Am I the Only one who has a sad chuckle when he reads...

[kurto]

his sort of thing?

[ QUOTE ]
US President George W. Bush charged that Iran's upcoming presidential election "ignores the basic requirements of democracy"...
"Today, Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world. Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy," Bush said in a statement released by the White House.

"The June 17th presidential elections are sadly consistent with this oppressive record," the US president said as Iranian voters prepared for the tightest presidential election in the Islamic republic's history.

Bush specifically assailed the tough vetting process that sidelined more than 1,000 candidates, including all of the women hopefuls.

"Iran's rulers denied more than a thousand people who put themselves forward as candidates, including popular reformers and women who have done so much for the cause of freedom and democracy in Iran," he said.



[/ QUOTE ]

When I remember that the major candidates in our elections excluded the major 3rd party candidates from having a voice.. I can't help but conclude Bush is again showing hypocrisy.

Considering the voting problems our nation has had of late and the unwillingness to fix them... we're not ones to lecture others.

[MMMMMM]

This is really an abysmally bad comparison, kurto.

Iran's clergy, in a fairly recent election, threw out the candidacies of either a third or two-thirds (I forget which) of people running for many political offices, out of what was maybe a 1,000 person group of candidates. That would be akin to Falwell and Robertson getting to veto the candidacies of U.S. Congressmen as well as Governors as well as some other positions. It's not even on the same page. It's not even in the same book. It's not even in the same library.

I guess, presuming Bush did something wrong here (which is not a given), that you've got a point: jaywalkers have no business lecturing murderers. Great point.

[kurto]

If you say so. We cannot be champions of Democracy and object to other nations excluding candidates, when the person objecting wouldn't allow Nader or other 3rd party candidates to participate in the national debates.

You can feel free to pretend the issues aren't comparable. I've noticed you tend to give a free ride to your partisan interests.

You don't think its wrong that we exclude 3rd parties from competing on equal ground in our elections but we can lecture other countries for doing the same (regardless of the scale.) That's fine. I think you lack a fundamental grasp of certain principles.

[lehighguy]

3rd parties aren't excluded at all. They just aren't popular. When they are popular, they'll be included.

The only 3rd party that was really persecuted in 2004 was Nader, and the Democratic party are the ones that went after him.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't say I don't think it's wrong. I DO think Nader, Badnarik and maybe a couple others should have been allowed to debate.

I just don't think it's anywhere close to being on the same page as what is going on in Iran.

I also don't agree that we must be a perfect unblemished democracy in every way in order to be able to lecture totalitartian regimes on democracy, freedom or human rights.

Does a shoplifter have the moral right to tell a murderer that murder is wrong? Think about this.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
3rd parties aren't excluded at all. They just aren't popular. When they are popular, they'll be included.



[/ QUOTE ]

3rd parties are excluded in that they don't get equal opportunity to have their message broadcast.

They are exluded from the major debates.

[ QUOTE ]
The only 3rd party that was really persecuted in 2004 was Nader, and the Democratic party are the ones that went after him.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I recall, neither party would allow them to debate.

Frankly, i don't care which party is the offending party... our country is a 2 party system and is not set up to allow 3rd parties from gaining equal ground.

I don't necessarily support the third parties, but I think it would help our nation immeasureably to allow them to compete on equal ground.

I also disagree that they are not popular. Many third parties have had a lot of support for their ideas... but people are afraid to vote for them because the worry that their least favorite pick will win because the 2 best candidates will split the votes.

I believe some European nations have systems which prevent this... either you vote for a 1st and 2nd choice candidate insuring that the least favored candidate doesn't win because of this.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think it's anywhere close to being on the same page as what is going on in Iran.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have to be on the same page. I am merely saying I think its ironic that we have problems with a lot of issues with our democracy of late (excluding candidates from debate, wrongly purging voters from voter rolls, fishy election practices, suspect voting machines, etc.) and we are lecturing others.

One does not have to be an equal offender of 'something' to be comparable. I am not saying they are equal... I am drawing parallels on certain features to draw attention to our own inadequacies that I think need to be addressed.

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't agree that we must be a perfect unblemished democracy in every way in order to be able to lecture totalitartian regimes on democracy, freedom or human rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have to be unblemished, but we should be working to improve our blemishes. I would argue we have gone backwards lately. (For instance, they had 4 years to fix things in Florida.. and it was still a mess.)

[ QUOTE ]
Does a shoplifter have the moral right to tell a murderer that murder is wrong? Think about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better example would be does someone who robs houses have the right to lecture a bank robber.

[MMMMMM]

No kurto that wouldn't be a better example that would be a much worse example.

Analogy quiz, question #1 = failed.

[kurto]

lol if you say so.

I sometimes feel like you just skip through everything I post.

For instance.. in the minwage thread, you made a number of inaccuracies (its not supposed to be a living wage, hardly anyone makes that little, etc.) and when I linked stats showing otherwise... you just pretend it didn't happen.

You claim my analogy is worse.

I was comparing similar problems on a different scale. Murder and shoplifting are not similar.

We having problems with our elections and other countries having problems with there's are similar.

That doesn't mean that Iran can't have other problems that the US isn't guilty of. The whole point is they both have issues with their elections. (you may recall, this last election was the first, I believe, in the history of our nation where we needed International monitors to insure our election was fair.)

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
No kurto that wouldn't be a better example that would be a much worse example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why, but I laughed for a while on this one.

I don't care about this. Whoever won the election was going to say this, and members of the other party were going to object to it. Whoever is doing the objecting in this situation is an idiot scraping for ways to attack those who don't believe the same thing as them. Both parties do this, and do this too much.

I hate that hate is used as a tool to convert people between party lines more than ideas.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
lol if you say so.

I sometimes feel like you just skip through everything I post.

For instance.. in the minwage thread, you made a number of inaccuracies (its not supposed to be a living wage, hardly anyone makes that little, etc.) and when I linked stats showing otherwise... you just pretend it didn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. But I can't post all day on this forum, and it takes far more time to look up and refute specifics than it does to argue in general: there's only so much you can do while multitabling, you know...;-)

[ QUOTE ]
You claim my analogy is worse.

I was comparing similar problems on a different scale. Murder and shoplifting are not similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limiting a televised debate to the two frontrunners is not similar to arbitrarily VOIDING the candidacies of hundreds of persons running for various offices across the country--which is what the mullahs did in a fairly recent election.

"Similar" would be if Bush (or, more accurately, Pat Robertson and his church elders) went through the pre-ballots in every state crossing off the names of candidates they didn't like--and therefore, you couldn't vote for them, because they just weren't running anymore/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
We having problems with our elections and other countries having problems with there's are similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Similar" means a little more than that in my world. How about in yours?

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean that Iran can't have other problems that the US isn't guilty of. The whole point is they both have issues with their elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, and jaywalkers and murderers both have issues with the law.

[ QUOTE ]
(you may recall, this last election was the first, I believe, in the history of our nation where we needed International monitors to insure our election was fair.)

[/ QUOTE ]

"Needed"? Are you sure about that?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
"Needed"? Are you sure about that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised anyone would question this.

[lehighguy]

As a Libraterian I agree with you, but the fact of the matter is third parties won't get airtime without a broad base of support. They weren't excluded by force, rather no one demanded they be put in.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
They weren't excluded by force, rather no one demanded they be put in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there were people who wanted to have them in. But they couldn't do more then be frustrated. Its not like we got to vote on it!

The parties aren't going to let a third in and risk more competition (or even risk having someone come in who might challenge the party BS).

I have no faith that things will ever improve though. Americans are too complacent to demand real choices in their government.

[Greg J]

Yr comparison is pretty silly. Bush's comments are plenty bad for totally different reasons.

The worst things about the comment: 1) gives the true pro democracy movement in Iran the kiss of death from the highly unpopular Bush, 2) belittles the election process that, while not mattering much in terms of real power, has a lot of symbolic importance since some very visable candidates are openly critical of the leadership in Iran.

Bush's comments are a blow to democracy in Iran.

[lehighguy]

There were people that demanded it, the ones that think. There are very few of us. No one cares about our "thoughts".

[SpearsBritney]

Just drumming up more support for the upcoming invasion of Iran.

Just wait until we're at war with Iran, Syria and North Korea. Then maybe you'll understand why they had to take out the WTC and Pentigon to conjure up support for the most bloddy and brutal wars this world has ever seen.

Enjoy the upcoming draft.