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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rande Is who wrote (41753)	11/19/2000 12:44:34 PM
From: Joe Smith	Respond to of 57584

I think it very unlikely that any high court will rule that K. Harris did not act with due discretion. The burden of proof is clearly on the Democrats. Without a smoking gun, the status quo will prevail, fair or not. I still trust the Courts. They have not violated my trust during this fight yet.

To: Rande Is who wrote (41753)	11/19/2000 12:48:44 PM
From: jonewad	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

Rande, what law has been broken and what law is trying to be changed? By law Gore is allowed a hand recount and he is doing so. The only thing that is being challenged is the time frame. I agree with your basic premise but as you yourself stated,"Judges are given certain liberty for broad interpretation and that should be sufficient," which I believe is the case here. The Fl. Supreme Court Judges feel that these are EXTRODINARY circumstances and that a delay of a few days will not change the "intent of the law" On the contrary, I am glad that our justice system has the flexibility to compensate for any short comings that can not be foreseen.

To: Rande Is who wrote (41753)	11/19/2000 1:00:52 PM
From: Hoatzin	Respond to of 57584

A little food for thought while the markets are closed: funphone.com

To: Rande Is who wrote (41753)	11/19/2000 7:23:01 PM
From: moosebeary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Great post, Rande....Reminds me of the time, many years ago, when this state put in a "wetlands credit" on the property tax. When my tax statement came, I was suprised to learn that I had not recieved the new credit, even though I had the required wetlands. So I went to see the county auditor. He showed me a letter from the state atty general that was sent out to all the county auditors to explain the application of the new credit. He pointed to a certain paragraph, which I read and read again, and a third time, then I read it out loud to the auditor. It says, "After taking off all other credits, then you take of the Wetlands Credit." No, he informed me, it says "If you take off other credits, then you don't take off the Wetlands Credit." I reread it several more times, but could not make the words change into what he said they said. "Do you really believe that is what it says?" asked I. "Yes I do," replied he. "Then," says I "I will vote for you in the next election, and any other election in which you run. Cuz I wouldn't want you to lose and take up employment as a teacher of little children." Regards, Moose