too small to save: we're back!

[ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com]

Were you one of those liberal cuckoos who thought the US was already in recovery?
Welcome to reality, dodo-heads. Apparently over 400 banks across the country are shitting their pants and reaching into empty pockets.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fdics-problem-list-of-troubled-banks-tops-400-2009-08-27

Comments

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

I simply said I've met a few crazy Obama supporters, quoting a past discussion with one as evidence that yes, people like that do, unfortunately, exist.

So what does that prove, exactly, on a greater scale?

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

Nothing. There seems to be a general misunderstanding that I was trying to use that information to prove something greater.
No. That was it. All I was saying was that people like that do exist, and then I gave an example.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So beyond showing us what a random person no one here knows in a conversation with no context said... there's no actual point?

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

Okay. Let us recap.

• reflaxion makes a comment: "I think 'cuckoo' is a good word to describe anyone who actually believed that liberals thought Obama was going to ride into office on a unicorn and wave his magic wand around, and the Fiscal Pixies were going to make everyone rich."
• I respond, noting that there are quite a lot of young liberals that do in fact believe Obama is the cure-all for America.
• fizzyland essentially asks me if I know a lot of young liberals.
• I say yes, I do, reminding everyone that I'm in college and thus do actually come in contact with a lot of young liberals. I then explain that it's pretty obvious that such people would exist, then give an example. Two, even.
• The end.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

You gave one example (the youtube video) which relies on what the term "work" means.

Yes yes "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" and all, but suffice to say I don't think I'd like to have to [excessively] work just to get food on my plate, either. Jobs are good, but excessive work just to get basic needs is silly.

The other example still has no context. You first give a "from your laptop" source, then part of some email thread by someone no one knows in a context no one has.

So congrats. You were able to prove that you have a quote by someone whose political stance and knowledge is questionable saying that Obama is a super hero for some reason that no one knows the context of.

And that's apparently going to prove the point that it's not crazypants batshit to believe that the general liberal mindset was that President Obama is going to save the universe with a wand of hope and change.

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

that the general liberal mindset

I would like to you provide a quote where I specifically used the term "general liberal mindset." You did this once before, if my memory delivers, and were unable to come up with evidence to suggest that this was my intention, as it was not, and never was, my intention.

The simple point was that yes, there are liberals out there who really feel this way about Obama. That is it. Not once was I trying to use this fact as evidence that this is the general liberal mindset. Please lay off the straw men.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

The simple point was that yes, there are liberals out there who really feel this way about Obama.

So far you showed there is one email out of any context by one person who is of questionable political leanings saying Obama is superduperawesome, which apparently would disprove the idea that it's wackypants to believe that this is a general liberal thing to say and expect, or that there's even a notable-sized majority doing it.

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

Are straw men the only way in which you know how to operate in a discussion?
Where did I say the "majority?" Where did I say "general liberal thing?"
There was no other context. What I showed you was the entire conversation. I didn't even reply to that email. That was it.
Though if you would like, you can explain how an alternative context would change what this individual said to make it more appropriate/accurate.

"A lot" means "many," and that depends on the context. If you have five people, four people would be a lot. If you have ten thousand people, four people would not.
I am basing my own terms on the amount of young liberals I know versus the amount of young liberals I know that expected the world and more of Obama once he reached the White House. The term is subjective.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

"a lot of young college liberals" implies a large amount.

unless you happen to have a different concept of "a lot", which may mean "not so many".

I didn't even reply to that email. That was it.

So you sent someone (who is this someone? a college liberal, I guess!) an email talking about how McCain isn't Bush and Obama isn't Jesus (why sent out this random email? Who knows! I'm sure there is a good reason!) and got a response that said Obama will fix the world.

In conclusion "a lot of young college liberals believe this".

Okay!

Though if you would like, you can explain how an alternative context would change what this individual said to make it more appropriate/accurate.

I don't even know the context over why you emailed this [young college liberal] person in the first place. It seems you decided to go "I know, I'm going to tell a random person that Obama is not Jesus".

I am basing my own terms on the amount of young liberals I know versus the amount of young liberals I know that expected the world and more of Obama once he reached the White House. The term is subjective.

So you're providing one anecdote, which speaks for "a lot" of young college liberals, but really you just mean "young college liberals you know", and in conclusion it's silly to say "I think "cuckoo" is a good word to describe anyone who actually believed that liberals thought Obama was going to ride into office on a unicorn and wave his magic wand around, and the Fiscal Pixies were going to make everyone rich."

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

Oh? Do you have evidence to suggest that the amount of young liberals at my specific university is less than what could be considered a lot?

Is that any of your business? Not really. I told you it was somebody I know online. We were talking through AOL and I sent her a personal email so as to not offend or embarrass her in front of the general populace. I do not have a record that I can provide as to what she said on AOL but I do know it consisted of her comparing McCain to Bush and that Obama was different.

My examples and my statement that I know a lot of liberals that are unrealistic about Obama's abilities are not related. They do not go hand-in-hand. One does not support the other; they were not meant to support each other.

It was silly to say such a thing regardless of whether or not I said that quite a lot of young liberals believe that he actually is capable of fixing the world.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Oh? Do you have evidence to suggest that the amount of young liberals at my specific university is less than what could be considered a lot?

No, but it seems you lack that too, so we're pretty much on even ground there. Sure, you're ahead by one email conversation, which you apparently provoked by saying Obama wasn't Jesus, but that's not exactly proof of "a lot".

Is that any of your business? Not really.

It becomes the business of other people when you decide to use it as a valid metric to prove a point.

I do not have a record that I can provide as to what she said on AOL but I do know it consisted of her comparing McCain to Bush and that Obama was different.

So you were chatting with people [from your college?] on AOL and after someone [also from your college?] said McCain was like Bush and Obama was different than McCain and Bush, you felt the need to privately remind this person that Obama wasn't Jesus, even though this person just said he was different than McCain and Bush, who she felt were similar?

Well that changes everything. Now it does mean "a lot of young college liberals" after all!

My examples and my statement that I know a lot of liberals that are unrealistic about Obama's abilities are not related.

So the examples you provided to prove a point were not meant to prove a point, but instead...?

It was silly to say such a thing regardless of whether or not I said that quite a lot of young liberals believe that he actually is capable of fixing the world.

Well I'm glad you brought up an email conversation you had ten months ago, then, even though it doesn't actually prove what the person who started this thread was saying in response to the OP (nor was it apparently mean to...).

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to argue this with you any further. You're still stuck on the notion that I am using my email conversation as evidence that a lot of young liberals at my university are disillusioned into thinking Obama is a cure-all, despite the fact that I have told you several times that both of these are entirely unrelated. This discussion has gotten asinine and I can't continue until/unless you can have the aforementioned difference between the two register in your head. There is no relation. That is not what this is even about.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

I have told you several times that both of these are entirely unrelated

No; that's pretty much what I was stressing. It's a non-context event that has no real purpose in proving your point.

I'm glad we're in agreement, and that me pointing out the flaw in using your email conversation was not a straw man tactic after all (since, you know, the email itself was a straw man).

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

I'd also like to know what "quite a lot of young liberals" amounts to in your mind, too, if not there being a notable sized number of them.

So far you've weaned it down to smaller than everyone but bigger than one.