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.
  • ...Bill Clinton was the most corrupt president in our nation's history

    I'd say, not even close. Not with folks like Buchanan, Garfield, Arthur, and everyone's favorite whipping boy, Nixon.

    • They may have have pocketed money and made illegal deals (or, had agents break into the DNC), but none of them compromised national security in the process, to my knowledge.

      Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, plug in "clinton", "department of education" and "audit" into Google and see what you come up with.

      • Well, yes, but to a large extent, many of them didn't have national security to compromise. :-)
        • Nixon is a different case. What he did didn't significantly harm the country in terms of national security; he didn't steal anything; he didn't make us less safe or less prosperous or any of that. His only crime was making us have a lot less faith in the Presidency. In some ways, what he did was not that bad at all, and in other ways, it is far worse than what the others have done.
          • For nastiness about Nixon, consider the atrocities in SE
            Asia, or the murder of political activists in the US (search
            for Fred Hampton). Though I suppose in the latter case you
            could assert that it was strictly an FBI hit, and may not
            have involved Nixon directly. But in the former, Nixon was
            definitely responsible.
            • For nastiness about Nixon, consider the atrocities in SE blah blah blah

              Translation: "I hate American government in every form."
              • To be more precise, I hate government in all its forms,
                US or not. Though I don't see how that is relevant to
                discussing whether Nixon is a murderous bastard or not.

                The "blah blah" is all factual. Why the unfriendly
                rhetoric?
                • by pudge (1) on 2004.06.26 20:30 (#31920) Homepage Journal
                  The "blah blah" is all factual.

                  It's really not. "Atrocities" is an opinion, as is the amount of blame due to Nixon over what happened. And the attempted linking of the death of an activist to Nixon is telling of your lack of objectivity and the presence of overwhelming bias.

                  Why the unfriendly rhetoric?

                  You want to destroy through that which I and many of my countrymen are willing to kill and die for. Of course I am hostile to those ideas.
                  • Bombing of Cambodia.

                    And as to the "kill and die for" -- would you really kill to
                    protect someone else's property? If some squatters are
                    living in a vacant office, are they fair game?

                    • And as to the "kill and die for" -- would you really kill to protect someone else's property? If some squatters are living in a vacant office, are they fair game?

                      I am talking about preservation of the nation under the Consitution. I don't know what you're talking about.