AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

But you knew that yesterday, didn't you?

I had a feeling he was going to win. The US loves him!

I wanted him to lose. I wanted Mousafi towin because he is, by profession,, an artist who produces abstract expressionist oils and prints.

This is in the no-surprise category.

and an architect.. and I like his wife..
but, yeah, I'm not surprised.

George W. Bush won two times.

Setanta wrote:

This is in the no-surprise category.
end of quote.

Oh, you are so wrong. It is a great surprise. You evidently did not hear the newscast from Iran after Barack Hussein gave his great speech to the world where he said that we want to be friends with Islam.

The Iran newscast featured a husband and wife in Tehran watching Obama on TV as he gave his --We are all friends speech. The woman says--Isn't he handsome, Abdul? And his father and family in Kenya are Muslims. We have to listen to him. I am going to vote against Ahmadinejad.

Me, too--Medina. We must extend a hand to such a man.

****************************************************************

Obama's speech shows that he thinks he can do the "numbers" on those in Islam. He thought he could "jive" them as he did in the old days as a Community Organizer. He has to learn that Islam and Iran and Afghanistan are not as stupid as the ghetto people he could wrap around his finger.

As far as Iran is concerned, his speech was obviously a flop!

Farmerman wrote:

Remember a president isnt elected by those who vote, a president is elected by those who count the votes.

end of quote

Yes, Farmerman, you are absolutely correct. Jack Kennedy knew that and thanked Mayor Daley profusely!!!

And George W Bush knew that and thanked the Supreme Court profusely.

Knew what? If you are not completely out of touch with reality,. you have, I hope read the New York Times You know, the Times, the left wing paper which has always endorsed Democratic Presidential Candidates?

Well, If you know how to read, read the following. The New York Times with several other key papers and organizations formed a consortium and went to Florida to take several months to examine the votes for each candidate.

If you know how to read, read the following:

quote


Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER
Published: Monday, November 12, 2001
Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff ? filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties ? Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at ? a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.

But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote

The Iranian election was predicted, by polling, to be a major sweep for Mousafi. Apparently Ahmedinejad not only fixed it so that hed win , but that hed take the necessary 50% .

I suppose that many people, dead for years, had a chance to vote in this election. We will see.

I see that Obama is handling Ahmedinejad much better than Bush. Obama doesnt let Ahmedinejad contol the dialogue by responding to his crap with similar crap. Obama seems to havce changed the rules in engagement. This seemed to be frustrating to Ahmedinejad in the run up to the election. even Ahme-started to talk about opening engagement with the US.

I've read that getting accurate polling information in Iran is very hard. Someone collected all the polls in a Wikipedia article and they are all over the map. Given the state of the Iranian economy, it is hard to see how Ahmadinejahd won 2/3 of the vote.

There was a report which i heard on radio, i believe this is BBC via CBC, to the effect that Persian law prohibits any campaigning activity on the day before the election. However, Ahmadinejahd went on state-sponsored radio and television the day before the elections to rant about "Zionist" support for this opponent. At that point, i had no doubt of the outcome, for whatever polls might say.

I love how the results of an election in Iran almost immediately becomes all
about US politics. Talk about tunnel-vision!

Farmerman wrote:

I see that Obama is handling Ahmedinejad much better than Bush. Obama doesnt let Ahmedinejad contol the dialogue by responding to his crap with similar crap. Obama seems to havce changed the rules in engagement. This seemed to be frustrating to Ahmedinejad in the run up to the election. even Ahme-started to talk about opening engagement with the US.

**********************************************************

How is OBAMA handling AhmAdinejad better than Bush? Specifics please!!

A link, at least!!!
*****************************************************************

What you do not seem to realize, Farmerman, is that Obama, viewed by far left wingers as the most intelligent orator of all times, fell on his ass. His speech to the Muslim world apparently did little to cause a full scale rebellion among Iranians.

Obama does not realize that the fanatics like Ahmadminijad and his mentor, The Ayatollah, do not respond to verbal bullshit but only to a possible show of massive force.

Nethanyahu may take care of that--They bombed the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear sites. They may do the same to Iran if they are threatened with extinction.

The fanatic, Ahmadminijad, who, of course, believes in the restoration of the Caliphate after the return of the 12th Imam, has vowed to destroy Israel.

Netanyahu has sworn: "Never Again"

Would it be a good bet that Israel becomes pro-active? When does the school semester end in Israel?

Protesters clash with police after Ahmeadinejad Victory

CBC News, 8:55 pm ET

Clashes broke out between Iranian police and opponents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran on Saturday after the re-election of the hardline president.

Chanting "the government lied," thousands of protesters took to the streets, setting trash bins and tires ablaze.

Demonstrators pelted police with rocks and bottles as they accused Ahmadinejad of stealing the election from his reformist rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Police fought back with clubs, including mobile squads on motorcycles swinging truncheons.

Violence broke out after election results showed a nearly 2-to-1 landslide for Ahmadinejad.

Mousavi declared himself the true winner of Friday's presidential race and urged backers to resist a government based on "lies and dictatorship."

Source at CBC News

The vote in the 2000 election was basically 50-50. Al Gore started the court case you are referring to, not George Bush. Bush fairly received about 50% of the vote in 2000 and, as you will recall, received more than 50% in the following presidential election.