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: mst2000 who wrote (117071)	12/17/2000 1:03:02 AM
From: Bernard Levy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Sour grapes, sour grapes. Sounds like you have plenty to lose from tort reform. Time to clip the wings of the ambulance chasing profession.

To: mst2000 who wrote (117071)	12/17/2000 11:33:08 AM
From: TH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

No actually, not different. I really do understand the anger that many have over this Presidential contest/election. I understand that many people hold the opinion that theft has occurred. In their effort to support this opinion these people will expend energy doing what people naturally try to to do, and that is win. I find no fault with such actions, because I am confident that people of the opposing view will also expend energy. After weeks of cannonballs sometimes both forts are still standing, but this is not the usual result. What you have presented as your argument is quite flawed. You have selected to mix some facts with some opinion in an attempt to build a core foundation upon which to base your argument. It is quite easy to destroy your points and I mean no offense, but very little thought is required. I will do it this time, but if the same type of argument structure is presented again, I may decline to do so. I will be the first to admit that I have grown tired of this battle. Its time to get back to work, in a manner of speaking. "The 7 FSC justices were not campaign operatives for one of the candidates. Harris was." Hmmm, a little truth here, but to support the wrong premise. You see, being a campaign operative is not the essential in your example. True Harris was involved in the campaign, but it was her party affiliation that motivated her. The 7 FSC judges also had a bias, and this was the reason for allowing the scales to tip in Gore's favor. "The 7 FSC judges had to decide a case presented to them by litigants -- they did not go out of their way to exercise authority. " Really? Hmmm it would appear that 7 of the 9 USSC judges would beg to differ. The recounts should have been defined in accordance with the law, but in the FLA SC attempt to resolve the situation they seemed to overlook several key issues. Twice they ruled and twice they got slapped down. "Harris did everything in her power to interfere with the local process of organizing and conducting manual recounts provided for by law and asked for in a timely fashion under circumstances where they were clearly warranted, in order that they not meet a deadline which she had the discretion to ignore, but made clear she would not. " Really? What did Harris do to prevent or interfere with the local process? Please give me one example where Harris exceeded her authority and broke a law? I don't think you can, and the courts seem to agree. Even your FLA SC does not have a specific charge against Harris. You need to face the fact that if this was reversed and Harris had been a Democrat, the very things she did would have been trumpeted by the Democrats as "simply following the law". This is such a weak argument that it is not worthy of our time. Harris did her job within the bounds of the law. The fact that you don't like this is the real issue, and not that she did something "wrong". "Her conduct set the tone for what was to follow. As a result, the man who finished second in the national vote, and from all accounts (except the official account doctored by Harris, a law and order conservative trial judge who applied the wrong legal standard and refused to look at the best evidence presented to him, and the 5 conservative justices of the US Supreme Court) finished second in the Florida vote, somehow won the White House. Where I come from, we call it white collar stealing. And we won't forget it, ever. " Here is where we left all fact behind and have offered 100% opinion. This is a common structure for those that make weak arguments. First a little fact, then add an opinion supporting those facts. Next, use some facts (not relevant to the issue/action usually) to construct footings for a more aggressive opinion. Last, serve up some opinion and hold the butter and salt. Lets see if they swallow that last one...hmmm they did, so have another serving. Yes, Bush finished second in the popular vote. Too bad we don't elect Presidents on the popular vote. Next. Yes, Judge Sauls did not look at the "best evidence", but again this is your opinion regarding what the best evidence is. Actually Sauls did his job and did it well. Sauls didn't need to look at ballots because the reasons to do so could not be proven by the Gore camp. As for "white collar stealing", well you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. What Gore tried to do in Southern Florida was much closer to stealing. If you don't want to face that then it is you that chooses to live with their head in the sand. I prefer the sunshine myself. Best of luck to you. TH