Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

[Ryoko's Biatch]

There's something pretty incredible about self-immolation. You're saying that you are so mad about something that you're willing to kill yourself in an unimaginably excruciating way so everyone knows about it. I can't imagine feeling so strongly about anything that burning myself alive would seem like a good course of action, but you have to respect it. If you set yourself on fire, you are fucking serious.

[MADali]

The problem in Egypt is a concuring issue that always happens in the middle east when democracy is advertised as the best course of political action. A secular country moves away from dictatorship into a democracy, and the Islamists always win, which makes seculars mad.

Western liberals talk about democracy, and when it happens, they realize that its not the outcome they hoped for.

Countries like Egypt need to learn from Iran how to carry out a revolution. In Iran's 1979 revolution, it was a widespread, start-from-the-scratch kind of revolution. The previous monarchy and all their buddies were completely cleaned from the system, allowing the new democratic system to remain in stable condition until now.

In a country like Egypt, when the revolution caused Mubarak to step aside, the old army still remained, so nothing REALLY changed. When the outcome of the democracy was not in line with the losing voters, the old army used it as an opportunity to nullify the election results.

[kakarot52]

There's really no such thing as a democracy. Most people are too lazy or stupid or conformist to be considered genuine participants.


Take the way the UK evolved; it didn't become a democracy it just evolved a better legal system over a period of 9 centuries.
_________________
To continue is power -Shitbeast

[Ryoko's Biatch]

Yeah, the Egyptian military is bad for their democracy. Fuck the Muslim Brotherhood, but they can't have any stable democracy if the military steps in every time a leader is unpopular. They're just creating a de facto dictatorship.

I don't know how you can call Iran a democracy, though.

[kakarot52]

When you think about it; catholics believe in eating god. Do muslims eat god?
_________________
To continue is power -Shitbeast

[MADali]

[Ryoko's Biatch]

I understand that Iran is definitely the best democracy in the Middle East (including Israel), but the fact that the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council decides who can and can't run for president and parliament rubs me the wrong way. And while, sure, the Assembly of Experts can remove the Supreme Leader, let's be for real here, there have only been two and the first served until he died. Then there's the requirement for the inclusion of clerics in the Assembly of Experts and the Guardian Council. You can feel how you want about that, but I don't think a government run by religious leaders can be truly democratic. I feel the same way about Christians trying to inject religion into the law in the West.

I'm not one of those crazy people who thinks Iran is evil. They're the most stable government in the region and one of the better ones in the world and we should be more worried about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt (and Russia, China, etc.). Still, I'm not going to label a theocracy as a democracy. I'll split the difference on a democratic theocracy.

[Fagzilla]

you're a velayat faghih.

[MADali]

The guardian council filtering candidates is a necessity. All governments need to have a system in place to filter candidates, either directly or indirectly. Look at the US. Basically, it is the democrat or the republican who are running for president. The independants have so many cards stacked against them, that it is not really a fair and equal running.

THerefore, to have a realistic chance of being a president in the USA, one has to be part of the system and have political alliances. Its not really that different in Iran.

Of course, Iran itself is reforming itself every election to find the most effective way of running it. This year we had 8 candidates, last time we had 4. Which is better? And how does one exactly filter the candidates? There are debates on this. For example, one idea is proposes that candidates that have a certain number of members of the parliaments backing them up can be a candidate, but would this also be fair? If the Gaurdian Council allows everyone to run, which could number in the thousands, how would you give them equal running opportunities?

This is a democratic problem that no country has yet solved. Iran is reforming itself constantly, with a lot of debates, to see what form is the best. For example, the Velayat Faghih has mentioned that our government is not set in stone and in the future, we should be open to different methods of running the government. How should the Guardian Council oversee the filtering of candidates? Should Velayath Faghih be one person, or a council with a chairman? Should the President be given mroe or less power? Should a Prime Minister be re-introduced again?

Also, saying a democracy with religious leaders is not really a democracy isn't true. I'm not religious, but it would not be correct to define democracy as I would like it to be defined. If the people want to vote in religious leaders, then it would be democratic ito have religious leaders.

Thats true in Iran's case. Last election we had 8 candidates, with victory being achieved by Rouhani, which was supposed to the reformer of the 8 candidates. But he also happened to be the ONLY cleric out of the 8, and people seemed to want to vote for the cleric.

Regarding the Gaurdian Council being full of clerics, it is actually 6 clerics, and 6 lawyers, to provide both a legal and religious standing to their decisions. If the people are religious, what is more democratic than a religious system?

This is one of the problems the other countries in the region are failing. All the secular systems in the region, are securalist in spite of what the people want, therefore, their country is like a time bomb. We saw this in Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan, and we see it today in Syria and Egypt.

Iran's real democracy comes not from the specific rules and laws, but the fact that the people feel it best represents them. Lets put aside the Iranian bloggers and the protestors four years ago with their conviently English protest signs, the rest are religious.

[MADali]

Of course, Iran also has hate against it. Look at the Democracy Index of 2013. Iran is ranked at 158 out of 167, meaning only NINE countries are worse than Iran when it comes to democracy. Countries more democratic than Iran seems to be the gulf shiekdoms of Bahrain, Qatar, etc, African states like Sudan, Rwanda, etc, countries with constant military coupes, like Thailand and Pakistan, and even countries with a civil war like Iraq and Libya rank higher!

[kakarot52]

Yeah, those stats are bullshit.

I remember the USANOT CANADA ranked 13 in democracy index; and 46th and civil liberties.


As has already been covered; civil rights and democracy aren't the exact same thing. But it makes me wonder.
_________________
To continue is power -Shitbeast

[MADali]

Civil liberities and democracy shouldn't even be discussed together, they are complete different things.

If the majority of the population want the government to give LESS civil liberities, then it would be undemocratic for them to give MORE liberties!

[MADali]

Or look at issues like death penalties. In a lot of societies people are FOR death penalties, but because politicians don't want to risk handling controversial issues, they are being abolished around the world, which means so-called democratic countries are not listening to the majority, which is undemocratic.

Polls:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

Look at the years, since 1936, Americans have been in favor of death penalty, with the ONLY year which had a slight opposing majority was 1966.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/08/majority_of_canadians_support_return_of_death_penalty_poll_finds.html

In Canada, majority are in favor of the death penalty being reintroduced.


In Australia, "In a different context, a poll conducted by the Bulletin on 16-21 February this year and published under the by line 'Swinging voters: It's bad news for the Bali nine ' revealed that 49.1% of the respondents were in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty in Australia, and only 46.8% were against it. 53.6% of respondents agreed with the use of the death penalty overseas. Only 41.7 % of respondents did not believe in the death penalty anywhere"

In UK, majority support it also,
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802

Other countries,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-polls-and-studies

In the above, it shows that a country like France doesn't have majority supporting the death penalty. However, when it was abolished, it says that majority DID support it.

And I can't say they are completely against it, because if the right criminal is put as a survey, then support goes up, such as,
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html

Look at the part about executing Saddam Hussein,
82% of those in the US favored of executing Saddam Hussein (French daily Le Monde, 12/2006{1}), also in
Great Britain: 69%
France: 58%
Germany: 53%
Spain: 51%
Italy: 46%



Therefore, in so-called democratic countries, the laws are not made in accordance with the people's wishes, which to me, does not sound very democratic.

[kakarot52]

I appreciate that your arguments are much better constructed and even cited than ALDP, but you don't seem to recognize the fundamental inferiority of your society and especially it's religion.

You see, historically even under the most despotic Christian sovereigns, matters are governed by law, there are no regular murders committed by the hand of power, without the intervention of justice; and if plenitude of power admits of the greatest excesses in the sovereign, in some Christian countries, the opinion of his fellow men, the fear of his God, or some sentiment or principle in his own background, restrains him in the exercise of it.

It is not so with Mahomedan princes and theocrats: with them, nothing is sacred that they hate, nothing shameful that they do. Whatever their conscience may be, whatever may be the nature of their moral rules, rapine and murder are certainly not forbidden by them, or the law is not obeyed. In proportion to the despotism and ferocity of the sovereign, is the slavishness of the people, their brutality, and vice, in all Mahomedan countries; their character and its great inferiority is so well known, that it is impossible for any person to be ignorant of it.

Your civilization is thus fundamentally inferior and should thus just be viewed as a source of western revenue. I do not believe "democracy" can cure the fundamental slavishness of your culture.
_________________
To continue is power -Shitbeast

[MADali]

Well, I'm sure you guys making up another WMD story and attacking Syria, like it might happen in the next 1-2 days, will solve ALL of our problems.

[Ryoko's Biatch]

I'm glad we can finally agree on something.

[kakarot52]

I couldn't stand that "debate" today on Syria

just to be clear: we are still going to strike Syria. a chunk of the House GOP may defect, but not nearly enough. a few Democrats may turn, but not nearly enough.

not saying this is a good thing. But there you have it.
_________________
To continue is power -Shitbeast

[Fagzilla]

Does Syria count as Iran?

PAY CHRIS

[Ryoko's Biatch]

No.

[MADali]

If USA ever attacks Iran, I'm going to join the army and torture American POWs. I actually day dream about this.