This is a bit rich...Iran's elections

cute fuzzy bunny

cute fuzzy bunny

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
22,708
Location
Losing my whump
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050616/ts_nm/iran_election_dc

Couple of key quotes...

"President Bush criticized Iran's election process in which more than 1,000 would-be candidates were barred from running by the hardline Guardian Council supervisory body".

Hmm...lets see...some other country pretty much limits you to voting for only two candidates through their process.

And

"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.

You mean like when you lose an election and get "voted in" by a judicial body?
 
"Our guy"?

I guess i did vote for him the first time around.

I just find the irony of a bush administration complaint about restriction of election candidates and non-democratic election wins sort of tasty.
 
This is a false argument... something that people like to use to try and make thier point...

We do not bar people from running (some states do bar convicted felons)... so, if YOU want to run for President, go right ahead... nobody is stopping you. You just have no chance of winning if you are not in one of the two parties. But, run for mayor, council member, dog catcher, even your water board.... we are not stopping you just because you are in the wrong party...

And, like most democrats who complain about him losing... the system is what it is and we (USA) use the electorial college and the final vote after all reviews is that he won fair and square on the vote that counts.... yes, he lost the popular vote, but that has happened a few time... but, you will not give up on this...

NOW, if you want to talk about his record... that is fair game
 
Huh. Last time I checked most states had requirements for a candidate to be placed on a ballot and many people simply cant pass them. Looked to me like Ralph Nader wanted to be on the ballot in a number of states and wasnt allowed, for instance.

Please also take care with the 'we' and 'you' designations. I'm not a democrat, i'm not a liberal, and I did vote for the fool once, until I realized that I was the fool.

Lastly, the 'all reviews' saying George won isnt exactly accurate either. A number of reviews had gore winning florida and the election. Note that there was never a full recount or full analysis, but only segmented analysis of 50-60k votes in key areas.

By the way, I think Gore would have completely sucked as a president. Although he probably would have been able to pronounce simple words and probably wouldnt bob his head and grin while talking about dead people and catastrophic events.

As far as giving up...hmmm...this is the first time I think i've ever posted anything on any internet forum starting a discussion on the 2000 election, so I'd sort of suck if I 'gave up' without ever trying now...wouldnt I? ;)
 
Hey Notth,

Yes, most states have requirements for your name to be placed on the ballot, but you can still RUN in all states... as a write in candidate. Again, you will never win, but you can do it

I will retract the ALL... but, I do remember that there was a group or something that did count all of the votes in Florida and Bush won by a larger majority than originally thought...

The courts rulled that you could not have selective recounts like Gore wanted (the ones where he was favored, but let's not recount the ones where Bush was favored)... they did not give it to him

I did vote for him, but would have been fine with the decision going the other way... democracy at work... and I do agree that Gore would not have been that good

Appology to you on the give up thing... it is because I hear it from others, and continue to hear it all the time... and it gets old, that 'Bush stole the election' stuff... and I would also say it to the Republicans if they were saying 'Gore stole the election'... but you did bring it up!

Bush has been good in a lot of ways and bad in a lot of ways.. history will judge him in a 100 years according to if he won the war on terrorism and 'fixed' the Middle East, or just spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a crap war that cost thousands of American lifes (not to mention the Iraq people). Right now it looks like the latter, but it could be the former..

I hate how he is spending like there is an unlimited bucket of money.... maybe a democrat president and republican congress is the best way to go.
 
Fairly said. Note that I wasnt quacking about bush stealing the election, but rather the rich irony of his statements about irans election process...which in some ways have mirrored our own.

I'm pretty sure a full recount of florida never happened, but I could be wrong. I'll go look later.

I dont think we're going to have to wait 100 years to find out; I think 10 will give us a good indicator. I dont think 'democracy', either pure or our brand, is going to 'take' in iraq. That region has been most resistive and is highly fragmented socially, politically and religiously. Based on our efforts to win the 'war on drugs', I dont have much hope for the 'war on terrorism'. Both can be won by removing the problems that cause the need for a war or providing solutions to people who feel they need to be 'in the war'.

Bush is a little funny for a conservative republican though, isnt he? Big spender, growing the government, military interventions... :p
 
Notth said:
Based on our efforts to win the 'war on drugs', I dont have much hope for the 'war on terrorism'.  Both can be won by removing the problems that cause the need for a war or providing solutions to people who feel they need to be 'in the war'.
Click to expand...

Based on their own words, I think the only way of "removing the problems that cause the need for a war" is for all non-Muslims to commit suicide.
 
Ding Ding Ding...now we have clearly and concisely demonstrated why we have the need for a war on terror. Or is it a "war on teh". He only seems to get the first syllable out most of the time.

Hint: its not because they all need to die. Its because we've been stomping around their political, social and cultural region for decades and propped up dictators and their enemies to the point where they're willing to die to try to force us to change our political activities. Not that theres anything wrong with what we've been doing if you're willing to pay the price. The price is thousands of innocent lives lost on both sides and billions of dollars thrown out the window to combat the 'threat' in exchange for our ability to continue driving big cars.
 
Notth said:
Fairly said.  Note that I wasnt quacking about bush stealing the election, but rather the rich irony of his statements about irans election process...which in some ways have mirrored our own.

I'm pretty sure a full recount of florida never happened, but I could be wrong.  I'll go look later.

I dont think we're going to have to wait 100 years to find out; I think 10 will give us a good indicator.  I dont think 'democracy', either pure or our brand, is going to 'take' in iraq.  That region has been most resistive and is highly fragmented socially, politically and religiously.  Based on our efforts to win the 'war on drugs', I dont have much hope for the 'war on terrorism'.  Both can be won by removing the problems that cause the need for a war or providing solutions to people who feel they need to be 'in the war'.

Bush is a little funny for a conservative republican though, isnt he?  Big spender, growing the government, military interventions... :p
Click to expand...

I said 100 as things have a way of being looked at differently after a long time... I am with you that we will not see anything soon and in the end not much will have changed if the Muslims do not do something... killing someone because the Koran hit the floor is so stupid in my opinion...

and yes, I am :eek: at how much they are spending... as I said worst possible situation for the government... republican congress and republican president.... best is republican congress and democratic president... but it is so hard for me to vote for the fools the democrats put up for me to vote for...
 
Well, maybe Dubya did some good ....

From a Washington Post story:

"Some Iranians said they decided to vote after hearing President Bush discount the credibility of Friday’s ballot. "
 
Oh theres no doubt that stomping around a neighboring country with 150,000 troops, a couple of carriers offshore and a few thousand flighters zooping by wont make people think a little differently. Some good might actually come of that as a few dictators and/or their people might cool it a little or get unrestful/brave...
 
Notth said:
Oh theres no doubt that stomping around a neighboring country with 150,000 troops, a couple of carriers offshore and a few thousand flighters zooping by wont make people think a little differently.  Some good might actually come of that as a few dictators and/or their people might cool it a little or get unrestful/brave...
Click to expand...
Didn't Khadafy say that just a couple years back?
 
Yep...he has a real tenuous hold on that country.

I'd like to see how he actually spells his name. I've seen it about 20 different ways. I had a theory that the US press was engaged in trying to make him go mad by never spelling his name right or the same way twice. "Look goddamn it! Now they're doing it with a "G"!! AIYEEE!"
 
Notth said:
Yep...he has a real tenuous hold on that country.

  I had a theory that the US press was engaged in trying to make him go mad by never spelling his name right or the same way twice. 
Click to expand...

    Nah ... you're just seeing examples of "style"  Every publication has it, or follows that of the Associated Press.  It's supposed to ensure consistency in how things are written, but its true purpose is to drive writers and editors mad. :D Another example ... is is Quran or Koran?  Depends  :-X
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom