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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8692)	12/10/2000 1:48:53 PM
From: Frank Griffin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Nadine, Katherine is a lady and of good breeding. She was very careful to follow the letter of the law. She made no abitrary or capricious decisions. She has been buffeting by those, flsc, etc. who have attempted to change the rules or adjust them to accomplish a different outcome than the actual and true election would have resulted in. She is for Bush because she is a very intelligent lady. However, she carried out her lawful duties impeccably.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8692)	12/10/2000 1:55:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

The Democrats perceive that Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and Jim Baker are trying to game the system. Game the system? ROFLMAO!!! The systems gave them their powers as elected officials. They followed the system.... They implemented the system..... And the system MANDATED they they carry out their duties within the time frame.... Now if you're angry about that.... well, that's your problem and one you're going to have learn to deal with. But face some facts here... just because people have an ideology doesn't mean that they are "gaming" anything. Harris is an elected official. The florida election law specifically outlines what her duties are and how she must carry them out, thus eliminating her ability "to game" anything with regard to the election law. You're just upset that she didn't cut the democratic canvassing boards some slack for having selected election systems (votamatics) that allegedly were "confusing" to democratic voters. While she possesses the authority to "cut some slack" in extenuating circumstances, SHE IS NOT LEGALLY BOUND TO DO SO. To be frank, I'm really pissed off at the way the democrats have demonized her for carrying out her duties within the law. She never once altered the law. If you don't like the law, change it. But do it in advance of the NEXT election, instead of trying to re-write them to favor your candidate in a PAST election. There are all types of people involved in this case who possess conflicts of interest. But so long as they adher to the EXISTING LAW, their ideology doesn't really matter. And you can also blame Palm Beach for deciding that taking Thanksgiving Day off was more important than completing the recount. But what can we expect? After all, Palm Beach reportedly hadn't granted a manual recount to any candidate in over 10 years. Pretty obvious that they were out of practice and not very motivated. So sue them.... Oooppss... I forgot... Gore already did... :0) Regards, Ron