geoff wrote: > At least when the Democrats lose they accept the decision. Republicans get > the Supreme Court to change the rules or then spend years trying to > invalidate a winner. Perhaps you could try developing proper policies and > people and things to do when you win rather than trying to undermine > winners.
Hi Geoff, Are you still talking about the 2K election? There was a recount. When the results came in Bush indeed had won by 537 votes. How soon we forget. The Ds said they didn't like that recount (because Bush won), they wanted to recount only the districts where a recount would help Gore. Sandlot baseball ethics. This is what the Supreme Court rejected, cherry-picking counties to recount. > Nicholas Geti wrote: >> I have nothing but contempt for socialists who claim this is the way >> it is because it would be too onerous to undo what's done. You are >> building a windmill that is irrelevant. Nothing will be undone. Very >> few of the things you mention has anything to do with Obama signing >> the bills passed by Congress. Those things go on no matter who is in > charge. >> This issue is very important. It will put in place a process that will >> require jurisdictions to determine eligibility. >> >> What a joke that you think Republicans should lose with grace. I guess >> you don't read U.S. news about the absolute squealing done by >> DemonCrates when they don't get their way. > Democrats win most ungraciously. What was that Obama quote? "I won"? > > http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/ -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
