• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

You do realize that I know if you actually had something to prove me wrong, you would have posted it. Instead you are relying on this deflective nonsense.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you are just believing it for no reason.

"I'm going to believe x for no reason and if you can't prove me wrong then I'm right!":roll:

AH! Wow, I'm stupid. I didn't even read the full AP article. Here's a more complete quote:

He says that "even for the supporters of the occupying regime and its leaders, it has become clear that the continuation of the Zionist regime's life in the region is not feasible."
Click to expand...

So there you have it; he is again referring to the administration in Israel and not the state itself.

Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
bhkad said:
That's called denial.
Click to expand...
roflmaoroflmaoroflmaoroflmaoroflmaoroflmao

holding out belief until something can be found to be credible is denial.

roflmaoroflmaoroflmaoroflmao

Obama said that he's gonna send ObL $200Billion to help destroy the Dallas Cowboys. If you dont believe me, you're in denial
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Ah, so you are just believing it for no reason.

"I'm going to believe x for no reason and if you can't prove me wrong then I'm right!":roll:

AH! Wow, I'm stupid. I didn't even read the full AP article. Here's a more complete quote:



So there you have it; he is again referring to the administration in Israel and not the state itself.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...





:lol: and what happens to "isreal" when he pushes, (my bad) just the zionist regieme into the sea.

What pray tell would he replace it with? :roll:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So once again we have Ahmonoajihad in his own words. What say the iranian apoligists to this latest round of "push the jews into the sea"
Click to expand...
Not news.
He's the Hitler of our time, but hey... let him and his kooks have nukes.

A couple of roughs from my cartoon stack:

welovenukes.jpg


axisfordeals.jpg
 
You forgot to include images of their apologists in the Democratic Party. Unconditional sitdowns are on the agenda.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
YES. FOR OFFICE. BUT NOT FOR A ****ING PARTY.. WHY DO YOU KEEP MIXING THESE UP TO SPIN THE REALITY?
And thats why I also said, its not possible to get elected president without being a candidate for either the Republican or democrat party.
How much spin and confusion do you want to put on this issue for it to suit your "American dream".. Yes, dream, not reality.




I dont believe for a second you can run in the primary for the republicans or democrats without some form of approval by the party.. That just wouldn't make sense. Then an enemy of the republicans with a completely different platform who is against all republican policies can run under the republican party in their primary and just say whetever pleases the republican voters to get nominated to run as their candidate. Thats not how it works, the parties couldnt possibly allow that.. There is some kind of process within the parties to accept candidates who want to run for the party.

Anyone can nominate themselves ad independents, yes, but not under a party..


You are the one who is saying your version is definitive, I am just saying my version seems most logic and likely, I am saying I might be wrong, because I have not seen how this actually works, nor any papers saying how it works, or official explanation. You are the one who insist your version is fact, so you better prove it.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what nominated is. Given that fact and your constant refusal to even have one iota of understanding of the U.S. system, talking to you about this serves no further purpose. I will let you continue to wallow in your anti-U.S. ignorance. Enjoy!
 
and what happens to "isreal" when he pushes, (my bad) just the zionist regieme into the sea.

What pray tell would he replace it with?
Click to expand...

Because opposing a government is the same as wanting to nuke an entire country.:roll:
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
You don't even know what nominated is. Given that fact and your constant refusal to even have one iota of understanding of the U.S. system, talking to you about this serves no further purpose. I will let you continue to wallow in your anti-U.S. ignorance. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Wow, a new low level.. This discussion is over, its so unpleasant to listen to your spin, and see you avoid answering my valid posts in the last thread with a simple claim of using a word right. You sank to a new low level in my book by this thread.

I am not anti-US, claiming so just feeds your own ignorance about me and the US, what I say is only realistic and true, yet you take it differently.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Wow, a new low level.. This discussion is over, its so unpleasant to listen to your spin, and see you avoid answering my valid posts in the last thread with a simple claim of using a word right. You sank to a new low level in my book by this thread.

I am not anti-US, claiming so just feeds your own ignorance about me and the US, what I say is only realistic and true, yet you take it differently.
Click to expand...

I have answered your posts. You ignore the answers.

Your repeated MISUSE of the word "nominate" when I have explained its correct use on multiple occasions is evidence enough that you are either not reading my posts, or you simply have a willful nature to not accept the truth.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
YES. FOR OFFICE. BUT NOT FOR A ****ING PARTY.. WHY DO YOU KEEP MIXING THESE UP TO SPIN THE REALITY?
And thats why I also said, its not possible to get elected president without being a candidate for either the Republican or democrat party.
How much spin and confusion do you want to put on this issue for it to suit your "American dream".. Yes, dream, not reality.




I dont believe for a second you can run in the primary for the republicans or democrats without some form of approval by the party.. That just wouldn't make sense. Then an enemy of the republicans with a completely different platform who is against all republican policies can run under the republican party in their primary and just say whetever pleases the republican voters to get nominated to run as their candidate. Thats not how it works, the parties couldnt possibly allow that.. There is some kind of process within the parties to accept candidates who want to run for the party.

Anyone can nominate themselves ad independents, yes, but not under a party..


You are the one who is saying your version is definitive, I am just saying my version seems most logic and likely, I am saying I might be wrong, because I have not seen how this actually works, nor any papers saying how it works, or official explanation. You are the one who insist your version is fact, so you better prove it.
Click to expand...

ludahai said:
You don't even know what nominated is. Given that fact and your constant refusal to even have one iota of understanding of the U.S. system, talking to you about this serves no further purpose. I will let you continue to wallow in your anti-U.S. ignorance. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Do you call that an answer.. Is your machine in error or something? Did the spin not work on me and cause you to go in rounds and into a final error message since you just give up by answering like this?



Ps. dammit, there is no smiley for "broken robot".
 
Last edited:
How many people from different countries have to explain to you how you're wrong before you get it?
 
scourge99 said:
How many people from different countries have to explain to you how you're wrong before you get it?
Click to expand...

I havent seen any proof, which you Americans want for anything others say..

I have yet to see proof that anyone who pleases with ANY platform can run as primary candidate for the republican party, even if he hates them and oppose all their political stands, and that he can do all this without any form of approval from the republican party.

Excuse me for finding that hard to believe, especially when you guys just claim it with no documentation.
I am ready to accept logical explanations as proof of other things, but not this, because its illogical it would work the way you say.

This is technically interesting, because in Europe its not like that at all.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: and what happens to "isreal" when he pushes, (my bad) just the zionist regieme into the sea.

What pray tell would he replace it with? :roll:
Click to expand...

You are not a dumb guy Reverend, so cut this nonsense. Do you really think that he is literally talking about pushing people into the sea? :roll:
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Do you call that an answer.. Is your machine in error or something? Did the spin not work on me and cause you to go in rounds and into a final error message since you just give up by answering like this?

Ps. dammit, there is no smiley for "broken robot".
Click to expand...

It wasn't spin, it was FACT. Do you even know what "nominate" means? You have used the word INCORRECTLY numerous times, indicating you simply do not have a basic understanding of the nominating process in the US.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I havent seen any proof, which you Americans want for anything others say..

I have yet to see proof that anyone who pleases with ANY platform can run as primary candidate for the republican party, even if he hates them and oppose all their political stands, and that he can do all this without any form of approval from the republican party.

Excuse me for finding that hard to believe, especially when you guys just claim it with no documentation.
I am ready to accept logical explanations as proof of other things, but not this, because its illogical it would work the way you say.

This is technically interesting, because in Europe its not like that at all.
Click to expand...

So ,the systems are different.

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the party heirarchy disqualified any candidate? If the leadership of the party HAD that power, I would not have been able to run in the primary race for county commission nine years ago because my position on sustainable development and green growth was radically different from that of the county party. Would people like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel have been able to run in the primaries to be president as their positions were radically different from that held by the party. Both races were enriched by their presence and thankfully neither party had the right or the ability to deny their participation.
 
When are we going to take this ****er out?
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Prove it.. That anyone even a hardcore democrat(who hates all the policies of the republican party) can stand for candidate in the republican party without the republican party approval.

Ps. I might seem like an American but I am not :lol:
Click to expand...

You do have to be registered for the party, but all you have to do is check the box on a piece of paper. The party can not reject anyone.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
No, I might not as well have, that would not be my opinion. I still think Iran is a democracy, a form of democracy, just like the UK, France and the US is also a form of democracy, and that all those forms of democracy are very different forms of democracy.
The US and European systems are less free than we like to believe.
I am not trying to equate Irans democracy with the US...
Click to expand...

It's like talking to a tree:doh.

Iran is not at all a democracy. There are no simpler terms for it. The fact that there is an election does not make a country democratic. It's very sad that no matter how many times you are beaten over the head with this, you still don't get it.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Nah, really, is the primary totally open? So that anyone with any form of platform(even opposing values and platform of the party) can stand for the republican party and just say a bunch of things that will have him elected in the primaries, and then become their presidential candidate if he wins?
Click to expand...
Yes. I doubt he would be re-elected though.

So in theory, Obama can just as well be a republican hiding in this democrat party and work his magic republican party policies as soon as he is sworn in.
Click to expand...

Yes, though his past voting history shows this to be very unlikely.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I dont believe for a second you can run in the primary for the republicans or democrats without some form of approval by the party.. That just wouldn't make sense.
Click to expand...
The approval from the party to run in the primary comes in the form of a requisite number of signatures from party members to run in that state's primary.

Then an enemy of the republicans with a completely different platform who is against all republican policies can run under the republican party in their primary and just say whetever pleases the republican voters to get nominated to run as their candidate. Thats not how it works, the parties couldnt possibly allow that.. There is some kind of process within the parties to accept candidates who want to run for the party.
Click to expand...
The process is a petition! They must go from house to house and convince party members that they are qualified to run and that they share similar ideals with the party. If they don't actually follow these ideals once elected they won't be re-elected. That is how it works.


You are the one who is saying your version is definitive, I am just saying my version seems most logic and likely, I am saying I might be wrong, because I have not seen how this actually works, nor any papers saying how it works, or official explanation. You are the one who insist your version is fact, so you better prove it.
Click to expand...

You are not only maybe wrong, you are wrong. Read a text book on US Government if you want proof.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I havent seen any proof, which you Americans want for anything others say..

I have yet to see proof that anyone who pleases with ANY platform can run as primary candidate for the republican party, even if he hates them and oppose all their political stands, and that he can do all this without any form of approval from the republican party.

Excuse me for finding that hard to believe, especially when you guys just claim it with no documentation.
I am ready to accept logical explanations as proof of other things, but not this, because its illogical it would work the way you say.

This is technically interesting, because in Europe its not like that at all.
Click to expand...

Why would someone who is ideologically opposed to the Republican party wish to run for their primary? If he did and by some miracle managed to win the election without believing in party principles and then proceeded to act against party principles it would be impossible for him to be re-elected in the next election and the Democrats would look awful.

I don't understand why you think this system is illogical. Anyone is allowed to run if they so wish and come up with the required number of signatures. I'm sorry that this isn't they way it works in Europe, but it is our system. When we mention the party we mean every individual, registered voting member of that party, not some secretive shadow council that decides who will run in the dead of night.

Explain to me why this system is illogical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom