Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roadkill who wrote (87048)	11/11/2000 3:09:35 PM
From: jmac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

The democrats will argue that it is a Florida statute that permits this mechanism of counting even after an initial re-count. It is the Bush camp that is claiming the statute is not constitional. And, at the first court appearance in front of the federal judge, nobody else is permitted to speak other than the party who filed the emergency motion. Another interesting twist just announced on CNN, in 1997, Gov. Bush signed into law a statute into the Texas Election Code which includes language "that a manual count is preferable to an electronic count because it is more reliable than an electronic count." I am sorry but this is hyprocracy at its best. Gov. Bush should have simply asked for a manual count in whatever counties or precinct he wanted. He should have followed Florida law as it was written by Floridians. I think it was a strategy mistake for him to go this route.

To: Roadkill who wrote (87048)	11/11/2000 3:46:05 PM
From: Mike Torrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I totally agree and told my congresswoman. If you feel strongly about this (either way) speak out. Here's a list of some possible people you might want to contact. townhall.com Mike