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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (104352)	12/7/2000 1:45:22 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

Sorry about using the word "technicality". Take that word out and my point is the same. They took advantage of FL law, and I said I did not hold that against him. Me and you (believe it or not) are in agreement on this. Where I bring up the points that seem unfair (listed again below) your only response is "Me thinks you ought to back and check, thoroughly, the record." I think the assertions are correct per "the record". If they are not, PLEASE CORRECT ME. I DO NOT WANT TO ENCOURAGE ANY MIS-INFORMATION (for or against either candidate). Point out the falicies and I may CHANGE my opinion, and then could make an argument that would support your side. Again - PLEASE POINT OUT THE MISTAKES SO I CAN CORRECT THEM. >>> This is where I get frustrated at the attacks on GWB. After choosing to take advantage of a loophole that allowed for an unfair advantage to the democrats the Gore camp would not abide by the rule that says you must be done within a week. Fair enough, they got the liberal FL SC to extend the deadline by 12 days. Still could not get enough votes via the mechanisms allowed in FL statute and the extended deadline offered by the FL SC. They feel that because they had an original right to a selective recount that they don't have to live by any deadlines AND that the standards for counting these votes should be the most liberal standards imaginable. So liberal that they will SUE the panel of people (all demos in P-B, 2 out of 3 in M-D) that are charged with performing this process. In other words, highly paid and highly partisan (through the represntation of their clients) lawyers should set the standards, not the bodies that are put in place to actually do this. And without showing ANY evidence that the canvassing boards did anything wrong.<<<