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.
  • You see UN inspectors aren't allowed to inspect any USA or UK military complexes, so Iraq is bound to quibble.

    Then we know that the USA, Russia, France, UK, Pakistan, China and India all have Nuclear and/or chemical weapons. But iraq and other countries are of course not allowed nuclear weapons because they are 'bad guys'.

    This has nothing to do with iraq ever attacking the west - it has no interest in doing so, it has interests attacking Isreal because it is an aggresive neighbour funded and armed by a

    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
    • Saddam was voted in just as democratically as Bush (i.e. not a fair or valid election)

      They have an Electrical College in Iraq? What?

      (Seriously, I found your swipe to be unnecessarily wrong, but preferred replying to moderating.)

      • electorial college's aren't important to democracy - one man one vote and the party with the most votes being elected is democracy.

        Unlike zimbabwe's elections, iraqs were reasonably fair, and unlike the US elections the party with the most votes got it.

        --

        @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
        print reverse @JAPH;
        • electorial college's aren't important to democracy - one man one vote and the party with the most votes being elected is democracy.

          That is one form of democracy. That is never how America's election for President has worked, and yet it's always been called democracy.

          Unlike zimbabwe's elections, iraqs were reasonably fair, and unlike the US elections the party with the most votes got it.

          That is incorrect. The candidate with the most votes for President -- George Bush -- won. Individuals do not vote for President, they vote for electors. There is no such thing as a "nationwide popular vote." When people talk about Gore winning the "popular vote," they are talking about something that does not exist.

          Even theoretically speaking, you cannot reasonably compare votes for Bush in Massachusetts to votes for Bush in Florida, because many Republicans in Massachusetts, knowing Bush has no chance at all to win the electors for that state, do not vote at all, or vote for someone else to make a statement. There is every reason to suspect that if there were popular election of the President, the numbers would be different. The mythical "popular vote" has no legal standing, nor statistical validity.

          Electors vote for President, and Bush got the most votes for President. You may not like the system, but it is the one we've had for hundreds of years, it's worked pretty well up to and including now, and it is false in every way to say that Gore got more votes than Bush.