got
by
Parts of Wall Street. Other parts supported McCain - not as generously, but he was a less attractive candidate. This falls way short of showing that "bankers and Democrats are the same thing" or that "Wall StreeT is dominated by Democrats". You've just failed Rational Argument 101.
That says a lot more about the quality of the Republican candidates - who are a particularly sorry bunch, even for Republican candidates - than it does about Wall Street's politcal complexion. At this stage in the election cycle, Barack Obama is the only Democratic candidate, and the Republican field is divided - to put it kindly. Once the Republicans have settled on the least worst candidate, Wall Street may contribute more to him - or her - than they've ponied up for current field of losers, where Newt Gingrich (of all people) is one of the stronger candidates.
You aren't telling me how it is on the ground - you are telling me how it looks to a one-eyed Republican partisan with perchant for misinterpreting evidence to suit his own prejudices. And you shouldn't call me brother - I'm not a member of your religious sect (whatever it may be) and my parents gave me all the brothers I can (or want to) cope with. My youngest brother did give me "The Man of Numbers: Fibonacci's Artithemetic Revolution" for my birthday today, so I'm a bit more positive about him than usual ...
Which means you flunk Rational Judgement 101.
Has shot more moose? Has been the subject of more investigations of ethically questionable behaviour?
Perhaps. But she really doesn't know enough to do the job, no matter how much her looks might appeal to you
And the moon is made of green cheese. I suppose - in your cloud-cuckoo- land - any Republican is to be preferred to any Democrat, even if one of the Republicans is as morally flawed as Newt Gingrich.
Right. They'd have tried out the flat-earth economic ideas that you espouse, and worked so well for Hoover back in 1929-1932.
And the sky is full of flying pigs.
Sure.You'd have 25% unemployment, but the economy would be healthy - emaciated, but by your criteria, "healthy".
According to the usual right-wing nit-wits
In large part because the Republicans are averse to taxing rich Americans.
..
..
..
..
Environmental concerns do get reported that way by right-wing nitwits.
Such a change from the days of Cheney and Bush, the best politicians money could buy. Very professional. Obama does the job because he loves the work - the definition of an amateur.
I don't think that you are giving George W. Bush Jnr. the credit he deserves, but then again, neither is the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Dubbya had the foresight - like Silvio Berlusconi - to legislate himself out of their reach.
And - worst of all - he's a Democrat.
We do get to see Arianna Stassinopoulos's journalism from time to time. I liked her stuff when she wrote for Punch - a long time ago - but one can't take it seriously, any more than one could take your one- eyed partisanship as having any relation to reality.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen