While you're all outraged about the bailout...

No harder than debunking generalizations (scare tactics?) about Obama's intent, based on no documented (with names) data to back it up.

On a more personal level, would you put your savings in an "unnamed" bank based solely on the word of a FOX news person that it was "prominent and profitable" last year?

Not me.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

No harder than debunking generalizations (scare tactics?) about Obama's intent, based on no documented (with names) data to back it up.

You mean the scare tactics like when the 2nd TARP was passed? No time to read 10,000 pages. No need We got it all covered... Reality was that the only reason it "had to be done" was so Nancy could go on her trip abroad.

The D's are using as many scare and strong arm tactics as the R's ever did. Doesn't make it right though. Just a little harder for those who agree with them to see it.

Originally Posted by classicman

You mean the scare tactics like when the 2nd TARP was passed? No time to read 10,000 pages. No need We got it all covered... Reality was that the only reason it "had to be done" was so Nancy could go on her trip abroad.

The D's are using as many scare and strong arm tactics as the R's ever did. Doesn't make it right though. Just a little harder for those who agree with them to see it.

The rules of the House under Pelosi are more open than under the previous Republican majority Congress...that is a fact. (see the Hastert rule)

Lobbying/earmark/ethics is more open as a result of the Democratic reform (not enough for me) than the previous Republican majority Congress..that is a fact.

But whats the point of arguing this.

I dont disagree that both parties are far from perfect when use the majority position to their advantage.

But just as is the case with Merc, I guess I cant expect you either to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.

Its really not that hard.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

The rules of the House under Pelosi are more open than under the previous Republican majority Congress

Diversion #1

Originally Posted by Redux

Lobbying/earmark/ethics is more open as a result of the Democratic reform (not enough for me) than the previous Republican majority Congress

Diversion #2

Originally Posted by Redux

But whats the point of arguing this.

Hedge #1

Originally Posted by Redux

I dont disagree that both parties are far from perfect when use the majority position to their advantage.

Hedge #2

Originally Posted by Redux

But just as is the case with Merc, I guess I cant expect you either to acknowledge that an editorial making sweeping generalizations based on one unnamed bank while ignoring the facts regarding four less briefly mentioned banks was a bit dishonest, to say the least.

Insult #1

Originally Posted by Redux

Its really not that hard.

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.