Diversion #1
Diversion #2
Hedge #1
Hedge #2
Insult #1
Insult #2


None of that changes the FACT that the D's are using scare tactics just like the R's. That is the real fact.

If you want insult...keep pushing me to the TW mode :)

And yet, you still cant acknowledge that your editorial, the basis for this most recent exchange today, was dishonest.

Well, honestly - nothing you said had anything to do with the fact I stated. You went off in 6 different directions with very typical liberal talking points. I didn't dispute any of them because they had nothing to do with my point which you quoted. Its like a computer generated response. OR even better when a politician is asked a direct question - and goes off on a tangent not germane to the actual subject at hand.

Hey..Merc (with his bullshit and baseless references to me representing Obama as God like or a Savior), then you (with your Tarp II and D strong arm tactics) were the ones who went off on tangents away from your editorial...I just responded.

And yet, you still cant acknowledge that the editorial, the basis for this most recent exchange today, was dishonest.

Neither one of you guys can take that one small step...its kinda funny.

Yet, I acknowledge that with more information on that unnamed bank (the point I made repeatedly only to be ignored by you guys), I would have no problem with a waiver if it met the capital/lending standards... and you call me long-winded (hmmmm...insult?) ....go figure.

I posted the link and then when you finally read it, I commented. Don't say that I ignored you. I didn't, not at all.
You just continued on your editorial of talking points which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You brought up transparency, the rules of the house, Lobbying/earmark/ethics, sweeping generalizations and more.
I addressed each of your points - none of which were relevant to the topic.

No, I do not think the editorial was dishonest, I think it was one mans opinion, no different than anything here actually. I didn't mean to insult with the "long winded" reference. If I did, I apologize. I have actually rather enjoyed debating topics and discussing things with you. You have a very fresh and cohesive approach.

If you have issues with Merc, thats fine - take them up with him. Leave me out of it.

For the record, in my first post on the editorial (after reading it), I wrote that "I would like to see more than just this editorial (opinion) before jumping to conclusions."

But that is what some editorials do...jump to conclusions, w/o having all the facts, with the hope that it will be widely circulated and perpetuated and suddenly believed to be completely factual.

My issue is when the (or any) opinion is presented as more than what it is (not you).

No apology necessary.

And no, I am not the "fresh" prince, just an old policy wonk..and cant claim to always be "cohesive" (unless you know washington double speak)

I aspire to Merc's ignore list (j/k)..he threatened but came up short on the follow through.

Excellent - now, hypothetically speaking...

And I responded in kind to your baseless bullshit that you assigned to me. Sounds like you can't take it.

It wasn't dishonest at all. You ignore his credentials because he is an occassional Fox contributor. He has more credentials than a nameless faceless self aclaimed "Washington Insider".

No small step required. The opinion piece was published in the WSJ and seemed to make some really good points about where Obama is taking us with his plans to control banks.

I don't see a problem there.

You are a first rate apologist and propagandist for the Obama Administration.

Merc....the facts of our exchange are here for others to judge for themselves...and that is fine with me.

LOL. You're the exact same, for the GOP.

Both of you need to learn to stop enjoying being fucked over by the party of your choice.

That would be boring.

Help me , Obiwan....you are my only hope.

then you are in deep do do.

are we still outraged?

It's exhausting.