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" of our government. (At least by the rednecks in the school system I escaped from long, long ago.)

        Yet, for as long as I can remember paying attention (Carter) it seems that congress and the president have had an antagonistic relationship, at best. So, I was trying to allude to the idea that the president is presented as the person that leads our government, including congress, and the fact that for the most part congress pays little attention to the president. They are unwilling to be led.

        ---

        Now we have a president and congress that are from the same party. From my perspective, the results have been disasterous. Instead of a system that protected the minority from the majority... we seem to have a "my way or the highway" mentality right now riding roughshod over anyone that doesn't believe, and not caring at all about the consequences because god is coming soon and who gives a damn.

        I'd prefer we put a halt to the experiment. Waiting four years and hoping that the feedback loop works seems insane...

        I don't think it is nearly as bad as you seem to think...

        It can't be, thankfully.

        But, I have become a pesimist... and paranoid... and cynical.

        ;-)

        ---

        More importantly, I'm tired of the Clinton vs. Bush stuff that keeps occurring. As if one justifies the other. One person acting badly does not justify the other one acting badly. It is almost as if we are watching a race to the bottom of the barrel.

        The correct response, IMHO... is neither . My real problem is... I don't particularly want any of the choices that have been presented.

        Maybe we should be able to vote for "none". And, if the majority of the populace vote "none" for president, then we don't have a president that term.

        Congress won't be able to pass a law unless it is veto proof. Everything else is to be considered vetoed. Personally, I think it would be great to have a very high barrier to changing the law. We've been at it for 200+ years now... just how long is it going to take to get them right anyway?

        Don't know how to deal with all the "appointments" but I'm sure some alternative could be devised.
        • 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 i