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: Mr. Whist who wrote (57171)	11/2/2000 8:10:19 PM
From: $Mogul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

What I want to know is why is this all just surfacing today for petes sake.... jsut when the NASDAQ gets going again... errrrrrrr Futures have moved lower :( What I need to know is if this is going to affect the mkt's tommorrow :(

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (57171)	11/2/2000 8:14:10 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I don't know. I wonder if the Texas Dept of Motor Vehicles has a webpage. Maybe we could find some traffic violations. Did anyone ever ask him if he had any DUI's? You people are really reaching. The party of tolerance. Only for card carrying members. Sickening. alan w

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (57171)	11/2/2000 8:16:09 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

Under some circumstances, I would agree that he should have released the story earlier, but there is more to it than that. GWB has already told the press there were things in the past that would not be rehashed. GWB is a father of two girls. I do not know if you have any daughters but if you do then you might understand that he had NEVER told them about this. I understand that. I understand that he is trying to go forward not back.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (57171)	11/2/2000 9:10:26 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You raise a serious issue here, for current and all would-be politicians. Re: "Yes, the timing of the story appears to be 100 percent political. You and I evidently are in agreement on that point. However, this story is a "no story" had GWB come clean on his past. The question this raises, of course, is what else did GWB not tell us about his past?" -- The last part of your question concerns me most. One ought to consider that question in context. Bill Clinton is the first President in recent American history who has refused to have his medical records released to the American public. There has been rampant speculation about drug abuse and repeated courses of treatment. But the media and the public have laid off, respecting the President's increased claim of personal privacy. No longer would Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoids be the butt of cocktail banter. What should a politician be required to disclose about his past, and what is private? If something is public record, it doesn't matter. But how much of Bush's, or anyone else's private matters, ought to be disclosed voluntarily, given the increased standard of privacy set by Clinton? Based upon Clinton's standard, it's none of yours or anybody else's da**** business. Does a double standard apply for Republicans?