PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123898)	1/29/2001 7:21:39 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) of 769667

"Like all of us, you argue the law when you've got it and "fairness" when you don't." I think the law supports every one of my points and DOES NOT support many of the dems positions. If I can make a point that brings the two together or show how something is not legal or fair then I will use both. I don't think any of the court decisions that stood could not be backed up by law (although I realize others do). To me it seems the other side uses fairness (through faulty logic) to support changing the law. That is a big problem for me. "If it was legal for Katherine Harris to rule that no extensions would be given for any recounts" It was. "or to rule before the election that absentee ballots needed postmarks, but to rule after the election that they were fine without postmarks" FL law stipulated the 1st rule (which KH verified). US law reflected the 2nd contention. U.S. law overrode FL law. Katherine Harris does not write the law. It does appear she was unaware of the overriding U.S. law. "why isn't it legal for canvassing boards to rule that their machine's errors warranted recounts?" The machine's didn't error. One of the best lawyers in the world tried to proove they did, and he failed miserably. "I do think it should be illegal for top elections officials to be working directly for any of the campaigns on the ticket. It stinks" That sounds reasonable. They should change that before it happens again. "I suggest that finding the 6,000 - 10,000 votes a reasonable person could expect to find in the punch card undervote is more accurate than ignoring them" Tha t sounds fair. Problem is that Al Gore sued the peole that sounded reasonable (M-D & PB). The one's that were counted the most liberally (Broward I believe) were only fair and reasonalbe to Al Gore and people who were for Al Gore. Those standards were looser than ANY case in U.S. history, I believe. "Unfortunately, the USSC decision involved so many sudden departures from the majority's usual philosophy that believing it was openly partisan is not a ridiculous opinion at all." See post number 124307 to LoF for my take on that. I do not agree with you or him (or most people it seems) on that. Anyway, as you can see, your arguments are more defended by fairness than mine. Point out any that are not supported by law and I will respond. Thanks. Scott

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next