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: chic_hearne who wrote (110066)	5/10/2000 2:54:00 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578934

IMHO, I'd take another term of slick willy over anyone else. chic, Only the very best film actors tend to be capable and bright. Reagan, at best, was a B actor......I would give him very little credit for what went on under his administration. His best attribute...the ability to look good. ted

To: chic_hearne who wrote (110066)	5/10/2000 9:12:00 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1578934

Chic ....<<<<<<Someone pointed out to me before (can't remember who) that slick willy's biggest quality was that he did nothing. He stood around and let things prosper around him. We all know that this was do to the great Reagen politics, but the "common man" is incapable of unstanding this. IMHO, I'd take another term of slick willy over anyone else. chic <<<<<<<>>>>> Chic, I agree partially with that first statement. Ironically most of Slick Willy's legislative triumphs came about because of Clintons adoption of republican 10 point plan put out by Newt in 1996. Free trade bill was a great triumph, but was originally started by dems, in 1990 to tweak then pres. Bush. When slick Willy came to power, he had to sign Democratic bill or lose party support. Other than that,Clinton spent most of his time fighting senate and congressional leaders and couldn't pass anything of substance. For the second part of your statement; Slick Willy has become a lame Duck in spades. Nothing of substance can or will be done; and to have four more yrs. of this would be risky as the country needs a government. Clinton has debased government with his campaign donations scandals, Lewinski, Whitewater, post office, etc. that crooked government is the norm rather than the exception. Almost everyone in legislative branch is considered crooked, because of need of campaign contributions, and what is being done to get them. Worse, I don't think either G W or Al will change this so I expect corruption to continue. Can we accept the selling out of government to lobbyists?