So what you are saying is ...

[skeet]

... if the postions vis-a-vis the outcome in the US elections were *exactly* reversed we *wouldn't* be seeing *exactly* the same self-serving actions from both sides???

Eg. Bush wouldn't have retracted his concession and wanted a re-count?? Yeah, really, puhleeeeeeeeeeeeze do me (and the rest of the known universe) a favour.

Same in this corner of the world (or back in the UK where I come from). You know whenever there is political posturing and one or other side taking the moral high ground you can simply subtitute either side in the bickering - it really wouldn't matter, the same arguments would be used.


[This message has been edited by skeet (edited 11-12-2000).]

[StSanta]

Yep skeet  .

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}

[Mighty1]

Skeet the question is not would the Repubs do the same thing or not the question is should it be done in the first place?

I can understand in a election this close that a re-count was in order but to have a re-re-count is absurd no matter what side calls for it.

The reason for going to the Ballot system they have now was to speed things up and to help do away with human error. In this case it was decided before the election that the current system was fine. I was afterwards that the complaints started.

If the system was so flawed that they couldn't rely on it then why didn't they change it BEFORE the election?

It's really a simple thing people vote..the votes are counted...if it's real close count them again just to be sure..the end. The counting should not keep going.

[1776]

Skeet, very simplistic and cynical on your part.  Once again we can not judge a "what if" situation.  We can only look at the current situation and derive a judgement from the known facts.  By your inference "they are all alike", shows a disregard for facts and a not so attractive superior, elitist attitude.  Take no offence.  This is just how I see your post based on its content.

[skeet]

 

Originally posted by 1776:
Skeet, very simplistic and cynical on your part.  Once again we can not judge a "what if" situation.  We can only look at the current situation and derive a judgement from the known facts.  By your inference "they are all alike", shows a disregard for facts and a not so attractive superior, elitist attitude.  Take no offence.  This is just how I see your post based on its content.

None taken. And granted, simplistic - but I would hold, pretty accurate. The cynicism (if it is such) is based on observing the activities of politicians the world over over the last 30 years or so.
Those observations suggest that the actions, claims and counterclaims could and would have come just as easily from Democrat, Liberal, Communist, Little Green Men for a cleaner Mars Coalition, Republican, Conservative etc etc. whichever side of the fence they found themselves on in whatever argument.

The arguments (legal or otherwise) are  merely a veneer for self-interest.

(If they weren't then surely each side would be having lawyers pushing for BOTH sides of each and every legal argument. But they aren't. They only take views that support their side. QED).

I'd be interested in a straw poll from other (non-US) people.

Do you 'broadly agree / broadly disagree' with the above?


------------------
skeet - out
Aces High - Fight Stimulator