Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

I think that AE has made a good point, or two. Anything factual you can submit to actually rebut what he has said (about the elections) would be great. I never like to hear just one side of the story.

As for the original topic, heck I thought we had agreed to disagree lol.

I agree we can disagree ... I like to hear people's opinions ... after all, isn't an opinion a statement formed from your personal experiences.

I like to hear what makes people tick ... a long laundry list of 'factoids' sometimes masks what a person really thinks.

The way I feel (and the way so many other people feel) about the first GW 'win' is made up of the way I originally experienced that whole period when everyone was trying to come up with a plan to resolve the discrepancies that were noted the longer the announcement of a winner was delayed. I believed then (and I believe now), that the recount should have gone to its conclusion and we should have let the ballots speak for themselves.

I ABSOLUTELY DON'T GIVE A D*MN WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS WERE FROM ANY COURT ... IN THIS CASE ... THE PEOPLE DIDN'T ELECT GW TO HIS FIRST TERM ... THE COURT DID.

That's my belief and NOTHING will change it (sorry).

So, do dimples count or not?

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

I agree we can disagree ... I like to hear people's opinions ... after all, isn't an opinion a statement formed from your personal experiences.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

So, do dimples count or not?

We will NEVER know now will we?????

I suppose not. But how long would things have been tied up in litigation and appeals before they reached a decision to count them or not? Like you I was tired and frustrated at the end. I was glad to see it over one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

I suppose not. But how long would things have been tied up in litigation and appeals before they reached a decision to count them or not? Like you I was tired and frustrated at the end. I was glad to see it over one way or the other.

I would have rather had the frustation and a CLEAR winner declared where there was absolutely NO question as to who the people elected ... it is NOT chiseled in stone that the decision has to be done by a certain day ... after all it used to take months to determine who won an election.

Yup, but now you have the era of "instant gratification". Online shopping credit purchases etc. People used to be content to wait. They no longer are.

...Im not old enough to vote...hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...I crack myself up...But my opinion is that I would have given George another chance for two reasons.1) to let him try to finish what he started...and 2) Because the alternative was worse. I may go so far as to quote Alexander Hamilton:" He is a dangerous man, and one who ought not be trusted with the reigns of government."( of course, thats what got Hamilton shot...so maybe i shouldnt claim to making that statement)

Originally Posted by chief bones

... after all it used to take nine months to determine who won an election

kinda sucked for the president-to-be...nine months of the term just down the pot...lol

For crying out loud, Chief.

You want to pretend that no one did the recounts?

How many newspapers did I note that did their recounts with all different standards, including the "dimple as vote" standard.

Bush won almost every outcome.

Stop the fantasy that no one could've known how the election would've ended. Just read what the newspapers did and accept it.

Bush won.

Originally Posted by Airborne Eagle

For crying out loud, Chief.

You want to pretend that no one did the recounts?

How many newspapers did I note that did their recounts with all different standards, including the "dimple as vote" standard.

Bush won almost every outcome.

Stop the fantasy that no one could've known how the election would've ended. Just read what the newspapers did and accept it.

Bush won.

Never happened (and) will never happen PERIOD. You can not rewrite history - newspaper people pawing through all of the paper ballots multiple times using standards that were NOT being used at the time the count was stopped will NEVER answer the basic question: WHO WOULD HAVE WON IF THE SUPREMES HADN'T STEPPED IN AND INTERFERED WITH THE 'PEOPLES' COUNT??? We will NEVER know will we? .........