OT: Congratuilations to the people of Iraq

Page 2 of 5  
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:40:12 -0600, Dave Balderstone

I was particularly struck by that fact as well. Says something about what the right to vote is worth, don't it?
It may be only a beginning and there are undoubtedly a lot of things that can still go wrong.
Still, it's a milestone and we ought to celebrate it!
--RC "Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:15:42 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com wrote:

I really liked the purple finger idea -- that kind of thing (as long as the ink is *really* indelible) could go a long way to preventing "vote early, vote often" election fraud.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:00:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree, but it sure would put the kibosh on my absentee baloting - unless I sent in the stained finger with the ballot.
Anyhow, go Iraquis!
- Doug
--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the purple finger idea -- that kind of thing (as long as

Here in Chicago, we invented "vote early, vote often" and of course "vote dead". As for "indelible", I have an easy solution. Just have everyone put some Gorilla Glue on their finger after they vote.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

I first experienced that, unpleasantly, back in 1962 in the Venezuelan elections. Under Bettancourt, IIRC, everyone of age had to vote by law and your thumb was dipped in indelible green ink after doing so.
For two days after the elections armed patrols stopped folks on the streets and checked right hands ... and you damn well better have a green thumb on that hand. Many who did not were shot on the spot.
Being an American and non-voter, but young, and with a moustache that fit in with the rest of the male population in those days, I twice found myself spread-eagled on the street with a machine gun to my head while my pockets were rifled for my sedula ... and anything else they could find.
That was my first experience with what some consider "democracy", and the deadly violence in a population inured to facing death on a regular basis.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What you experienced was the Saddam version of democracy in which the dictator receives 99 to 100% of the vote and the opposition is non-existent.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And to top it all off, IIRC the turn out was better than anticipated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:50:28 GMT, "Leon"
Better than typical US turnouts! Most US voting places aren't threatened by terrorists, either.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Please_keep_it_in_the snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says...

When I listened to CNN Headline News at about 8 this morning (just for the first minute of headlines), they said the turnout was high in Kurd and Shiite areas, but non-existent in Sunni areas.
At noon, when I listened to the whole newscast, they went on and on about how great it had been, with not a mention of the Sunni nonappearance.
What happened? Were they wrong this morning, or were they pushing "feel good about Iraq" at noon?
I'll be interested in hearing news from some other source this evening.
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:24:17 -0800, Larry Blanchard

I only heard the overall version during Bob Brinker's Money Talk on XM this evening.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote: <snip>

From one I gathered no one wanted to be the first person to vote. Once one person voted the others followed.
-- Jack Novak Buffalo, NY - USA (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DEBKAFile (www.debkafile.com ) (take the site for what you want; this report seems reasonable) is reporting the real turnout is 40-45%), which is still an amazing number in my mind. And, that of the voters, 55% were women.
Even at 45%, its a huge step.
-jbb
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

CNN pushing "feel good about Iraq"? Surely you jest. CNN? Yeah, that'll happen, right after they air a complementary documentary about the Bush administration.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

that'll
I tuned in to CNN to see how they were applying their usual spin to anything Iraq to the voter turnout, and I am hear to tell you that it is true.
The '360' guy, reporting from inside Iraq, was gushing and almost shedding tears of joy and wonder.
I wouldn't have believed it myself it I had not seen it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's been the general attitude of the press all around the world. Glancing over the 2700 or so stories on Google I found they were all various degress of positive. That includes the ones from papers in Lebanon, Saudi Araba and Kuwait.
The one exception was an opinion piece in the Independent -- a leftist English paper. Even the AFP (French wire service) was positive.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And that'll happen right after Fox does one on Teddy Kennedy. Neither Fox nor CNN nor any other medium functions as the mouthpiece for the American government. They are private enterprises--albeit with a public responsibility--that owe no support to any current administration's policies. And they are fully entitled to their opinions, even if we wish that they'd keep them out of the "straight news" reports. The neocons keep griping about biased news, without mentioning all the Rushies yapping away on the radio and Fox's power on TV. Liberals complain about neocon dominance of radio. This is good--if both sides are complaining then we're about where we should be. We have, on balance, a good strong variety of viewpoints in our media, just as the Constitution guarantees.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

... snip

You really don't get it, do you? The NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC have all touted themselves to be "unbiased" news services. The fact is, prior to the advent of talk radio, they were essentially the only source of news and that "news" was often opinion masquerading as news or news that was very heavily biased such that the reader was guided to come to a single conclusion that would follow from the news as presented. Fox gets slammed for being slanted to the right simply because it really has commentators from both sides rather than just a single viewpoint with a token conservative that they throw out to the public once in a while.

The difference is that Rush and other conservative commentators don't hide who they are, they don't pretend to be neutral reporters like Dan Rather who rushed to air the forged National Guard memos last October for the argument that the news had to be reported, even before being fully vetted, he had to go with his intuition. Yet in 2000/2001, that same Dan Rather absolutely refused to air the Gary Condit story, to the point that CBS was a laughing stock when it finally aired a grudging report from Rather that focused more on the accusers than on the missing intern and her connections.
With Rush, Hannity, or other conservative hosts, you know the opinions you are going to get.

The good news is that both those sides exist now. 25 years ago, the only thing we had were the "unbiased" NYT, and network news.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: You really don't get it, do you? The NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC have all touted : themselves to be "unbiased" news services. The fact is, prior to the : advent of talk radio
You're presenting TALK RADIO as an example of unbiased reporting? Are you totally out of your mind? Limbaugh and Savage are unbiased????
:Fox gets slammed : for being slanted to the right simply because it really has commentators : from both sides rather than just a single viewpoint with a token : conservative that they throw out to the public once in a while.
Since when has FOX "news" been presenting a balanced view from the left and right? Not anytime in the last seven years I'v been (unhappily) watching it.
:> without mentioning all the :>Rushies yapping away on the radio and Fox's power on TV.
: The difference is that Rush and other conservative commentators don't : hide who they are
Sure they do. Any time Limbaugh is questioned by anyone other than a fawning fan, he claims to be an entertainer, not a reporter. But he presents himself on his show as a real reporter and news analyst. Putting them together, he's a baldfaced liar.
Michael Wiener, who calls himself Michael Savage (another lie), also presents himself as an unbiased, smart, news analyst. Against, kinda far from the truth.
, they don't pretend to be neutral reporters like Dan : Rather who rushed to air the forged National Guard memos last October for : the argument that the news had to be reported, even before being fully : vetted, he had to go with his intuition.
Very similar to the Bush admin position on (a) the threat Iraq posed to us, and (b) the nonexistent Social Security "crisis".
But Rather has faced the consequences, and GWB has gotten a series of get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Yet in 2000/2001, that same Dan : Rather absolutely refused to air the Gary Condit story, to the point that : CBS was a laughing stock when it finally aired a grudging report from : Rather that focused more on the accusers than on the missing intern and her : connections.
And four years later, it's pretty clear than Condit had nothing to do with her death. What's your point?
: With Rush, Hannity, or other conservative hosts, you know the opinions : you are going to get.
Sure: the ones manufactured out of smoke and mirrors in the White House public relations office. Yay, Rush and Sean! Go, boys!!!!! You are truly the heirs of Murrow!
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And here I thought it was just his drug abuse that distorted his perception of reality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:56:17 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss

I think you're missing the point. OP feels that because opinions from the other side are now widely disseminated, listeners can weigh one against the other and get a more 'balanced' picture overall. It's not that any one source is particularly 'balanced.'
I'm dubious about that theory, but it is not unreasonable.
For me the most useful change in the last few years has been the greatly increased availability of information about all sorts of issues via the Web. You can go searching for information yourself from a wide variety of sources and get it in depth and detail that's never going to be matched on the 'news' channels.
I used to think I was well-informed because I got to read AP's A wire and five or six other news services as part of my job. Comparatively, I was wrong.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.