The battle of hope and experience

Fair. Balanced. Must be a British website…

From: Neil
Subect: Undecided?
this is the fairest analysis of the candidates that ive ever read…. probably because it comes from the british mag “the economist” and they don’t have an axe to grind….. i think it sums them both up pretty well…. well worth the 5 min of reading….
www.economist.com

It may take you more than the alloted five minutes. But sometimes you just gotta say fuck it. Go for the six minute read. You’re earned it. Live a little. Go on…

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather

About big jonny

The man, the legend. The guy who started it all back in the Year of Our Lord Beer, 2000, with a couple of pages worth of idiotic ranting hardcoded on some random porn site that would host anything you uploaded, a book called HTML for Dummies (which was completely appropriate), a bad attitude (which hasn’t much changed), and a Dell desktop running Win95 with 64 mgs of ram and a six gig hard drive. Those were the days. Then he went to law school. Go figure. Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

9 thoughts on “The battle of hope and experience

  1. I’m guessing that a similar graphic depicting the fortunes of the top .5% of “earners” would be a mirror image. I hope that we’re finally on the verge of figuring this republican thing out, but I’m definitely not holding my breath.

  2. Interesting to see the difference in approach from Europhiles. I also watched a bit of some Canadian election coverage last night. I had no idea about the system, but there was no slamming of one opponent or the other for anything. Rather, pointing out the stances each had on issues, was all they did. Kinda boring. Not so good for a laugh.

  3. …thank you to ‘the economist’ for a well formed assessment, although i’d suggest they look a little deeper into palin’s act…

    …but then again, none of us had a clue about the woman until recently…

  4. You really aren’t paying very much attention, are you ray….

    1)It isn’t bullshit. IT made no comments regarding who was responsible for what regulation or deregulation, only that stock market investments made during the years of democrat administrations prove to be decidedly more profitable than investments made during republican administrations. If you can provide data that shows that graphic is faulty, I encourage you not only to post it here, but in a letter the the NYT explaining your position. In other words put up or shut the fuck up.

    2) Leave it to a half-assed brain dead republicon like you to put the blame for this crises on a president that served not only 8 years ago, but had to work within the confines of arguably the most hostile congress of the 20th century. Bush has been there for 8 years, the republicans have controlled both houses of congress for 14 of the past 18 years. This steaming pile of shit was left by them.

    3) The article you linked was in reference to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which passed the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57, bi-partisan “veto-proof” margins, on november 4 ’99. IT wouldn’t have mattered if clinton signed it or not, two months later, bush would have. Incidently, this is also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. Gramm, leach, and bliley are all republicans. Nice try pinning it on clinton, but as usual, you morons are more interested in blame than facts.

    4) Your own link puts the whole mess in perspective. Read the last paragraph you asshat.

    “A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout”.

    It’s the mark of the republicans to give us platitudes like ‘a rising tide floats all boats’ and ‘deregulate the businesses and the prosperity will flow down hill’, when in reality all that ‘profit’ only gets doled out to the executive staff in bonuses in the tens of millions.

    Besides that, what makes you think some hack writing for a socialist website in 19 fucking 99 has more credibility than a researcher in the 2008 NYT? Again, you need to come up with a more credible than “this political extremist says I’m right”. Real data from a non-partisan sources, not politically slanted pabulum.

  5. ray the first line of the link you gave reads

    “An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans…”

    but I guess that’s the same as “Clinton deregulated a bunch of stuff…”

    I love the smell of BS in the morning.

  6. Gnome’s right: Canadian politics is pretty uneventful and will remain so until there is a radical change to the current federal/provincial parliamentary system. 290 million dollars later (the cost of this election) and we are back to where we were a month ago: minority government with very little to look forward to in terms of changes. Screw the taxpayers yet again. However, having said that, I actually appreciate “boring” compared to the scary scary shit that is happening in the US. I thought reelecting W was as low as it could go. But the possibility of a McCain/Palin win is mindblowingly horrifying. Good luck to you all!