Page 27 of 41 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 407

Thread: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

  1. #261
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    It runs deeper than the moron installed as figurehead odf the state.

    They should be isolated until the nuts are taken out of action.

    Of course Hussein Obama will rush in there without preconditions and add to the great Iranian works of the anti-Semite Jimmy Carter. As Hussein said, you don't punish them by not talking to them.

    It will be an interesting four years with the Diaper Patrol and Clinton Retreads having the reigns.
    The amount of facts in this post supporting your argument is simply staggering...
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  2. #262
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    Quote Originally Posted by Australianlibertarian View Post
    This is utter madness, I don't know why everyone is feeding Maximus. This Euro troll has moved the posts.

    Firstly, Maximus you are talking about private organisations known as political parties. Granted they can weed out or select candiates, but this is not the equivalent of a Grand Ayatolla approving of candidates regardless of their political party or beliefs.

    Secondly even if the United States Supreme Court can be compared to the Grand Ayatolla, in the sense that they are both unelected positions their actual powers and procedures are very different. For example the Grand Ayatolla has absolute power to back or veto candidates. In contrast the United Supreme Court only has the power to veto the President elect if he or she does not meet the requirements or candidacy is invalid due to the requirements of the constitution.....

    Thus, the US Supreme Court must follow procedure and cannot veto a Presidential candiate, or President elect merely because the Court rejects the political stance of that person. But this is a mute point, as there is a separation of powers in the US, that is not found in Iran.

    Lastly your argument that Iran is just as democratic as the US, due to America's dominate two party system is the worst form of consequentialist analysis. Granted the GOP and the Democrats rule the political roost in America, in most Americans vote for either party, but last I checked America has a wide range of independents and minor parties. Granted, Americans may not vote for these parties out of a cynical view that voting for such parties is a wasted vote, but this is cultural issue. If the majority of Americans changed their culture in relation to voting I am very sure that more independents and minors could enter into the political arena.

    Now if we contrast this with Iran, there is not a culture per se, that prevents liberal or independents from becoming a viable political option, but rather, there is a real physical power known as the Grand Ayatolla that prevents such an opportunity from occurring.

    Lastly Maximus, your efforts to defend that claim that Iran is just as democratic as America is laughable. You deliberately ignored the 'free' component of the definition of democracy, and when you were shown up, you moved the goal posts; by questioning the democratic process of the political parties themselves, which I would like to remind you are private organizations which have their own internal rules...... In fact can you tell me about the internal party rules or political parties that are part of the European Parliament or the Parliament of Norway?

    Thus if we look at the public sphere, as opposed to the internal workings of private organizations that take part in elections, we can see that the actual public election of Presidential candidates as opposed to a party selecting their candidate, we see that the United States is definitely more free and open in relation to its elections.

    Lastly, Maxmius why don't you share with us the European Union Commission on Human Rights' or Amnesty International or the UN's Human Rights Organizations view of Iranian elections as opposed to US elections? In fact why don't you make it really interesting and post other NGO's views of Iranian Elections as I am just dying to see their defenses of Iran's FREE and OPEN Presidential and Parliamentary elections......
    Quote Originally Posted by Australianlibertarian View Post
    Right Maximus....

    Firstly you are engaging in intellectual honesty. You introduced the point about the freedom of selection and opinion within the US party system as method of analogy to compare the US democracy to Iran. Don't try to squirm out of that one.


    Secondly, the US constitution provides a (for the most part) secular frame work which limits and controls the operations of government. That is the US constitution and the Supreme Court are the means (in part) in achieving the end which is a free republic, that is designed to protect man from government. Thus the constitution and Supreme Court serve a procedural purpose.

    Now getting back to the difference between the Supreme Court and the Ayatollah. The US supreme court may reject Presidential candidates or the Presidential Elect due to procedural aspects, designed to protect fair and open elections and protect the constitution. This is a rational theory, not a theological reason as in Iran.

    Secondly, the US Supreme Court does not prevent candidates from competing in elections, merely because the Supreme Court does not like a candidates stance on abortion, drugs, taxes, or religion. The Supreme Courts' ruling's are procedural.

    Now in Iran the Ayatollah filters candiate's before the election not on the basis of legalistic or procedural criteria, but rather on the basis of whether or not the candidate is theologically sound. Thus the the restrictions are not merely secular-legalistic grounds, but rather the restrictions are pro-active and take root in theocratic grounds. Thus Iranian elections are not free..... In essence the Iranian electorate, can chose any colour they like as long it is black. How can that be free?

    Next point, if the Ayatollah can make rules in regards to the President and Parliament, then he is a sovereign or ruler. The United States Supreme Court is part of the seperate branch of Government. By virtue as a Court it cannot create rules or laws, but only apply pre-existing rules or interpret the Constitution. Thus if someone wants to change the rules in America, they cannot merely do it by their own will, but rather the change in the constitution must be made a referendum put to the people. Interesting how democratic that system can be compared to the Iranian system.

    Next point you never directly claimed that Iran is just as democratic as the UK or Europe or the US, but you might as well have. First you claimed that Iran is a democracy, but then you moved the goal posts when other posters picked up on the 'free' part. Then you tried to analyze the internal workings of US political parties as a way demonstrating the lack of freedom within the US system of democracy. In doing so you are trying to make the US system look less free and thus less democratic. This is a negative approach, but the net effect is to equate Iran's democracy to the US's. Nice try.
    Case closed. Next thread.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  3. #263
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    You are saying contradicting things in this post.. First you say the rank and file members of a party decide who represents the party, then you say anyone can represent the party as presidential candidate.
    How is that contradictory?

    Besides I am not just going to take your word on all this, please provide the source or some proof of this. That the party in no way can weed out presidential candidates, who wants to stand for their party, ahead of the primary.
    YOU are the one who made the claim that the party heiarchies screen primary candidates. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  4. #264
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    So did you find a direct quote about this mess, or are you just believing the OP for no reason?



    so did you stop beating up black people and raping livestock yet?



    (sorry for the colorful example of a "loaded question")
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #265
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,899

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    so did you stop beating up black people and raping livestock yet?



    (sorry for the colorful example of a "loaded question")
    How is "did you find a direct quote yet" a loaded question? Just because we both know the answer doesn't mean it's loaded.

  6. #266
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    How is "did you find a direct quote yet" a loaded question? Just because we both know the answer doesn't mean it's loaded.


    continue:

    or are you just believing the OP for no reason?

    loaded comrade.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #267
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Case closed. Next thread.
    That stuff isnt even relevant to the thread.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  8. #268
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    How is that contradictory?



    YOU are the one who made the claim that the party heiarchies screen primary candidates. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
    Ive already answered a thread of yours which was 99% alike to this one..

    Again... I never said it was so, you are the one claiming that your statement is fact, not me, I am saying that I actually do not know for sure, but that probability and logic dictates that I am right about this. So the proof is up to you.. Ive asked you several times, so please, can you not just clarify this issue?

    I claim that the party leaderhsip/a party committee/something party related(not electorate), decides if a candidate can nominate them self under the party and run in the primaries for their party.

    You are saying that anyone can run for whatever party he wants, even with a completely different platform, without any approval of that party.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  9. #269
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Ive already answered a thread of yours which was 99% alike to this one..

    Again... I never said it was so, you are the one claiming that your statement is fact, not me, I am saying that I actually do not know for sure, but that probability and logic dictates that I am right about this. So the proof is up to you.. Ive asked you several times, so please, can you not just clarify this issue?
    Actually, you are the one who made the intial claim that the party leadership has the right to deny someone the right to participate in the primary. Logic does NOT dictate you are right about this given that all you have to do to participate in the primary (at least in Georgia) is show up at the Board of Elections during the qualifying period, present your signatures or pay the nominal fee, and show that you are legally qualified for the office. That is all.

    I claim that the party leaderhsip/a party committee/something party related(not electorate), decides if a candidate can nominate them self under the party and run in the primaries for their party.
    You are mis-using the word "nominate". Anyone can run in the primary. The party voters then nominate the candidate of their choice for the general. Your statements show a basic lack of knowledge of the US electoral system.

    You are saying that anyone can run for whatever party he wants, even with a completely different platform, without any approval of that party.
    You can run in the PRIMARY, yes. I didn't say anything about the general. That is up to the primary voters.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  10. #270
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Titulia
    Last Seen
    02-14-09 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14

    Re: Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

    This guy is an elected official after all. He is saying whatever he believes his electors want to hear. And that is the scary thing.
    I am a proud citizen of
    The Republic of Titulia

Page 27 of 41 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •