Iran's parliament wants Ahmadinejad out

**Bigen12** · 12-06-2006, 02:15 PM

Iran's parliament wants Ahmadinejad out

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Iran's parliament wants the next presidential elections to be held more than one year early, the Fars news agency reported Sunday.

Parliament approved a draft bill upon which the parliamentary and presidential elections would be held simultaneously in the first quarter of 2008.

As the next parliamentary elections are scheduled for February 2008, but the next presidential elections for June 2009, the new bill would reduce the four-year presidential term of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by almost one and a half years.

The members of parliament in favor of the bill, more than 80 percent, say that the simultaneous formation of the executive and legislative powers would enable better cooperation between the two powers and strengthen parliament's supervision role.

Ahmadinejad has not yet reacted to the draft bill.

**Kärnfysikern** · 12-10-2006, 08:52 AM

I guess the leaders there does not like Ahmadinejads big mouth

**FearlessFighter** · 12-10-2006, 09:17 AM

The source for this news article is 'The Jerusalem Post'

**singern** · 12-11-2006, 09:28 AM

Makes no difference.

The Iranian president is a meat puppet, with his strings being pulled by the "supreme religious leader" No matter which government body, or student uprising wants him out, as long as the religious zealots are the supreme power, there will only be another puppet to replace him.

When the Ayatollah is gone, Iran will be free.

**singern** · 12-11-2006, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by FearlessFighter

The source for this news article is 'The Jerusalem Post'

OK. So you dont like news thats written by Jews. How about this.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=12628

**FearlessFighter** · 12-11-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by singern

OK. So you dont like news thats written by Jews. How about this.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=12628

I don't trust the Jerusalem Post to be unbiased and objective on these matters, no.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It is more clear now:

Lawmakers in favor of the proposal say that it’s aimed at reducing the cost of holding two separate national elections cycles.

Although the correspondents are not entirely sure that is the reason -- but since there are no evidence to the contrary, we must assume the stated reason is true.

**singern** · 12-11-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by FearlessFighter

I don't trust the Jerusalem Post to be unbiased and objective on these matters, no.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It is more clear now:

Although the correspondents are not entirely sure that is the reason -- but since there are no evidence to the contrary, we must assume the stated reason is true.

Why must we assume? Please explain.

**Bigen12** · 12-11-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by FearlessFighter

The source for this news article is 'The Jerusalem Post'

That is quoting an article from the Fars News agency.

**biglouie250** · 12-11-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by singern

Why must we assume? Please explain.

its called deciphering through the BS and figuring out what certain persons objectives are or where their loyalties may lie. im not going to expect a pro-gun, anti abortion stance from the NY times. i would expect that from a conservative paper.

**FearlessFighter** · 12-11-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by singern

Why must we assume? Please explain.

I have stated the reason already.

**singern** · 12-11-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by FearlessFighter

I have stated the reason already.

No you havent.
Other than blindly denying anything posted from an Israeli site, and bash other members, you haven't stated much of anything at all.

**FearlessFighter** · 12-11-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by singern

No you havent.
Other than blindly denying anything posted from an Israeli site, and bash other members, you haven't stated much of anything at all.

Oh I did state a reason, but that requires reading skills which some members seem to lack!

I repeat myself again:

Although the correspondents are not entirely sure that is the reason -- but since there are no evidence to the contrary, we must therefore assume that the stated reason is true as opposed to the one made possible by the correspondents.

Should I make it more obvious for you, perhaps?

**Logan13** · 12-11-2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by FearlessFighter

Oh I did state a reason, but that requires reading skills which some members seem to lack!

I repeat myself again:

Should I make it more obvious for you, perhaps?

would you please add something to this forum, seriously?

**FearlessFighter** · 12-11-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

would you please add something to this forum, seriously?

If I were a psychologist, which I am not, I would think the above is some type of projection--but you better get an expert opinion on that.

**singern** · 12-11-2006, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by FearlessFighter

Oh I did state a reason, but that requires reading skills which some members seem to lack!

I repeat myself again:but since there are no evidence to the contrary

Should I make it more obvious for you, perhaps?

This is not a reason at all, merely a tool for further denial. What evidence are you looking for exactly. Iran does not alow freedom of speech or press, this we know as fact. That the news which comes out of Iran is officially sponsored, censored, and sanitised for there protection, this we also know as fact.

So if your expecting to see an Iranian leader on TV saying they want the nutbag out of office, I think youll be waiting for some time.