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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (6103)	3/10/2001 8:26:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 59480

Important news, flapjack: image.only50.com (No maybe might could have possibly newspaper rules alternate universe hallucinations here...this is actual photographic evidence)

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (6103)	3/10/2001 9:21:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

And then again maybe Gore didn't win. Knight-Ridder (as liberal a bunch as anyone could want) went through this same exercise a month or so ago using liberal hanging-and-dimpled standards and they said Bush won. Maybe victory is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe somebody's lieing. Maybe we'll never know who really won. We do know one thing, though. Bush was inaugarated on January 20. As of now, that's all that counts. And you know something? If Bush does a good job, he'll be re-elected in 2004 regardless of any intervening developments on this front. You lost. Get used to it. It's going to happen again.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (6103)	3/11/2001 2:28:56 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

>>Burton pointed out a problem with The Post's method. If the canvassing board had counted dimpled chads as votes, it would have had to reject the ballots where voters made a clear punch for one candidate and made a dimple for another because that would have meant they voted for two candidates. It is unknown how many ballots would have been disqualified if that had been done. << This is the dirty secret the Dems don't want to confront. If dimples count, then they should count not only in the so-called "undercounts," but in all ballots. But this isn't convenient to the Dem strategy, because it can subtract votes. The strategy is clear - only look at data which can help, deep six data which can hurt. This is a lot of fun for armchair strategists, but it's abysmal historical analysis. Don't tell me who might have won, tell me who got the votes. So far it's Bush, and I don't mean the United States Supreme Court. Every analysis which favors Gore uses language like "might."

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (6103)	3/11/2001 7:40:48 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 59480

Flap: Looks like who won depends on who counts the votes and how: "In a companion analysis of 9,150 so-called undervote ballots, the newspaper also found that Gore could not have picked up enough votes in Palm Beach County to defeat Bush Nov. 7 without counting every mark next to a candidate's name. An undervote occurs when a voter's intent is not irrefutably clear, and such ballots are not counted" . "Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, speaking for the Republicans, said: ``You're trying too hard to find a correlation here. You don't know these people, you don't know what they intended. You try to compile statistics and correlate them to a result that amounts to nothing more than speculation.'' "The Post review of overvotes, conducted between Jan. 17 and 29, illustrated the difficulty of hand recounts of punch-card ballots. Even the total number of overvotes was difficult to pin down." www0.mercurycenter.com

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (6103)	3/12/2001 8:57:43 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 59480

Still muttering about dimpled chads and butterfly ballots, eh? If irritation persists, consult a physician.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (6103)	3/12/2001 9:03:35 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

GOP thumps Big Labor March 12, 2001 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Last Wednesday night at an expensive Pennsylvania Avenue restaurant that Republicans favor, business lobbyists and congressional staffers calling themselves the Ergonomics Lobby hoisted their glasses in noisy celebration. They had just completed a two-day whipping of organized labor with far-reaching political significance. Big Labor and its Democratic allies were caught by surprise. They were unable to prevent a suddenly monolithic Republican majority from overriding workplace rules imposed by Bill Clinton in his final hours as president. Relief from federal regulation will save American industry hundreds of billions of dollars. But the broader meaning is that it smashed AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. Sweeney has become the toast of the Democratic Party for turning the sleepy labor movement into a mean, lean fighting machine dedicated to Republican defeat. But the transformation has been achieved at a high cost. By abandoning labor's traditional support for friendly Republicans, Sweeney exposed himself to humiliations such as he suffered last week. Debate has been waged for years over whether government shall dictate how companies can prevent ergonomic injuries suffered by workers because of repetitive motions. Clinton tried to settle the issue by delivering an edict on his way out of office. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles quietly laid plans to repeal the Clinton regulations by using the 1996 Congressional Review Act, enabling rapid nullification of presidential edicts. President Bush approved. Last week, to labor's unpleasant surprise, the Republicans struck. Democratic old bulls wailed in anger. Rep. George Miller of California, who never strays from the labor line, condemned "an unapologetic assault on some of the hardest working men and women in this country." Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin cried "disgrace." Rep. Henry Waxman of California shouted "outrage." Rep. Corinne Brown of Florida added the distinctive Black Caucus touch by assailing "this first attack from the Bush administration on the working people after the coup d'etat that took place in Florida." But Democratic histrionics did not turn around their Republican colleagues. It was remarkable that only 14 House Republicans backed labor on the ergonomics vote, but it is absolutely inconceivable that all 50 GOP senators voted yes. With the Republicans enjoying a Senate majority in name only thanks to frequent defections by moderates, their unusual solidarity this time reflects their abhorrence of Clinton's abuse of presidential power. But Sweeney also overplayed his hand in declaring war on all Republicans. After the Senate vote, Sweeney could not contain himself, saying that "dishonest and disgraceful are not strong enough words" to describe what the Republicans did. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao called his rhetoric "very harsh" and "unnecessary." "This is a different administration," Chao said. "So, I think organized labor, in expecting that their agenda is going to be carried out by this administration, I think is very unrealistic." Politely, she was telling Sweeney to come to grips with having lost the election. The attitude toward Sweeney from elsewhere in the administration is harsher. If the AFL-CIO is going to wage all-out war in politics, it had better be prepared for the agony of losing. For all its success in getting out the vote last November, organized labor is viewed by Bush administration members as a spent force. Bush's call for civility does not preclude defying Big Labor. Embarrassing investigations of unions by the Justice and Labor departments could be launched. The ergonomics surprise may well be the beginning of unpleasant times for John Sweeney. suntimes.com