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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (2234)	1/22/2001 1:54:23 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Senator Kennedy is too much of a wimp to mount a filibuster. He's all talk, no action.

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (2234)	1/22/2001 2:04:32 PM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

BRAVO, Ylang. 'Divisive,' my ass ... I can't quite figure out why the right-wingers are so enraged that 'we' aren't all kowtowing and falling in rank to support the idiot. They don't know us too well, do they? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha PS: Thank you for representing others of us in SF who couldn't attend large and important events. There wasn't much opportunity here in Austin to protest, although I should have, I know (for the first time since I've lived here 17 years, I feel almost embarrassed about it because of the Bush family). 'b-i-a' ###

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (2234)	1/22/2001 2:11:37 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And aren't we lucky to live in a country where you can march? I defend your right to do that, I just disagree with it on this occasion as I feel it is divisive. I believe that Bush won constitutionally.

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (2234)	1/22/2001 3:30:18 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 82486

I am disgusted that in what must have been a deal in the name of conciliation, that not one Senator came forward on Jan 6 in solidarity with the black caucus to protest the Florida electoral votes. My understanding is that the deal had nothing to do with conciliation; it had to do with committee chairmanships. The Republicans could have denied the Democrats any commitee chairmanships; they had the votes. In exchange for getting some chairmanships, the Dems agreed not to contest the electors. I'd say the Dem senators did the right thing. Do you actually disagree, considering that they would have lost a showdown in the end anyway? Should they have fallen on their swords for principle? Quit whining.