The so called 3orf of not appointing election losers as ministers

[GMA forever]

Originally Posted by LubnanALkawi

so FPM should ask for Alain Aoun as Ministry of communications... which means pressure on Hariri and shows if the problem is Bassil or giving this Ministry of communications to FPM!

The difference between us is that I know that the problem with Hariri is not Bassil, shou Bassil etello bayyo halla2??? The problem is giving the telecommunication ministry to an FPMer.

[elador]

Originally Posted by TAYYAR AL AOUNI

I am still waiting to hear a legal and/or constitutional reference for their argument.

Otherwise, by bringing this point up, they are in fact THEMSELVES blocking formation of government.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me when did GMA say that election losers cannot be ministers.

[freelebanonn]

my sister works at ericsson lebanon and she told me if it wasnt for jubran bassil and his support beirut ericsson bureau would have been closed now.

[Aoun is rou2yaweh]

THERE IS A FACT NO ONE CAN DENY: Bassil made isla7, therefore 14 March want him out.

That means wanting Bassil back is because of haybeh of isla7.

If Bassil doesn't come back, it'll be a message to isla7iyeen that your heads will be cut and a message to fessdin not to be afraid.
If Bassil comes back, then it'll be a message to employees not to be afraid to stand with Bassil when they are pressured or see fassed, and a message to fessdin that you better be afraid because when we start no one can stop us!
(I'm speaking about fessdin in the Telecomunications ministry more precisly)

And also because it became a ta7adeh.

There are also many other factors to why Bassil should come back but I don't have the patience to write them and explain them.

[Nasser]

Originally Posted by elador

I'm still waiting for someone to show me when did GMA say that election losers cannot be ministers.

Weren't you FPMers launching harsh attacks on Nassib Lahoud when he was running for presidency saying he is a loser in the elections ? using such logic started by you.

But either way , this 3orf , if existed lol , is plain stupid and should be removed and ignored. Since when was people votes the criteria to chose Ministers ? for example 90%+ of people knows **** nothing about running a ministry , so I don't get the point about how their votes should be counted if someone is qualified for a position or not. The people voted for MPs , and not for Ministers.

[Aoun is rou2yaweh]

Originally Posted by Nasser

Weren't you FPMers launching harsh attacks on Nassib Lahoud when he was running for presidency saying he is a loser in the elections ? using such logic started by you.

But either way , this 3orf , if existed lol , is plain stupid and should be removed and ignored. Since when was people votes the criteria to chose Ministers ? for example 90%+ of people knows **** nothing about running a ministry , so I don't get the point about how their votes should be counted if someone is qualified for a position or not. The people voted for MPs , and not for Ministers.

Presidency and ministry are COMPLETLY two different things.

A ministry requires a competent person in the domain to run it.

HOWEVER the presidency requires someone who represents (the most) the political choices of the people, THAT IS WHY he must be popular.
DRM got shi 1 to 2 seats by non christian votes, Nassib Lahoud was the head of DRM and lost in his headquarters, that is not considered popular, so he can't represent his people! Whereas Gebran Bassil represents his party who got X in the elections and thus deserves Y in the government and is free to name whoever it wants.

[joe tayyar]

Originally Posted by Nasser

Weren't you FPMers launching harsh attacks on Nassib Lahoud when he was running for presidency saying he is a loser in the elections ? using such logic started by you.

But either way , this 3orf , if existed lol , is plain stupid and should be removed and ignored. Since when was people votes the criteria to chose Ministers ? for example 90%+ of people knows **** nothing about running a ministry , so I don't get the point about how their votes should be counted if someone is qualified for a position or not. The people voted for MPs , and not for Ministers.

Using this logic is logic. How can nassib be the president of the state and anja2 bimassil 7alo,and the 14ers didnt give him a chance to run the 2009 elections,while bassil represent the C&R block of 27 mps

[Nasser]

Originally Posted by Aoun is rou2yaweh

Presidency and ministry are COMPLETLY two different things.

A ministry requires a competent person in the domain to run it.

HOWEVER the presidency requires someone who represents (the most) the political choices of the people, THAT IS WHY he must be popular.
DRM got shi 1 to 2 seats by non christian votes, Nassib Lahoud was the head of DRM and lost in his headquarters, that is not considered popular, so he can't represent his people! Whereas Gebran Bassil represents his party who got X in the elections and thus deserves Y in the government and is free to name whoever it wants.

Not really different things , its same logic ( which I am against ).
Presidency requires who represents the political line of the MPs electing him. I don't see anywhere in the constitution that states that the president should be someone who ran for elections and had a sweeping victory , lol.

Here comes the choices , you want constitution ? or a3raf and personal analysis of who represents and who doesn't ?
Because the same way Gebran Bassil represents his party who got X votes and Y MPs , Nassib Lahoud in case he was elected he would be representing the X` who voted M14 and Y` MPs M14 had, no?

We should get out of this mentality.

Originally Posted by joe tayyar

Using this logic is logic. How can nassib be the president of the state and anja2 bimassil 7alo,and the 14ers didnt give him a chance to run the 2009 elections,while bassil represent the C&R block of 27 mps

See above lol.

[joe tayyar]

Originally Posted by Nasser

Not really different things , its same logic ( which I am against ).
Presidency requires who represents the political line of the MPs electing him. I don't see anywhere in the constitution that states that the president should be someone who ran for elections and had a sweeping victory , lol.

Here comes the choices , you want constitution ? or a3raf and personal analysis of who represents and who doesn't ?
Because the same way Gebran Bassil represents his party who got X votes and Y MPs , Nassib Lahoud in case he was elected he would be representing the X` who voted M14 and Y` MPs M14 had, no?
We should get out of this mentality.



See above lol.

He would have represented saad hariri only.
Can you imagine nassib a president today and he signed on the the government that harriri submit to the president.What would have happened today, its a different story.

[Nasser]

Originally Posted by joe tayyar

He would have represented saad hariri only.
Can you imagine nassib a president today and he signed on the the government that harriri submit to the president.What would have happened today, its a different story.

Now you're speaking about names and person , I am speaking about the constitution and theory , about being with/against the 3orf ( I am against having 3orf ).

Now about your opinion of Nassib Lahoud ,well its yours and I respect it ( and off topic too , so I won't reply to the point ).