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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zakrosian who wrote (8066)	11/22/2000 8:30:35 AM
From: xcr600	Respond to of 30051

ot-It always amazes me how so many feel it is more important to own a gun than be able to read. After visiting the south dozens of times, all I can say is thank god I don't live there.

To: Zakrosian who wrote (8066)	11/22/2000 8:31:17 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

<ot> Hi Z & all - heard on the radio Sec Chenney has been admitted to a hospital due to chest-pain. A colleague of mine has advance another conspiracy theory that should GOP win the WH, Chenney will quickly resign to make way for Powell. The argument is that the latter might want the VP slot if he didn't have to run as a ticket best, Bosco

To: Zakrosian who wrote (8066)	11/22/2000 9:33:56 AM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 30051

OT:Don't take these things seriously. If taken at face value, the darker sides of human emotions will surely emerge and consume all that is good around you. These guys all deserve to get some fun poked at them, have a good laugh and get on with our lives. Just be glad that you get to see what real stuff both sides of the president-wannabes are made of. Consider this : in past elections, the period after the election is one of healing, where the winner rallies the whole nation behind him and tries to build a better world. The role of the runner up has always been to throw his support behind the winner and ask his supporters to help the winner build a better world, gracefully accepting that the people have spoken. Rightly or wrongly, the current situation is so murky and ugly that any observer can't help but wonder : "How is the winner going to unite his people after this?" Can you imagine the smirking and rolling eyes during his inauguration speech? if you look closely at that map [showing states won by George W. Bush in red] you see a more complex picture. People like Paul Begala should be ignored and relegated to the trash heaps of history. I certainly hope that like-minded-individuals never serve in any public office anywhere in the world. Think about it, when what is needed is calm rational thinking, and a few laughs, he callously divides the country into two extremes and demonizes half the country. What kind of small-minded thinking went into that? What can that possibly achieve? SbH

To: Zakrosian who wrote (8066)	11/22/2000 11:49:02 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

I didn't see the quote that you ascribe to Bugala in the Washington Post article that you linked. I note that for some reason you decided not to highlight quotes from people like Armey or Delay, e.g., <<House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) called the ruling "a blatant and extraordinary abuse of judicial power. . . . With this decision, a collection of liberal activists has arbitrarily swept away thoughtfully designed statutes ensuring free and fair elections and replaced them with their own political opinions.">> That is ridiculous--no one besides people like this have said that this court is composed of "liberal activists", essentially code words for any court or ruling that Delay doesn't like. I'm just waiting for Republicans to claim that Democrats did something to Cheney. Bitter Struggle Certain to Escalate By David S. Broder and Matthew Vita Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, November 22, 2000 ; Page A01 The Florida Supreme Court decision keeping the vote count in that state going until Sunday night guarantees further escalation of the political warfare over the White House, it became evident in the first hours after the ruling was announced last night. Republicans reacted angrily to the unanimous decision requiring the manual recounts of ballots under way in three South Florida counties carried by Vice President Gore to continue and be included in the certified Florida results. That decision frustrated the hopes of Texas Gov. George W. Bush for a ruling that his current 930-vote lead is definitive. Just an hour after Gore praised the ruling and offered again to meet with Bush to tamp down the conflict, Bush counselor James A. Baker III virtually invited the Republican-controlled Florida legislature to challenge the authority of the Democratic-dominated state Supreme Court by naming its own set of Bush electors. That action could throw the contest for the presidency into Congress, which must meet next Jan. 5 to count electoral votes. A majority vote in the narrowly GOP-controlled House and Senate could resolve the growing conflict by giving Bush Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency. The fury of Republican congressional leaders' reaction to last night's decision by the Florida court signaled that such a step is not out of the question--even though it might precipitate a constitutional crisis. However, there is no certainty that last night's court ruling will enable Gore to pick up enough votes in the next five days to overturn the lead Bush has held since election night. The Supreme Court's refusal to spell out which ballots should be counted by the canvassing boards in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties disappointed Gore's hopes that it would give clear direction for inclusion of "dimpled" or "pregnant" ballots where no clear punch mark is visible. Even before Baker's statement, former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta, a Gore supporter, said, "I don't think we've begun to see the fireworks we're going to confront now." He predicted a new spate of litigation and even more partisanship. House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said: "It seems clear this is a partisan ruling by a partisan court. I believe the Bush team has no choice but to look at the next step, whatever that step is." Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) said he was "stunned" by the decision and added that Bush "is being victimized by an opponent who will do anything to win--even after the election is over." He was one of many Republicans who challenged the moral authority of a court composed of six Democrats and one independent to set its own rules and procedures for counting the votes that will determine the winner of the presidency. "If the presidency is going to be decided in the courts," Armey said, "why stop short of the Supreme Court?" House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) called the ruling "a blatant and extraordinary abuse of judicial power. . . . With this decision, a collection of liberal activists has arbitrarily swept away thoughtfully designed statutes ensuring free and fair elections and replaced them with their own political opinions." Other political figures said they thought there was something in the Supreme Court decision for both sides. Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) said the Florida jurists "seem to have cut the baby in half," by allowing the count to proceed but setting such a tight deadline for its completion that the largest of those three counties, Miami-Dade, may be unable to process all of its ballots. Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), who has been urging both candidates to step back from a fight to the death, said he hoped last night's decision would be broadly accepted as equitable. "A decision of a Supreme Court of a state on a state election should be the final word," he said. Democrats generally applauded the basic rationale of the Florida high court's decision--the principle that the voters' right to have their ballots counted overrode the technical and sometime conflicting provisions of Florida law. The ruling repudiated the judgment of Florida's Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a target of Democratic complaints and derision, that the tally she collected on Nov. 14, plus the overseas ballots received by last Friday, was the "final answer" to the question of who had carried Florida and won the presidency. Panetta said, "It is a legal victory for Gore and probably the right decision to protect right of the people to have their votes counted." "But," he added, "the long night of indecision has just gotten longer. The hope was that the Supreme Court decision would provide some finality and bring the nation to closure. But I have the sense it has opened a long legal morass, and put the election in the hands of the Florida legislature and possibly Congress." The speaker of the Florida House of Representatives said over the weekend that the legislature might exercise the option of naming the Florida electors if no final determination of the vote outcome had been reached by Dec. 12, the deadline for states certifying their electoral votes. Under a federal statute, the GOP-controlled legislature has that right--but Democrats are prepared to challenge any such action by the Florida lawmakers. Congress could become involved next January when it counts the electoral votes. A challenge by one senator and one representative would trigger a roll-call vote on both sides of the Capitol over accepting the Florida votes. DeLay, for example, has raised the possibility that Republicans could challenge Florida's 25 electors if Gore wins. In a signal of how partisan that debate might become in two narrowly GOP-controlled chambers, Rep. J. C. Watts (R-Okla.), fourth-ranking official in the House majority, assailed Gore as "a candidate who will not win or lose honorably, but will try to do so through cutthroat tactics that eight years under President Clinton have taught him." Staff writer Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report. © 2000 The Washington Post