Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Texans are always on about how tough they are and how many big guns they own and how they are the best around.

Why then all this sobbing like an insulted old maid? If someone wants to watch your elections, let them come and watch, because, after all, you've got the biggest and best and most well run elections right? Cos you're Texas and everything you do is perfect and AWESOME and YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAH etc etc.

Or, do you have something to hide? Fear of someone seeing the wrinkles under all that foundation, love?

 kronk wrote:
At no point in that article did he explain what the purpose was. "To observe" is not a reason. What is his complaint? What is his concern? What is the purpose of monitoring our voting? Seriously. Answer that or stay the feth out.

Of course 'observe' is a reason. 'We are interested in fair elections, and want to observe yours, so that afterwards we can give advice to make them as fair as possible.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
To be fair, the OSCE's opinion IS legally irrelevant in the United States.

That isn't being fair, that's being stupid. The OSCE isn't giving a legal opinion. They would be observing the process, and would produce advice afterwards that the US could use to improve their processes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because its not true.

Having a foreign body observe your elections isn't against the constitution. Stop being ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Having anyone in the election area besides persons working there is generally not permitted as a violation of our fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, so sayeth the courts and the government.

The difference between observe and working is so fething obvious I cannot believe you're pretending you don't can't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Nothing.

What are these yahoo's trying to accomplish? That's the real question.

The same they've attempted when observing elections elsewhere in the world. A secret coup to hand the nation over to their lizard overlords.

Or possibly a subsequent report that validates the fair processes of the election, along with a list of possible improvements to make it a more fair process and increase the standard of democracy in that country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This...

We're a stable country... whatever happens... happens.

People thought Gore won and that Bush stole the election. We're still here... right?

Hang on, are you seriously saying stability is evidence of a fair democratic process? Because that's pretty fethed up. I mean, Soviet Russia was pretty stable for a long time, but it sure as hell wasn't democratic.

 Albatross wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
God, I wish we were as free as you guys.

Look, we can do, "Ha ha, my country's better than yours!" later. For now, one of you guys needs to get over to Vienna and let these boys know that picking and subsequently losing even a political fight with 1/50th of a country is probably not where they want to end up on the good ol' organizational relevancy flowchart.

First of all, I think, like everyone from Texas, you are grossly overestimating the importance given to what that state thinks.

Second, can someone please explain to me why Texas seems to have their panties in a knot over the UN observing their elections? Because the typical overcompensation-freakout on Texas' part really seems to imply that they are trying to hide some type of wrongdoing.

I think the bigger and far more important question is, "Why the are the UN yet again sticking their noses into the affairs of a stable & democratic country who haven't had any serious government-led human rights abuses within the past century...

Wait, are you serious?

I can think of internment camps,

er... what? You talking about the Japanese in WW2?

racial segregation

Seriously?

and the execution of the mentally-challenged just off the top of my head.

er... what?

That's without factoring in the 'war on terror'!

Okay... now I'm confused....

So... these are things that you believe we must have and outside observer to bless our elections?

Yeah... we're not a perfect nation... but that does mean we can't take care of ourselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This...

We're a stable country... whatever happens... happens.

People thought Gore won and that Bush stole the election. We're still here... right?

Hang on, are you seriously saying stability is evidence of a fair democratic process? Because that's pretty fethed up. I mean, Soviet Russia was pretty stable for a long time, but it sure as hell wasn't democratic.

oh... now you're being ridiculous...

We're nothing like Soviet Russia dude...

We have a process... it may NEVER be perfect, but we resolve it one way or another peacefully.

Jeeze... really dude?

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
To be fair, the OSCE's opinion IS legally irrelevant in the United States.

That isn't being fair, that's being stupid. The OSCE isn't giving a legal opinion. They would be observing the process, and would produce advice afterwards that the US could use to improve their processes.

I'm disappointed in your reading comprehension Seb. The context on that quote in the article, which Silver misinterpreted to be a comment on the validity of voter's opinions, was in relation to the OSCE whining about Voter ID laws, which as the Attorney General pointed out, have been found perfectly legal and constitutional by the U.S. Supreme court. In reference to that, both my statement and the Attorney General's are 100% accurate. We don't care nor do we have to care about the OSCE's opinion on US law.

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
God, I wish we were as free as you guys.

Look, we can do, "Ha ha, my country's better than yours!" later. For now, one of you guys needs to get over to Vienna and let these boys know that picking and subsequently losing even a political fight with 1/50th of a country is probably not where they want to end up on the good ol' organizational relevancy flowchart.

First of all, I think, like everyone from Texas, you are grossly overestimating the importance given to what that state thinks.

Second, can someone please explain to me why Texas seems to have their panties in a knot over the UN observing their elections? Because the typical overcompensation-freakout on Texas' part really seems to imply that they are trying to hide some type of wrongdoing.

I think the bigger and far more important question is, "Why the are the UN yet again sticking their noses into the affairs of a stable & democratic country who haven't had any serious government-led human rights abuses within the past century...

Wait, are you serious?

I can think of internment camps,

er... what? You talking about the Japanese in WW2?

racial segregation

Seriously?

and the execution of the mentally-challenged just off the top of my head.

er... what?

That's without factoring in the 'war on terror'!

Okay... now I'm confused....

So... these are things that you believe we must have and outside observer to bless our elections?

Yeah... we're not a perfect nation... but that does mean we can't take care of ourselves.

I'm not saying you can't. I was just responding to a poster who claimed that the USA hadn't had any serious human rights abuses in the last century, which is clearly a false statement, because you have.

 Kanluwen wrote:
This isn't the UN sending troops to monitor the polls.

It's a UN sponsored organization observing the polls in key states where voter intimidation/disenfranchisement is likely.

But not Illinois, strangely enough.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
God, I wish we were as free as you guys.

Look, we can do, "Ha ha, my country's better than yours!" later. For now, one of you guys needs to get over to Vienna and let these boys know that picking and subsequently losing even a political fight with 1/50th of a country is probably not where they want to end up on the good ol' organizational relevancy flowchart.

First of all, I think, like everyone from Texas, you are grossly overestimating the importance given to what that state thinks.

Second, can someone please explain to me why Texas seems to have their panties in a knot over the UN observing their elections? Because the typical overcompensation-freakout on Texas' part really seems to imply that they are trying to hide some type of wrongdoing.

I think the bigger and far more important question is, "Why the are the UN yet again sticking their noses into the affairs of a stable & democratic country who haven't had any serious government-led human rights abuses within the past century, when craphole dictatorships like Syria are openly slaughtering thousands of their own civilians?"

But then again, this is the UN, and they've been utterly useless at their job since about 1990'ish-something. (everything went to hell when they allowed freaking China & Russia of all countries to have veto power on the security council... )

I think you will find that the USA did that when setting up the UN during WW2.

There certainly was a decline in the 1990s, by coincidence coinciding with the USA's refusal to pay its UN dues.

So, Why is there such a disdain towards the OSCE watching elections??
I don't understand, do you not want elections to be more free than they already are?...because that sounds like commie talk

Its almost as if some people are morally opposed to pulling over and asking for advice.

Men

Experiment 626 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
God, I wish we were as free as you guys.

Look, we can do, "Ha ha, my country's better than yours!" later. For now, one of you guys needs to get over to Vienna and let these boys know that picking and subsequently losing even a political fight with 1/50th of a country is probably not where they want to end up on the good ol' organizational relevancy flowchart.

First of all, I think, like everyone from Texas, you are grossly overestimating the importance given to what that state thinks.

Second, can someone please explain to me why Texas seems to have their panties in a knot over the UN observing their elections? Because the typical overcompensation-freakout on Texas' part really seems to imply that they are trying to hide some type of wrongdoing.

I think the bigger and far more important question is, "Why the are the UN yet again sticking their noses into the affairs of a stable & democratic country who haven't had any serious government-led human rights abuses within the past century, when craphole dictatorships like Syria are openly slaughtering thousands of their own civilians?"

Waterboarding
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Extraordinary Rendition
Guantanamo Bay
NDAA
Japanese internment camps
Jim Crow laws

...should I keep the list going? 'Cause a hundred years is a long time and I have a degree in Criminology and History.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
First of all, I think, like everyone from Texas, you are grossly overestimating the importance given to what that state thinks.

I'm not from Texas.

I just know who I'd put my money on.

Me too. I think you'll find that Texas has a very odd history of surrendering faster than France, and "don't mess with Texas" is actually just an anti-littering campaign.

Is it bad that I don't consider waterboarding a human right's violation? Having been waterboarded.... yeah it sucks but it's not like we're yanking finger nails

We had this debate before KM...its mental torture. We...those of us required or volunteer for certain type of schools or MOS's have to experience waterboarding but we know its ending unlike the AQ/Taliban/insurgent (which I really don't shed a tear for) are on it for a couple hours or till they give up info.

 Jihadin wrote:
We had this debate before KM...its mental torture. We...those of us required or volunteer for certain type of schools or MOS's have to experience waterboarding but we know its ending unlike the AQ/Taliban/insurgent (which I really don't shed a tear for) are on it for a couple hours or till they give up info.

Fair enough.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If someone wants to watch your elections, let them come and watch, because, after all, you've got the biggest and best and most well run elections. Cos you're Texas and everything you do is perfect and AWESOME and YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAH

As a matter of fact yes, and damn it if the main stream media can take stuff out of context, so can I!

MeanGreenStompa supports this issue! Is what your campaign ad would say