KaGee said:PW, face the facts... if your fair haired child had won, there would have been NOTHING wrong with anything.
Regardless, what's the phrase you guys are so famous for?? Oh yea, I got it... "That's OLD NEWS, it's time to look forward not rehash the past"
Haut said:My point was is that the newspapers can count all they want & it still don't mean squat.....JK
Haut said:My point was is that the newspapers can count all they want & it still don't mean squat.....JK
Boomyal said:"Leftist to challenge Mexico presidential results
With 99.6% of vote tallied, conservative has insurmountable lead"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13716709/
Haut said:Well, it worked in Washington State...
Why not there....
Dubya was lucky that his brother was the Gov. or that election would have had the correct result as well
Twidget said:I guess you are missing the point, they were trying to show that the Republicans had stolen the election. Instead they found that the Republicans had won fairly.
demsvmejm said:Twidget said:I guess you are missing the point, they were trying to show that the Republicans had stolen the election. Instead they found that the Republicans had won fairly.
Twidget I respectfully disagree that the Redumblicans won fairly. The preliminary tallies were close in Florida. Gore requested a recount, and reasonably so. The election board all the way up to Supreme Court were too scared that Gore might actually win that they could not allow a recount to actually happen.
Yes they permitted or ordered a recount, but placed such restrictive time limits that the ballots could not physically be counted in the time alllowed. So by preventing a recount, the Supreme Court in effect appointed baby bush to his first term.
Only after the newspapers obtained the ballots and counted them did we have proof that baby bush actually won the election. But by then it was irrelevant because the Supreme Court essentially appointed bush.
If it was truly an honest outcome then the ballots would have been allowed to be recounted, but the parties concerned could not possible tolerate a Democrat as president, so they had to pull favors and manipulate to achieve their desired results.
Truly an incovenient truth, but a truth nonetheless, and irrefutable. I do not like bush, I don't think he has done anything good for this country for the average citizen. But after the papers reported their results, and not on page 20, I began to respect the fact that baby bush was elected president. The only problem was that he was appointed before the election was finalized, before the truth was known.
And after the papers reported their results, I came to realize just how stupid the majority of America really is.
demsvmejm said:Twidget said:I guess you are missing the point, they were trying to show that the Republicans had stolen the election. Instead they found that the Republicans had won fairly.
Twidget I respectfully disagree that the Redumblicans won fairly. The preliminary tallies were close in Florida. Gore requested a recount, and reasonably so. The election board all the way up to Supreme Court were too scared that Gore might actually win that the could not allow a recount to actually happen.
Yes they permitted or ordered a recount, but placed such restrictive time limits that the ballots could not physically be counted in the time alllowed. So by preventing a recount, the Supreme Court in effect appointed baby bush to his first term.
Only after the newspapers obtained the ballots and counted them did we have proof that baby bush actually won the election. But by then it was irrelevant because the Supreme Court essentially appointed bush.
If it was truly an honest outcome then the ballots would have been allowed to be recounted, but the parties concerned could not possible tolerate a Democrat as president, so they had to pull favors and manipulate to achieve their desired results.
Truly and incovenient truth, but a truth nonetheless, and irrefutable.