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]

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).