Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 12:55 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 8 hrs 35 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Biogen Idec Inc. Message Board

  • xion_2k xion_2k Nov 27, 2000 3:36 PM Flag

    Why The GORE Effect Is Merely TEMPORARY

    JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY

    The Myth of
    Miami
    Gore never had a treasure trove of uncounted
    votes in Dade County.

    Sunday, November 26, 2000
    7:20 p.m. EST

    Al Gore will address the country
    tomorrow to explain why he is still contesting the
    election. NBC News reports that one of his main arguments
    will be that a "complete" recount of Miami-Dade County
    would net him between 500 and 600 votes, enough to
    overtake George W. Bush as the winner in
    Florida.

    Mr. Gore and other Democrats are busy creating a myth
    that they would have clearly won the Florida recounts
    if only Miami-Dade County hadn't reversed course and
    cancelled its planned manual recount last Wednesday.
    Frustration on the part of grass-roots Democrats is
    understandable, given the steady diet of incomplete information
    they've been fed on how many Gore votes were likely to be
    found in a recount of Miami-Dade's 10,750
    "questionable" ballots. But senior Democrats probably know
    better. Some are keeping the "myth of Miami" alive in
    part to keep up morale and so they can have something
    to litigate. So long as Miami-Dade's votes aren't
    hand-counted, the Gore people can believe they won
    Florida.

    David Boies, Mr. Gore's top trial lawyer, says that the
    end of Miami-Dade's manual recount "disenfranchised
    the vote of every voter who was not counted" and a
    full count would ensure a Gore victory. But a Sunday
    Los Angeles Times analysis by Ron Brownstein
    concludes that "if Miami-Dade County had been compelled to
    keep counting, it might have helped Gore, but probably
    not as much as is commonly believed." Brownstein
    quotes a senior Democrat who agrees: "Dade was never
    going to yield huge numbers." Democrats told him they
    only expected to pick up between 100 and 200 votes
    overall in Miami. Republicans were looking at a wash,
    with no overall change.

    Unlike Broward and
    Palm Beach, which gave Mr. Bush only 30% and 35% of
    the vote respectively, Dade was much more evenly
    balanced. Mr. Gore won on Election Day with only 53% of the
    vote, in part because six out of seven Cuban-Americans
    voted for Mr. Bush. This means that in any recount, Mr.
    Bush would likely have won about half of the
    "undervoted" ballots, those in which no clear choice for
    president was tabulated by the machine recount.


    Democrats respond that the Miami-Dade manual recount was
    clearly picking up a lot of votes for Mr. Gore before it
    was cut off last Wednesday. In the 135 precincts (out
    of 614) that had been recounted, Mr. Gore had picked
    up 157 votes. Democrats reasoned that at that rate
    they were on their way to adding between 700 and 900
    votes to Mr. Gore's margin in the
    county.



    <><><>Source: Wall Street Journal website(www.wsj.com)

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • ---Ditto---
      Thanks to all of the good info. from those
      previously mentioned!!

    • Don't know about the rest of you, but I've turned
      on the "ignore this user" feature for xion_2K and
      have reported him/her for board abuse.

      This
      board is already suffering enough with the "normal"
      spam.

    • Xion-

      So you have a major long-term
      position in IDEC. Who are you to call anyone un-American?
      And even if the outcome of the election would have an
      effect on the market (and IDPH value), so do other world
      events like stability in the middle east, price of crude
      oil, etc. Are you going to start spewing BS about
      those topics too? Give me a break.


      Notbill88

      OT message to Sass-
      The last hint was not enough.
      Too many Bill's at IDEC.

    • I have not responded previously to any of your
      post. I have been a shareholder since July of 98. Have
      never sold. Have no immediate plans to either! If you
      are a shareholder, congratulations. As stated by
      others, this is a message board for IDPH!

    • THAT's the reason why!

      I have a MAJOR
      long-term position in IDPH, which I would prefer to not
      have devastated by an un-American, vitriolic viper, in
      the personage of Al(Win At ANY Cost)Bore, understudy
      of the nefarious, cunning, predatory, iniquitous,
      savage-of-the-century, Wild "hit Man" Bill.

      Sorry if you
      disagree, but this stuff IS relevant and crucial to IDPH
      and the market, IMO.

    • if the votes in miami were such a myth why have
      the bush people all but killed themselves to stop
      handcounting? No not because they think there is chicanery and
      mishief going on, that's just gruel to send to the hungry
      partisans, but because they think they will lose.

      If
      not they would confidently say count the votes. But
      they know better.

      That's all right Bush lost
      the popular vote, not even counting the 2+million
      that voted for Nader, he has a bizarre "victory" in
      Florida and is so ill suited to be President it is a
      joke. Right he is a uniter not a divider.

      Good
      luck america we will need it. Just please get Jim
      Baker off TV already.

      • 3 Replies to riverview5
      • November 28, 2000


        An enabling act for
        the judiciary?


        Paul Craig
        Roberts

        The Florida Supreme Court must be severely punished
        for participating in vote fraud. Impeachment is too
        good for the Gang of Seven. Arrest, indictment and
        trial are the best response to the court's misuse of
        judicial office to facilitate the attempted theft of a
        presidential election.


        Florida is a state where
        Republicans have been overwhelmingly elected to legislative
        and executive office. In a state where Republicans
        hold the balance of power, why would partisan
        Democratic justices so audaciously and confidently overstep
        their authority and ignore statutory law in order to
        help Democrats revote ballots to Al Gore's
        benefit?


        The answer is that for almost a half-century � ever
        since the 1954 Brown decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
        � the judiciary has been gradually appropriating
        the legislative role, adding the power of lawmaker to
        its assigned role of law
        interpreter.


        Unlike the Florida Supreme Court's brazen decision to
        assist the Democrats in stealing a presidential
        election, the Brown vs. Board of Education decision was in
        behalf of a noble cause � desegregation of public
        schools.


        The Brown decision remains sullied by the means
        through which it was obtained � an unethical ex parte
        collaboration between a sitting justice, Felix Frankfurter, and
        a litigant, Justice Department official Philip
        Elman. The plot achieved its goal of abolishing
        segregation, but the means usurped legislative authority and
        created a precedent inimical to democracy. The judiciary
        learned that whenever it can get away with claiming the
        moral high ground, it can legislate.


        Other
        factors have contributed to the judiciary's rising power.
        The larger government grew, the more involved
        "special interests" became in politics in order to defend
        and advance their interests. In the public's mind,
        campaign contributions and interest group politics
        gradually undermined the authority of the legislative
        branch. A tainted and sometimes stalemated legislature
        permitted the judiciary to make inroads into the
        legislative arena.


        <><><>Source:
        The Washington Times website

      • Riverview, there is a BIG difference between vote
        counting and VOTE MINING. You know, even with MAXIMUM use
        of "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" for Al(I'll do ANYTHING to
        win)Bore, he lost! Liberals believe that Liberalism(their
        religion) makes them SO SUPERIOR, that they feel empowered
        to read the mind of, and divine the intent of, every
        voter. Enter magnifying glasses, biased democratic
        canvassing boards for making final decisions, and fleeting,
        barely discernable, dimpled chads. But, no matter. Bush
        won anyway.

        I believe Bush actually WON the
        popular vote. Please read messages# 3324, 3325, and 3326,
        along with the following article I include with this
        post. When the congressional investigations are
        complete, I expect the discovery of a highly organized and
        widespread NATIONWIDE DISENFRANCHISEMENT of overseas
        military voting personnel(who overwhelmingly vote
        Republican, and who also privately despise the Clinton/Bore
        regime). Coming soon: dirty tricks galore. Believe
        it!

        ***********************************************


        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ELECTION 2000
        Military missing
        absentee
        ballots
        Some Navy personnel unable to
        vote for
        new commander in chief


        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        By Jon E. Dougherty
        � 2000 WorldNetDaily.com



        Members of the military who are currently stationed
        overseas have complained that the Pentagon has not yet
        sent out absentee ballots this year, meaning they will
        not get to vote for a new commander in chief on
        Tuesday.

        Specifically, members of U.S. Navy aboard
        ships supporting the USS Cole -- the destroyer recently
        attacked by terrorists while it was undergoing refueling
        in the port of Aden, Yemen -- have either not
        received ballots or won't get them in time because of
        current deployment circumstances, Pentagon officials said
        yesterday.

        "I've heard about this within the past
        week," said Lt. Dave Gai, a Defense Department
        spokesman. "We are trying to get more information. We don't
        know if they were delayed through the mail."


        He added that due to current deployment
        considerations, some military members overseas likely would not
        get their ballots in time.

        "The support team
        for the USS Cole may not get their ballots due to
        intermittent mail," Gai said. "Some ballots could very well be
        delayed for a number of reasons."

        A Maine
        resident -- who asked not to be identified -- said her
        Navy daughter who is stationed in Tokyo has received
        her absentee ballot for every election except this
        one.

        "No one at the base will be voting
        because all the absentee ballots are missing," she told
        WorldNetDaily.

        Navy officials were also contacted but
        did not return phone calls.

        Critics have
        suggested that the Clinton administration may have
        purposely delayed sending absentee ballots to military
        personnel overseas because most, according to recent
        surveys, will vote Republican. The White House has denied
        those charges.

        According to Gai, officials with
        the Federal Voting Assistance Program -- which helps
        manage balloting for overseas service members -- "was
        not aware of any group non-delivery."

        Gai
        said depending on the home state of the member,
        ballots can be sent via Standard Form 186, which is a
        write-in ballot. States have different deadlines for such
        ballots, he added.

        Each ballot "is unit specific
        and handled individually," he said.

    • This is specious. Brian Kalt, an assistant
      professor of law at Michigan State University, has closely
      followed Miami-Dade's recount. He notes that by beginning
      in numerical order, it proceeded first through
      heavily Democratic precincts, many of which had gone for
      Gore by as much as 9 to 1. The 135 recounted precincts
      as a whole gave Mr. Gore 74% of the vote, compared
      with only 53% countywide. That means that the
      remaining precincts as a whole went for Mr. Bush, and would
      have delivered far fewer additional votes for Mr.
      Gore.

      "The count was just about to move into heavily
      Republican and Cuban areas," says Mr. Kalt. "Given how the
      rest of the precincts would have voted, I don't see
      how Gore would have picked up votes. If the trend had
      continued, an admitted if, Bush would actually have gained
      400 votes countywide."

      Mr. Kalt's analysis
      squares with that of other political observers I spoke
      with. But such realities don't fit easily into the
      "spin rooms" of cable television, where even the
      anchors are parroting the line that Miami-Dade would have
      been a "gold mine" of Democratic votes. No one
      mentions that the Miami-Dade board originally had voted
      unanimously not to have a manual recount on Nov. 14, after a
      sample recount of three overwhelmingly Democratic
      precincts turned up only six extra Gore votes. The board
      voted to hold a recount only after it came under
      intense political pressure from Democrats and became the
      target of several Democratic lawsuits.

      The myth
      of Miami is now being extended by Democrats into
      other areas of controversy. Six Democratic congressmen
      have demanded that Janet Reno's Justice Department
      investigate whether some 100 Republican demonstrators
      "intimidated" the Miami-Dade board into halting its recount
      last Wednesday. Rep. Jerry Nadler says the
      demonstrators, none of whom were detained by police or touched
      anyone, represented "a whiff of fascism in the air." But
      none of the three members of Miami-Dade's election
      board were intimidated. One member of the board, David
      Leahy, says he saw only "a noisy, peaceful protest." He
      told the Los Angeles Times, "I was not intimidated by
      that protest. I saw it for what it was."


      Democrats have every right to use legal arguments to fight
      Mr. Gore's defeat in Florida. But having lost in four
      separate counts of the ballots--the original count, the
      machine recount, the overseas absentee count and now a
      selective recount of two Democratic counties--their claim
      that Mr. Gore won Florida is ringing increasingly
      hollow. The myths they're spinning may keep hope alive
      among their troops. But they have very little basis in
      fact.



      <><><>Source:
      Wall Street Journal website(www.wsj.com)

 
BIIB
336.79-0.81(-0.24%)Jul 24 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Amazon.com Inc.
NasdaqGSThu, Jul 24, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Puma Biotechnology, Inc.
NYSEThu, Jul 24, 2014 4:02 PM EDT
Baidu, Inc.
NasdaqGSThu, Jul 24, 2014 4:00 PM EDT