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: jlallen who wrote (3462)	8/19/1999 8:04:00 PM
From: Tim Luke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

so will george jr. legalize cocaine

To: jlallen who wrote (3462)	8/19/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 769670

GWB's campaign is barely out of the starting blocks and already there is a coverup. Usually politicians get into office before they start coverups. But...... how deep does this rumored "cocaine/drug use" iceberg go? Can we believe that the drug use wasn't more recent? If it is true that GWB only used hard, felony level drugs many years ago, why did he make such an effort at a coverup? We may just be seeing the first shoe drop. We could be seeing the tip of the iceberg.

To: jlallen who wrote (3462)	8/19/1999 9:22:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

John, You may, of course, accept my post as anything you wish to. That is your god-given right. Of course you would be wrong, but you have that right also:-) YOu may substitute principles, intelligence, or whatever in place of integrity. What we were talking about is people questioning those(pick any of the above) characteristics of Starr's mental and moral attributes and personality characeristics. My main point is that I don't need a court ordered dictum to question any of those aforementioned attributes. I have the right and the ability(along with the myriad others that have done so publicly) to question those things. There are plenty of reasons that I have already stated. What it comes down to is that I don't need a courts decisions to prove that point just because you or anyone else unilaterally decides that the court is the overriding authority in this debate. My opinions of Starr(or anyone elses) are not in trial, so the courts opinion has no authority nor does it have any meaning. I will take my post as a sign of your admission of defeat in a well fought but ultimately hopeless battle. :-) Mark