What in the He!! is going on here?

Just remind the British that the French helped whoop their asses in the revolutionary war. That will tick'm off.

Strange

C'mon guys. That is british humour!

Someone's got a bizarre sense of humour.

"...british humour!" AND that would be an oxymoron, 'right!?!'

I think this is just their usual dry sense of humour; any serious implications can be cheerfully ignored.

Last time I looked, the Economist was very much in support of President Bush and his coalition against the Taliban. They also endorsed him in the Presidential election.

D

I think you are right, click on the link and read about if Al Gore had won and his duplication of LBJ's errors in running a war.

Someone e-mailed me the link this morning. It's got to be a joke, especially that last sentence. "We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologises for any inconvenience."

Hey, it's actually pretty funny. I think the point is directed towards the U.S. media. It's sarcasm, I'm 99% sure of it (It's always difficult for me to tell when a Brit is being sarcastic).

We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call.

ROFL! This is a left hook at all those who are still counting the votes in a pathetic attempt to question Bush's legitimacy. IMHO

This is certainly humor. The British can be that way.

I don't always agree with it, but the Economist can be very intelligent and fun reading that gives you good insight into the big picture. Their writers make most US journalists sound like elementary school teachers.

One of my brother's friends keeps insisting that Gore was the rightful winner of the election. I realize this is ridiculous, but I wanted to review my facts first.

As I recall, there were recounts going on in Florida in some counties, but there was a deadline written into state law by which the Sec. of State had to certify a winner. Since the finished count at that time favored Bush, it wouldn't have mattered even if someone counted the votes later and found that Al Gore had actually won, correct? Gore challenged the deadline in court, as is his right, and the Supreme Court finally ruled against him. Am I missing anything?

...Am I missing anything?

Actually, yes. See, you have to understand the leftist mind (or lack thereof) in order to figure this out. So, in order to better understand the left, I contorted my body to the point where I had my head up my a$$, and the answer became clear - Since Reagan (R) was elected in 1980, re-elected in 1984, and George Bush (R) was elected in 1988, the left figures that it's only fair if THEY also had a twelve year stretch in the White House. The Left figures that Gore should have been GIVEN the Presidency in order for there to be "Fairness"... then I took my head out of my butt, and it just sounded stupid... hope this helps!

;0)

This is British Humor. They are making fun of the latest recount by saying "The election is still too close to call."
The closest American joke would be the one that goes "Dear Al: We have found some uncounted votes. You won the election. Please let us know when you can move into the White House."

Gee! The guy on Washington Week in Review who was part of the recount said that Bush definitely won the election and that he is the legitimate President.

I interpreted it as humor (or is it humour???)... those limeys are pretty witty on occasion. I'm gonna print what they wrote and put it up at work... heh heh heh

They need to spend time looking at the double punched ballots that invalidated black Republican voters. The only reason they quit punching votes for Gore on Bush cards was the networks called the state for Gore. Just think, the liberal networks gave the race to Bush.