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: greenspirit who wrote (130241)	3/5/2001 2:22:50 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Clinton behavior in the oval office was far worse than Nixon's. And I doubt you will find very many Republicans defending Nixon, and finding every excuse under the sun for his behavior in the Oval office. Oh? Did Clinton hire burglars to break into his opponents' campaign offices? Did he keep an enemies list, and use the FBI and IRS to persecute those enemies? Did he keep slush funds for covert operations? And did he then cover it all up? Did he have Janet Reno running these operations, as John Mitchell did for Nixon? Was Clinton's Vice President indicted for taking bribes? If Clinton did all this, then Ken Starr really wasted the $50 million dollars and many years he spent investigating Clinton.

To: greenspirit who wrote (130241)	3/5/2001 9:58:57 AM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Michael, I think that if you review the posts over the past three months, you would find my statements supported. I gave you one example last night of personal attacks on nonGOP posters, and there are dozens more. You state that "No one I know of has claimed GW is "the second coming". Don't you admit that the following is in that ballpark: "We may be witnessing the beginning of the Presidency of the greatest President who ever was." Message 15421642 As for posters refusing to say anything critical of Presidents other than Clinton, I am still waiting for someone to just come out and say that it was wrong for Bush Sr. to issue pardons for a terrorist, a heroin dealer, someone who had just contributed $200,000 to Bush and his party. I, and other Dems, have criticized the Rich pardon as dreadful and inexcusable, and recognize that nothing any former President does excuses what he did. But trying to get folks to recognize that he is not a devil among angels, that the world of politics isn't black and white, is a bit, well, trying.