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

[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).