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.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (2967)	11/22/2000 1:51:35 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 6710

TG, Did any of you listen to their words...can you say SLAM DUNK? A first year law student could have seen how this is a classic example of two laws in conflict. Not exactly. According to the authors of the law on the manual recounts, they anticipated that those would be necessary in case of machine malfunction, which would presumably be localized. And even then, there is a provision for SOS to have a flexibility to accept late returns if machine mulfunction or act of God caused the delay. So there is no conflict. One think that I find inexplicable is why the legislator who was the author of this bill didn't make it clear in the law. But, on the other hand, even if it was spelled out, it wouldn't stop the FL SC to do what they please. Moreover, they UNANIMOUSLY took Katherine Harris to the wood shed and gave her a spanking for what she did. I wouldn't read anything into the unanimousness of the SC. They are not 7 independent thinkers. They are a team set out to do what's required of them by Gore campaign. Harris is not diminished at all by their action, since the FL SC has no more credibility than Harris. Harris actually goes by the law. She sent instructions with strict Florida law on military ballots vs. loose Federal law, hurting Bush in the process. Guess what the 7 dwarves would do if it was up to them to send instructions how to interpret overseas absentee ballots? Joe

To: TraderGreg who wrote (2967)	11/22/2000 3:59:26 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

"On the take" is an obsolete term of political corruption. It brings back the innocent days of political machines and "fixing" everything from the paving of neighborhood streets to meeting the needs of the state and national party so things will stay "fixed" in the state capitol as well as Washington. Today our country is threatened from within by a party that sold its soul to the great totalitarian trends of the recently-ended century in its obsessive pursuit of power many years before this election. It's no longer about winning votes for the new Demokratic party, nor is it about some tawdry envelope full of cash. This is, as one of their 20th century roll models described it, TOTENKAMPF. There are no innocents, no sacred ground. It's only about seizing and holding power by any means. Gore and his storm troopers wouldn't insult their fellow Demokratz on that state court with offers of payoffs. That would be ideologically impure, old fashioned bad form. Those judges were simply expected to do their duty to their Leaders in the Gore camp. The silent subtle threat did not have to be uttered by anyone. And the scared (or possibly loyal) little judges lined up like freshly-trained Volksgrenediers on parade. At some point these new totalitarians will have to be defeated or the great American experiment in human freedom will have failed. Maybe the turn will come in this current battle, or maybe not. But I am observing a Republican party with eyes freshly opened, and finally seeing that the term "loyal opposition" is as quaint as gazebos in the town square...