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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (117234)	11/11/2000 11:42:08 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Winsock, YOU said the same thing I did, 2 days ago. You're a real enigma...do you have rapid mood swings? Message 14771331 You said..."If you allocate the questionable votes in an area that is 2 to 1 Democratic, the result of the election will change for sure. Better to redo the election and give Bush a chance." Jim

To: Windsock who wrote (117234)	11/12/2000 5:52:26 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Windsock, based upon this: Message 14789150 I'm now beginning to wonder about Bush JR's tactics. Regards, Amy J Message #117235 from Windsock at Nov 11, 2000 11:24 PM The Bush campaign could have requested a recount if it was not sitting on its narrow lead expecting that the absentee ballots would hold their lead while at the same time making righteous statements about how awful it would be to use the Courts. But as soon as the R's figured out that an accurate recount in Palm Beach, a Democratic stronghold, might turn the count against Bush they raced to the Court to stop the Palm Beach manual recount. The R's don't want an accurate count if it means that Gore loses. They just want to win. The notion of what is right and wrong just changes to match what is expedient. Very shoddy ethics but effective if you want to win at all costs.