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: G_Barr who wrote (285235)	8/9/2002 11:27:41 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769669

I see left wing historical revisionism also includes a complete mis-reading of Supreme Court opinions. You are butting your head against a brick wall on this one. The USSC completely rejected the Fla court, 7-2, then dealt with the massive Gore fraud because no one else was willing to. It was the Gore fraud they put an end to. They decided that the Clinton/Gore Nazis had gone one crime too far. It was the right service to the republic, at the right time, and the benefit will last for at least the next generation. You morons on the left can keep twisting the decisions, but no one is listening anymore-and THAT'S what frustrates you...

To: G_Barr who wrote (285235)	8/9/2002 11:52:49 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Boy using your selective interpretation of what others say, I conclude you are saying a properly marked ballot cast by a registered voter at his polling place is not a legal vote. I stated that the machines properly counted the legal properly marked ballots and PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH was the winner. That is true. That is 100% true. Also all later recounts conducted by technology retards in search of whatever also demonstrated that the machines were correct. So you spin in circles posting nothing substantive to respond to. you motor mouth about side issues that miss the common sense justification of the Supreme Court Ruling. And as I originally stated #reply-17854140. The main basis of the Supreme Court Decision is .....IF one dictates that a recount to the accuracy of some fraction of a percent beyond the current well defined counting method. One must clearly define the metrics of the counting process before one attempts to recount. I would suggest you read the decision, but technology and process retards just don't get it. It's all about defining the how to do it before it's done. Also technology and process retards have no clue as to how to put in place such a system. A proper manual recount is a complex systems and socio engineering problem. A recount on the scale the state of Florida that could pass a legally defined forensic definition of marks that do convey the intent of a voter would take months. The process dictated by the techno retards of the Florida Supreme court failed to define what improperly marked ballots still legally conveyed the intent of a voter.