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: rich4eagle who wrote (123928)	1/26/2001 9:47:51 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

rich4eagle, I usually do say "many" democrats. I apologize for implying all democrats. I didn't mean it, and also did not mean to offend you. Nadine mentioned that only 19% of dems (at one point) think GWB won a legitimate election, so a lot of them do not agree with me on that issue. That issue does have something (not everything) to do with integrity in my opinion. Also, the reason I like to debate this issue is to help me understand how people feel the way they do. I want to open my mind further, and once in a while open someone else's mind. That said, a good debate would be about the two parties integrity level, and I will debate that to me at least it appears that the democratic party is short on integrity. I think I can make a pretty good case without showing too much "ignorance". And I do not think that no dems have integrity or that all repubs do btw. Is your position that the parties are exactly the same, the dems have more integrity, or the repubs have more integrity? Last but not least, your sarcastic barb about me being "correct as usual" is a little out of line. I never put out a point that I do not feel is correct, otherwise I would be lying. I put them out for all to see so they can be challenged, and will revise my opinion if I am shown to be wrong. The problem is that most (not all) reply with personal attacks and assumptions about my personality (as you did) instead of challenging the issues I bring up. If I say I believe such and such, and you say "you are an idiot", it does not change my opinion. It reflects back towards the person who did not have the courtesy or intelligence to challenge the point. I think it is kind of funny actually. Scott

To: rich4eagle who wrote (123928)	1/27/2001 12:46:31 AM
From: d.taggart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

What is this, Friday Night Live-The integrity of democrats insulted? By who? Was it clinton the rapist/womanizer,was it gore the chronic liar,was it jj the new daddy,was it larry flynt,or was it mel renyolds the newly registered sex offender, was it barny frank with boys in the basement, was it mr kennedy, who could it be? Oh, perhaps james carville or that ugly begalla guy,was it dan rather?mmm tough question!The integrity of democrats,mabey the union boys know,or the teachers, check the prisons,they all vote democratic,they hear stuff you know,Was it Chicagos own Richie Daley blasting clinton as a liar,could have been.Might have been drug dealers theY vote for dems,ah the baby killers or perhaps the the society for man boy sex,they have supporters in congress I hear.let me know what you discover!~

To: rich4eagle who wrote (123928)	1/27/2001 6:40:24 AM
From: ecommerceman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Washington Post Says Gore Suffered Most From Spoiled Votes Saturday January 27 12:29 AM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Florida voters who spoiled their ballots last November because they punched more than one presidential candidate's name were three times more likely to vote for Al Gore (news - web sites) than for the ultimate winner, President George W. Bush (news - web sites), the Washington Post reported on Saturday. Citing its own review of computerized records for 2.7 million votes in eight of Florida's largest counties, the Washington Post said Democratic voters who intended to vote for former Vice President Gore were more likely to have invalidated their ballots than Republican voters supporting Bush. ``According to the Post's analysis, the biggest problem for Gore was in 'overvotes', ballots invalidated because voters indicated multiple choices for president,'' the newspaper said. The Post's analysis showed that Gore was by far most likely to be selected on invalid overvoted ballots, with his name punched as one of the choices on 46,000 of them. Bush, by comparison, was punched on 17,000. A dispute over votes in Florida led to a delay of more than a month before the election was finally decided by the Supreme Court. The article said Democratic votes also appeared to have been disproportionately affected because of Palm Beach County's ''butterfly ballot'' where many people said they inadvertently voted for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan (news - web sites). The study found that the 8,000 voters whose ballots were thrown out because they chose Gore and one of the two other presidential candidates listed near him voted more than 10 to 1 Democratic in the U.S. Senate race. The Post's review indicated that problems with voting machinery resulted in thousands of voters who went to the polls only to have none of their ballots in any races counted. Voting experts told the Post that the apparent tendency of Democratic voters to have a higher spoilage rate thanRepublicans was due to the fact that Democrats managed to motivate many newer and first-time voters who were not familiar with the voting equipment.