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
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
I just looked (Score:1)
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 when you take into consideration that congress is unwilling to be led.
Too damn many people worried about getting re-elected.
While I'm all for democracy (beats all of the options) I think something if seriously wrong when our system presents Gore vs. Bush and Bush vs. Kerry as your "best candidates".
I like the "American" way of life... but, you can keep the government. I think it was originally designed to be a symbiotic relationship... but it has turned parasitic and is killing the host.
This is all just opinion, of course.
Reply to This
Re:I just looked (Score:2)
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
Re:I just looked (Score:1)
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"
Re:I just looked (Score:2)
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
Re:I just looked (Score:1)
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
Re:I just looked (Score:2)
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 i
Check out... (Score:1)
Re:Check out... (Score:2)
I saw a funny press conference (I think it's linked from above) where different people from the left and right support Open Debates, and they start arguing their pet issues against each other.