Iran is trying to spark something off...

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
The courts barred Nader from running in many states.

Wrong again.

How so? New Mexico barred him from running for elections: Link

I believe that they could write him in, he was just barred from appearing on the ballot.

Anyways, a small exception under clear guidelines would be nothing like the situation in Iran unless someone clarifies it differently than as has been stated. Nobody really randomly said that only Nader and nobody else could not appear on the ballot.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Sultan
I have addressed this point above. The courts barred Nader from running in many states. The Council of Gaurdians have to legally challenge candidates from running. The Council of Gaurdians is appointed, as is the Supreme Court here. So why do you have a problem with them? The ruling to bar candidates was overturned and most were allowed to contest.

Veto does exist and you are right in that point. Override mechanism may not exist, but that is how the constitution is drafted and far be it you or I telling any other nation how they should formulate their constitution. If the Iranians have a problem, they can very well initiate a new revolution.

You're making an idiodic argument. Nadar was not actually barred from running anywhere to the best of my knowledge, people could still send in a write in vote for him. Furthermore he wasn't banned for political views, but failing to perform the required steps for getting listed on the ballot in many states. If he needed a certain registered voters to sign his petition and it turns out too many of the signatures were bogus, he's off the ballot for failing to meet that criteria. Ultimately the vitally important point though is that the judges are accountable to the people and the democratic system. They can be impeached at any time if they make sufficiently outragious decisions and they are either selected and nominated by democraticly elected representatives of the people, or by direct election in all cases. The Council of Guardians members can't be impeached under any circumstances, nor are they selected by the people or their elected representatives. The Council of Guardians themselves selects who is added to the council when older members either die or resign. Saying the Council of Guardians is appointed may be technically true, but who is appointing them really matters!

Arguing that if the Iranian are not happy with the fact the Council of Guardians has all the true power, their only recourse is revolution, shows the failure of their current system of government. Such a situation is the ultimate proof that their system can't be considered a true democratic system.

I dont think you read my post in its entirety. The Council of Gaurdians legally challenged some of the candidates basing the challenge on the candidates not fulfilling the requirements to run for the constituency. Above is a post which states that Nader was banned from running in New Mexico.

The ruling of the Council of Gaurdians was overturned, and most of the candidates barred from running initially contested the elections so your point is moot. The Council of Gaurdians consists of six theologians appointed by the leader and six jurists nominated by the judiciary and approved by parliament. The council has to approve all bills passed by parliament and make sure they conform to the constitution and Islamic law. Again, your point that they are not selected by the elected representatives is moot.

I dont see how you base your opinion that Iranians are not happy with the Council of Gaurdians. As with any system, there will be a legal recourse present to remove this aspect of the government. The elected representatives can surely take their route if not an election. More power to the parliment. However, most of your post is misinformation.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Sultan
Now how that translates to theocracy is beyond me. Only our government which associates Iran as an Axis of Evil can translate a parlimentary form of government to theocracy

This is called not bothering to look at the ramifications. The Council of Guardians can prevent any candidate from running, and the Council of Guardians is not elected or really under the control of the voters in any way. In the last election, the Council of Guardian didn't allow a large portion of the Reformist members of the Parliment to run, including a substancial number of people who were already members of Parliment and merely up for re-election! The voters can only vote for people the Council of Guardians find acceptable, which generally means that people who want to reform the system get prevented from running.

The Council of Guardians can also veto ANY measure taken by Parliment, and there is no override mechanism. This means that parliment only can do anything if the Council of Guardians allows it. I believe the Council of Guardians can also override any Presidential decisions. You're looking at a system where the Council of Guardians has all the ultimate power as the government is currently set up.

I have addressed this point above. The courts barred Nader from running in many states. The Council of Gaurdians have to legally challenge candidates from running. The Council of Gaurdians is appointed, as is the Supreme Court here. So why do you have a problem with them? The ruling to bar candidates was overturned and most were allowed to contest.

Veto does exist and you are right in that point. Override mechanism may not exist, but that is how the constitution is drafted and far be it you or I telling any other nation how they should formulate their constitution. If the Iranians have a problem, they can very well initiate a new revolution.

You are the Official Iranian SPINMEISTER...

LMAO... you are comparing Nader not getting enough votes to make the ballot to RELIGIOUS TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION... << i can only LOL @ U

 

[Aimster]

Sultan Sultan Sultan, you crack me up man.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
The courts barred Nader from running in many states.

Wrong again.

How so? New Mexico barred him from running for elections: Link

I believe that they could write him in, he was just barred from appearing on the ballot.

Anyways, a small exception under clear guidelines would be nothing like the situation in Iran unless someone clarifies it differently than as has been stated. Nobody really randomly said that only Nader and nobody else could not appear on the ballot.

oh come on, if its not one thing, its the other.

As I just stated above, the Council of Gaurdians legally challenged some of the candidates basing the challenge on the candidates not fulfilling the requirements to run for the constituency. The ruling of the Council of Gaurdians was overturned, and most of the candidates barred from running initially contested the elections.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Sultan
Now how that translates to theocracy is beyond me. Only our government which associates Iran as an Axis of Evil can translate a parlimentary form of government to theocracy

This is called not bothering to look at the ramifications. The Council of Guardians can prevent any candidate from running, and the Council of Guardians is not elected or really under the control of the voters in any way. In the last election, the Council of Guardian didn't allow a large portion of the Reformist members of the Parliment to run, including a substancial number of people who were already members of Parliment and merely up for re-election! The voters can only vote for people the Council of Guardians find acceptable, which generally means that people who want to reform the system get prevented from running.

The Council of Guardians can also veto ANY measure taken by Parliment, and there is no override mechanism. This means that parliment only can do anything if the Council of Guardians allows it. I believe the Council of Guardians can also override any Presidential decisions. You're looking at a system where the Council of Guardians has all the ultimate power as the government is currently set up.

I have addressed this point above. The courts barred Nader from running in many states. The Council of Gaurdians have to legally challenge candidates from running. The Council of Gaurdians is appointed, as is the Supreme Court here. So why do you have a problem with them? The ruling to bar candidates was overturned and most were allowed to contest.

Veto does exist and you are right in that point. Override mechanism may not exist, but that is how the constitution is drafted and far be it you or I telling any other nation how they should formulate their constitution. If the Iranians have a problem, they can very well initiate a new revolution.

You are the Official Iranian SPINMEISTER...

LMAO... you are comparing Nader not getting enough votes to make the ballot to RELIGIOUS TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION... << i can only LOL @ U

You missed one of his better spins...that human rights violations in Canada are equal to human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
oh come on, if its not one thing, its the other.

As I just stated above, the Council of Gaurdians legally challenged some of the candidates basing the challenge on the candidates not fulfilling the requirements to run for the constituency. The ruling of the Council of Gaurdians was overturned, and most of the candidates barred from running initially contested the elections.

No, it's nothing. He was not barred to RUN for President of the United States of America.

Your comparison of Iran to Nader is laughable and has no merit whatsoever. I would love to see these 'legal' challenges.

 

[Aimster]

All I have to say to this is the U.S > all. This is why we live here. We love this country. Our government > others. Our way of life > others. If you do not like this country well ..you see that door (it's there just look for it). You can never compare the U.S to any other government. If we opened up our doors and gave people a means to get here the population of the U.S would be 4 billion.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Sultan
Now how that translates to theocracy is beyond me. Only our government which associates Iran as an Axis of Evil can translate a parlimentary form of government to theocracy

This is called not bothering to look at the ramifications. The Council of Guardians can prevent any candidate from running, and the Council of Guardians is not elected or really under the control of the voters in any way. In the last election, the Council of Guardian didn't allow a large portion of the Reformist members of the Parliment to run, including a substancial number of people who were already members of Parliment and merely up for re-election! The voters can only vote for people the Council of Guardians find acceptable, which generally means that people who want to reform the system get prevented from running.

The Council of Guardians can also veto ANY measure taken by Parliment, and there is no override mechanism. This means that parliment only can do anything if the Council of Guardians allows it. I believe the Council of Guardians can also override any Presidential decisions. You're looking at a system where the Council of Guardians has all the ultimate power as the government is currently set up.

I have addressed this point above. The courts barred Nader from running in many states. The Council of Gaurdians have to legally challenge candidates from running. The Council of Gaurdians is appointed, as is the Supreme Court here. So why do you have a problem with them? The ruling to bar candidates was overturned and most were allowed to contest.

Veto does exist and you are right in that point. Override mechanism may not exist, but that is how the constitution is drafted and far be it you or I telling any other nation how they should formulate their constitution. If the Iranians have a problem, they can very well initiate a new revolution.

You are the Official Iranian SPINMEISTER...

LMAO... you are comparing Nader not getting enough votes to make the ballot to RELIGIOUS TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION... << i can only LOL @ U

I am happy I gave you a good laugh. I dont believe you read the link I provided.

Judge Wendy York ruled Friday that Nader didn't qualify as an independent candidate in New Mexico because he was running as the nominee for minor parties in other states, including the Reform Party

Where does that mention Nader not getting enough votes to make the ballot?

And Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself intervened to overrule the decision of the Council of Gaurdians to ban the candidates. Search for it yourself.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
oh come on, if its not one thing, its the other.

As I just stated above, the Council of Gaurdians legally challenged some of the candidates basing the challenge on the candidates not fulfilling the requirements to run for the constituency. The ruling of the Council of Gaurdians was overturned, and most of the candidates barred from running initially contested the elections.

No, it's nothing. He was not barred to RUN for President of the United States of America.

Your comparison of Iran to Nader is laughable and has no merit whatsoever. I would love to see these 'legal' challenges.

emm, the candidates in Iran were barred from running from the particular constituency they were representing. Different system.

 

[RabidMongoose]

And Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself intervened to overrule the decision of the Council of Gaurdians to ban the candidates. Search for it yourself.

How disturbing...in a political sense...to have one man overturn anything he wishes.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
oh come on, if its not one thing, its the other.

As I just stated above, the Council of Gaurdians legally challenged some of the candidates basing the challenge on the candidates not fulfilling the requirements to run for the constituency. The ruling of the Council of Gaurdians was overturned, and most of the candidates barred from running initially contested the elections.

No, it's nothing. He was not barred to RUN for President of the United States of America.

Your comparison of Iran to Nader is laughable and has no merit whatsoever. I would love to see these 'legal' challenges.

First you dispute that Nader was barred from running in many states. Now you change your tune to not running for the post of the President.

And its not a comparison, there is a different electoral system, and legal challenges exist in both countries. For you to claim it has no merit without any proof is whats laughable.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
First you dispute that Nader was barred from running in many states. Now you change your tune to not running for the post of the President.

And its not a comparison, there is a different electoral system, and legal challenges exist in both countries. For you to claim it has no merit without any proof is whats laughable.

I haven't 'changed my tune'. You are simply the only one that has changed his tune throughout this thread with misinformation. I am simply stating a correction on your false idea.

What is laughable is your comparison of Nader to Iran...so similar to your comparison of Canadian human rights violations to Saudi Arabia's violations...yup, that's right...you compared Canada's problems to a country that had slavery well into the middle of the 20th century.

 

[Aimster]

Iranian's support Bush over anyone else: (BBC survey of thousands).
http://globalnin.com/brancheds...=0&amp;filter=language

Blah.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I love these 'legal' reasons.

The total is lower than in the last election because more than 2,300 candidates - four times as many as last time - have been disqualified.

Many candidates were deemed ineligible because of a supposed indifference to Islam and to the constitution, or were accused of questioning the supreme leader's powers.

Oh, how clearly defined...and no they didn't ban that many candidates....just a little over 2000!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3452839.stm

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
First you dispute that Nader was barred from running in many states. Now you change your tune to not running for the post of the President.

And its not a comparison, there is a different electoral system, and legal challenges exist in both countries. For you to claim it has no merit without any proof is whats laughable.

I haven't 'changed my tune'. You are simply the only one that has changed his tune throughout this thread with misinformation. I am simply stating a correction on your false idea.

What is laughable is your comparison of Nader to Iran...so similar to your comparison of Canadian human rights violations to Saudi Arabia's violations...yup, that's right...you compared Canada's problems to a country that had slavery well into the middle of the 20th century.

huh? How have I changed my tune? I have repeatedly stated that candidates were barred from contesting by the Council of Gaurdians who legally challenged their eligibility. I also stated that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei overturned the ruling. You find that disturbing, I find it a victory for democracy.

And I dont see whats wrong with the example (not comparison) of Nader being legally challenged to run for elections from a particular state.

If you wish to continue with nonsensical posts, be my guest. At least dont lie about me changing what I said when I havent. If I feel I need to correct myself, I will do so.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I love these 'legal' reasons.

The total is lower than in the last election because more than 2,300 candidates - four times as many as last time - have been disqualified.

Many candidates were deemed ineligible because of a supposed indifference to Islam and to the constitution, or were accused of questioning the supreme leader's powers.

Oh, how clearly defined...and no they didn't ban that many candidates....just a little over 2000!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3452839.stm

If they are indifferent to the constitution, which elected officials are supposed to uphold, and with Islam being part of the constitution, I dont see why you have a problem with them being barred. I wouldnt support a US President who is indifferent to the constitution.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I love these 'legal' reasons.

The total is lower than in the last election because more than 2,300 candidates - four times as many as last time - have been disqualified.

Many candidates were deemed ineligible because of a supposed indifference to Islam and to the constitution, or were accused of questioning the supreme leader's powers.

Oh, how clearly defined...and no they didn't ban that many candidates....just a little over 2000!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3452839.stm

If they are indifferent to the constitution, which elected officials are supposed to uphold, and with Islam being part of the constitution, I dont see why you have a problem with them being barred. I wouldnt support a US President who is indifferent to the constitution.

There is no clear distinction in these terms. These are mindless labels that cannot likely be proven...good thing they ONLY banned 2000+ people, huh?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I love these 'legal' reasons.

The total is lower than in the last election because more than 2,300 candidates - four times as many as last time - have been disqualified.

Many candidates were deemed ineligible because of a supposed indifference to Islam and to the constitution, or were accused of questioning the supreme leader's powers.

Oh, how clearly defined...and no they didn't ban that many candidates....just a little over 2000!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3452839.stm

If they are indifferent to the constitution, which elected officials are supposed to uphold, and with Islam being part of the constitution, I dont see why you have a problem with them being barred. I wouldnt support a US President who is indifferent to the constitution.

There is no clear distinction in these terms. These are mindless labels that cannot likely be proven...good thing they ONLY banned 2000+ people, huh?

"Cannot likely be proven" does not mean they cannot be proven. You may not find distinction, which does not mean the Iranian legal system cannot. The Ayatollah overruled the decision and a 1000 of the 2033 were allowed to contest. The good thing is over 7000 people ran for 290 seats in the Parliment, another victory for democracy.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
huh? How have I changed my tune? I have repeatedly stated that candidates were barred from contesting by the Council of Gaurdians who legally challenged their eligibility. I also stated that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei overturned the ruling. You find that disturbing, I find it a victory for democracy.

You've changed your tune throughout this thread, from saying that the president of the US has 'end all' veto power to saying that Nader couldn't run in New Mexico.

And yes, it is disturbing that one man can overturn anything.

And I dont see whats wrong with the example (not comparison) of Nader being legally challenged to run for elections from a particular state.

I believe he could run from that particular state. In addition, even if that example went the way you thought it was to be, that 'example' is nowhere near what Iran is experiencing...just another example showing your extremism...just like you comparing Canada's human rights violations to Saudi 'We had slavery well into the middle of the 20th century' Arabia.

If you wish to continue with nonsensical posts, be my guest. At least dont lie about me changing what I said when I havent. If I feel I need to correct myself, I will do so.

Nonsensical? Sultan, my boy, you are the one that says that the phrase 'orange bicycles' means that all oranges are bicycles. Nonsensical? Oh, you are one crazy little boy!

 

[Sultan]

You've changed your tune throughout this thread, from saying that the president of the US has 'end all' veto power to saying that Nader couldn't run in New Mexico.

And yes, it is disturbing that one man can overturn anything.

Haha, another lie. I never said the President of the US has "end all" veto power.

You find that disturbing, I find it a victory for democracy

I believe he could run from that particular state. In addition, even if that example went the way you thought it was to be, that 'example' is nowhere near what Iran is experiencing...just another example showing your extremism...just like you comparing Canada's human rights violations to Saudi 'We had slavery well into the middle of the 20th century' Arabia.

Apparently, the judge did not agree with your belief. I dont see what Iran is experiencing that you loudly claim?

And yes, continue with your nonsense and lies Please show where I stated that the phrase 'orange bicycles' means that all oranges are bicycles, otherwise brand yourself the great liar

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
"Cannot likely be proven" does not mean they cannot be proven. You may not find distinction, which does not mean the Iranian legal system cannot. The Ayatollah overruled the decision and a 1000 of the 2033 were allowed to contest. The good thing is over 7000 people ran for 290 seats in the Parliment, another victory for democracy.

Wow, what a great 'legal' system they must have there!

So how do you prove these things conclusively enough to ban someone from running for office? Oh wait, it just couldn't be some ridiculous label they throw at people to get them banned, right?

Ah, Sultan...the great believer in denying Greek democracy, saying that 'orange bicycles' means that all oranges are bicycles, the supporter of child murder (see sig), discrimination, and so on...what else you are going to cook up in that extremist head of yours?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
"Cannot likely be proven" does not mean they cannot be proven. You may not find distinction, which does not mean the Iranian legal system cannot. The Ayatollah overruled the decision and a 1000 of the 2033 were allowed to contest. The good thing is over 7000 people ran for 290 seats in the Parliment, another victory for democracy.

Wow, what a great 'legal' system they must have there!

So how do you prove these things conclusively enough to ban someone from running for office? Oh wait, it just couldn't be some ridiculous label they throw at people to get them banned, right?

Ah, Sultan...the great believer in denying Greek democracy, saying that 'orange bicycles' means that all oranges are bicycles, the supporter of child murder (see sig), discrimination, and so on...what else you are going to cook up in that extremist head of yours?

another example of your bias towards a Muslim majority nation, demeaning their legal system without proof.

I dont have to conclusively prove anything. The Iranians courts do so, and they work fine.

Continue your lies.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Haha, another lie. I never said the President of the US has "end all" veto power.

Let's see what you said.

so freaking what? The US President has the Veto power. He has the final say. Are you saying American elections are worthless? Continue living in hate and fear dude.

Thanks for outright lying just now! 'He has the final say'? Sounds like 'end all' veto power there. Thanks for lying.

You find that disturbing, I find it a victory for democracy

I'm happy that some of those people can run, but the fact that a single man can overturn anything is disturbing.

Apparently, the judge did not agree with your belief. I dont see what Iran is experiencing that you loudly claim?

And yes, continue with your nonsense and lies

Continue with your lies and comparison of Canadian civil rights to Saudi 'We had slavery well into the middle of the 20th century' Arabia's civil rights.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
"Cannot likely be proven" does not mean they cannot be proven. You may not find distinction, which does not mean the Iranian legal system cannot. The Ayatollah overruled the decision and a 1000 of the 2033 were allowed to contest. The good thing is over 7000 people ran for 290 seats in the Parliment, another victory for democracy.

Wow, what a great 'legal' system they must have there!

So how do you prove these things conclusively enough to ban someone from running for office? Oh wait, it just couldn't be some ridiculous label they throw at people to get them banned, right?

Ah, Sultan...the great believer in denying Greek democracy, saying that 'orange bicycles' means that all oranges are bicycles, the supporter of child murder (see sig), discrimination, and so on...what else you are going to cook up in that extremist head of yours?

another example of your bias towards a Muslim majority nation, demeaning their legal system without proof.

I dont have to conclusively prove anything. The Iranians courts do so, and they work fine.

Continue your lies.

Hilarious...they work fine because you say so now? Hmmmm..yup, no problem there! They just banned at least a thousand people due to claims that cannot really be conclusively proven! Good job, there Sultan. No corruption there! Not even with one man striking down anything he wishes!

Thanks for lying, Mr. "I want to tax all non-Muslims more than Muslims".