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 (148021)	7/10/2002 8:50:50 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

"My thoughts were that Bush may be part of the problem, and not the solution." Not really. Most people don't have their attorney as the chief counsel of the SEC, nor have their father appoint the heads of the SEC. So the situation is totally different. Dubya has these skeletons in his closets, but the press, and for that matter the Democrats, have ignored them over the past few years. Look for Smirk to use the same defense everytime, this is "old politics" and "I don't really know what happened". Make him seem like a shining intellectual beacon, now doesn't it?

To: tejek who wrote (148021)	7/10/2002 11:41:06 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Respond to of 1573092

tejek, re: its a little like asking the fox to clean out the hen house. The problem is they are all foxes. I suppose we could get Joe Dirt for the job, I think he's clean on the investment side.

To: tejek who wrote (148021)	7/10/2002 11:33:07 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

Unless he is totally innocent of wrongdoing in the Harken mess, its a little like asking the fox to clean out the hen house. Let's look at this logically. What kind of "wrongdoing" could he have conceivably have been guilty of? It has been previously investigated (at least 3 times) as to whether he was working on inside information, and he has been shown to be free of wrongdoing. As to the late filing of the form, it is important to keep in mind that THAT would be criminal only if there was intent to defraud -- however, the fact the he filed the original return indicating his planned liquidation is proof positive there was no intent to defraud. Bottom line: What kind of wrongdoing could Bush conceivably be guilty of in this matter? How many times does it need to be investigated? Is three or more not enough? This is clearly an attempt on the part of the Democrats to smear Bush, just like was done with the racist ad in Texas during the campaign. And it pleases me to see it backfiring on the scoundrels who are doing it (Carville & Associates).