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: Joe NYC who wrote (127216)	11/2/2000 1:22:28 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570843

Joe Why do you imply that from what I said? But since you ask, I don't think Gore was the enabler. There is nothing that Gore did that prompted or enabled Clinton in doing his thing. All I said was that Gore was an active participant in lies, cover-up and disinformation that followed Clinton's legal, moral and ethical lapses. What would you have had Gore do...call the police because Clinton was an adulterer or tell Hillary or go on CNN....assuming that he even knew? He could have stayed quiet to maintain some dignity. Of course act of courage would be to resign. Who? Gore? Why? What did he do wrong? I think Democrats find themselves in the same situation as Republicans did 4 years ago. Both ended up with men who were weak candidates. The reason both became nominees was that there was some sense in respective parties that they somehow deserved or earned the nomination just for hanging around for years and working hard for their parties. Maybe democrats feel that way. As an independent, I find Gore to be the stronger candidate. You and I have different interpretations of the quality and capabilities of Bush. To me, he's a fraternity boy with gray hair...nothing more. ted