Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • It looks to me that Clinton's biggest "problem" is that he did not hide behind "executive privilege" and tell congress to "bite me" when they asked for stuff. (At least not as effectively as the current guy.)

    He could have learned a thing from the current president in that regard.

    If he had done this... well, I'm sure he would have stacked up much better. ;-)

    I personally believe that both Clinton and Bush (take your pick) are morally corrupt and not fit for "Leadership". The problem gets made even worse wh
    • The problem gets made even worse when you take into consideration that congress is unwilling to be led.

      I don't know what you mean by that. Congress doesn't lead, they are led. They should lead, as they are the most powerful body in the country (don't believe the nonsense about coequal branches of government, it's not true).

      Too damn many people worried about getting re-elected.

      Agreed. This is why I am for term limits.

      While I'm all for democracy (beats all of the options) I think something if serio
      • The problem gets made even worse when you take into consideration that congress is unwilling to be led.

        I don't know what you mean by that. Congress doesn't lead, they are led. They should lead, as they are the most powerful body in the country (don't believe the nonsense about coequal branches of government, it's not true).

        I have become very cynical and often scoff when I hear the terms "president" and "leader(ship)" in the same sentence. Even so, traditionally the president is considered the "leader"
        • Even so, traditionally the president is considered the "leader" of our government.

          Militarily and diplomatically. Beyond that, traditionally, not so much, until FDR came around. I mean yes, of course he is the "leader," but the Congress controlled the legislative agenda before the 1930s. Now, the President seems to lead it, most of the time.

          They are unwilling to be led.

          I wish that were even more true than it is. They should not be led. They should do what they think is best regardless of what the
          • I agree that congress should not be led. I think they should be responding to the pressure of the people they represent, not the president.

            First, your feelings about "god is coming soon and who gives a damn" are really off the mark. No one in power in DC believes this.

            Yeah... but stuff like [villagevoice.com] this [guardian.co.uk] scares me.

            Second, who cares about the minority? Since when are they supposed to matter? If you can't get enough representation to get your voice to matter, then your voice shouldn't matter.

            Ah... you don't su
            • Yeah... but stuff like this scares me.

              I think most people read way too much into it, similarly to how people read way too much into some things about Clinton.

              Ah... you don't subscribe to the idea of the tyranny of the majority? That is one of the reasons that the senate has the filibuster. Because one man should be able to make a difference.

              To a very limited extent, even in the Senate. You can break a filibuster with cloture, and you need help with a filibuster, because you can't possibly continue it on your own indefinitely. If there is a very strong minority, then yes, you can prevent cloture and filibuster indefinitely, and that is what we have now, which I addressed.

              They don't call it the civil war, they call it the war of northern agression.

              Sure there's hard feelings, but most people have largely moved beyond it, in practice if not in theory.

              In the south we were taught that the war wasn't really about slavery. It was the fact that representation in congress was divided by census data. ...

              I think that's reasonably accurate. Lincoln was against freeing the slaves, because he knew it would mean secession. The preservation of the Union mattered above all else to him. The war was more about how states with slaves were losing the legislative battles because of lesser representation. Of course, once it all started, slavery was going to go away if the North won. And everyone probably felt slavery was going to eventually go away if the South did nothing, but it is not what directly precipitated it.