Monday, November 19, 2012

One Party Statelets 

Earlier this year, up north, I celebrated a modest victory in my battle against Canada’s “human rights” commissions, and wrote en passant:

After Hosni Mubarak was “re-elected” with 97.1 per cent of the vote, he was said to be furious with his officials for stealing too much of the election and making him look like one of those crude ham-fisted dictator-for-life types like Saddam and Kim Il-Sung. So next time round his officials arranged for him to “win” with a mere 96.3 per cent of the vote.

Now comes the news that, following his impressive 100 per cent share of the vote in 59 Philadelphia precincts, Barack Obama was able to eke out a 100 per cent total victory in a mere 37 precincts in his home town of Tikrit ––whoops, I mean Chicago. NBC reports:

In 37 Chicago Precincts, Romney Received No Votes

Heavy concentration of Big Bird fans perhaps. One commenter observes:
Statistically, even if among 10′s of thousands of voters all wanted to vote for Obama, it would not be possible to receive 100% of the vote because at least a few would make a mistake and vote incorrectly for Romney.
Just to be clear: I think Obama won the election, and his victory represents the will of the American people. Which is why the Democrats should have heeded Mubarak’s words and not over-stolen it. I was not one of those who objected to the presence of international observers at this month’s election, as if the United States were just another banana republic: By comparison with Canada, Australia, and most other free societies, the integrity of the American ballot is a joke, and ought to be a source of shame.


  1. It wouldn't matter no much how fraud is definitively confirmed -- even if such fraud is what swept Obama into office for a second term.


    Why is that? Hmmmmm?

  2. Because he's an N-word. That's why.

    Dick Wilde

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Must have been the New Black Panther Party poll monitors, huh?

    The article you link to explains why this SAMPLE could reasonably have voted straight Obama. If Philadelphia voted entirely Obama you have a reason to use the Mubarak analogy. Otherwise you don't have much but more Republican whining.

  5. Just shut the fuck up, Canardo. You're habitual ritual Alinskyan Dittydance becomes increasingly tiresome over time. It doesn't wear well, and it AIN'T worth wasting mental energy to argue against.

    Other Bloggers seem to believe in trying always to be polite.

    I shan't bother anymore with those who deserve a well-placed kick in the ass..

    When you're good, you're not too bad, but when you're bad you're nothing but a fucking pain in the ass.

    Anyone who's repelled by clearly warranted vulgarity isn't worth having around anyway.

    I'd rather be alone than in poor company.



  6. Tiresome because it is pretty effective criticism.

    Attempting to compare the vote of a large nation to black only districts in a larger metropolitan area is folly.

  7. By the way, it has everything to do with statistic, logic and mathematics and nothing to do with Alinsky (who was NOT a Marxist byr the bye).

    Just trying to widen everyone's horizon.

  8. And, Dick Wilde, you'd better mind your manners too.

    Good Lord! We're a fractious, nettlesome bunch today!

  9. Actually, duckman, there was only EVER one Marxist... Karl Marx.

  10. On a more serious note, my research indicates there are 1687 precincts in Philadelphia. So the precincts in question are a little under 3.5% of the total.

    Having grown up in Philly, I'm not as incredulous over this as you are.

  11. Friedrich war nicht genau ein "Engel." Denke ich dass er war eigentlich ein Teufel. Ganz uebel, niemals gut, nicht wahr?

  12. "I'm not as incredulous over this as you are."

    As who are?

    The article was written by Mark Steyn.

    Say, when are you going to let us in on the secret of your incredibly facile, thorough retrieval of statistics?

    ~ FT

  13. By the way, Mark Steyn has performed that usually "liberal" trick of using verifiable "facts" to support a partisan, agenda-driven view that fails -- quite deliberately -- to reveal the whole truth.

    I often say -- and firmly believe -- that FACTS are NOT synonymous with TRUTH.

    This kind of thing is a good case in point.

    I frankly love the way Steyn, an amiable fellow possessed of great wit, and a few lesser lights turn the tables on liberals by using their tried and true obfuscatory techniques against liberal interests.

    The difference between Steyn and liberal-progressive activist types is that Steyn manages always to do it with a smile, while his tongue remains planted firmly in his cheek -- always his right cheek, of course. A neat trick that. ;-)

  14. FT,
    My German is very rusty, but I grasped those puns. **smile**

    I also concur with the views expressed therein.

    We're a fractious, nettlesome bunch today!

    It seems that the whole world is that way these days. Why is that, do you think?

  15. "Why is that, do you think?"

    If I knew the answer to that, they'd send soldiers to drag me from my house, put me through a very public "show trial" with a pre-determined outcome, then make me drag a heavy cross to the highest hill in town, nail me to it, and torture me till mercifully I finally died.

    In short: HE gave us the ANSWER, but WE don't want to hear it.

    That's why things are the way they are.

    Sounds simple doesn't it?

    ~ FT

  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.