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.

Clinton Fried Rice 11 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I don't know much about Clinton, so I won't say anything about that. Certainly
    my default reaction is suspicion of anyone in any sort of position of authority.
    Of course, that typically applies to his detractors as much as to him.

    If you're looking into comparisons, you might also be interested in looking up
    the Carlyle Group. The most egregious bit of that that I've heard about is the
    United Defense pump-and-dump.

    • "If you're looking into comparisons, you might also be interested in looking up the Carlyle Group."

      Blech - more sickening corruption. This is why I'm voting for Nader this year. It's not even about Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative any more. It's about corporate vs non-corporate.

      Maybe we need a revolution.

      • > Blech - more sickening corruption. This is why I'm voting for Nader this year.
        > It's not even about Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative any more.
        > It's about corporate vs non-corporate.

        Unfortunately, given the structure of our society (a social-democratic
        capitalist republic), voting for self-proclaimed reformers is typically of
        limited utility. The problem is with the social structure, not just with the
        individuals in charge. Though it does appear to me that current batch of people
        in
        • We need a *particular type* of revolution. I think the organizing principle of society should be worker control.

          The problem is that less than 1 percent of the populace would agree with you about that. I'd be surprised if you could even get 1 percent of people on this site to agree with you. We fought major wars to defeat communism, and we're still, as a people, as against it as ever.
          • > The problem is that less than 1 percent of the populace
            > would agree with you about that. I'd be surprised if you
            > could even get 1 percent of people on this site to agree
            > with you. We fought major wars to defeat communism, and
            > we're still, as a people, as against it as ever.

            The Leninist dictatorship-of-the-party is a far cry from
            anarchist societies that people have actually created on
            the ground. I hope you'll take the time to read a bit about
            what the anarchists achieved in Spain [struggle.ws].

            The C
            • I hope you'll take the time to read about how every worker-run nation has failed in short order, unless kept in control by force.

              Mistaking an anarchist for an advocate of state control is a pretty big error. The modern US Republican Party is a lot closer [to communism].

              I hope you say that when you try to convince people of revolution, because it will succeed in nothing but making people realize how wacky your ideas are.
              • Try looking at things along the authoritarian / libertarian
                axis. The current US administration seems very
                authoritarian to me. I imagine you have heard about the
                "confidential" memo in which the Justice Dept. asserted that
                the President has the right to set aside US law during
                wartime?

                Combine that with their plan for never-ending war, and I
                think that's pretty authoritarian. And in the end, not that
                different from the current regime in China.
                • Try looking at things along the authoritarian / libertarian axis.

                  Try imagining that I have long ago moved well beyond such banal exercises.

                  I imagine you have heard about the "confidential" memo in which the Justice Dept. asserted that the President has the right to set aside US law during wartime?

                  Well, he does. He has authority to do whatever he wishes in an emergency situation, including wartime. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. The question is not whether he has the right or authority, which he does, but whether he can be found to be at fault for doing so. I think the answer to the latter is yes, as well, though it appears the memo reaches a different conclusion. OMG A MEMO THAT I DISAGREE WITH.

                  Combine that with their plan for never-ending war

                  The justice department has a plan for never-ending war? Or do you mean the Bush administration? If the latter, you must not be paying attention, else you'd realize that Bush denied to exercise his authority to set aside any laws. The Bush administration did not accept the full conclusions of the memo you cite: it appears you are conflating. Oopsie on you.

                  You see, since the torture first came out, people have been trying to blame Bush for it. Every little thing that could possibly hint at Bush being tied to it has been exaggerated and trumped up by the blogocracy. But most of them fell strangely silent this week when a document dump showed many other administration documents saying torture is a bad idea, and that Bush wouldn't authorize the setting aside of any laws. They didn't like to mention that, because it hurt their case against Bush. But those of use who read all the news -- not just the parts that we like -- know better.

                  And in the end, not that different from the current regime in China.

                  Yes! Yes! Keep saying such obviously ridiculous things, and marginalize your views further, ensuring fewer and fewer people will listen.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.