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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (2528)	11/27/2000 6:15:52 PM
From: cutiger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

No means yes, yes means more than yes jewishworldreview.com -- NO MEANS YES. In the world according to Al Gore and his legal team, no doesn't mean no. No means yes. If a voter doesn't punch through a ballot, if she starts to vote for a candidate, hesitates, then decides, no, she can't vote for that ticket after all, Team Gore says, ignore her reluctance and figure she really meant to go all the way. The dent means yes. Or if she so much as touches a chad -- mayhaps out of confusion because of the infamous butterfly ballot -- then fails to vote for a candidate, she must have wanted that man, really wanted that man. She was just being coy, so she only left a dainty dimple, and no tear, on the ballot. It doesn't matter if she clearly punched holes in other races, turn a no, turn a maybe, into a yes. That is the import of the argument being made by Al Gore's attorneys. Paul Sullivan, a Washington election attorney who worked for GOP presidential hopeful Steve Forbes, noted that it would be one thing to recognize a dimpled vote if all the votes on the ballot are dimpled, but such ballots are rare. The Gore legal team has been pushing for a vote count that considers the most modest wink a full swoon into the Gore/Lieberman boudoir. Then there is the Florida Supreme Court, with its seven justices, all of whom were nominated by Democratic governors. It is hard to imagine how the court could have come up with a decision that seemed more designed to help Al Gore. In the name of promoting "the will of the voters, whatever that might be," the justices handed the outcome of the election to heavily Democratic counties. The activist court -- like (shame, shame) both presidential campaigns -- failed to call for a statewide hand count. A statewide hand count, Sullivan noted, "is the only way you get to the equity position that the court talked about, so you are not selectively disenfranchising certain counties and certain voters." Then the court not only failed to admonish those Democratic counties for changing their vote criteria after the election was over, it also failed to prevent counties from changing their criteria even further. Team Gore -- having heard from statisticians that Gore only will win if hand count standards are relaxed -- has been pushing for sloppier and sloppier standards to cinch the race; and the court just winked at the whole thing. Go ahead, election lawyers, boys will be boys. The court effectively has dared the Florida Legislature to respond in kind. If allegedly disinterested justices can use the law to create a preferred and partisan outcome, why shouldn't state pols? In so ruling, the court has soiled its image irreversibly. Then there's Gore himself. Last week, Gore invited Bush to get together with him -- as if this country hasn't seen enough smarmy backslapping (and backstabbing) in this election. On Tuesday night, the veep appeared before America to utter yet another paragraph that exuded Gore's natural phoniness. In his latest disinformation moment, Gore announced that the Florida Supreme Court decision would allow for a "fair, full and accurate count of the ballots in question." Fair? Full? Only if you look only at "the ballots in question," and breezily ignore voters in pro-Bush counties. Accurate? Only if no means yes and maybe means definitely. "Accurate" used to apply to ballots that are punched. Now it applies to ballots that need to be mind-read in order to be understood. "Hyper-technical" is the Florida Supreme Court's term for Secretary of State Katherine Harris' adherence to a deadline. And "loser" -- that's the term for honest citizen. Comment JWR contributor Debra J. Saunders's column by clicking here.

To: calgal who wrote (2528)	11/27/2000 6:17:37 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 3887

Hey, the Seahawks yesterday didn't need an extra 15 minutes. All they needed was for their player intent to be recognized. On fourth down with time running out they threw a pass that they fully intended to be complete. They failed to punch the chad out fully, the ball fell incomplete, and the game was effectively over. But wait. Let's go back and look at the replays. Clearly the quarterback and the receiver intended the pass to be complete. There is clear evidence here of player intent. Although not all the instructions given to make a pass complete were fully complied with, there is sufficient evidence of intent that the pass should be called complete. We should go back to that point in the game, give the Seahawks their first down, and let them play out the rest of the game, with the condition that in every play where the player intent is reasonably clear to a committee of three Seahawks fans the play will be assumed to have come out the way the Seahawks intended. Go Hawks!!!