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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3648)	11/28/2000 9:40:52 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I was anxious to see Dave's response. None there. You shouldn't have suggested he get a better spell checker. It has obviously slowed him down. Some of the conservatives do have trouble coming up with verifiable facts, don't they...throw an incendiary opinion on the table...Vendit and/or sandintoes cheer and move on. I'm not going through the last 150 posts I've missed, but from one of your posts, I gather that C-SPAN will broadcast the audio from the SC? Best Regards, jttmab

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3648)	11/28/2000 10:12:43 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I saw the document as it was portrayed in the Drudge Report. It amounted to about a page and a half of text. Have you have seen no more than that? If you have a copy of the 5 page document I would like to read it. The piece that I saw in the Drudge Report can not be construed to say that the Democrats were attempting in any way to do anything illegal. It was simply not to your liking. So what? Just to add a little history on the thread that perhaps you missed. [I'm breaking my posts up into separate responses; the conservatives seem to have difficulty in dealing with more than one point in one post. They can sometimes see the first one, but after that it's lost. Dave in fact might not have gotten past your first point of getting a better spell checker.] I think it was five pages including the attachments which were referenced in the cover memo. As I recall the attachments were liberal-socialist-Nazi-traitor propaganda ... in most other circles it was identified as relevant sections of the electoral law. In a previous post to sandintoes, who had a similar point on the memo to that of Dave's [I think sandintoes said something like "the letter is proof of their corruptness...or that their scum...something like that". I pointed out to her that the memo and attachements were merely a consolidation of the applicable law and that the GOP sent out a similar memo to their observers. Her response was something akin to it's Ok for the GOP, but it's proof of scumhood for the Dems to do so. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to Vendit and Cyberken.... Regards, jttmab P.S. Conservative English Usage: Way back on the thread there was one of the conservatives here that gave me an "education" on usage. e.g., A conservative is allowed to say ...Liberals are socialist-communist-pig-Nazis-scum... It is not considered demagoguery because the word All did not precede the phrase..So 1. "Liberals are socialist-communist-pig-Nazis-scum is NOT demagoguery." While 2. "All liberals are socialist-communist-pig-Nazis-scum" is demagoguery. Hope this clears up any problems due to usage.