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, both "sides" have published documentation from television networks to back up their claims. Who is to say which is true? Do you have any real evidence to say either way, or are you speculating based on an opinion you already hold?

    Some of the claims in the article are so sketchy it's funny. For example, one of his sources [cnn.com] of information, is a CNN transcript (marked " THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT" of a Sunday Morning News broadcast, of another CNN broadcast), that vaguely mentions that a historian said that protests happened when Nixon took office in 1969.

    Hmm, maybe that historian was confused about the protests in 1973 in response to the Vietnam war? I certainly don't know, but linking to an article like that is not what I call research.

    Let's face it - these matters are rarely about the details. 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 ...

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

    • Do you have any real evidence to say either way, or are you speculating based on an opinion you already hold?

      Actually, the election results of 2000 were the initial reason I had no desire to see this film. We 've all been there, done that. Seems like a very pointless, boring rehash of finger pointing.

      What I find the most amusing about the whole thing, though, is the notion that declaring Gore the winner prematurely is "unbiased journalism", while declaring Bush the winner prematurely is "a right wing

      • the notion that declaring Gore the winner prematurely is "unbiased journalism", while declaring Bush the winner prematurely is "a right wing plot by Fox News to swing votes".

        Again, details. I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy". Why not go to the polls again? Makes a farce of the whole process, really.

        I think his presidency will ultimately be judged by success or failure in Iraq.

        You make it sound like Iraq wasn't a complete failure already. How co

        • I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy".

          No, a court upheld the result. No need to go to the polls twice. The votes were counted. Gore challenged. He lost.

          You make it sound like Iraq wasn't a complete failure already. How could it have been worse?

          Nation building takes time, especially with a bunch of whackos destroying the infrastructure you're trying to build. I'm not ready to declare it a failure YET.

        • Again, details. I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy". Why not go to the polls again? Makes a farce of the whole process, really.

          They did not decide the result, they ruled on a disagreement about the law in how the result should be determined. Who else should do this, if not the courts? Do you prefer rioting in the streets to determine whose interpretation of the laws is the correct one?

          We are a nation of laws. When we disagree, we look to the laws and th
    • 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 surplu