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: combjelly who wrote (132945)	2/16/2001 5:11:07 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570393

Combjelly Re..Of course, you could make the argument that he didn't realize that 1976 was after 1968, we all know how much trouble he has with numbers... And I will. Forgetting about an incident from 24 yrs ago is hardly news. Hell, sometimes I forget my name the next morning. Could you recall every single incident off the top of your head over a period of 30 yrs. The DWI was so long ago, he probably never gave it a thought. Secondly, how many people think of a driving ticket as an arrest. While this technically was indeed an arrest, when you are trying to remember back 30 yrs, it would be quite easy not to remember the incident as an arrest; but rather a driving offense. Definitely a smoking gun there. Wow, he was a convention delegate. Really strong links to the Gore campaign.<<<<<<< Delegates to any party conventions are usually very active members. You don't just choose anyone to be a delegate. He would have had to have been at least a local party leader; and active party supporter. By the way, one of your leads confirms that he was a delegate. On ABC's Nightline, Erin Fehlau, one of the reporters who broke the story, said she was confident it was "not a set-up." The revelation apparently originated with a lawyer who has served as a Democratic National Convention delegate.<<<<< So you truly believe that Smirk forgot that he had to report trades in stock of a company in which he was a principle officer to the SEC. I am not going to comment, you said all there needs to be said here.<< No I didn't say that. I said I Sure as hell would remember a blow job before I would remember about filing papers with the sec. Wouldn't you? If you prefer to believe Bill, then I prefer to believe GW. Frankly both are probably lying, but GW's story is far more plausable; and the investigators agreed. <<<He had every reason to lie. Since he was likely outspending Gore on both soft and hard money, trying to flip it around and weasel out of it was all he was left. Why would that help GW? Its not like Al was ever going to vote for him? Secondly, the contention was that Al was raising soft money 2-1; not that he was spending 2-1. And Bush knew, or should have known, that he was outspending Gore at that point, instead of the other way around. <<<<<< I doubt if either candidate knows exactly how much money each candidate has raised in soft money, in donations to his campaign yes; but soft money given to the party or spent on a candidates behalf. No I doubt if either candidate could say that even now, 60 days after the campaign.