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: TraderGreg who wrote (5399)	12/8/2000 10:21:17 PM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 6710

grub

To: TraderGreg who wrote (5399)	12/8/2000 11:25:45 PM
From: moosebeary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

"Implicit to a fool in that post is the impression that I was disrespectful to those who ruled against Gore." You were. She ruled against your guy Gore and you called her a "whore". (Did you used to date her, or something? Maybe you know something we don't). "Judges are on a much higher plane of impartiality..." Then why didn't the two FLSC justices that contributed to the Clinton and or Gore campaigns recuse themselves? They should have held themselves to a higher standard. As for Ms Harris recusing herself, she could not, even if she wanted to. She is directed, as Sec of State, to certify the election results. It is a "shall" thing. She had no choice. And she did it at 5 on the 26, as directed by the FLSC. Don't read the above to mean that I think she didn't want to certify Bush the winner. Of course she did. But she was also required to.