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.
  • Whilst I do not have the time to do an in-depth investigation into each piece, I did investigate the first few.

    This author tries to suggest that Moore is "responding" to his rebuttal of the movie, when in fact he has just gone through the points that Michael Moore has published on his site, and collected as much circumstantial evidence and half mentions of opposite opinions as he can, and put them into a single article.

    For some of the issues, as for the incorrect result projection on election night, bot

    • The fact of the matter is that Bush, who has strong, on the record ties to the global industromilitary complex and oil industry, takes office, turns a budget surplus into a massive budget deficit, makes policy changes that make millions of his countrymen unemployed, invades a country without presenting any clear evidence at all ...

      It's odd you use "fact' to describe those things.

      Yes, it is fact he has ties to large companies. That is not a bad thing in any way.

      No, it is not fact that he turned a surplus into a deficit. Sorry. Bush inherited a recessive economy (it began in March 2001, before any of his policies had a chance to take effect, due to market forces that were underway a full year earlier). This recession led directly to the deficit we saw in the 2002 budget.

      That's not to say he deserves none of the blame for the high deficit, but he didn't create it: it was coming regardless, unless he chose to drastically cut spending on discretionary spending, in which case you would be accusing him of taking school lunch programs away from the children.

      No, it is not a fact that his policies made millions of his countrymen unemployed. The massive layoffs we've seen began in the spring of 2000, almost a year before he took office. We saw positive population growth except for small blips throughout 96-99, but in May 2000 we lost 653K jobs, and in July, 407K. Employment growth was moderate for the rest of the year, but the stock market was coming down fast, and it was clear we were headed for recession before year's end.

      In Feb 2001, we lost 209K jobs. The recession began in March, and then in April, we lost 463K jobs. Then it kep tumbling as we fought off the recession and 9/11.

      No, it is not a fact that there was no clear evidence at all. We know for a fact Iraq harbored terrorists. We know for a fact Hussein had plans to harm us and his other neighbors. We know for a fact he was murdering his own people by the thousands. We know for a fact he regularly attacked our pilots. There's more, of course. You may not find this evidence convincing, but please don't pretend it does not exist.

      History will not look very kindly upon George W. Bush's autocratic reign of terror.

      Given your -- to be kind -- imperfect analyis of the situation, I don't find much interesting in your conclusion.