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 : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pat mudge who wrote (14195)	11/13/2000 12:38:53 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

Pat-OT- What sort of "shenangins" are you referring to from the Republicans? I'm sure there have been some, but I don't think it characterizes Republican, Libertarian, Green or Reform party approaches to elections. But it's standard fare for the Democrat Party- I submit that the overwhelming majority of illegal and shady election activities have historically been on the part of the Democrat Party. I've cited a few. You appear to prefer to argue by snide innuendo. But I would not dispute that elections are fraught with cheating. And in my mind, that's simply one reason to minimize the influence of government on our society. You, on the other hand, seem to lean toward the party pushing for the Leviathan state. Through a process that you seem to accept is quite flawed. Larry

To: pat mudge who wrote (14195)	11/14/2000 4:49:08 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

OT: Stop the Litigation is the title of an op/ed by Griffin Bell in today's WSJ. For those whose memories may not go back as far as mine, he was a federal judge and server as Jimmie Carter's AG. He also represented President Bush during Iran Contra. Well I rather despair of receiving a considered response from you on this subject, here's an exerpt from Bell's editorial: << Both George W. Bush and Al Gore should forswear lawsuits over the election vote, and they should call upon their supporters to do the same. Each candidate should wait for the election officials in the close states to announce the final vote totals and then accept those results with grace and dignity. Instead, we have seen lawsuits in state court brought by Democratic voters, followed by a federal court suit filed as a defensive measure by Mr. Bush. Yesterday a federal judge refused the Bush campaign's request to stop manual recounting in four counties. Now, Mr. Gore is seeking an injunction to postpone today's deadline for certifying Florida's votes -- a deadline issued by Florida's secretary of state, and clearly established by the state legislature in a statute that would appear to allow no discretion. .... I was the Georgia campaign manager for John Kennedy in 1960, and so I recall that election well. While Kennedy carried Georgia with 62% of the vote, the election was close in other states, especially Illinois and Texas. A difference of less than 9,000 votes in Illinois, and less than 50,000 votes in Texas, would have given Vice President Nixon a narrow majority of the electoral college, and he would have become president. Many of Nixon's advisors urged him to contest the results in Illinois and Texas. His finest hour was when he decided, against their advice, to accept the results as reported. In this instance, Nixon set an example that both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore should follow. ... If these lawsuits go forward, especially if accompanied by an O.J. Simpson-like media circus, we will sink in a quagmire of litigation. There will be delays, inconsistent decisions by different courts, and appeals. The results may not be clear either by mid-December, when the electors are to meet in their states and vote; or by early January, when Vice President Gore, as president of the Senate, opens the sealed lists of the electors' votes; or even by Jan. 20, when the new president must take office. As the lawsuits move ahead, the parties will become less attentive to the core concern, which is the good of the country. Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore have an obligation to put a stop to the litigation. The vice president's advisors have stressed repeatedly that he appears to have won the popular vote, albeit by a margin only of about 200,000 votes out of more than 100 million votes cast. They seem to imply that if the vice president indeed has a majority of the popular vote then that majority somehow justifies involving the courts. Yet, just as Theodore White said of Kennedy's victory in 1960, the "margin of popular vote is so thin as to be, in all reality, nonexistent.">> Gee, Pat, Mr. Bell made to reference to your novel interpretation of why Nixon declined to contest the Illinois results. Where'd you hear that one, Pat- at the Dick Tuck Memorial Society Convention? Oh well, a smear against Nixon is always good clean fun. Larry P.S. In matter of character or ethics, Al "I Didn't Know There Was FUNDRAISING Going On" Gore, or his boss the Perjurer in Chief are well below Nixon's level. Ditto when it comes to concern for the interests of the USA.

To: pat mudge who wrote (14195)	11/28/2000 11:39:34 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24042

Pat- OT- From Today's WSJ: <<And Florida judges have been willing to impose some radical remedies. The most celebrated case of recent times occurred in Miami's notorious mayoral election of 1997, when widespread allegations of absentee ballot-box stuffing eventually overturned the election of Xavier Suarez, a Harvard-educated Cuban-American lawyer. After failing to win by just 155 votes, Mr. Suarez's opponent, Joe Carollo, organized teams of people to knock on doors and interview voters, gathering evidence that many of the voters whose names appeared on absentee ballots hadn't cast them. A judge's decision in March of the following year to order a new election left the city without a mayor for a week -- while both men claimed temporary title to the post. But then a state appeals court ruled that all 5,000 ballots should be tossed out, making Mr. Carollo the city's first Republican mayor.>> Noticed you couldn't be bothered to respond to my question (post 14201) about what kind of Republican "shenanigans" you were referring to. So I think I can safely ascribe your "glass houses" jibe here to a certain partisan, even snotty, churlishness, not one based in any kind of considered evaluation of the matter. Oh, I'm sure if you look you'll find some irregularities perpetrated by Republicans, but I submit activities like stuffing the absentee ballots is far more the norm than among Democrats. So perhaps you'll understand why some of us regard the Democrat's touching concern for the sanctity of the voting process in the current presidential race to simply be another tactic in their effort to gain power. Other than a petulant, unsubstantiated comment on the matter, you've done nothing to dispel my contention. Nice hobbies and contributions about JDSU, though, Larry