Tuesday, February 01, 2005

DUmmie FUnnies 02-01-05 (DUmmies Whining About Iraq Election Turnout)

It was actually difficult to find this DUmmie THREAD titled, “Guess WHO is behind the "72% turnout" bullshit?” Why? Because as columnist Michelle Malkin has noted, there is VERY LITTLE comment on the Iraq elections in the Leftwing Blogosphere. The Lefties just DON’T KNOW how to handle the enthusiasm of the Iraqis participating in their elections. This goes totally against DUmmie theology in which the U.S.A. are the oppressive occupiers and the terrorists are the freedom fighters. Blowhard Ed Schultz yesterday got all worked up on his radio show slamming conservative commentators for “unfairly” accusing many liberals of not being happy about the Iraqi elections. HEY BLOWHARD ED!!! Try checking out DUmmieland. Although the DUmmies are trying to avoid the whole subject of the Iraqi elections, the few discussions about it are mainly slams against those elections as you can easily see in this edition of the DUFUs. As usual, the DUmmie whining is in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent is in the [brackets]:

Guess WHO is behind the "72% turnout" bullshit?

Hint: "Iraq can launch WMD within 45 minutes".

Need another clue?

He's a former CIA-paid car-bomber terrorist.

Yep you guessed it; Allawi:

Iraqi officials claim turnout has been 72 percent kctv

And lookit the US State Media

Iraq Voter Turnout Placed at 72 Percent ABCNEWS.com

Voter turnout placed at 72% Chicago Tribune

Iraqi election turnout at least 72% amid attacks Santa Fe New Mexican

And Faux Moos, MSNBC, CNN et al.

[I’m surprised that you didn’t mention that KARL ROVE is behind the 72% turnout number.]

I yelled at CNN just now when I heard the 72% bullshit figure. I told my wife, "they'll just pick any old figure out of the air, won't they?" But they WON'T pick just any figure. 90% is unreasonable, 80% sounds like just about everyone, 75% sounds big, but too big, 70% is too close to the US 60% turnout, so they settled on 72%

[Karl Rove sent out that 72% figure. He originally wanted to use 71% but since he just had an uncle celebrate his 72nd birthday, he used the 72% figure to honor his uncle.]

72% is actually reasonable if you figure that the kurds and the shiites turned out in their areas in huge numbers. The real question is what was the turnout in baghdad, where all three groups co-exist. My guess is that it wasn't even close to 72%. But I'm guessing, which is also what I strongly suspect that the 72% number is. Also 72% of what? 72% of registered voters? 72% of eligible voters? 72% of some number we pulled out of our asses? But this is irrelevant. I'm fine with the success of the election.


How are these #'s possible in a country where the life expectancy is something like 2 decades less than the west. It doesn't make sense. Charlie Rose is saying it now, 60% turnout. that's 60% of the voting age people, and I haven't even heard the voting age discussed. 60% of the voting age people who registered. What percent of the population even registered to vote. I'm about 70 % tired now, and about 43% behind in my studying time. There's about a 99 % chance I'm gonna go to bed without finishing my studying , and I'll probably make no greater than 85% on my tests tomorrow.

[And there is only about a 2% chance that you will ever achieve even a slight semblance of sanity.]

Considering 99 % turned out to vote for Saddam, 72 % sounds like a failure to me.

[Except that under Saddam the option was “vote for me or die.”]

maybe that is just 72% of those who registered to vote...72% of those living in places other than Iraq?

[Maybe you should quit being so OBSESSED about the 72% number. If it turns out that the actual figure is 71.9% then I would expect that there is a 72% chance that you will call for Bush’s impeachment for LYING about that 72% figure.]

72% of the 10% who registered to vote means only 7 of 100 voted.It's yet another example of an intentional deception campaign. Only 10% of Iraqis (in the US, the % is probably even lower in Iraq) actually registered to vote. 72% of that 10% voted which means that merely 7 out of 100 people who could have voted actually cast a vote.

[Your pathetic efforts to discredit the election is quite entertaining. After doing your discrediting comedy shtick, please segue into your juggling act.]

Did anyone really believe that the Iraqi election would be any less of a farce than the recent American one?

[Ah! I KNEW there would be at least one DUmmie trying to discredit BOTH elections. Oh, and we are STILL waiting for that Dummie proof about how the EVIL Republicans stole the Ohio votes.]

CBC quotes an Iragi in Can. saying Bush rigged US election, and now Iraq election. There may well be 72% turnout - but that is just votes. As Stalin said - power goes to the fellow that counts the votes.

[Methinks the previous DUmmie opened up the Iraq/USA election “fraud” floodgates. As Karl Rove said – ALL your bases belong to us.]

Furthermore, Saddam's election occurred at 99 % turnout. So, what exactly does 72 % "turnout" even prove?

[It proves you’re a moron for even using the Saddam election as a valid figure.]

In the North the Kurds were voting like crazy. I'd bet this is where turnout was highest. But the rest of Iraq seems to be basically a noshow.

[The HUGE Shia area in the South is no longer part of Iraq?]

There was NO election in Iraq.

[And John F’ing Kerry was inaugurated as President this past Jan. 20.]

We would have had bigger turnout here in the USA if there wasn't voter suppression at every turn!

[Yeah. Those poor MTV “Rock The Vote” Youth types were suppressed because of being unfairly forced to wait on line for more than 10 minutes when they had important engagements at the local Rave Clubs to go to.]

Why quibble about numbers? When a powerful nation with vast resources invades and occupies another, terrorizes and/or kills thousands of its citizens, installs a puppet government, and then announces that "elections" will be held, those "elections" are, by definition, completely bogus. Swamp Rat has it right. There was no "election" in Iraq. And, I'll go one further. There was no free and fair Presidential election in the US last November either.

[What was that about Blowhard Ed Schultz claiming that liberals also rejoiced in the Iraq elections?]


Post a Comment

<< Home