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: JDN who wrote (122271)	1/16/2001 7:39:30 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

In the case of the Florida election law some may try to look at the whole and argue confusion. I look at the law as like a program of many connected and disconnected parts. Some times a programmer needs to add a new function to the program and does and does some limited testing but no a full suite of regression testing. In the case of the Florida Law an attempt to create law that addressed the presidential election was mixed with law to govern local elections. The Florida Supreme Court and Gore and Boise and all the democrat's said let's make all kinds of far out conclusions based on mixing it all up. But the consistency of the time line of dates was a clear main program and it clearly showed the legislative intent to create a body of shall and will laws. The Florida Supreme court uses a lot of mays or maybe's and invention to construct a sophistry of oh look at the confusion. The play of events showed the logic of the law and the ninnyhammer understanding of the Florida Supreme Court Duped by the master of fake dimple counting law Boise a minion of the sycophant. of the cancerous impeached first rapist. ToM Watson tosiwmee

To: JDN who wrote (122271)	1/18/2001 11:09:11 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

Dear JDN, I'm sure the Florida legislature will shut the barn door now that the horse has bolted, and fix the elections law and maybe even get new voting machines. I'm in the camp that favors a good enough count to tell who actually won the election, or in the case of a very close election, the best count humanly possible. Depending on equipment, that may mean a machine count, a manual count, or a machine count plus a manual count of machine-rejected ballots. It does not include just ignoring machine-rejected ballots, especially in an election where the number of machine-rejected ballots was 400 times the margin of victory. Entire counties rejected over 12% of their ballots -- 12%, can you imagine it? Above all, I favor a public official getting up and saying, "The election was very close and we are going to count very carefully to see who won because the will of the voters matters." Did you hear anyone say that this time?