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: tejek who wrote (132868)	2/15/2001 7:03:45 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570331

Ted. RE..The above is what I originally posted. When I said "What's next?", I meant "What's next [for the Reps. to ridicule]. <<<<<<<<< The simple fact is they are two different ideas (Its gross that the rep attacked Bill and what is next) and I answered them separately. You, yourself put those ideas in separate paragraphs; and I answered your ideas point by point. <<<<<<<<<I was not laughing at Bush because he was an alcoholic. What I was saying is that the Reps. can't laugh at people with drinking problems because their candidate is an alcoholic. My point? No one can afford to throw stones because no one is without flaws.......even me. ;~)) <<<<<<<<<< When you say "people with drinking problems" you are implying that GW currently has drinking problems. GW doesn't currently have any drinking problems because he hasn't had a alcoholic drink in 15 yrs. GW has alcoholism, the underlying reason why many people have drinking problems. GW has been able to control his flaws. Bill should have been able to control his also. He didn't, and I doubt if he is even bothering to make a modest effort to do so. That is the crux of the problem. <<<<No one can afford to throw stones because no one is without flaws.......even me. ;~)) <<<<<< Hogwash. If GW currently had drinking problems, I wouldn't defend it; the same with drugs. They are problems which can seriously hinder anyones ability to do his job. But taking money from foreign gov.; engaging in sex with the employees, lying in sexual harassment lawsuits; being partners in a swindle also can hinder someone from doing his job. Taking campaign contributions in exchange for favors is a form of bribery; no matter who does it. Every one should be pillaged for it, instead of offering "the other guys do it" as an excuse. That is not an excuse. That simply means both sides are guilty. No one is hounding Bush for is drinking problems because the people who could/ would [read dems] don't because they don't think its appropriate/proper. <<<< Scumbria is. Also you can bet that the dems would make an issue of it if they could. They made an issue of Clarence Thomas pubic hair joke. Have they changed since? However the Reps apparently think its okay to go after someone with sexual improprieties/hangups. <<<<<< Why not? Many of Bill's sexual hang ups are against the law? Lying about it in court is against the law. Taking bribes is against the law. Giving pardons in exchange for money is against the law. Stealing furniture is against the law. Its getting very old and makes the US look like the bush leagues...oops, sorry; like a bantam weight class. <<<< There you got me. The Clinton saga should have ended yrs. ago, and would have if the dems hadn't been such wimps and voted for conviction in the impeachment. Al would have taken over the presidency and likely have won reelection in Nov.. And by making excuses for Bill, the dems have allowed the party to be dragged into the pardon cesspool; by association. But like a bunch of rats jumping a sinking ship, all of the dems. in the congressional hearings have started to denounce Bill. They all praised him when the polls showed Bills favorable ratings above 60%. Now that his ratings have plummeted to 42%, the dems can't seem to distance themselves far enough. Perhaps you would be wise to follow their lead. By the way, I heard the latest polls on Hardball this afternoon. GW ratings have jumped to 60% fav. 30% neg. This is up from GW's last poll which was 50% fav. 42%neg. Meanwhile Bill's ratings have plummeted from 56% to 42% fav. and 32% to 48% neg. At that rate, Bills ratings will be below Nixon's in a month. If you wish to verify, watch Hardball on CNBC, 9 eastern.