Air America is dead.

Remove all ads!

*Sigh* This is why I don't post here anymore. Here comes the semantics.

And again - your experience was so atypical of the reality that I questioned your account. Your balking at their supposed, regular "liberal spin" was absurd. And still is. This still makes me question your analytical skills.

Look at what else I wrote:

This was me giving you a chance to correct the record and be more specific about your experience. You didn't. You just told me a vague story about this thing that happened that time and you don't really listen anymore but that doesn't invalidate your point. Lazy. Your attributing so much meaning to this one thing - and the fact that you can't tell the difference between a guest and a host - is what made me question your account of things.

Whatever. You know what you wrote. My point of contention was your slandering NPR hosts en masse. That you used this "one man" to emphasize your point doesn't excuse that. And if you used to listen to NPR as much as you said you did, you'd know this jaggoff was atypical of the norm. Instead, he was representative of the "extremes" NPR goes to. Stop playing semantics and just admit you stuck your foot in your mouth, already.

This is rich. Yeah, you're wrong. I didn't make any 'big mistakes.' You did. 'Sorry' was not an apology to you, it was me acknowledging your ruffled feathers over this. You were dead wrong on this and got called on it. As I said, I responded based on what you wrote, so maybe you should think more critically before you decide to share your opinion. Better yet - when your knowledge on a given topic is limited or flawed, just be quiet. Or you're likely to get schooled.

The only time I get emotional is when people run their mouths off, speak out of carelessness or ignorance (or both), and must be run through the coals before half-way admitting it. You've managed to do all three, so yeah, now I'm emotional. I'm annoyed, I'm frustrated, and I'm regretful that I didn't stay away from engaging you in dialogue (a major factor for my departure in the first place). Apparently I must be reminded of what a frustrating, time-wasting effort that is every 3 months or so. So, see you in May I guess, Nogfflinger.

Out.

 

That would have been a Republican Congress and would have possibily made it just another corporate giveaway. That sounds about right - "forcing" banks to take government money. I know how much they like to turn down all that free money. I would like to see something of how this has anything to do with the subprime loans made during the Bush years. And yes I would like to see how companies like Countrywide and Quickloans and Dietech received government money for making loans they would normally have turned down. Do you know how many loans these companies, making mortgage loans, actually turned down?

 

I don't need to prove it. It's my opinion.

I don't give a rat's a$$ if any pinkos take me seriously or not. I know that I don't take their opinions seriously.

As for my age (which you mentioned in a reputation dig*), I'm no kid. I'm older than you, bucko.

* BTW, Drew, thanks for signing your rep dig. I've noticed that people who give you a negative rep hit far more often than not do it anonymously, whereas people giving you positive rep far more often let you know who they are. Not that I really care about the entire reputation thing, per se, but if someone's going to send you a little negative comment in the reputation process, it's nice to know who did so. Thanks again.

 

If you aren't going to bother to back up your assertions, what's the point of even posting them in a discussion forum? If you won't back up your opinions, there's nothing to discuss.

You should learn. Arguments should be gauged based on their individual merits, not your preconceived notions about the speaker or his partisan affiliation. If the only way you can disprove a speaker's assertions is by attacking the speaker himself, you've already lost.

When you throw out those Marxism accusations, you don't persuade anyone. All you really do is show those of us who do know our history just how little you understand about Karl Marx, Marxism, Communism, and Socialism in general. This is not only offensive to Obama and the democratic party, but also to Karl Marx, Marxists, actual communists, and actual socialists. It is also profoundly ignorant and immature. Age, I have come to realize, is really just a number -- and growing up is just a choice we eventually make. Some people make that choice early, some late -- and sadly, some kids never choose to become adults.

 

PINKOS! I love it. It's sooooooooooo 70s! I'm Chandos the RED. Pink is for beginners.

Pleased to meet you. Hope you guessed my name.

...And I'm never serious...at least not on purpose.

 

Actually, no, that's a factual claim. It needs to be supported by fact.

 

It should by now be rather obvious that crucis, like many of his peers, use words like Marxism, Communism and Socialism as mere swearwords, popularly combined with 'international', 'global', 'liberal' and whatnot. They don't carry any meaning beyond the intended insult.

 

I love statements like these, it makes any discussion futile, but it is very entertaining to read any of Crucis replys. It's like watching Glen Beck, just seeing someone spewing uncontrolled hatred in every direction. pure comedy.

Keep it coming Crucis, don't let the commies win!

 

International and global? I haven't heard those in association with it, yet. Then agian, I don't listen to Beck.