If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Iraq a theocracy?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Some elements of the Shi'a population are demanding an Islamic state as a replacement for the Ba'ath Saddam regime. Shouldn't this be a preferred option instead of imposing liberal democracy on Iraq?
0
Comments
Mind, Bushs version of liberal democracy will allow the vote to anyone, providing that they dont vote against what his henchmen believe is right. Look at Florida to see what Bush thinks of people who will vote against him.
Yeah, look at Florida, where Bush won the election regardless of any criteria used to count the ballots. :rolleyes:
Would this be the same election where faulty polling machines were given out in strongly Democrat areas? Where the Supreme Court interfered in an election which it had no constitutional power to do - especially considering the vested interests of several justices? Where the same Supreme Court with its vested interests ordered that the counting of ballot papers in a democracy was stopped in case it reached the wrong result?
If all the votes were counted Gore would have won.
If the proper constitutional process had been followed and the decision was taken by Congress Gore would have won.
If it wasn't for Bush's buddies on the Supreme Court Gore would have won and America and the world wouldn't be in the mess it's in today.
No cause for any deeper enquiry (into that as well as numerous other incidents during this Presidency), of course not! :rolleyes:
Investigate Clinton for his personal sex life or the Whitewater contrivance until the cows come home, but don't even question Dubyah's personal ties to the Harken Energy corruption scandal nor The Enron scandal nor 9/11 (the Attacks on Pearl harbour elicitied 9 congressional investigations in its time, but 9/11 not a single legitimate nor exhaustive investigation made on pressure from the White House itself).
Much easier to whitewash any possible collusion in any of these damning issues than to agree that they warrant thorough investigation at the very least. I suspect Greeny and his ilk couldnt face the embarrassment of having their warmongering heros shown to be capable of abusing their power to get their highly lucrative corporate agenda through at all costs. Too much porkbarrel politics benefitting the Pentagon these days to allow their pat coverstories to be blown apart now.
Let's take this one step at a time.
The election committees in the Democratic areas were Democrats. If there was something wrong with the ballots or the machines, they were responsible, not President Bush, or even Governor Bush.
The Supreme Court does in fact have Constitutionally mandated powers to rule in the case of Presidential elections. Read the Constitution. It's pretty obvious.
Under every circumstance, regardless of how ballots were counted, as long as the same standard is consistently applied (and in Florida, every ballot was counted by independent organizations after the election was over) Bush wins.
I suggest you read both the Supreme Court's decision, as well as the Florida Election law and the US Constitution. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
Under no circumstances, except those that Gore's campaign attempted to rig (regardless of it being clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment) could Gore have won. That one circumstance? Applying unequal standards to a select few districts in order to attempt to manufacture enough ballots for Gore to claim the election.
Just to help you learn the facts...
Constitution
Pay attention to Article II, Section 1; and Article III, Section 2.
You might also want to read the Fourteenth Amendment.
Documents related to the case
Here you can find all the documents that relate to the case. Every one. Including the opinion of the court, which includes a comment that 7 of the 9 Justices felt there was a Constitutional issue that needed to be addressed.
Court's Opinion
But you (and Clandestine) are more qualified to judge Constitutional Law than Supreme Court Justices, aren't you?
By the way, Clandestine, did President Clinton commit perjury or not?
ROFL the "14th Amendment."
http://www.drudgereport.com/vote1.htm
And to add further fuel to the fire the suspicions of the florida electoral system did not end with the installation of big brother in the White House...
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0306-04.htm
As for qestions of perjury. The simple answer youd like is yes, but insofar as the personal sexual activities of the President have no bearing on the job he is elected to perform nor have they place being used as lever of political attack, he was perfectly within his ethical rights to eschew the question. As much so (in principle, not of course in scope) as those who protected Jewish fugitives from the inquiries of their Nazi pursuers through denial.
Nevertheless, the point that you obviously wish to gloss over rather than face up to is that insofar as you and your ilk believed it right to go to any expense over a period of some 2-3 years to exhaustively investigate Clinton for the most trivial of possible wrongdoings, you somehow see it as legitimate that all possible corporate and political wrongdoing of this administration be kept from any scrutiny whatsoever.
Obviously your concept of the accountability of our leaders stops short when it reaches a Republican whitehouse, no matter how shocking the possible revelations might be should such investigations be afforded their due deligence.
It all leaves many in our country who have not allowed themselves to be diverted by the mindless flagwaving to call all the more into investigations to determine just what this White House is trying to hide. The personal backgrounds of Bush and numerous of his cronies suggest all the more that they indeed have much to hide.
Not surprised, Heydrich. Equal protection under the law doesn't exactly fit in with a master race, does it?
Ever hear of the Fifth Amendment?
But somehow I'm not surprised to see you defend perjury.
You have no ethics, or morals. You just have what you want to spin today. Been reading up on Lenin, I take it?
The Party of the Left
Is this article describing you, Clandestine?
Yet given the weight you make of Clinton's wrongdoings I am nonethless appalled at your obviously partisan refusal to aknowledge that the American public has a monumentally great right to have a full accounting from this administration over matters that do]/i] speak to the integrity of our national defence as well as possible conspiracy to defraud the nation economically.
The rest of the drivel youve slung at me is too laughable to waste my efforts on given that Im not a Democrat.
LOL "Equal Protection Under the Law." Greenhat, by all means go consult that ridiculous and irrelevent piece of parchment called the U.S. Constitution, and inform us how the U.S. Constitution is to be amended.
IN the summer of 1999 Katherine Harris (George W. Bush's presidential campaign cochairwoman AND Florida secretary lf state in charge of elections, paid $4 million to Database technologies to go through Florida's voter rolls and remove anyone "suspected" of being a former felon. This was done with the blessing of the governor of Florida, George W.'s brother Jeb Bush.
The law states that ex-felons cannot vote in Florida, this means that 31% of all black men in Florida are prohibited from voting. (Harris and Bush knew this)
Black Floridians, overwhelmingly are democrats - (Al Gore reveived over 90% of their votes on November 7, 2000 - those that who where allowed to vote)
Fair enough you might say, I mean the law states that ex-felons cannot vote in Florida, However they also removed thousands of black citizens who had never committed a crime in their lives.
Harris office told Database (a firm with strong Republican ties) to cast a wide a net as possible to get rid of these voters. They were instructed the compnay to inlcude even people with "similar" names to those of the actual felons. They insisted Database check people with the same birth dates as known felons, or similar social security numbers; an 80% match of relevant information, the election office instructed, was sufficient for Database to add a voter to the ineligible list.
These orders would mean that thousands of legitimate voters would be barred from voting on election day just because they had a name that osunded like someone else's or shared a birthday with some unknown felon.
Database did as they were told. And before long 173,000 registerd voters in Florida were permanently wiped off the voter rolls.
However culling names from Florida's records alone was not enough for Harris and her department. Eight thounsand additional Flordians were thrown off the voting rolss becase Database used a false list supplied by another state, a state which cliamed that all the names on the list were former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida.
It turned out that the felons on the list had served their time and had all their voting privileges reinstated. And they were others on the list who had commitedd only misemeanors (littering, parking violations etc)
Which state supplied this list
Texas
Linda Howell reveived a lterr informing her that she was a felon - and therefore advising her not to bother showing up on election day, however , Linda Howell wasn't a felon, she aws the elections supervisor of Madison county, Flordida, pleas to rectify the problem fell on deaf ears.
George W. Bush would officially be credited with receiving 537 votes more than Al Gore in Florida. It is safe to assume that the thousands of registered voters barred from the polls would have made the difference if they had been allowed to vote.
On ellection night, after the polls closed, there was much confusion over what was happening with the counting of the votes in Florida. Finally a decision was made by the man in charge of the election night desk for the Fox News Channel. He decided that Fox should go on air and delcare that Bush had won Florida and thus the election. And that's what happened. Fox formally declared Bush the winner.
But down in Tallahassee, the counting of the votes had not yet been completed.
The other networks ran like lemmings after Fox made the call, afraid that they would be seen as slow or our of the loop - even though their own news reporters on the ground where insisting that it was too early to call the election.
But who needs reporters when your playing follow the leader - in this case John Ellis the man in charge of Fox's election coverage
Who is John Ellis
He's first cousin of George W. and Jeb Bush.
On the morning of Saturday Decemeber 9, 2000, the supreme court got word that the recounds in Florida, in spite of everything the bush camp had done to fix the elections, where going in favour of Al Gore. With only moments to spare, they did what they had to do. At 2:45 that afternoon, the supreme court stopped the recount.
On the court sat Reagan appointee Sanrea Day O'Conner and Nixon ppointee Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Both in their seventies, they were hoping to retire under a Republican administration so that their replacements would share their conservative ideology.
Meanwhile, two other justices found themselves with a conflict of interest, Virginia Lamp Thomas, worked at the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank in D.C. she had just been Hired by George W. Bush to help recruit people to serve in his impending administration. And Eugene Scalia was alawyer with the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher - the very law firm representing Bush before the surpeme court.
In their decision, the court used the equal protecion clause of teh Fourteen amendment - the same amendment they've loudly didsclaimed when used by blacks over the years to hald discrimination based on race to justify the theft.
I feel sorry fot the 154 million of the 200 million voters who had not voted for George W. Bush
Article I, Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. . .
Article V
No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.'
2. An 80% match would require a little more than the same birthday or a similar sounding name. Actually, a lot more.
3. I watched the elections on CNN and watched them announce Bush as having won when polls were still open in Florida. NBC is the network that did it first, not FOX. But that kills the little relationship claim, doesn't it?
You might try reading the Supreme Court ruling. I suppose you have a law degree in Constitutional Law so you can at least pretend to claim you are as qualified as the 7 Justices who felt that the recount was constitutionally flawed?
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States. . . .
It was constitutionally 'flawed' because they wanted Bush to win and didn't want the truth to come out.
English comprehension isn't one of your strong points, is it?
The judgement was given 5:4
The judges made a political decision and you know it.
Worried about "possible unequal treatment resulting from differing standards used in the recounts." My Butt
Worried about Bush loosing the election if the recount continued more like.
"Admitting defeat must have been a particularly bitter pill for Mr Gore, a career politician who actually won the popular vote nationwide.
He lost the White House because it is the Electoral College, which operates state by state, that formally selects the president.
With nearly 50 million ballots in his favour, Mr Gore took more popular votes than Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996, and more than George Bush - the current president-elect's father - in 1988.
He is the first candidate since Grover Cleveland in 1888 to win the popular vote, but lose in the Electoral College."
Man that must of sucked :P
You have stumbled onto something very important DB56K. The President of the United States is not popularly elected by an "American people" in the aggregate. In fact, there simply is no such thing and there never has been. I cannot think of any office in our system of government that is elected by an American people in the aggregate. Instead, the President of the United States is elected by electors from each state of the union. Now why is that? It is because the people of each state - not the American people in the aggregate - possess sovereignty in this country. The Federal Government is a creation of the people of each individual state acting in their sovereignty.
That Amendment you claim that doesn't exist.
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:4Fzinje2r_MC:www.aallnet.org/products/2001_14.pdf+failed+constitutional+amendments&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Here are some more constitutional amendments that were never legally ratified like the so-called 14th Amendment.
No, because the US says so. If anyone has a problem with it, go in and kill them wherever they are. Iraq is going to be a tolerant, Muslim democracy.
You do have the rhetoric perfected though should you decide to become a perverted murderous fundamentalist yourself.
Spoken like a true Mongol savage. . .
A democracy of who?
I think you need to reread the article you linked:
The time referred to is that of a proposed 13th Amendment - prior to the existing 13th and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Ratified
Ohio
Effects
Just continuing to illustrate your racism, aren't you?