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: Scumbria who wrote (132850)	2/15/2001 5:36:17 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570313

Scumbria Re..You have no way of knowing if Bush takes drugs or alcohol. <<<<<< Neither do you as far as drinking goes. The negative drug test would indicate he doesn't do drugs currently. When was the last time your buddy slick Willy has taken a drug test? Are you sure he isn't on drugs right now. I have proof GW isn't, why don't you put up with a similar drug test Bill took or shut up. <<<<<<There is strong evidence of illegal business dealings in the recent past as well. <<<< To forget to file a paper isn't necessarily illegal, unless it is done intentionally. What strong evidence are you talking about? <<<<<<<<Let's put W through 8 years of special prosecutors turning over every detail of his past. He would be gone in 6 months if it started.<<<<<<<<<< Go ahead, don't let me stop you. Its not like the dems. never launched a investigation by a special prosecutor. In fact is was the democratic congress which passed the special prosecutor law in 1992. Its just too bad Bill beat George Sr. in 1992 elections and signed the special prosecutor extensions as one of his first acts as president. Reagon got investigated for yrs. on Iran Contra. Bush Sr. also had a investigation by a special prosecutor. Neither man got impeached. It's not that the dems haven't launched investigations by special prosecutors. The dems have been far less sucessful than the rep. in proving anything.