Rincewind

I don't know about you, but I eat nutbars.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

ScratchMonkey

Turnout numbers are meaningless. The Soviets and the Nazis had great turnout. It doesn't matter whether you vote if all you have to choose from is Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber. That's going to remain the case as long as the mainstream press gets special exemptions in running the "Bipartisan" Debate Commission, which is really owned by the two old parties.

So did the Iraqis get real choice, or just a set of carbon copies that differed only in name and the color of their map pins?

__________________

leejo

They got a real choice. "7,655 candidates running on 996 tickets, representing Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish, Turkomen and sectarian interests across a wide political spectrum." is the line running in many different nations' papers.

JimmyTwoHand

Is so much choice necessarily a good thing? In reality the choice was probably between well known local figures and those who have received substantial funding from whatever source.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribbons The tactical and strategic application of textile accoutrements is a constantly underrated part of battle.

leejo

What's your point?

They had a free election in which the majority of the country participated as they pleased. Bravo for them.

JimmyTwoHand

Look, im not trying to rile you which i seem to have done. I was only trying to raise a point for debate. Yes it is great that they have had a free choice of who to vote for and that they have embraced it so emphatically. Personally though i would find it hard to choose between a hundred different candidates all with varying agendas. Those who get the votes will therefore be those with the greatest exposure exactly like in US and UK and most other democratic elections. If people are already well known in the constituency why is this. Is it because of previous involvement in politics under a previous regime or with a particular group? If a candidate has funding for adverts, meetings etc where has this come from? We already know Iran has been shipping arms across the border to insurgents would it not also be within the realms of possibility that they have sent funding to influence who wins certain seats? Who else may have agendas they are trying to further.

I do not mean this to be inflamatory merely to raise points for civilised debate.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribbons The tactical and strategic application of textile accoutrements is a constantly underrated part of battle.

Xcept1

good turn out for elections

Preliminary figures say 10 million Iraqis (70%) voted.

Full figures and results of the votes won't be calculated for another 2-3 weeks.

leejo

I just asked what your point was.

Regardless of who's influenced these elections, the Iraqis voted for whomever they pleased. Instead of nit-picking about the number of candidates or who's influenced or funded various candidates' marketing efforts, I think one should celebrate this monumental step these long-oppressed people have taken.

JimmyTwoHand

Ok. I will say no more about it, there is obviously no appetite for a debate on the reality or illusion of free will. I am sorry. I repeat what i have said in previous posts and leave.

Im not trying to reignite the the whole war debate nor take anything away from a wonderful step forward.

It is great that they have had a free choice of who to vote for and that they have embraced it so emphatically.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribbons The tactical and strategic application of textile accoutrements is a constantly underrated part of battle.

leejo

Buddy you're entitled to express your opinions and I'm entitled to express mine. I don't think I've said anything to cause you to tuck your tail between your legs. I asked what your point was, you answered, and I replied with my thoughts. How would you propose we modify the process to be more to your liking, short of my enthusiastic agreement with your position?

JimmyTwoHand

I am not asking nor looking for "enthusiastic agreement with my position". Quite the opposite. You state that you think i was nit picking with the questions i raised. Fair enough. But in the absence of any real debate on the points beyond a simple dismissal or stating of opinions i didnt feel there was much more for me to add. Im not trying to change anyones mind on the issues. It seemed to me, and i may have been mistaken, that you were under the impression i didnt feel that this election was a good thing, so i merely tried to clear up this misapprehension and avoid any bad feeling. Now i must go and spin roulette for a bunch of drunken rich kids.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribbons The tactical and strategic application of textile accoutrements is a constantly underrated part of battle.

ScratchMonkey

Thanks, I salute Iraq for having more choice that we in the US get. We had a special election here in California for Governor with a long slate of candidates to choose from and the media made it sound like a joke. But I think it's the best election I've ever participated in, where I truly got a choice in who to vote for.

In other US elections we're told that the public is too dimwitted to handle more than two candidates, or the ballot would be too expensive to handle. Anything to keep true competition away from the two old parties. Yet we don't have significant limits on primary elections. If you don't agree with the old parties' lust for more government, you're locked out of the process.

__________________