimized ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Gayle and LWW, we all now completely understand that you two don't like each other. No real need to keep belaboring the point.

My suggestion now is to ignore each other.

Any posts from either of you pointing at the other one will result in an immediate (and very long) ban.

Admin
</span> </span>

LWW
08-05-2012, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough ... that woud still fall under free choice.
</div></div>

BINGO.
You obviously HATE Capitalism.
Here people are demonstrating with their wallets. Pure unadulterated Capitalism at work and you are against it.


LOL


Q </div></div>

Even when you get it, you don't get it.

Of course people have the right to vote with their money ... I approve of it, and you get your shorts all in a wad over it.

OTOH people don't have the right to commit vandalism, make bomb threats and use physical intimidation. I denounce such acts, you encourage them.

What a tool.

LWW
08-05-2012, 08:44 AM
Have you noticed how many of our resident leftists have leapt at the opportunity to procaim their moonbattery with such gushing pride?

hondo
08-05-2012, 03:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #5:</span>

If you swear that you never read anything someone posts, never read any of the threads that person starts and have that member on TOTAL IGNORE yet shadwpost behind thm whining about how you are being victimized ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Gayle and LWW, we all now completely understand that you two don't like each other. No real need to keep belaboring the point.

My suggestion now is to ignore each other.

Any posts from either of you pointing at the other one will result in an immediate (and very long) ban.

Admin
</span> </span> </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
08-05-2012, 05:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love French food and have never been in a French restaurant that serves French fries,</div></div>I don't think you have ever been in a French restaurant then. If your hang up is the name then fine, they don't call them that but to think a french restaurant does not fry potatoes, that is just crazy. I don't believe they are a french cuisine but to think they aren't served is just plain crazy.

eg8r &lt;~~~had the perfect opportunity and spent some time in France just a couple months ago

LWW
08-05-2012, 08:08 PM
You will find many meals in a French restaurant that include "pommes frites"... none with "french fries" on the menu.

Snoopy's inane assertion was that Americans deciding to refer to french fries as freedom fries was the moral equivalent of the terrorism levied against Chik Fil A.

hondo
08-05-2012, 09:28 PM
What about the terrorism levied against The Dixie Chicks?
Death threats, boycotts, records destroyed. Where was you righteous indignation then?

LWW
08-11-2012, 03:01 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #6</span>

If you believe that an unborn baby isn't an innocent child, yet you insist that a 26 year old gang member convicted of first degree murder is an innocent child ... you might be a moonbat.

LWW
08-11-2012, 03:06 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #7:</span>

If you believe that a woman has the right to abort a child at any time and for any reason, yet doesn't have the right to buy a 48 ounce COCA-COLA ... you might be a moonbat.

Qtec
08-11-2012, 04:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #7:</span>

If you believe that a woman has the right to abort a child at any time and for any reason, yet doesn't have the right to buy a 48 ounce COCA-COLA ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>

If you believe that it should be easier to buy a gun and more difficult to vote............?

When 61% of Republican voters think Obama is a Muslim <span style='font-size: 20pt'>after Fox going at him for months about his association with the Rev Wright</span>...some people will believe anything.. you included.

Q

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #4:</span>

If you believe that Bush wanted to install an American theocracy because he prayed to God, but believe Saddam Hussein was a secular leader even though he had a copy of the Koran made written in his own blood ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>

Saddam was a secular leader. As a scam, he eventually pretended piety, and cast himself as a great spiritual bulwark for Sunni Islam against Shi'i'a Islam (almost all the Arabs vs. the Iranians). He did this to claim his territorial and regional power war vs. Iran was on behalf of all the other Arabs (who then should pay him back for the crippling costs of his military efforts).

A. Scam.

Which is proven by his blasphemous commission of this work, forbidden by all forms of Islam. It proves he was not religiously faithful to Islam, and is not proof that he was. </div></div>

That was just precious. </div></div>

I'm gratified that you cannot argue with what I said, and say that you have enjoyed the edification of learning something new.

Great progress!

Even though you've surrounded your mind with a fortress of lies, it can be dismantled, one brick at a time.

LWW
08-11-2012, 02:27 PM
That was funny.

Saddam paid Isamic radicals to murder innocent "Jews, infidels, and crusaders" knowing that it wouldbring western military might against him because he believed he was Salain, Tamerlane, and Nebuchadnezzar reincarnated ... had the Koran copied in his blood ... used his last words to say "I bear witness that there is no god but God and I testify that Mohammed is the Messenger of God. I bear witness that there is no god but God and I testify that Mohammed..." and did all this because he was a secular leader?

And you believe this why?

What's that?

Because the party tells you that this is your belief?

Imagine that.

LWW
08-11-2012, 02:33 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #8:</span>

If you get so frustrated, after having your collectivst arse handedo you countless times, that you must resort to gutter language on a public forum to vent your pent up rage ... you might be a moonbat.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 03:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Exploiting Islam

Saddam Hussein tries to harness feelings of solidarity among Muslims to his advantage. By portraying himself as a devout believer and invoking the name of Allah in his struggles with the international community, he seeks to frame his conflicts as an Islamic struggle and fashion himself as standard-bearer for Muslims. Images of Saddam in prayer or extolling Saddam’s dedication to Islam appear on billboards in Iraq and are circulated in pictures, publications, and videos.

One 1990 analysis concluded, "In recent years, the Baathists have not hesitated to exploit religion as a mobilizing agent; and from the first months of the war with Iran, prominent Baathists have made a public show of attending religious observances. Saddam Hussein is depicted in prayer on posters displayed across the country. Moreover, the Baath Party has provided large sums of money to refurbish important mosques."22 This is a departure from the secular origins of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. Baathists view Islam as a product of Arab culture and a bridge to pan-Arabism, and until 1990, Iraq was the only officially secular state in the region. Over time, the personality of Saddam Hussein has supplanted Baath Party doctrine, but one factor has not changed: The key figures in Iraq’s regime and ruling party remain non-religious or even non-believers.

According to Daily Telegraph (London) editor Con Coughlin, author of King of Terror: A Biography of Saddam Hussein, in a November 8, 2002, interview with CNN American Morning:

"Saddam is an opportunist. He's not really a devout Muslim. But when it suits him, he portrays himself as a Muslim leader. And I think when your correspondents go to Baghdad, they see all these pictures of Saddam the nation builder, the general; Saddam the religious leader."

In reporting on the regime's lavish mosque-building program since the mid-1990s, while consumer goods and many necessities were in short supply or unavailable in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times quoted a European diplomat in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity:

"The people's well-being is not on the priority list of the regime. The regime is solely concerned with its own survival. A huge mosque-building scheme may help the formerly secular – almost atheist – and socialist regime to get more fully reincorporated into the family of the Arab nations, whereas the plight of a majority of the ordinary people can be used as its propaganda shield."23

The Hajj Shakedowns
Nowhere is the dichotomy between Saddam's religious rhetoric and practice more obvious than with the way he has treated faithful Iraqis seeking to make the Hajj. The Iraqi regime interferes with religious pilgrimages, both of Iraqi Muslims who wish to make the Hajj to Mecca and Medina and of Iraqi and non-Iraqi Muslim pilgrims who travel to holy sites within the country. Baghdad has refused all proposals for travel that did not involve direct payments to the government.

In 1998 the UN Sanctions Committee offered to disburse vouchers for travel and expenses to pilgrims making the Hajj, but the Government rejected this offer. Then again in 1999 the Sanctions Committee offered to disburse funds to cover Hajj-related expenses via a neutral third party; the Government again rejected the offer. Following the December 1999 passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1284, the Sanctions Committee proposed to issue $250 in cash and $1,750 in traveler’s checks to each individual pilgrim to be distributed at the UN office in Baghdad in the presence of both UN and Iraqi officials. The Government again declined and, consequently, no Iraqi pilgrims were able to take advantage of the available funds or of the permitted flights. The Government also has attempted to use pilgrimages to circumvent sanctions for its own financial benefit. In 2001 the Government continued to insist that UN-offered funds for Hajj pilgrims be deposited in the government-controlled central bank and placed under the control of government officials for disbursement rather than given to the pilgrims.24

The regime has imposed a variety of schemes to extract money from religious pilgrims by requiring them to pay fees directly to the Iraqi Central Bank. Estimates vary considerably, but it is clear that Saddam Hussein brings in millions of dollars annually in this way. According to the Coalition for International Justice:

"After refusing yet another UN plan to fund travel for the Hajj in 1999, Baghdad bused some 18,000 Iraqi pilgrims to the Saudi border, where they were encouraged to demonstrate and demand that the Saudis release frozen Iraqi funds to pay for their trip. Instead, King Fahd welcomed the Iraqi pilgrims and promised that Saudi Arabia would provide all arrangements free of charge. With no prospect of Saudi payments to the government from frozen funds or other sources, Saddam ordered the pilgrims back to Baghdad."

Photo of Saddam Hussein in act of Muslim piety. Images showing Saddam Hussein in acts of Muslim piety are widely disseminated in Iraq and other Muslim countries
[Reuters]
Oppression of Shi'a Muslims
The hypocrisy of the supposed commitment of the Saddam Hussein regime to Islam is shown by its long oppression of the country's Shi'a Muslim majority. Restrictions on Shi'a Muslims include: placing conditions and outright bans on communal Friday prayer; prohibiting Shi'a mosque libraries to loan books; denying permission for Shi'a programs on government-controlled radio or television; banning Shi'a books, including prayer books and guides; banning many funeral processions and other funeral observances other than those organized by the government; and prohibiting certain processions and public meetings commemorating Shi'a holy days. Shi'a groups report capturing documents from the security services during the 1991 Shi'a uprising that listed thousands of forbidden Shi'a religious writings.

The Gulf War: Lies About Non-Muslim Militaries in the Middle East
During the Persian Gulf War, Saddam exploited the fact that non-Muslim troops were fighting Muslim Iraq, hoping to portray the war as a war against Islam. Iraq claimed that Islamic sites had been attacked, and appealing to Muslim suspicion of Western morality and Western attitudes toward Islam, Iraq asserted that coalition forces had desecrated holy sites and brought immorality to Saudi Arabia. </div></div>

From the White House archives of George W. Bush (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ogc/apparatus/islam.html)

LWW
08-11-2012, 05:54 PM
Do you even know what secularr means?

Do you realize that a secular state, by definition, cannot have an official religion?

Do you understand that both the 1979 and 1990 Iraqi constitutions state that Islam is the official religion of Iraq?

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 06:24 PM
Cf: Great Britain and the Anglican Church.

Yet Great Britain is not a religiously fanatic country, nor is the Queen of England some fire-breathing religious fanatic figure, although she is the head of the Anglican Church.

Great Britain is the exact secular country you deny is possible. Just as the Ba'athist Party was and is a secular party, both in Iraq and Syria.

I regret the world does not accept your individualistic definitions, but that seems to be the case.

LWW
08-11-2012, 06:28 PM
Tell me about the power wielded by the queen again?

hondo
08-11-2012, 07:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #8:</span>

If you get so frustrated, after having your collectivst arse handedo you countless times, that you must resort to gutter language on a public forum to vent your pent up rage ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>

Have a wonderful evening. I love you, man! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

LWW
08-11-2012, 11:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #8:</span>

If you get so frustrated, after having your collectivst arse handedo you countless times, that you must resort to gutter language on a public forum to vent your pent up rage ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>

Have a wonderful evening. I love you, man! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif </div></div>

I don't think anyone here doubted that.

hondo
08-12-2012, 07:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #8:</span>

If you get so frustrated, after having your collectivst arse handedo you countless times, that you must resort to gutter language on a public forum to vent your pent up rage ... you might be a moonbat. </div></div>

Have a wonderful evening. I love you, man! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif </div></div>

I don't think anyone here doubted that. </div></div>

I love all souls from God. As should you if you are who you say you are.

LWW
08-12-2012, 07:18 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #9:</span>

If you believe that being a paid recruiter for America's oldest and largest terrorist, and racist, organization doesn't make you a racist but disagreeing with Obmas agenda does ... you might be a moonbat.

LWW
08-12-2012, 08:36 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>QUESTION #10:</span>

If you bleat incessantly about capital gain tax rates, but don't have a clue what a capital gain is... you might be a moonbat.

Soflasnapper
08-12-2012, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me about the power wielded by the queen again? </div></div>

The implication of your request, that as the honorary or allegedly only titular head of state, the Queen of England wields no actual power on the state, is naive, and to be most clear, false.

Not that it matters, because even if she had no power at all, then that the state had a state religion would be imposed by the civilian Parliament and its leadership.

The fact is that probably Catholic countries like Ireland and France ALSO have a state religion (Roman Catholicism), and still all are considered secular states.

LWW
08-12-2012, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me about the power wielded by the queen again? </div></div>

The implication of your request, that as the honorary or allegedly only titular head of state, the Queen of England wields no actual power on the state, is naive, and to be most clear, false.

Not that it matters, because even if she had no power at all, then that the state had a state religion would be imposed by the civilian Parliament and its leadership.

The fact is that probably Catholic countries like Ireland and France ALSO have a state religion (Roman Catholicism), and still all are considered secular states. </div></div>

OK.

Tell me about the power wielded by the queen again?

Soflasnapper
08-12-2012, 08:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mystery lifted on Queen's powers

Great British political riddle solved as scope of the royal prerogative is revealed for the first time

Share 37
Email

Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 20 October 2003 21.24 EDT

One of the last great riddles of the British political system was solved yesterday when the powers wielded by the government in the name of the monarchy were set down on paper for the first time.

The "veil of mystery" surrounding the royal prerogative was lifted when a list of them was published in a move intended to encourage greater transparency.

The prerogative, which includes the power to declare war, is handed from monarchs to ministers and allows them to take action without the backing of parliament.

[...]

The government said it was not possible to give a comprehensive catalogue of prerogative powers.

So there was scope for the courts to identify prerogative powers which had little previous recognition.

In a case about whether the home secretary had power to issue baton rounds to a chief constable without the consent of the police authority, the court held that the crown had a prerogative power to keep the peace within the realm.

Lord Justice Nourse commented: "The scarcity of references in the books to the prerogative of keeping the peace within the realm does not disprove that it exists. Rather it may point to an unspoken assumption that it does".

Full list of those powers

Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;

The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;

Royal assent to bills;

The appointment and regulation of the civil service;

The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;

Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;

Appointment of Queen's Counsel;

Issue and withdrawal of passports;

Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)

Granting honours;

Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;

Declaration of war;

Deployment of armed forces overseas;

Recognition of foreign states;

Accreditation and reception of diplomats. </div></div>

From the Guardian, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/21/uk.freedomofinformation) 2003.

LWW
08-13-2012, 04:02 AM
Thanks for aking my point, the queen as no political power and is but a ceremonial figurehead.

MORE ON THE BRITISH MONARCHY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom)

Soflasnapper
08-13-2012, 12:02 PM
No political power?

She appoints the Prime Minister whenever that is necessary, and the Prime Minister uses her delegation of power to appoint or remove all ministers of government.

(From your source).

eg8r
08-13-2012, 01:52 PM
I had a similar discussion with quite a few people while I was over in the UK and they all had a different view of the power of the Queen. I never did care enough to find out if they were telling the truth or if they had their info correct but it was their view that the Queen had considerable power. According to one guy I was chatting with, the Queen controlled the military and the money. They also said that if she wanted she could toss out the Prime Minister/parliament and take over the day to day control until the next election. That is pretty powerful.

eg8r

hondo
08-13-2012, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had a similar discussion with quite a few people while I was over in the UK and they all had a different view of the power of the Queen. I never did care enough to find out if they were telling the truth or if they had their info correct but it was their view that the Queen had considerable power. According to one guy I was chatting with, the Queen controlled the military and the money. They also said that if she wanted she could toss out the Prime Minister/parliament and take over the day to day control until the next election. That is pretty powerful.

eg8r </div></div>

Thanks for giving us some insider info. I always tended to agree with Larry on this one but perhaps I'm wrong.

Soflasnapper
08-13-2012, 03:40 PM
Thanks for telling us how the people THERE view her power.

Of course, the Wikipedia trumps all the information the people there have, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

The fact is, in practice, the royals do delegate the 'royal perogative' to the prime minister they select, and to the ministers they are selecting through the PM. However, the fact is, also, that they have the power to exercise the royal perogative themselves, at will. And they do so, in real crises, like wartime.

This is a bit of a sidebar to the actual question, which was, do states with state religions become non-secular states on account of having a state religion?

I argue no, and LWW appears to agree by changing the subject and failing to join THAT argument, preferring this one.