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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (134793)	3/23/2001 9:24:42 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1571036

Ted Re..Harry, a wrong comes in many guises; sorry I couldn't wrap up the Sup Ct decision in a pretty package with a ribbon to fit your theorizing.<<<<<<<<<<<< True, wrongs do come in many sizes, but that isn't what we are talking about here. Why have a vote if nobody is going to honor that vote. I have no problem with trying to change the outcome of the next vote; but I do have a problem with not accepting the last vote. I have no problem with trying to change the policy of an elected official, I have a problem with not accepting that public official as legitimate when he won the election. This country would turn into chaos if everybody disputed every vote. Put your energy into the next vote. The point, nonetheless, still stands; when Americans see a wrong, they say something and/or do something about it. <<<<<<<< You can do something about the wrong by changing the outcome of the next election; you can't change the outcome of the last election. That is my point. GW like it or not, won the 2000 presidential election, and your whining about it won't change it. And you can change how your representative votes on laws and referendums, but once a law is passed, you need to follow that law until the law is changed in the next vote. That is how it is done here.

To: tejek who wrote (134793)	3/23/2001 9:26:27 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1571036

Ted Re..Harry, a wrong comes in many guises; sorry I couldn't wrap up the Sup Ct decision in a pretty package with a ribbon to fit your theorizing.<<<<<<<<<<<< True, wrongs do come in many sizes, but that isn't what we are talking about here. Why have a vote if noboby is going to honor that vote. I have no problem with trying to change the outcome of the next vote; but I do have a problem with not accepting the last vote. I have no problem with trying to change the policy of an elected official, I have a problem with not accepting that public official as legitimate when he won the election. This country would turn into chaos if everybody disputed every vote. Put your energy into the next vote. The point, nonetheless, still stands; when Americans see a wrong, they say something and/or do something about it. <<<<<<<< You can do something about the wrong by changing the outcome of the next election; you can't change the outcome of the last election. That is my point. GW like it or not, won the 2000 presidential election, and your whining about it won't change it. And you can change how your representative votes on laws and referendums, but once a law is passed, you need to follow that law until the law is changed in the next vote. That is how it is done here.