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: Tom D who wrote (2646)	11/27/2000 11:06:01 PM
From: Esvida	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3887

I think it's a fair piece, but there's one thing I disagree with the article: the value of lawyers' contributions. And, first my disclosure - I'm no where near being a lawyer myself and no one in my extended family become a lawyer yet. I think the fact that the two sides' supporters are not shooting real bullets at each other yet should be attributed to the legal system in this country. The lawyers are in many ways serve as the bullets for each side. Believe me, I've seen war, I've seen deaths and I've seen hell on Earth. I prefer to throw lawyers at my opponents than shooting at them. Any time, any conflict - no qualifier here. When the American public pokes fun at lawyers, to me it's nothing more than a self-effacing endeavor. So, to all the lawyers out there: I love you even though when you're mine and you call me, I kind of shudder since I don't know how much time you'd really bill me for the call. (But, in the end, I feel you've always done a fair job for me!) Now, someone here may call me name 'sucker of the trial lawyers'!

To: Tom D who wrote (2646)	11/27/2000 11:30:34 PM
From: Ellen	Respond to of 3887

I had read that article and agree that it's a good, non-partisan article. And thank you for your comments. I really do appreciate that.

To: Tom D who wrote (2646)	11/28/2000 5:46:04 AM
From: lml	Respond to of 3887

Its a good article, Tom D, and reiterates what I've said here on more than one occasion, everyone is a partisan in this whole saga. If a question is posed to a Democrat or Republican representative, or one of their respective attorneys, there are not, and cannot, be expected to give a straight-forward honest answer. They are going to give their own spin no matter how ridiculous, no matter how obtuse to the question posed. Rothenberg knows this very well. The more important question is to ask how many Americans sitting in front of the boob tube at home actually understand this. I guess maybe some, but not many. So, if anything, the value of Rothenberg's article to point out, perhaps highlight this issue so that it may get some airtime, and some additional intelligent souls might begin to question what they hear on TV even if it is from a respected attorney or member of Congress. The blame here goes to the media and an established protocol that lets the interviewee of the hook . . . easily. One of the benefits of Fox News over the other networks is that the news anchors are more apt to take on BS responses, but not always. The downside is that in this process, they give airtime to disingenuous talking heads whose only MO is to get out their own message, disavow any acknowledgment to the question posed and respond with their "prepared speech." This, IMHO, is why we hear so many lame arguments out there. Once these BS stories get on TV, every zealous advocate is apt to repeat it, over and over again despite the fact that such arguments are not based in fact, nor upon intelligent analysis, but are merely spin, and most disturbingly baseless spin. Welcome to media coverage Y2K.