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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (56627)	11/25/2000 8:26:40 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71178

I was teasing Christopher a little, as he knows. I'm simply noticing that the constituencies that each side is anxious to protect the enfranchisement of are, by some amazing coincidence, the very ones they expect to get the most votes from. And... get this! -- the very ones they believe should be held personally responsible for errors on their ballots are... OH NO! Why, they are the ones that they believe are going to vote for their opponent!!!! GO FIGURE!!! Only a portion of the military votes were vetoed for postmark problems, and anyway I believe if they dated their ballots there is a law permitting them to be accepted even if not correctly postmarked, because it isn't their fault. Sure as hell if it isn't their fault but the fault of their assignment, their votes should be counted. There were other problems, too, however. Missing id numbers, failure to get a signature on the "Witness" line, failure to add their SSN, or final four numbers of it. Of course they COULD give it to them anyway. Except wouldn't that be... OH NO!... changing the rules after the election?! It's funny. Everybody acting exactly the same and being all indignant about their opponent. EDIT: oops. it's DAR. oops. Sorry, i got lost in the forest.