Iraqis Defy Attackers in Historic Election

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Gaard
What does it tell you that a number of righties on this board have made the same claim about how Liberals want the election to fail, etc, but none can back up the claim. Not alchy, not this girl (guy) in here, not any of them? Are they so desperate to paint Liberals in a bad light, that they have to start lying?

Of course Michelle did give CAD a "right on!", that must count for something. ;)
Well the liberals sure gave that impression by their constant gloom and doom predictions about the elections, proclamations that it would be a complete sham, protests that it was nothing but the US setting up a puppet government, and claims that elections should not be held in a war zone.

Of course, I haven't seen a single liberal in here yet, of alll those claiming this would be a disaster, come clean and admit they were utterly wrong.

I imagine we'll be waiting for that admission for some time to come.

And if you want some backup for my claims above, here are a few links to previous threads:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...rd1=elections+AND+fail

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Um, I'm scratching my head here wondering what your post has to do with my post.
"Well the liberals sure gave that impression "
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Of course, I haven't seen a single liberal in here yet, of alll those claiming this would be a disaster, come clean and admit they were utterly wrong.

I imagine we'll be waiting for that admission for some time to come.
From Who will be the first to claim the election in Iraq is illegitimate?:

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Who cares. It's illegit by its very nature. In the eyes of the young extremists, who are recruiting plenty of jihadists to their side thanks to this war, this vote is crap. So therefore, it's crap. It's not US we need to convince.

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
*I* will be the first to make this claim: anything Bush touches is an illegitimate bastard.

Let the blood shed on Election Day fall on the rightful, responsible owner: George W. Bush.

Originally posted by: lozina
1. Entire areas will not be allowed to vote because of security issues
2. The Sunnis are still boycotting the election
3. The country is occupied by a foreign power with inherent interest in the results
4. Independent international observers will not be moitoring the election

Yeah, a perfect election :roll:

Originally posted by: conjur
65% turnout?? Are you insane? Afghanistan had 70-75%. You seriously think there will be 65% turnout? Wow.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm already willing to go out on a limb and predict that the election will not be particularly fair or representative.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
An election where the candidates are unknown is a farce. No one has to call it one.

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I think the candidates are fighting to stay alive. I think that right there makes the elections illegimate.

A lot of doom and gloom! And conjur, lol, you have this terrible knack for making exactly the wrong predictions. You're a great guy but you definitely need to give the crystal ball routine a rest. :p
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Michelle
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.



Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.

Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.



The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasn?t. Saddam Hussein?s capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didn?t. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasn?t. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn?t."

"We all hope for the best from Sunday?s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday?s election is not a cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death ? for us and for the Iraqis."

Quotes from Ted.
And? Care to highlight the one(s) that demonstrate, "Liberals have done nothing but give the impression that they want this election to fail, this war to fail, and for America to fail."? Note the line I bolded. It directly contradicts your premise.

Seems to me you're making the universal Bush apologist mistake of shooting the messenger for any truths you dislike.
Just following your lead. :cookie:
Ah, another gratuitous attack by Mill, this time the devastating "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort. Darn, I should consider myself pwned, I suppose. A thinking person might have refuted me with substance, e.g., pointing out where Kennedy suggests he wants the elections to fail, but you've got to go with your strengths. I'm sure your asinine dig is a big hit on your playground.

I take it the Midol isn't helping?

:laugh:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DearQT
Originally posted by: tss4
Iraqis Defy Attackers in Historic Election

It appears the Iraqis really do want democracy in their country. Despite some violence they are voting in large numbers. Lets hope this is the beginning of a long lasting democracy in Iraq.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis danced and clapped with joy Sunday as they voted in their country's first free election in a half-century, defying insurgents who launched eight suicide bombings and mortar strikes at polling stations. The attacks killed at least 36 people.

An Iraqi election official said that 72 percent of eligible Iraqi voters had turned out so far nationwide. The official, Adel al-Lami of the Independent Electoral Commission, offered no overall figures of the actual number of Iraqis who have voted to back up the claim.
Don't we ever learn from our past? Do we all remember how the media and US government showed pictures and made so much noise about the Iraqis being elated that the Saddam regime had fallen? Indeed, there were pictures to back up that claim. However, how long did it take before the people became resentful? Do we not know why they were resentful?

Have we not learned a lesson from even that one event? For a second time, we have hyped the response from Iraqis. Indeed, I believe they were elated, but you know why? Some are hoping that this means the end of occupation, but most I believe have been passed on an illusional idea of democracy. Democracy is broadcasted by the media and the government as some magical thing achieved with no efforts except making choices on a piece of paper (i.e., voting). Most of the Iraqis are excited because they're expecting a magic, and they think that this is democracy. It isn't. Democracy is a process achieved with efforts (that infers patience) and honesty.

Here is my prediction: Unless the US leaves the country early and a new so-called elected government in installed--with prompt changes made to improve the lives and freedom of the average people, there will be a significant increase in distrust, resentment, resistance, and support for resistance. However, being as realistic as we can for those who know what democracy truly means, we know that things aren't going to change quickly. There is no such thing as an emergency democracy, for even our country in its early years experimented twice with failure in her system of government before accomplishing something. Hence, I?m afraid the future is dull.

P.S. Before a political affiliation war begins, I am not affiliated any political parties and couldn't give a rat a$$ whether a democrat or republican is in power.
Excellent post. :thumbsup:
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Michelle
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.



Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.

Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.



The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasn?t. Saddam Hussein?s capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didn?t. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasn?t. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn?t."

"We all hope for the best from Sunday?s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday?s election is not a cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death ? for us and for the Iraqis."

Quotes from Ted.
And? Care to highlight the one(s) that demonstrate, "Liberals have done nothing but give the impression that they want this election to fail, this war to fail, and for America to fail."? Note the line I bolded. It directly contradicts your premise.

Seems to me you're making the universal Bush apologist mistake of shooting the messenger for any truths you dislike.
Just following your lead. :cookie:
Ah, another gratuitous attack by Mill, this time the devastating "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort. Darn, I should consider myself pwned, I suppose. A thinking person might have refuted me with substance, e.g., pointing out where Kennedy suggests he wants the elections to fail, but you've got to go with your strengths. I'm sure your asinine dig is a big hit on your playground.

I take it the Midol isn't helping?

:laugh:

You surely do project yourself don't you, Bow? I realized a long time you were not worth a rational argument, but like I said, I'm just following your lead.

No, the Midol did help. Please tell your sister I appreciate it. ;)
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: DearQT
Originally posted by: tss4
Iraqis Defy Attackers in Historic Election

It appears the Iraqis really do want democracy in their country. Despite some violence they are voting in large numbers. Lets hope this is the beginning of a long lasting democracy in Iraq.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis danced and clapped with joy Sunday as they voted in their country's first free election in a half-century, defying insurgents who launched eight suicide bombings and mortar strikes at polling stations. The attacks killed at least 36 people.

An Iraqi election official said that 72 percent of eligible Iraqi voters had turned out so far nationwide. The official, Adel al-Lami of the Independent Electoral Commission, offered no overall figures of the actual number of Iraqis who have voted to back up the claim.
Don't we ever learn from our past? Do we all remember how the media and US government showed pictures and made so much noise about the Iraqis being elated that the Saddam regime had fallen? Indeed, there were pictures to back up that claim. However, how long did it take before the people became resentful? Do we not know why they were resentful?

Have we not learned a lesson from even that one event? For a second time, we have hyped the response from Iraqis. Indeed, I believe they were elated, but you know why? Some are hoping that this means the end of occupation, but most I believe have been passed on an illusional idea of democracy. Democracy is broadcasted by the media and the government as some magical thing achieved with no efforts except making choices on a piece of paper (i.e., voting). Most of the Iraqis are excited because they're expecting a magic, and they think that this is democracy. It isn't. Democracy is a process achieved with efforts (that infers patience) and honesty.

Here is my prediction: Unless the US leaves the country early and a new so-called elected government in installed--with prompt changes made to improve the lives and freedom of the average people, there will be a significant increase in distrust, resentment, resistance, and support for resistance. However, being as realistic as we can for those who know what democracy truly means, we know that things aren't going to change quickly. There is no such thing as an emergency democracy, for even our country in its early years experimented twice with failure in her system of government before accomplishing something. Hence, I?m afraid the future is dull.

P.S. Before a political affiliation war begins, I am not affiliated any political parties and couldn't give a rat a$$ whether a democrat or republican is in power.
Excellent post. :thumbsup:

Dude, no. You just committed the ultimate travesty by complimenting luvly. Now she will start pontificating on this forum about everything in life until you are sick.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Michelle
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.



Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.

Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.



The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasn?t. Saddam Hussein?s capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didn?t. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasn?t. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn?t."

"We all hope for the best from Sunday?s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday?s election is not a cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death ? for us and for the Iraqis."

Quotes from Ted.
And? Care to highlight the one(s) that demonstrate, "Liberals have done nothing but give the impression that they want this election to fail, this war to fail, and for America to fail."? Note the line I bolded. It directly contradicts your premise.

Seems to me you're making the universal Bush apologist mistake of shooting the messenger for any truths you dislike.
Just following your lead. :cookie:
Ah, another gratuitous attack by Mill, this time the devastating "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort. Darn, I should consider myself pwned, I suppose. A thinking person might have refuted me with substance, e.g., pointing out where Kennedy suggests he wants the elections to fail, but you've got to go with your strengths. I'm sure your asinine dig is a big hit on your playground.

I take it the Midol isn't helping?

:laugh:
So what you are saying is, "Hey, the elections are a sham, illegitimate, a farse, crap, and let the bloodshed fall on Election Day fall on the rightful, responsible owner: George W. Bush."

Oh, btw. "We all hope for the best from Sunday's election."

LOL indeed. :laugh:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Michelle
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.



Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.

Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.



The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasn?t. Saddam Hussein?s capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didn?t. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasn?t. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn?t."

"We all hope for the best from Sunday?s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday?s election is not a cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death ? for us and for the Iraqis."

Quotes from Ted.
And? Care to highlight the one(s) that demonstrate, "Liberals have done nothing but give the impression that they want this election to fail, this war to fail, and for America to fail."? Note the line I bolded. It directly contradicts your premise.

Seems to me you're making the universal Bush apologist mistake of shooting the messenger for any truths you dislike.
Just following your lead. :cookie:
Ah, another gratuitous attack by Mill, this time the devastating "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort. Darn, I should consider myself pwned, I suppose. A thinking person might have refuted me with substance, e.g., pointing out where Kennedy suggests he wants the elections to fail, but you've got to go with your strengths. I'm sure your asinine dig is a big hit on your playground.

I take it the Midol isn't helping?

:laugh:
So what you are saying is, "Hey, the elections are a sham, illegitimate, a farse, crap, and let the bloodshed fall on Election Day fall on the rightful, responsible owner: George W. Bush."

Oh, btw. "We all hope for the best from Sunday's election."

LOL indeed. :laugh:
Shut up, asshat. You've already proved your reading comprehension is nonexistent. You don't have to keep proving it by totally misrepresenting what Kennedy said.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Michelle
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.



Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.

Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.



The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasn?t. Saddam Hussein?s capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didn?t. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasn?t. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn?t."

"We all hope for the best from Sunday?s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday?s election is not a cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death ? for us and for the Iraqis."

Quotes from Ted.
And? Care to highlight the one(s) that demonstrate, "Liberals have done nothing but give the impression that they want this election to fail, this war to fail, and for America to fail."? Note the line I bolded. It directly contradicts your premise.

Seems to me you're making the universal Bush apologist mistake of shooting the messenger for any truths you dislike.
Just following your lead. :cookie:
Ah, another gratuitous attack by Mill, this time the devastating "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort. Darn, I should consider myself pwned, I suppose. A thinking person might have refuted me with substance, e.g., pointing out where Kennedy suggests he wants the elections to fail, but you've got to go with your strengths. I'm sure your asinine dig is a big hit on your playground.

I take it the Midol isn't helping?

:laugh:
So what you are saying is, "Hey, the elections are a sham, illegitimate, a farse, crap, and let the bloodshed fall on Election Day fall on the rightful, responsible owner: George W. Bush."

Oh, btw. "We all hope for the best from Sunday's election."

LOL indeed. :laugh:
Shut up, asshat. You've already proved your reading comprehension is nonexistent. You don't have to keep proving it by totally misrepresenting what Kennedy said.
Did you notice I apologized when I was wrong?

Nah, guess you didn't.

It obviously didn't set any examples either.

Edit: btw. Are you saying you disagree with Kennedy and weren't hoping for the best?
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Michelle
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.



Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.

Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.



The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasn?t. Saddam Hussein?s capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didn?t. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasn?t. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn?t."

"We all hope for the best from Sunday?s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday?s election is not a cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death ? for us and for the Iraqis."

Quotes from Ted.
And? Care to highlight the one(s) that demonstrate, "Liberals have done nothing but give the impression that they want this election to fail, this war to fail, and for America to fail."? Note the line I bolded. It directly contradicts your premise.

Seems to me you're making the universal Bush apologist mistake of shooting the messenger for any truths you dislike.
Just following your lead. :cookie:
Ah, another gratuitous attack by Mill, this time the devastating "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort. Darn, I should consider myself pwned, I suppose. A thinking person might have refuted me with substance, e.g., pointing out where Kennedy suggests he wants the elections to fail, but you've got to go with your strengths. I'm sure your asinine dig is a big hit on your playground.

I take it the Midol isn't helping?

:laugh:
So what you are saying is, "Hey, the elections are a sham, illegitimate, a farse, crap, and let the bloodshed fall on Election Day fall on the rightful, responsible owner: George W. Bush."

Oh, btw. "We all hope for the best from Sunday's election."

LOL indeed. :laugh:
Shut up, asshat. You've already proved your reading comprehension is nonexistent. You don't have to keep proving it by totally misrepresenting what Kennedy said.

And you were just berating me for personal attacks! Oh the irony! :D
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Michelle
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.



Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.

Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.



The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasn?t. Saddam Hussein?s capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didn?t. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasn?t. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn?t."

"We all hope for the best from Sunday?s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday?s election is not a cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death ? for us and for the Iraqis."

Quotes from Ted.
And? Care to highlight the one(s) that demonstrate, "Liberals have done nothing but give the impression that they want this election to fail, this war to fail, and for America to fail."? Note the line I bolded. It directly contradicts your premise.

Seems to me you're making the universal Bush apologist mistake of shooting the messenger for any truths you dislike.
Just following your lead. :cookie:
Ah, another gratuitous attack by Mill, this time the devastating "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort. Darn, I should consider myself pwned, I suppose. A thinking person might have refuted me with substance, e.g., pointing out where Kennedy suggests he wants the elections to fail, but you've got to go with your strengths. I'm sure your asinine dig is a big hit on your playground.

I take it the Midol isn't helping?

:laugh:
So what you are saying is, "Hey, the elections are a sham, illegitimate, a farse, crap, and let the bloodshed fall on Election Day fall on the rightful, responsible owner: George W. Bush."

Oh, btw. "We all hope for the best from Sunday's election."

LOL indeed. :laugh:
Shut up, asshat. You've already proved your reading comprehension is nonexistent. You don't have to keep proving it by totally misrepresenting what Kennedy said.

And you were just berating me for personal attacks! Oh the irony! :D
The devastating "asshat" retort. :laugh:

 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Yeah. Lets take that money and spend it on Iraq. Much better investment. I have my popcorn ready for the fireworks on Jan 30th. Predicted death toll 1000.

Yep, blood was flowing in the streets all right!
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Question: Can you show me where anyone has stated that they want the elections to fail?
Answer: Sure, look in this post and you'll see tons of doom-n-gloom posts...sham, warzone, etc.

Oh...um...ok...I guess. :roll:

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Once again, I'll have to ask that everyone respect the rest of us and stop with the running quotes. Ok?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Gaard
Once again, I'll have to ask that everyone respect the rest of us and stop with the running quotes. Ok?

Oh please, just a couple more?

Originally posted by: Gaard
"Elections could be postponed for weeks to ensure more secure environment"

:laugh:

Originally posted by: Gaard
The request, by a broad coalition of minority interests in majority Shiite Iraq...
Parties of the majority Shiite community strongly support holding the elections on time

LOL

*sniff* *sniff* You guys smell something?

Yeah. I smell something.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what you are saying is, "Hey, the elections are a sham, illegitimate, a farse, crap, and let the bloodshed fall on Election Day fall on the rightful, responsible owner: George W. Bush."

Oh, btw. "We all hope for the best from Sunday's election."

LOL indeed. :laugh:
Shut up, asshat. You've already proved your reading comprehension is nonexistent. You don't have to keep proving it by totally misrepresenting what Kennedy said.
Did you notice I apologized when I was wrong?

Nah, guess you didn't.
On the contrary, unless I'm thinking of someone else's apology -- not terribly likely here -- I did notice, and I replied with a thumbs-up to laud your integrity.


It obviously didn't set any examples either.
Sorry, that doesn't let you off the hook for subsequent abuses, e.g., your egregious misrepresentation of Kennedy's comments above (as well as many others I ignored). If it were an exception, I'd tend to give it a pass. Unfortunately, however, it appears to be your M.O.


Edit: btw. Are you saying you disagree with Kennedy and weren't hoping for the best?
Right there's another example. I said absolutely nothing of the sort. One can only question the sincerity of your convictions when your primary tactic for supporting them is dishonest.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Mill
And you were just berating me for personal attacks! Oh the irony! :D
Actually, I was making fun of you for your insipid and childish attacks.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
On the contrary, unless I'm thinking of someone else's apology -- not terribly likely here -- I did notice, and I replied with a thumbs-up to laud your integrity.
You are correct...it's not very likely, since some others in here haven't shown the integrity to admit when they are wrong.

btw, we still have a discussion dangling. Remember? It's the one I lost track of, an explanation you didn't believe, and accused me avoiding.

I'll just assume it fell off your radar screen.

It obviously didn't set any examples either.
Sorry, that doesn't let you off the hook for subsequent abuses, e.g., your egregious misrepresentation of Kennedy's comments above (as well as many others I ignored). If it were an exception, I'd tend to give it a pass. Unfortunately, however, it appears to be your M.O.
Egregious? Boo hoo. You know exactly what the point was. Try and brush it off. It remains.

Edit: btw. Are you saying you disagree with Kennedy and weren't hoping for the best?
Right there's another example. I said absolutely nothing of the sort. One can only question the sincerity of your convictions when your primary tactic for supporting them is dishonest.
[/quote]
Nice deft try at avoidance, but you still didn't answer the question.

So you were hoping for the best?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
On the contrary, unless I'm thinking of someone else's apology -- not terribly likely here -- I did notice, and I replied with a thumbs-up to laud your integrity.
You are correct...it's not very likely, since some others in here haven't shown the integrity to admit when they are wrong.

btw, we still have a discussion dangling. Remember? It's the one I lost track of, an explanation you didn't believe, and accused me avoiding.

I'll just assume it fell off your radar screen.
You assume incorrectly. You added nothing new and largely ignored everything I said. I'm tired of wasting AT's bandwidth just because you cannot or will not read. If you insist I continue the thread, kindly take my last post and paste it in verbatim as my next reply to you. You can repeat this process as long as you care to.

Now that you bring it up, however, I will respond to your very last "point". No, I was not quoting you in that particular reply. I did not say I was. The one line of quote I included was merely to set the context for my response that followed, a response that addressed issues you also raised.


It obviously didn't set any examples either.
Sorry, that doesn't let you off the hook for subsequent abuses, e.g., your egregious misrepresentation of Kennedy's comments above (as well as many others I ignored). If it were an exception, I'd tend to give it a pass. Unfortunately, however, it appears to be your M.O.
Egregious? Boo hoo. You know exactly what the point was. Try and brush it off. It remains.
Whatever.

Edit: btw. Are you saying you disagree with Kennedy and weren't hoping for the best?
Right there's another example. I said absolutely nothing of the sort. One can only question the sincerity of your convictions when your primary tactic for supporting them is dishonest.
Nice deft try at avoidance, but you still didn't answer the question.

So you were hoping for the best?
Pity AT doesn't have a crayon font for communicating with asshats like you. Yes, obviously I was hoping for the best. I am ecstatic the Iraqi elections went as well as they did. I hope against hope that it marks the rebirth of Iraq as a free, stable, and independent democracy. I hope against hope it means the death rate will start dropping and we can bring our men and women home. Sadly, I have no confidence King George has any interest in bringing our troops home, nor in allowing Iraq to be free and independent, but those are subjects for other threads.

Now, having disposed of your latest diversion, kindly explain the steaming pile of contorted illogic that led you to suggest I "disagree with Kennedy and [ wasn't ] hoping for the best."
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Of course, I haven't seen a single liberal in here yet, of alll those claiming this would be a disaster, come clean and admit they were utterly wrong.

I imagine we'll be waiting for that admission for some time to come.
From Who will be the first to claim the election in Iraq is illegitimate?:

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Who cares. It's illegit by its very nature. In the eyes of the young extremists, who are recruiting plenty of jihadists to their side thanks to this war, this vote is crap. So therefore, it's crap. It's not US we need to convince.

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
*I* will be the first to make this claim: anything Bush touches is an illegitimate bastard.

Let the blood shed on Election Day fall on the rightful, responsible owner: George W. Bush.

Originally posted by: lozina
1. Entire areas will not be allowed to vote because of security issues
2. The Sunnis are still boycotting the election
3. The country is occupied by a foreign power with inherent interest in the results
4. Independent international observers will not be moitoring the election

Yeah, a perfect election :roll:

Originally posted by: conjur
65% turnout?? Are you insane? Afghanistan had 70-75%. You seriously think there will be 65% turnout? Wow.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm already willing to go out on a limb and predict that the election will not be particularly fair or representative.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
An election where the candidates are unknown is a farce. No one has to call it one.

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I think the candidates are fighting to stay alive. I think that right there makes the elections illegimate.

A lot of doom and gloom! And conjur, lol, you have this terrible knack for making exactly the wrong predictions. You're a great guy but you definitely need to give the crystal ball routine a rest. :p

Seems I was rather right.

Turnout (including ex-patriates) is well below 60%.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: conjur
Seems I was rather right.

Turnout (including ex-patriates) is well below 60%.

Source?

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/n...editorial/10787599.htm
Editorials on Iraq election

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

Election officials said as many as 60 percent of Iraq's 14 million eligible voters cast ballots on Sunday. That percentage needs to be compared with presidential elections in this country, where turnout hovered in the low 50 percent range for years and edged up to 60 percent only last November. In the United States, however, voters have not been subjected to a two-year, remorseless and deadly intimidation campaign.
But, that doesn't account for the fact that only 10% of ex-pats registered to vote. That means only 150,000 out of 1.5 million eligible.

Assume 8.5 million voted in Iraq (~60%) and only 150,000 outside of Iraq gives you 8.65 million out of 15.5 million eligible: 55.8%
 

itshondo

Junior Member
Dec 31, 2004
13
0
0
"Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics- even if you win you're still retarded" - Fark.com
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: conjur
Seems I was rather right.

Turnout (including ex-patriates) is well below 60%.

Source?

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/n...editorial/10787599.htm
Editorials on Iraq election

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

Election officials said as many as 60 percent of Iraq's 14 million eligible voters cast ballots on Sunday. That percentage needs to be compared with presidential elections in this country, where turnout hovered in the low 50 percent range for years and edged up to 60 percent only last November. In the United States, however, voters have not been subjected to a two-year, remorseless and deadly intimidation campaign.
But, that doesn't account for the fact that only 10% of ex-pats registered to vote. That means only 150,000 out of 1.5 million eligible.

Assume 8.5 million voted in Iraq (~60%) and only 150,000 outside of Iraq gives you 8.65 million out of 15.5 million eligible: 55.8%

I'll wait for official figures, kthx.