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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bosco who wrote (138)	11/23/2000 10:11:40 AM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

OT - I'd like to wish all of you a Happy Thanksgiving and express my appreciation for the civil debate that's gone on here, especially between Bosco and Carl. Obviously a lot of passion, but none directed towards each other. But, Bosco, do you think the FL SC decision now requires virtually all overseas ballots to be included, at least those that are not clearly postmarked after the election, and are not from voters who are on record as having voted? It would seem that missing witness signatures or addresses would fall into that category of "hypertechnicalities" that should not be used to void the will of the voter. And a couple more op-ed pieces from today's Post - two from the right, one from the left, and the newspaper's editorial stance: washingtonpost.com (George Will) washingtonpost.com (E.J. Dionne, Jr.) washingtonpost.com (Charles Krauthammer) washingtonpost.com (Editorial) While neither party has come off well in this dispute, I do think Bush missed an opportunity to appear statesmanlike. He could have graciously concurred with a recount, while stipulating that he would refuse to concede if the results went Gore's way based on the inclusion of any ballots whose chads were not detached from at least two corners. I think a majority of voters would find that reasonable.

To: Bosco who wrote (138)	11/23/2000 10:52:55 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

I hope you had a Happy thanksgiving, too, and didn't eat too many of Zeev's turnips. LOL Regarding Baker's rhetoric versus the rhetoric coming form Daley/Christopher, and who is fanning the flames, I can't really comment as I must admit that I haven't listened to the rhetoric from either side. My opinions are my own and come strictly from what I perceive to be the legal and ethical issues involved. I do agree that it would be good if we see both sides moving together, but I see no chance of that. Regarding the "will of the voters", that phrase really sets me on edge. Since when is it the job of the court to determine the will of the people? The job of the courts is to interpret the law and the constitution. Are courts now supposed to start relying on public opinion polls before issuing rulings? It's bad enough that legislators and executives do that without having courts doing it. I'm appalled just at the thought of it. If the FSC thought that the law or constitution justified their decision, that would have been one thing, but to rely on the "will of the voters"? I took the day off, but I note a couple of late developments. First, the Supreme Court ruled that Miami-Dade doesn't have to continue the recounts. This is a correct ruling, but it surprises me. Forida law provides the county canvassing boards with the power of deciding whether or not to conduct recounts, provides no right to a recount to the candidates. Considering their reliance on the "will of the voter", and their willingness to overrule both the Florida Legislature and the Executive Branch, I'm surprised that they didn't overrule the County Board. In a separate development I note that a Gore aid indicates that even if Gore doesn't "find" enough votes by Sunday to catch Bush, Gore will not concede. Instead he intends to contest the election results in court. There appears to be no end in sight. The separation in the country will only get worse, and there appears to be no hope of reconciliation. Carl