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: Dan B. who wrote (262665)	11/30/2005 2:30:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574267

Re: "Both CJ and I have a strong understanding of the English language and both of us are encountering difficulty understanding your POV. You might consider that you are the problem, not us." You might have trouble understanding my point of view, but when you quote me noting that unfair unconstitutional recounts were asked for by Gore, and then you say I've said that simply asking for a recount is illegal (as opposed to asking for unfiar/unconstitutional recounts DOYOUSEEYET?), you are definitely having trouble with your comprehension Sorry but I already have identified the problem in another post. You seem to equate what you consider to be an unfair request for a recount to one that is unconstitutional. That's a huge leap that is incorrect. It's as if you can't get it through your head that the Supreme Court DID rule 7-2 that the recounting Gore asked for and the FSC approved, was not allowable under the constitution. They did. Look it up. Step out of your limited soupy site existence. Yikes. Do you read anything I have posted? In the 7/2 vote, the USSC did not say a recount per se was unconstitutional but rather the way the FLA Sup. Ct. structured the recount made it unconstitutional. The remedy proposed by the FLA SC was not acceptable to the USSC so the USSC denied the recount. HOWEVER, it is significant to note that many constitutionalists including at least 4 of the SC justices considered that ruling to be in violation of state's rights. Its an important and significant issue that got lost in all the fear mongering promoted by the GOP which claimed that without a new president for two months the US was in danger of going under. All I can say.......what an amazing farce the Bush/Rove GOP perpetrated on the American people. "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy.Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000)." Now, in your reply you laughlingly proceed to tell me much of what I've already told you about the 5-4 ruling, pretending I've not noted already what you suggest I need to take a look at. Frankly, what an ass and a rotten conversationalist you are, for that. "Suggest" away, dude. LOL. Frankly, I have no idea what you are saying here.......and I am too tired of trying figure these things out with you.