I'll bet a hand cranked grain grinder and a jar candle that he MENTIONS it...Why? you ask. Because he needs what he considers a red herring to take the heat off. After mentioning y2k, which he knows little about because he has been a busy busy little man, he will wag his finger at us and tell us it is under control. AND we know we should believe him. Government NEVER lies to prevent the little people from undue panic. They will take care of us. I sure would want that man taking care of my family. Think I'll buy more rice.... Abigayle

-- James Greenleaf (jgreenleaf@townsqr.com), January 18, 1999

Answers

I think if Clinton mentions Y2k it will be as a warning. THIS is what will take the public's mind off impeachment. I think he has been holding Y2k in his hand and will make a play soon.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), January 18, 1999.

Try this related thread Wager and join in the fun!

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 18, 1999.

James,

Clinton is quite aware of Y2K. 21 members of the Senior Advisors Group of the President's Council on Year 2000 conversion will be meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House this coming Thursday, January 21, 1999.

See this link...

http://nt.excite.com/news/pr/990115/ga-dept-of-transport

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 18, 1999.

Some think Clinton intentionally keeps a small Y2k office of 3 staffs so he can be provided an opportunity to declare a nat'l state of emergency, installing martial law. The recent news (or newsblackout) on FEMA, National Guards in 50 states does seem to point that way. If the trial drags on for months ( likely because of almost certainty of witnesses), he may even declare state of emergency in 99, especially if his coharts in the media will show people lining upat a bank, triggering a run. For 12 interesting forecasts of 1999 on Y2k, Clinton...go to http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/villa/3388. click on forecasts.

-- Ray Kwong (Kcorner67@hotmail.com), January 19, 1999.

What worries me and confuses me, is that we're supposed to already be in a declared state of emergency since 1933, according to this article; War Power

I'm sort of counting on talks in the mainstream media about possible imminent declaration of state of emergency to tell me when to pack up and bail out.

Now I'm wondering if this would ever happen. If we're already in a declared state of emergency, then there's no need for the president to declare one to use his powers and declare martial law etc...

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 19, 1999.

I just heard on the radio that several Republican Congresspersons are planning to boycott the SotU Address because they feel it is "inappropriate" for Clinton to show up on Capitol Hill while he is on trial...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 19, 1999.

Clinton is, if nothing else, inappropriate. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 19, 1999.