The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Unelected ruler oppresses minority group, denies equal rights, on fundamentalist religious principles.
Who am I talking about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3501953.stm
Who else?
You couldn't make it up... :^(
Who am I talking about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3501953.stm
Who else?
You couldn't make it up... :^(
Decoy Octopus wrote:
> I've always said Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of
> Government
Yep, unelected officials are great - in the context that no one even gets to vote on them at all...
> I've always said Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of
> Government
Yep, unelected officials are great - in the context that no one even gets to vote on them at all...
Rickoss wrote:
> "I'm troubled by what I've seen"
>
> It's what so many have said Bush's Precidency.
I've always said Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of Government
> "I'm troubled by what I've seen"
>
> It's what so many have said Bush's Precidency.
I've always said Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of Government
Belldandy wrote:
> I've got two US Supreme Court Rulings which contest the unelected
> claim,
On account of the rebublican influence in the supreme court, that can be considered self-vindication. And self vindication is no vindication.
Evidence shows the electoral roll was intentionally fixed (by a republican), and statistical analysis shows that but for that, Bush would probably have lost. There doesn't seem to be much room for any other conclusion than Bush was not elected.
Speaking of which, did anyone see the Whitehouse's claim that Iran's elections were not 'free and fair'?
After the disqualification of opposition candidates, they're definitely right, but the hypocracy is still ammusing :^)
> Which the Democrats broke. Twice.
Yeah, the democrats are c***faces too, just on a smaller scale.
> I've got two US Supreme Court Rulings which contest the unelected
> claim,
On account of the rebublican influence in the supreme court, that can be considered self-vindication. And self vindication is no vindication.
Evidence shows the electoral roll was intentionally fixed (by a republican), and statistical analysis shows that but for that, Bush would probably have lost. There doesn't seem to be much room for any other conclusion than Bush was not elected.
Speaking of which, did anyone see the Whitehouse's claim that Iran's elections were not 'free and fair'?
After the disqualification of opposition candidates, they're definitely right, but the hypocracy is still ammusing :^)
> Which the Democrats broke. Twice.
Yeah, the democrats are c***faces too, just on a smaller scale.
Amen to that Rickoss
"I'm troubled by what I've seen"
It's what so many have said Bush's Precidency.
It's what so many have said Bush's Precidency.
I've got two US Supreme Court Rulings which contest the unelected claim, plus a Florida State statute clearly saying that the results of the election must be declared no later than 7 days after voting.
Which the Democrats broke. Twice.
Which the Democrats broke. Twice.
He's now planning to change the constitution.
Unelected ruler oppresses minority group, denies equal rights, on fundamentalist religious principles.
Who am I talking about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3501953.stm
Who else?
You couldn't make it up... :^(
Who am I talking about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3501953.stm
Who else?
You couldn't make it up... :^(