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: Don Pueblo who wrote (4491)	12/4/2000 5:21:06 AM
From: Vendit™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

............A bit of media wisdom says the election was a "tie," and therefore Mr. Gore is entitled to this legal jihad. And in a statistical sense, with six million votes cast in Florida and 100 million in America, the result was a tie. But there have been many such ties in American history, and no candidate for President has ever behaved like Mr. Gore. Nearly all narrow losers for much lesser offices bow out gracefully. They understand that for democracy to succeed losers must ratify the legitimacy of the winner. It's time someone told Mr. Gore that he cannot become President. Even if he prevails in one of his lawsuits to add votes (Miami-Dade and Palm Beach), or in a proxy Democratic suit to subtract votes (Seminole), he will probably be trumped by the Florida legislature. The constitutionality of this was made clear by none other than Justice David Souter last Friday. He argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had no role in this case because the law already makes clear how Congress can settle such electoral disputes. This implies a role for the Florida legislature that is already preparing to vote the state's electors for Mr. Bush. The only question left is how bloody-minded Mr. Gore wants to be. He can fight on and on, losing in the end but doing great damage to Mr. Bush, to his own reputation and to our democracy. Or he can salvage some honor and pack it in. opinionjournal.com

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (4491)	12/4/2000 7:27:28 AM
From: bwanadon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

You are way too modest TLC. That (i.e., yours) was the funniest post all day. Not that it matters, but a few fine points were made along the way.

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (4491)	12/4/2000 9:39:25 AM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

<<Having been a professional musician between 1966 and 1982, I was able to knock off more trim than the average mammal. >> No doubt about that I am sure...money for nothing, chicks for free, right? Let's put it this way...after 25 years of deficit spending, high interest rates, and fears of continued inflation, it was nice to see those problems turn around in the '90s. I know morals are so important to you. But funny how when Jimmy Carter was President, with impeccable morals, none on your side(or even my side) seemed to think that was an excellent quality. Back then, it was Carter's inability to deal with inflation, rising interest rates, a sluggish economy, hostages in Iran, etc. etc. that made voters angry. No one cared one bit that Carter was a good man, a decent man, a morality role model. His devout practice of Christianity wasn't even a mitigating factor when Reagan asked us: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Funny, not one member of the Grand Old Party asked that question in 2000. I wonder why? In the year 2000, morality was so much more important. Poor Jimmy, he always had a problem with timing. I guess too I am a moral heathen for not placing an emphasis on the sex lives of our Presidents...except one. In 1962, when JFK was controlling the nuclear "button", he was probably THE biggest womanizer the Presidency had seen up to that point. By 1962, Richard Nixon and his wife were not even sleeping together. Now, during the 1962 Missile Crisis in Cuba, which one of those two would you have wanted to have their finger on the nuclear trigger? Let's just say I was glad to have Kennedy in office during that time. As far as lying about sex, yeah, that is a major problem...something has to be done in that. Maybe the Executioner can get Delay and Lott to make adultery a Federal capital offense. Of course, old Bob Barr, Newt, Livingston, and a lot of others would have to receive immunity. And maybe old Scalia and Thomas can get some buddies to join him and rule that the prohibition of ex post facto laws doesn't apply to heinous crimes like adultery. Just think, they can then prosecute Clinton for all those affairs he had in the past, as well as his future ones. TG