Happy Face

8 minutes in and I've still only got 8 of the top ten

Capitalism or democracy? No system is perfect. They're all destined to fail. That's why the preamble to the constitution says from the get go "in Order to form a more perfect Union". The system as it stands will always be abused and cheated for greed. But democracy is about elected officials fixing the problems as they occur to ensure the best outcomes for the many rather than the few. Democracy has failed in that the few elites now own the government so the abuses of capitalism are allowed to run rampant totally unchecked. That can be repaired.

One of the most astounding facts about the US economy i ever read (in Tim Harford's first book) was that since something like the beginning of the 1970s, the US economy has last just under 300 million jobs. In that same period, it created just over 300 million jobs. I'll have to check the book to get the exact figures. As Krugman says, Clinton created 20 million jobs in 7 years. The state of panic around the impossibility of the task seems to be perpetuated (like the war, swine flu and Mike Ashley's impending bankrupcy ) to keep us throwing money at the wealthiest people that fucked up in the first place. If you don't keep the wealthy onside you don't win the election. At any other moment I'd completely agree. But Obama had a chance. He won the election at a canter. He had both houses in his back pocket. The entire country was seething at the bailout, job losses, tax reductions for the wealthiest, war profiteering and lack of investment at home. There was overwhelming public support to force the trickle down that capitalism promises but which in practice, it only reduces. Obama has alienated his entire liberal base with his 'bipartisan' approach. That will be more dangerous to him in the next election than alienating Lloyd Blankfein and Glen Beck. EDIT: I realise that a lot of blame has to go to the house that waters down any and every bill presented and Obama absolutley cannot force through anything single handedly.....the problem is with the appointments he's personally made and people he's thrown out and the limits he's imposed on the options he gets to hear. Could it be that his political strategy is to take his time and minmise the amount of artillery he hands his ferocious opponents on the far right during the first 24 months to dispel their idiotic rhetoric of him being a threat to their way of life? Things can get worse in the US and Obama can still make political capital out of this. None of the current economic or military woes are his doing but changing them overnight could be firstly very costly (as there are no quick solutions in reality) and secondly run the risk of him not pulling any reform success through to the next election. He may not be so bi-partisan in a second term in office either. EDIT - that first sentence/question is badly worded. Undoubtedly. But you can't support him on faith. When he does exactly what Bush would do you have to give him the same shit you would have given Bush. Not have faith that he is a good man. That would make you as bad as the fundamentalist loons that supported Bush because he was a christian doing god's work. The economic and military woes are not of his doing, but every appointment on the economic side has been to individuals inside the largest banks and strong proponents of laissez faire economics. Everyone that has left has been a liberal progressive brought in to tout what he would do to spread the wealth after winning the election. On the war side he's sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan when all the intelligence says there are no more than 100 Al Qaeda in the country. That doesn't seem the action of a politician keeping his powder dry. There must be political pressure brought to bare on him from the left because politicians only respond to political pressure. If it goes quiet and he's given more time to do something by the liberals, then he'll only look to placate his critics on the right who will never stop pressing for military action and deregulation. EDIT: I use the terms 'left' and 'right' reatively, given the entire political discourse occurs in a climate where more people approve of torture than don't and Obama is further right than Ronald Reagan

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...kers/index.html

One of the most astounding facts about the US economy i ever read (in Tim Harford's first book) was that since something like the beginning of the 1970s, the US economy has last just under 300 million jobs. In that same period, it created just over 300 million jobs. I'll have to check the book to get the exact figures. As Krugman says, Clinton created 20 million jobs in 7 years. The state of panic around the impossibility of the task seems to be perpetuated (like the war, swine flu and Mike Ashley's impending bankrupcy ) to keep us throwing money at the wealthiest people that fucked up in the first place. If you don't keep the wealthy onside you don't win the election. At any other moment I'd completely agree. But Obama had a chance. He won the election at a canter. He had both houses in his back pocket. The entire country was seething at the bailout, job losses, tax reductions for the wealthiest, war profiteering and lack of investment at home. There was overwhelming public support to force the trickle down that capitalism promises but which in practice, it only reduces. Obama has alienated his entire liberal base with his 'bipartisan' approach. That will be more dangerous to him in the next election than alienating Lloyd Blankfein and Glen Beck. EDIT: I realise that a lot of blame has to go to the house that waters down any and every bill presented and Obama absolutley cannot force through anything single handedly.....the problem is with the appointments he's personally made and people he's thrown out and the limits he's imposed on the options he gets to hear.

One of the most astounding facts about the US economy i ever read (in Tim Harford's first book) was that since something like the beginning of the 1970s, the US economy has last just under 300 million jobs. In that same period, it created just over 300 million jobs. I'll have to check the book to get the exact figures. As Krugman says, Clinton created 20 million jobs in 7 years. The state of panic around the impossibility of the task seems to be perpetuated (like the war, swine flu and Mike Ashley's impending bankrupcy ) to keep us throwing money at the wealthiest people that fucked up in the first place.

They aren't desparate or wild or gambles if they know full well there's a government safety net ready to catch them though. Govt is running out of money as well. It's why Obama pulled back on the healthcare reforms. The U.S. is running catastrophic debts it's leaking $3m a day in Iraq, unemployment is near an all time high...etc etc.. Paul Krugman doesn't think the US debt is catastrophic at all..... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/3...ry-of-the-debt/ He does think they need to spend a shitload more on job creation though. 18 million jobs over the next five years

They aren't desparate or wild or gambles if they know full well there's a government safety net ready to catch them though.

You cannit whack a bit of Bob Lido....

Merry Axemas is legendary too, with songs like this...

There's nothing wrong with the model. As long as government regulate it. The problem is the regulators appointed by Obama are the people who benefit most from further deregulation. So rather than tightening restrictions, the bills that have come out of this fiasco have only strengthened the power of the banks. Rather than voting on a bailout in congress, if we face another crash we'll bailout these corporations without even the cursory debate we had last time.... Unbelievable.

All the best. Hope you get the best new trainers TY McGuirk's have to offer.

Shitigroup counter the negative publicity Taibbi's article generated by paying back their bailout money... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8411875.stm Millions on the breadline but at least they have the gratitude of the wealthy fucks who are walking off into the sunset with their necks saved.

If Ashley hasn't paid for his services he would be well advised to give it a go. As much as I want rid of Ashley, I'd actually prefer him to run the club well, take a low profile and let the antipathy towards him mellow as he brings success. I'm sure this is how 95% of supporters feel too. However, there has still been no indication whatsoever that this is likely to happen. The club continue to release stories (either directly or indirectly) that attempt to heap praise on Ashley as the man that has saved Newcastle. The cool head whose motives we fans cannot possibly comprehend...but will learn to once the glory days return. It's all well and good apologising for getting us relegated, but it lacks any sincerity when you go on to claim that it's been the best thing that could have happened and most Premier League clubs would love to be in the same position. I disagree with Clifford that promotion will win Ashley the support of even half the fans. The people on the stands want to see contrition. Not in words, but in deeds. He needs to do the equivalent of Jordan Price's 7 bush tucker trials in a row, and take his punishment in good humor to win any sort of backing. This means stopping the charm offensive, no more rhetoric about plans, no more excuses for the failures, backing down on the stadium renaming, taking down the sportsdirect.com sign every fan hates, hiring a chief executive with some experience in football, investing heavily in the first team squad without shouting about it from the rooftops and perhaps writing off some of the debt the club has to him, which he claims he would have lost had he sold the club in the summer anyway.

Has he hired Max Clifford? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...x-Clifford.html

That's like saying without Josef Fritzl's accomodation Elizabeth Fritzl would have been homeless.

Quotes so full of shit that even Derek Llambias won't put his name to them.

I'm a little bit ashamed of myself.

Full Article

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...bama/index.html

I've been sitting here all day thinking Same old thing ten years away thinking Now my days are gone, memories linger on Thoughts of when I was boy Pennyfarthings on the street riding Motorcars were funny things, frightning Bow and hoops and spinning tops Annie gretzel's lollipops Comic cuts, all different things Areoplanes tied up with string flying Telephones and talking things sighing A radio and phonograph, Charlie Chaplin made us laugh Silently falling about Familiar things I keep around, near me Memories of my younger days, clearly Now it's in my mind? Everyday I find, thoughts of when I was boy Happy Birthday gramps.

Reggie, not George W. As Victor Meldrew would say, I don't believe you.

I'd far rather watch Where the wild things are than Harry Brown.

Jingle all the Way Disgusting. I felt physically sick at the veneration of commercialism.