JOMHURYATKHAH VS JOMHURYKHAH: UK & US Bill of Rights - Similarities & differences

Share/Save/Bookmark

JOMHURYATKHAH VS JOMHURYKHAH: UK & US Bill of Rights - Similarities & differences
by Darius Kadivar
27-Jun-2012
 

Crown Prince Reza has often mentioned that he is a Jomhuryatkhah (as opposed to Jomhurykhah). Michael Barone author of "Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheaval That Inspired America's Founding Fathers" takes a look at the fundamental British document which was to inspire the drafting of the American Constitution.

Interestingly this terminology also finds it’s roots in the Elizabethan era often referred to as the Monarchical Republic:


MONARCHICAL REPUBLIC: Political Participation in Elizabethan England

 

And which also found it's way in the current structure of British Parliamentary Democracy as it operates today:

 

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: How Does the British Constitutional Monarchy Truly Operate ? 


Crown Prince Reza has often mentioned that he is Jomhuryatkhah (as opposed to Jomhurykhah) in that he aims at implementing the legitimate democratic aspirations of a nation within a political Framework the form of which would be drafted by a Constitiutional Assembly to be submitted to the people’s vote. ( See Further Below)

Michael Barone author of "Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheaval That Inspired America's Founding Fathers" takes a look at the fundamental British document which was to inspire the drafting of American Constitution.

 

********************************

********************************

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

********************************

********************************

Michael Barone is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheaval That Inspired America's Founding Fathers". A political analyst and journalist, Michael Barone studies politics, American government, campaigns and elections. The principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics, he has written many books on American politics and history. Barone is also a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report.

The Causes of The Glorious Revolution :





Where Did The Idea of a "Bill of Rights" ? :








What Was Glorious About The Glorious Revolution ?:





Religious Tolerance and the Glorious Revolution:





How the Glorious Revolution Changed Foreign Policy:





Was King Williams Embrace of Parliament Purely Pragmatic?:





How did the American founders of the American Constitution differ from the English Bill of Rights ?:


********************************

********************************

 

DOES AMERICA NEED A PRIME MINISTER ? 


********************************

********************************

Fareed Zakaria : Does American Need a Prime minister:

 

America, The Republic of Individual Rights :

An explanation of why the Founders chose to design America as a republic, not a democracy and the compelling reasons why a republic must be maintained if individual liberty is to be preserved.

 

********************************

********************************


JOMHURYATKHAH VS JOMHURYKHAH

 

********************************

********************************

Crown Prince Reza has often mentioned that he is Jomhuryatkhah (as opposed to Jomhurykhah) in that he aims at implementing the legitimate democratic aspirations of a nation within a political Framework the form of which would be drafted by a Constitiutional Assembly to be submitted to the people’s vote. It should be noted that from that point of view he renews a pledge made by the founding fathers of the 1906 Constitution who wished to implement a Parliamentary democracy although they hoped that this would be achieved within a Royal Framework as was the case for most European Monarchies of the time.

Crown Prince Reza’s Message on the Anniversary of the Constitutional Revolution:

From a purely Constitutionalist perspective that does not at all imply that Crown Prince Reza has given up his own royal titles which are his by birth and regardless of the future form of government which the nation may wish to choose ( including it that choice were to be a secular republic).

A Royal remains a Royal unless Beheaded …

Two contemporary examples of « Republican Prince’s come to mind :

Simeon II of Bulgaria who became Prime Minister of his country’s newly founded Republic upon return from exile after the Post Communist era before returning to civil life. He never gave up his royal titles nor asked his heirs to renounce to their Royal Heritage but has not actively campaigned for the return of the Monarchy since:

Documentary by ABC Australia:

See Related Blog:

REPUBLICAN PRINCE: Simeon II of Bulgaria From King to Prime Minister


The other was Norodom Sihanouk whose passion for filmmaking and the arts did not stop his driving ambition to restore his lost throne. Ironically and against all odds he actually succeed on both grounds. His son Norodom Sihamoni today rules as an elected Constitutional King of Combodia.


Part I of French documentary : « Les Neuf vies de Norodom Sihanouk » ( i.e : the 9 lives of Norodom Sihanouk) :


Related Blogs:

Crown Prince Reza on importance of "Checks and Balances" of future regime

RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy (Interview in London for Newsweek July 30th,1984)

Other Related Blogs :

MONARCHICAL REPUBLIC: Political Participation in Elizabethan England

ROYAL FORUM: Fareed Zakaria asks «Does America Need a Prime Minister ?»

Stephen Fry On Why Monarchy Is Imperfect Yet Should Be Preserved

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: How Does the British Constitutional Monarchy Truly Operate ?
Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Darius Kadivar
 
anglophile

البته همینطور است که شما میفرمأیید

anglophile


 

مثلا من بجای اینکه بگویم شما دوست صمیمی‌ من هستید میتوانم بگویم شما دوست صمیم من هستید و یا شما دوست صمیمیت من هستید و هرسه یک معنی میدهند. واقعیت هم همین است!


hamsade ghadimi

به جای این که

hamsade ghadimi


به جای این که حرف تو دهان این خدا بیامرز بگذاری، یک لینک از این مرحوم فراهم کن که حرف این آقا رضا رو تایید کنه.  لینکی‌ که در کامنت من می‌بینید از وب‌سایت دهخداست.  بنا بر دهخدا "جمهوری" "جمهوریت" و "جمهوریة" یک معنی‌ داره.  وگرنه همش حرفه جانم.  با ارادت.

http://www.loghatnaameh.org/dehkhodasearchresult-fa.html?searchtype=3&word=2KzZhdmH2YjYsduM2Ko%3d


anglophile

دهخدا جان جمهوری و جمهوریت در فارسی‌ و عربی‌ به یک معنی هستند؟

anglophile


دهخدا: انگلو بابا چقدر تو خنگی. این انگلیسا نوکر به خنگی تو تا حالا نداشتند.   تعریف زیر رو یکبار دیگه بخون.

  

جمهوری . [ ج ُ ] (ص نسبی ، اِ) طرز حکومتی که رئیس آن (رئیس جمهور) از جانب مردم کشور برای مدتی محدود انتخاب میشود. جمهوریت در عربی به این معنی مستعمل است و جمهوری بمعنی طرفدار حکومت مذکور وجمهوریخواه است . (فرهنگ فارسی معین ). امروز در عربی جمهور بضم اول و سوم بمعنی حکومتی که زمام آن بدست نمایندگان ملت و رئیس آن رئیس جمهور خوانده شود و جمهوری بمعنی طرفدار حکومت مزبور ۞استعمال شود. (حاشیه ٔ برهان چ معین از دزی ).

 

نوشتم که در "عربی‌" جمهوریت به معنای جمهوری استفاده می‌‌شود نه در فارسی‌. فهمیدی؟ یعنی در عربی‌ کلمه "جمهوریه" داریم  که معنی "نظام جمهوری" میدهد و در فارسی‌ آنرا اینطور می‌‌نویسیم "جمهوریت" چون در فارسی‌ "ها" تأنیث نداریم وگرنه در عربی‌ کلمه "جمهوریت" وجود ندارد. در عربی‌ کلمه "جمهوری"  معنی سیستم جمهوری مثل آمریکا را نمی‌‌دهد بلکه معنیش این است:  "طرفدار نظام جمهوری." فهمیدی انگلوی خنگ خدا؟ 

انگلو: پس دهخدا جان "جمهوریت" در فارسی‌ معنیش چیه؟

دهخدا: پسر تو مثل اینکه مغز خر خوردی. چند بار بهت بگم؟ جمهوریت "اسم مصدر" یا "مصدر جعلی" هست یعنی‌ یه چیزی هست که ساخته ما ایرانیاست مثل بشریت، مثل انسانیت، مثل حریّت، مثل مدنیّت یا مثل خریت که تو به حد کافی‌ از اون برخورداری! "جمهوریت" در فرهنگ سیاسی فارسی‌ یعنی‌ دارای خاصیت جمهوری بودن، یعنی مردمی بودن. 

حالا برو دیگه اینقدر مزخرف نگو خسته‌ام کردی. 

انگلو: ببخشید استاد دهخدا. تقصیر این دوستمون همساده جان هست که هی‌ منو تحریک میکنه سوالهای عجیب و غریب بپرسم. تا دفعه بعد خدا نگهدار دهخدا باشه.



hamsade ghadimi

آنگلو، خوشا به حال من و دهخدا

hamsade ghadimi


همساده: دهخدا جان، جمهوریت یعنی‌ چی‌؟

دهخدا: رجوع شود به جمهوری.

http://www.loghatnaameh.org/dehkhodaworddetail-606fc601993c494589a90d2f684aa39d-fa.html


anglophile

خوشا به حال شما همساده جان

anglophile


 

که برایتان تفاوت اساسی‌ میان این دو واژه نیست، چون برای دهخدا هست :) 


hamsade ghadimi

هچ

hamsade ghadimi


 

ممنون آنگلو،

از همون اول میگفتید "هچ" کافی‌ بود.  منشأ کامنت پیشین من از همان دهخدا بود که مطابق است با گفته‌یی که جنابعالی فرمودید. ممنون برای توضیح بیشتر درباره استعمال دستوری ولی‌ آنچه که عیان است اینست که فرق اساسی‌ بین معانی‌ این دو واژه وجود ندارد.  حالا ببینم: آقای پهلوی حامی‌ حقوق انسانی‌ است یا انسانیت؟


anglophile

تفاوت جمهوری با جمهوریت

anglophile


این دو واژه در طول تاریخ سیاسی قرن اخیر در بسیاری از موارد بطور علی‌ البدل مورد استفاده واقع گشته اند ولی‌ هم از نظر دستوری و هم از نظر معنائی متفاوت می‌‌باشند. این تفاوت در فرهنگ سیاسی چند دهه اخیر بیشتر محسوس است. برای تفهیم بهتر تفاوت این دو واژه مقایسه فرمأید با:

بشر: (اسم) یعنی انسان، آدم. مثال: حقوق بشر 

بشری: (صفت نسبی‌) یعنی‌ منسوب به بشر. مثال: تکامل بشری

بشریّت: (اسم مصدر یا مصدر جعلی) یعنی‌ انسانیت یا دارای خواص انسانی‌ و بشری بودن مثال: ضعف بشریّت یا جامعه بشریّت یا وجدان بشریّت و غیره

به همین منوال است:

جمهور (اسم) یعنی‌ مردم یا توده یا گروه و انباشته آدم ها

جمهوری (صفت نسبی‌) یعنی‌ نظامی که گرداننده آن مردم باشند

جمهوریت (اسم مصدر) یعنی دارای خاصیت اشتراک مردم در نظام حاکم

 

در نتیجه هر دو نظام جمهوری پارلمانی و همچنین سلطنتی پارلمانی دو شکل مختلف از خاصیتی یکسان می‌‌باشند: جمهوریت.


Esfand Aashena

داریوش جان فایده نداره!

Esfand Aashena


Darius jaan I think we both know that our back and forth is not worthed.  It won't get anywhere.

You and I didn't do anything in 1979.  Many people didn't do anything and that includes many supporters of Khomeini.  There needs to be a mechanism in place to bring in change, such as those changes in 1912, 1953 and 1979.

I see Iran as in transition.  In this transition I don't see it going back simply because that mechanism is no longer in place in this time in history.  DeGaulle, Shah, Queen Elizabeth, Nasser and many others did things that can't be done again today.

In this transition I don't see Iran going back to monarchy as I see no other honor for an Iranian than actually being elected to a position of trust in a fraud free Iran that will eventually lead to a just society.

You and I will remain friends and perhaps drink a bottle of wine over some pistachios and talk about politics and disagree and we will AGAIN do nothing as it relates to actual events in Iran.

I leave you with this article from a Conservative who I mostly find myself disagreeing with, perhaps even this article in some instances, but it's a good article to ponder about Arab Spring.  We are ahead of Arabs in this so called Arab Spring so we are a lot closer to the promised land than our Arab friends in the middle east. 

The Islamist ascendancy
 

Everything is sacred


Darius Kadivar

Esfand Ashena Jan Do we ? ...

by Darius Kadivar on

"He was deposed by millions of people, fair and square." ...

 

It's not because millions of people do something very foolish that the outcome is legitimate ...

 


Desproges et la Démocratie

 

Those who oppose the Restoration of the Monarchy are no different than those who opposed the Return of De Gaulle who Restored the French Republic which was highjacked by the VICHY of Pétain.

 

In my Book that is Collaboration ! 

 

No different than the Sandis Khors at Ahmadinejad's luncheon in NY:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbHX91kf97I

 

Does that make them bad people for that matter or Criminals ? No !

 

But they are partners in the crimes taking place on a daily basis in Iran maybe even more so than the above Sandis Khors because they refuse the Choose !

At worst They prefer to wait for a better opportunity to arise just like Massoud Kazemzadeh or this gentleman Delkhasteh who attack RP at any given opportunity because they are too proud to admit they were wrong. They have as much blood in their ink as the last SAVAKI alive because they refuse to do anything to change the status quo which is costing lives of Iranians in the very Torture chambers of the Islamic republic TODAY.

 

Sitting in the comfort zone of intellectual neutrality hiding behind the word "democracy" in order to reject RP or the Monarchy as a system of government but having absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative to the IRI is what makes you folks as much partners in the crimes being committed today by the IRI.

I consider myself accountable for all the crimes commited by the system of government I uphold. Not just under the Pahlavis but even back to the times of Cyrus and Darius.

What Are YOU Folks accountable for ? NOTHING !

You just claim you have rights and say : Lengesh kohn !

Sorry This Republic has killed and butchered people in the name of the Revolution you supported. To merely come and say the mullahs highjacked it from you by quoting Milani ( himself a former Maoist Revolutionary) whenever it suits you to ease your own conscience won't pass unnoticed. 

 

If it comes to blaming one another and since you bring up the world "lucky" then You should deem yourself "Lucky" that we are not asking for your heads for all the pain your poor choice inflcted on two generation of Iranians added to all the collateral damages we have endured. 

 

 

 

If France was a Monarchy prior to the Vichy Government, De Gaulle would have restored a Monarchy. It just happened France was a Republic prior to their (albeit Germanized) Devolution.

 

The British Restored their Monarchy after Toppling theirs, they even went further than us they beheaded their King and established a Theocracy just like Iran under Cromwell who called himself Lord Protector ( aka Velayateh Fagih). It didn't stop them to Restore the Monarchy with the former King's Son exiled in France: Charles II. The point of which Parliamentary Democracy took off in Great Britain.

Nearly All European Constitutional Monarchies are a result of a Restoration. Many actually were even restored after the War.

 

Spain had two Republics before establishing the GRANDSON of the former Monarch. Juan Carlos unlike RP was not even born on Spanish Soil.

 

Republicanism let Alone Democracy are not genuinely Iranian Notions but rather Western Notions. I have no problem with that. But then if you folks claim to justify the legitimacy of your favorite system of government by drawing silly parrallels with the French Revolution or Jefforsonian Democracy you were unable to establish in your very own country but were the first to pack up and leave just like this Bahram Moshiri who keeps quoting the French Revolution as an exotic role model:

 

HISTORY FORUM: Bahram Moshiri's Take on The French Revolution and Why He Misses The Point ;0)

 

 

But spits on the memory of Men and Women whose execution he and his likeminds endorsed:

 

'BOOBOOLI, BOOBOOLI': Bahram Moshiri Mocks & insults Shah’s Executed Generals

 

 

Then I don't see how you folks are qualified to claim that democracies born to other types of systems are any less Legitimate ? 

 

Constitutionalist Khosro Fravahar Responds to Bahram Moshiri’s Assessments on Pahlavi Rule

 

After all The British Glorious Revolution of 1688 delivered  the Bill of Rights decades before the American and French Revolutions. Both of which copied and pasted the British Text into their own constitutions.

 

The French Revolution at least delivered the Universal declaration of 1789.

 

 

What did the Iranian Revolution ( I won't call it an Islamic one cause you folks knew from the very begining you were supporting a Religious upheavel and not a secular one you have come to embrace today) deliver ?

The Tozihol Massael ... 

 

Farrokhzad explains Khomeiny's Tozihol Massael to his audience in London

 

It's not RP who has to deem himself "lucky" to be what is his by Birth Right: Your King !

 

It's You Jomhurykhahs ( Secular or Not) who have to deem yourself "lucky" that he is not asking you folks to apologize for all the misery and setbacks your Poor Choice inflcted on our nation for the past 33 years.

 

I do !

 

I think you folks are accountable intellectually at least for the Insulting presence of an Arab Sickle on our National Flag to say the least.

 

RP 2 is a gentlemen and a Democrat ... I am Not ! 

 

And Boy the day the IRI will fall one way or another there will be many Iranians like me who will demand an intellectual accountability from anyone who advocates a Republic ( Secular or Not) and aims to vote for a man or women who has the intellectual arrogance to think they can walk just like that in the steps of Cyrus and Darius ...

 

LIMITS TO HAMBASTEGHI: Fravahar on impossibiity of Rallying Jomhurykhahs (Secular or Not) 

 

Trust Me an Iranian 'George Washington' is not bound to be born in a land of Kings ...

 

Words For Eternity ...

 

The future Leader of Iran will have to reconcile the Failure of the Republican experience in Iran with our Far more glorious Monarchical heritage.

For good or Bad actually !

I don't claim everything accomplished by the Monarchy in Iran was positive but the Record Stands Tall in the face of the National Humiliation we as a people inflicted upon ourselfs. 

 

De Gaulle Achieve precisely that type of reconciliation with the Constitution he drafted in 1958.

It is said De Gaulle was a Monarchist at heart and a Republican by reason because he understood that France was a Republic for the past 200 years and that there was no going back.

Our Republic is barely 33 years old and it has disappointed beyond the educated elite:

 

BROKEN RECORD: Woman on IRI TV “We're Only good at shouting slogans since Shah Left” 

 

Generations come and go but the Historical Reality remains whether RP 2 or your folks want it or not is irrelevent.

 

The Fact remains there is no Glory or Pride in the Republican Milestone of 1979. And this sentimental disconnect between the cultural and historical reality of our ancient land and the political vacuum will explode in our faces regardless of our political and ideological differences in a way which no one can predict today.

But trust me it will.

No Jomhurykhah ( Secular or Not) or Monarchist ( Constitutional or Not) can preach from their high horse anymore because both have lost total credibility in the eyes of a large majority of Iranians and I would even boldly say a Silent Majority.

 

Failing to undertand this bitter reality is what may turn Iran into what Syria is turning into thanks to Foreign powers playing with the destiny of these otherwise great nations. 

 

So far from being optimistic I am actually Very pessimistic in that I do not see the emergence of a democratic Iran in our lifetime.

The Iranian Diaspora is partly to blame for it too. Hence why people prefer supporting a treacherous organization like NIAC or are caught up in their own daily lives in their respective countries instead of standing united between the man who has accepted much of the values we claim to stand for because we are just too stubborn and proud to accept the dark Reality that the Revolution of 1979 was not a step forward but rather a Millenia backward.

 

This tragic Comedy born from the Devolution of 79 has lasted far too long ...

And anyoone particularly the so called intelligentsia who consciensly or unconsciensly contributes to prolonging the status quo is part of the problem and not the solution to the ills of the nation !

 

And history will judge their behavior severely ! 

 

My Humble Opinion,

 

DK 

 

 

 

Related Blog:

Mini lecture on the political philosophy of Edmund Burke (1729-1797)


"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death"-Saul Bellow.

 

 


Faramarz

Referendum

by Faramarz on

 

 

DK Jaan,

Referendum makes a good conversation piece after a big Persian dinner and while having some tea and Zoolbia/Baamieh and listening to relaxing music!

The reality of it is that the Regime will not allow a meaningful referendum, so forget about reforming the constitution. And once the Regime collapses, whomever that has the upper hand sets the tone for the new constitution and the form of the new government. In that environment, the referendum will be more like a True/False test than a multiple choice or essay exam.


hamsade ghadimi

خیر کاکو

hamsade ghadimi


خیر کاکو آنگلو، منظور تعریف سوم دهخدا بود:

جمهوری . [ ج ُ ] (ص نسبی ، اِ) طرز حکومتی که رئیس آن (رئیس جمهور) از جانب مردم کشور برای مدتی محدود انتخاب میشود. جمهوریت در عربی به این معنی مستعمل است و جمهوری بمعنی طرفدار حکومت مذکور وجمهوریخواه است . (فرهنگ فارسی معین ). امروز در عربی جمهور بضم اول و سوم بمعنی حکومتی که زمام آن بدست نمایندگان ملت و رئیس آن رئیس جمهور خوانده شود و جمهوری بمعنی طرفدار حکومت مزبور استعمال شود. (حاشیه ٔ برهان چ معین از دزی ).

اگر هم فرق جمهوری و جمهوریت را ملتفت شدی، یه ندایی بده که روشن شویم.

 


Esfand Aashena

شاهزاده تپل = در شهر به من پیشنهاد رفراندم شد!

Esfand Aashena


Darius jaan looks like we agree on this referendum issue which is good.  As far as "legitimacy" there can be no more legitimacy than deposing the Shah.  He was deposed by millions of people, fair and square. 

I think he should consider himself "lucky" to be ruling Iran when he did because if it was now he'd have had the same fate as other middle easteern dictators in the Arab Spring.

Just because we don't like the Islamic overture of the middle east doesn't mean that it is illegitimate.  These Islamic tendencies are mostly due to lack of education and opportunities for the people at large.   Something that proper planning and less fraud by these dictators could've eased so as it wouldn't reach such a boiling point.

There is no clean country anywhere in the world and no clean and 100% solution to any form of Government and Iran is no exception.  Pahlavis are part of Iran's history and in the past.

Isn't it funny that the ONLY solution and response that supporters of RP2 say is that "if he is of no consequence then why spend time debating him"?  Well is he of any consequence or not?  Are we fooling ourselves or not?  Look at all those debates surrounding him.  Nothing of consequence really just the same old discussions over and over again.

The only mechanism that RP2 can come to power is via the foreign military route.  That's the reality that he knows.  I am sure even if there is such a scenario he will choose NOT to go back.  Why should he?  There is nothing there that interests him, after all these years, really.

Everything is sacred


anglophile

ببخشید همساده قدیمی عزیز

anglophile


 

یعنی می‌‌فرمائید که "جمهوری" معنیش هست:

جمهوری . [ ج ُ ی ی ] (ع اِ) شرابی است مسکر یا نبید انگور که سه سال بر وی گذشته باشد. (منتهی الارب ) (اقرب الموارد). آب انگوری که جوشیده شود تا حدی که نصف حجم آن بخار گردد. وجه تسمیه ٔ این قسم آب انگور جوشیده بدان جهت است که تهیه ٔ آن عمومیت داشته و با وجود آنکه تا حدی سکرآوربوده مصرفش معمول و مشروع بوده است . آب انگور غلیظشده . (فرهنگ فارسی معین ). و رجوع به ماده ٔ قبل شود.

در اینصورت بنده نیز جنهوری خواه هستم!


Darius Kadivar

EA Jan contrary to RP 2 I don't believe in a referendum

by Darius Kadivar on

I believe in Historical Legitimacy as opposed to Political legitimacy.

 

It's 25 Centuries of Civilization VS 33 years of your Failed Republican Experience.

 

You folks had your chance and blew it which resulted in the Theocracy you put in power.

 

So in the end of the day it's Report Card Vs Report Card ... 

 

I didn't vote in the Referendum of 1979 (nor in the last Elections since I never considered the Regime Legitimate) nor did I advocate Revolution so I don't see why I should have to choose something I was against from Day One:

 

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979) 

 

 


hamsade ghadimi

جمهوری = جمهوریت

hamsade ghadimi


جمهوریت . [ ج ُ ری ی َ ] (مص جعلی ) جکومت جمهوری . (فرهنگ فارسی معین ). رجوع به جمهوری شود.


Esfand Aashena

Darius jaan if Shah "offered" any referendum, so will Khamenei.

by Esfand Aashena on

Everything is sacred


Darius Kadivar

How to win a referendum - by those who know

by Darius Kadivar on


Political reporter, BBC News

War room secrets (bbc)

How to win a referendum - by those who know 
Referendums are suddenly flavour of the month - but does the best side always win or is it all down to clever tactics? Or a combination of both?

 



Dr. Mohandes

Esfand LOL

by Dr. Mohandes on

LOved that comment. 

Very funny. lol 


Darius Kadivar

Esfand Aashena no one rides Gorazeh 2 Chevaux anymore ...

by Darius Kadivar on


Unless you are certain to get to your destination ...

 

Bond driving Citroën 2CV in For Your Eyes Only

 

Clearly you haven't yet:

 

BROKEN RECORD: Woman on IRI TV “We're Only good at shouting slogans since Shah Left” 

 

 

Best,

 

DK 

 

Knowledge is Power 

 

 

 


Esfand Aashena

داریوش جان بچه شدی؟

Esfand Aashena


Clown Prince Reza has often mentioned that he is Jomhuryatkhah (as opposed to Jomhurykhah) in that he aims at implementing the legitimate democratic aspirations of a nation within a political Framework the form of which would be drafted by a Constitiutional Assembly to be submitted to the people’s vote.

Really?  bad nagzareh!?  If we can have a political framework that puts a choice in front of about 80 million Iranians to vote, then why do we need the clown prince chubby?!

Was Leili a woman or a man?  By the time we get to put something for 80 millions Iranians to vote it's the end of the story! 

Clown prince chubby is like the teriyaki who asks for Taxi but refuses to walk few steps to reach the cab because the cab has reached the destination!  onja ke maghshadeh!

Everything is sacred