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

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.

[TheMercenary]

I don't see it as a "scare tactic", but a mere attempt to ensure that the current Administration is up front about their intentions when it comes to this environment of ever growing governmental regulation and control.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I don't see it as a "scare tactic", but a mere attempt to ensure that the current Administration is up front about their intentions when it comes to this environment of ever growing governmental regulation and control.

I see it as the latest version of the "Obama = Socialism" fear mongering based on innuendo, misrepresentations and undocumented and unnamed sources.

IMO, you don't ensure that "the Administration is up front about its intentions" by spreading and perpetuating false or incomplete information.....what you do is appeal to those with pre-conceived opinions.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I see it as the latest version of the "Obama = Socialism" fear mongering based on innuendo, misrepresentations and undocumented and unnamed sources.

IMO, you don't ensure that "the Administration is up front about its intentions" by spreading and perpetuating false or incomplete information.....what you do is appeal to those with pre-conceived opinions.

Much the same can be said about you. "Obama = "God like", Savior, the answer to all our worldly problems all based on innuendo, misrepresentations, attempts at strong arm legislation practices, the attempt to describe acts as greater "transparency" when in fact there is nothing of the kind.

IMO, you ensure that the propaganda of the current administration is perpetuated and repeated enough that you hope people will begin to belive it. I don't.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Much the same can be said about you. "Obama = "God like", Savior, the answer to all our worldly problems all based on innuendo, misrepresentations, attempts at strong arm legislation practices, the attempt to describe acts as greater "transparency" when in fact there is nothing of the kind.

IMO, you ensure that the propaganda of the current administration is perpetuated and repeated enough that you hope people will begin to belive it. I don't.

LOL....OK

Please cite any post of mine where I referred to Obama as God Like or a Savior or the answer to all our wordly problems.
(Why is it that the people who raise the Obama -> God like -> Savior specter are, for the most part, those predisposed to disagree with his policies...hmmmm?)

I think I have said I believe a different approach from the last eight years that is more progressive in nature is one that I generally support, while questioning specific policies and/or actions.

And I have tried to support my position, when requested, with facts and not editorials. Can you say the same?
(how about that transparency that was in the budget bill that you refused to see...or your implication that the lack of millions of jobs created in 60 days as somehow a failure of the stimulus bill...or the foreign policy role of Congress that you refuse to acknowledge, ...the list is endless, dude)

You never let the facts get in the way of your talking points.

I really didnt expect you 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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

LOL....OK.

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

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.

[classicman]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

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

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".

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

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.

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.

I don't see a problem there.

[classicman]

Excellent - now, hypothetically speaking...

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

[TheMercenary]

That would be boring.

[classicman]

then you are in deep do do.