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 (262450)	11/30/2005 4:08:37 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 1574005

You are wiped. "Methodology" is exactly what the USSC ruled against 7-2, i.e the methodology Gore asked for and expected to be favorable to him indeed. Gore was a slime for asking, the FSC was worse for approving, and the USSC put a freeking righteous end to it. Dude, I've stuck to this from the beginning. Just the facts. I know you don't like the fact that Gore asked for unfair counting methods, but he did. The FSC said OK run with it, and the USSC nixed it, in a nutshell. The foregoing is a true set of developments in that election, aside from all your tried if debatably untrue timing and "stay" arguments (well heck, 5-4 you lost on that part of the decision, too). I can't believe how confused you are, re: "then (you) referenced the court's 5/4 vote. That vote placed a stay on the FLA Supreme CT's mandate to continue the recount and had nothing to do with constitutionality........at least not with the affirming vote." Dude, I advised YOU to stick to the 5-4 decision to make YOUR argument (which never had anything to do with the 7-2 decision I raised in the first place). There is a good dissent there on that issue. I've always and consistently from the start of this based my words and case in the fact of the 7-2 ruling. For what it's worth, everything the USSC does has to do with constitutionality. Turnip truck kids. LOL. Read the ruling. Then you'll know. The court PLAINLY said the counting methods could not meet the muster of fairness. Dude, you can talk about "mostly in terms of timing" all day long, but you are whistling dixie, because the the unfair counting methods that 7-2 ruling specifically put a stop to (with detailed description of why there was unfairness involved), are a huge issue in the case indeed. The USSC asked, is the type of ordered counting fair? The answer was 7-2 no. The next question was, if we count fairly, is there legal time left to do it? They answered that question, if controversially so, 5-4 no. Dan B.