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: SilentZ who wrote (357764)	11/9/2007 3:34:22 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574734

Once again, ever heard of "Democrats for Democracy?" I haven't?

To: SilentZ who wrote (357764)	11/9/2007 4:58:32 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574734

"They said in the decision that the case was not to serve as a precedent for future cases." Yeah. That speaks volumes. "Once again, ever heard of "Democrats for Democracy?"" Has to google them. Once I did, I remembered the event. Not to make any accusations, but here in Texas, when Rove worked on a campaign, some unusual things would happen. Flyers from groups with vaguely familiar names would get mailed out with all kinds of bogus information. From smears against the opponent of Karl's candidate, to false information about the polling places being moved in minority dominated precincts. And then there were the phone polls. They'd start off like a normal political poll and then segue into something along the lines of "If you were to find out that the Democratic candidate is a lifelong child molester who is cohabitating with a goat and 3 chickens, would that influence your vote?"...

To: SilentZ who wrote (357764)	11/9/2007 5:17:27 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574734

Z, > Is that correct? It was the most farcical decision in Supreme Court history -- even the justices knew it. They said in the decision that the case was not to serve as a precedent for future cases. How often does that happen? I did not agree with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, but neither did I agree with the Florida Supreme Court's decision to prolong the recount process. Two wrongs don't make a right. In any case, the notion that only Republicans care about usurping power while Democrats are "for Democracy" is ludicrous. (I tried Googling "Democrats for Democracy" but couldn't find anything significant.) Even the NFL has a limit on how many calls you can challenge. Challenging a ruling over and over again until you get the desired results is nothing new, nor is it strictly a GOP thing. Tenchusatsu