Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 64

Thread: So about General Petraeus

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    i think, if you want to claim that last one as a point, you have to come up with examples of selective rage from me. as of yet, you have not.
    I accused you of selective attention. Your complaints about "selective rage" and attempting to put such "selective rage" on one side and not the other is pretty much proof of that. You have committed the logical fallacy of card stacking (yeh, that is the name for it in logic). You have selected evidence that strengthens your argument while deliberatly ignoring counter-evidence.
    "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    I accused you of selective attention. Your complaints about "selective rage" and attempting to put such "selective rage" on one side and not the other is pretty much proof of that. You have committed the logical fallacy of card stacking (yeh, that is the name for it in logic). You have selected evidence that strengthens your argument while deliberatly ignoring counter-evidence.
    where is this counter evidence?

    you have to have evidence to support i claim. if you want to accuse me of selective attention, then show me where my selective attention is.

    a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    another example of the selective rage machine.

    anthony weiner, sends a dirty text message, gets busted. and the GOP calls for his head. he resigns.

    petraues here, cheats on his wife with a new woman, possibly deeper involvement with others, but the GOP sits on the news and defends him, accusing obama of all sorts of alternator motives for pushing him out.

    even more selective:

    newt gingrich, in a primary debate, is asked how he can be a family values candidate when he cheated on his wife, and then married his mistress ... twice. and how does he respond? he calls the debate moderators "trashy" how does the GOP crowd respond -> applauding Gingrich for calling CNN trashy.

    selective rage.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Are you really denying the left's attacks on Bush while he was in office, or for that matter to this day?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    If you want peace, prepare for war.
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    petraues here, cheats on his wife with a new woman, possibly deeper involvement with others, but the GOP sits on the news and defends him, accusing obama of all sorts of alternator motives for pushing him out.
    I don't think anyone here is defending patraeus. On the other hand he is being used as a destraction by the White House to draw attention away from the murder of us citizens. AND if anyone is defending wrongdoing it is you with your defense of Obama.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by wetwrks
    I don't think anyone here is defending patraeus. On the other hand he is being used as a destraction by the White House to draw attention away from the murder of us citizens. AND if anyone is defending wrongdoing it is you with your defense of Obama.
    I did not start this thread to be a political statement one way or another. I just found it delightfully ironic that the director of the CIA could not keep his affair off the front page.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    Are you really denying the left's attacks on Bush while he was in office, or for that matter to this day?
    of course they attacked bush on a great many things, that is the opposition parties job.

    the question is if i attacked bush or the right for things that i do not attack the left for. this is false and you have provided no evidence to that effect.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    of course they attacked bush on a great many things, that is the opposition parties job.

    the question is if i attacked bush or the right for things that i do not attack the left for. this is false and you have provided no evidence to that effect.
    Actually I accused you of card stacking - not selective rage. The selective rage was your issue. My suggestion is the GOP does not have a monopoly on it I don't think you can look through this discussion and deny that you stacked them pretty heavily.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    Actually I accused you of card stacking - not selective rage. The selective rage was your issue. My suggestion is the GOP does not have a monopoly on it I don't think you can look through this discussion and deny that you stacked them pretty heavily.
    and yet you have yet to present an issue that demonstrates "stacking the cards"

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    and yet you have yet to present an issue that demonstrates "stacking the cards"
    Ok. Lets hold your hand and go through your posts

    Quote Originally Posted by post #6
    there isn't anything to cover up. sorry guys, the rage machine invented Benghazi as an issue. a tragedy yes, a coverup - no. i also revel in the irony and hypocrisy of the GOP. after 9/11 the mere mention that there was something the USA could have done to prevent that attack was anti-american and blaming america for the actions of terrorists. but that was with a GOP president. now, with a democratic president, its a coverup of how he is selling america out to Muslims. ah, sweet double standards!
    Quote Originally Posted by #8
    oh sorry, there is a democrat in the white house, thats why.

    this selective rage is really annoying.
    Quote Originally Posted by 10
    where is the outrage and calling for heads when bush invaded another country and killed thousands of americans, all for a lie?
    it about the selective rage. obama, and everything he does has been subjected to this selective rage. take any other president, doing similar things, and no one bats an eye. but the second obama does something, its impeachable. questioning the president on such matters, according to the right, was anti-maerican, now its a web of conspiracy theories. anotehr great example is healthcare mandate, a GOP idea, penned by the heritage foundation, an idea NEWT GINGRICH supported in the mid-90s, is now all of a sudden fascism. its pathetic.

    the rage media has perfected this emotional and visceral reaction.

    Of course, when Bush was attacked you decide:

    of course they attacked bush on a great many things, that is the opposition parties job.

    the question is if i attacked bush or the right for things that i do not attack the left for. this is false and you have provided no evidence to that effect.
    Card stacking. When Obama is attacked its the "selective rage machine" whatever that is. When Bush is its the job of the opposition party - and you only came up with this conclusion after I called you on card stacking.

    I find it delightfully ironic that you attacked the "hypocrisy of the GOP"

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    Ok. Lets hold your hand and go through your posts










    Of course, when Bush was attacked you decide:



    Card stacking. When Obama is attacked its the "selective rage machine" whatever that is. When Bush is its the job of the opposition party - and you only came up with this conclusion after I called you on card stacking.

    I find it delightfully ironic that you attacked the "hypocrisy of the GOP"
    its not the fact they are attacked as leaders, its the nature of the attacks. obama is attacked for simple things, things the GOP does all the time. or even that the GOP wrote the book on, even wrote the same laws.

    that is the selective rage machine. when GOPers do something, its fine, but when obama or a dem does it, it is all of a sudden a national crisis.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    So how do you classify the lefts involvement in OWS and the attacks on the supposed 1%?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    So how do you classify the lefts involvement in OWS and the attacks on the supposed 1%?
    the dems never supported OWS, mostly because they are crony capitalists too. they get filthy rich doing the same thing.

    attacks on the 1%? how so? is expecting them to pay a similar rate that the middle class pays on there income an "attack?"

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    the dems never supported OWS, mostly because they are crony capitalists too. they get filthy rich doing the same thing.

    attacks on the 1%? how so? is expecting them to pay a similar rate that the middle class pays on there income an "attack?"
    When you do it in mobs (groups, peaceful? protests, etc) that burn people in effigy it is generally an attack.

    I did not know the capital gains tax rate was reserved only for the 1%. I know plenty of middle class individuals (making far less than that quarter million dollar a year cut off that somehow became middle class) who take advantage of it.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,146
    Stop Feeding The Troll!!!!

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    port st. lousey fl origin
    Posts
    2,840
    you guys make my head hurt

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    If you want peace, prepare for war.
    Posts
    1,468


    And now Jill Kelly has admitted to haveing a breakfast at the White House about 2 months ago.

    http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.a...81474981759030
    Last edited by wetwrks; 11-16-2012 at 12:16 AM.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    When you do it in mobs (groups, peaceful? protests, etc) that burn people in effigy it is generally an attack.

    I did not know the capital gains tax rate was reserved only for the 1%. I know plenty of middle class individuals (making far less than that quarter million dollar a year cut off that somehow became middle class) who take advantage of it.
    i take advantage of it, and you should to. that doesn't however mean it makes any sense to give a discount for investing, but not a discount for producing (labor). both should be equal under the tax code because both are required for GDP growth. when we favor investing over producing, no **** we destroy the US manufacturing base.

    conservatives love to talk about how taxes are punishments, but they don't seem to grasp that when you punish actually making something at a higher rate then merely investing in things, no **** you wreck your middle class job market and destroy your manufacturing. the tax code also essentially punishes being middle class currently. this is just silly that someone could defend that.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    i take advantage of it, and you should to. that doesn't however mean it makes any sense to give a discount for investing, but not a discount for producing (labor). both should be equal under the tax code because both are required for GDP growth. when we favor investing over producing, no **** we destroy the US manufacturing base.

    conservatives love to talk about how taxes are punishments, but they don't seem to grasp that when you punish actually making something at a higher rate then merely investing in things, no **** you wreck your middle class job market and destroy your manufacturing. the tax code also essentially punishes being middle class currently. this is just silly that someone could defend that.
    The original income tax max rate was like 7% wasn't it and only applied to the wealthiest 10% (I actually think it was less and lower but did not bother to look it up). I'm all for returning to fiscal discipline by the federal government that allows us to return to those as the max rates.

    Actually the Laffer curve is a pretty good example of the value of a lower capital gains tax rate. Granted we don't know exactly where we are on the curve and it needs some research but the increase in tax revenue during Reagan's presidency seems to indicate it was too high.
    Last edited by Lohman446; 11-16-2012 at 02:08 PM.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    The original income tax max rate was like 7% wasn't it and only applied to the wealthiest 10% (I actually think it was less and lower but did not bother to look it up). I'm all for returning to fiscal discipline by the federal government that allows us to return to those as the max rates.

    Actually the Laffer curve is a pretty good example of the value of a lower capital gains tax rate. Granted we don't know exactly where we are on the curve and it needs some research but the increase in tax revenue during Reagan's presidency seems to indicate it was too high.
    the laffer curve is a conservative pipe dream. so is the the reagan tax revenue increase. at no point in US history has a tax rate decrease EVER lead to higher tax revenues. hell, even the bush economists that pushed the bush tax cuts have said outright, that the primary effect on the budget of those tax cuts will be lower revenues. historical data from the USA, and indeed every other modern western nation shows very little correlation between tax rates, and GDP growth. however, the data also supports that a lowering of the capital gains tax does funnel money to the rich at astonishing numbers. one only needs to look at income through time in the USA from 1950 to today to see the obvious problem with supply side economics.

    also, if you are willing to go back to the original tax rate and government levels, does that mean you are also willing to go back to the the standard of living they had then? so i assume you are going to be removing your child from school and getting them a job in a sweat shop ASAP correct?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    also, if you are willing to go back to the original tax rate and government levels, does that mean you are also willing to go back to the the standard of living they had then? so i assume you are going to be removing your child from school and getting them a job in a sweat shop ASAP correct?
    Public funded schools (at least on the elementary level) predates the 1900s. The 16th Amendment (authorizing the federal income tax) was not ratified until 1913.

    Your argument sounds compelling. It is factually flawed though.

    The Laffer curve - at least in its theoretical construct is sound. We can have another discussion about where were are on the curve (as the only points actually defined on the curve are a 0% and 100%) and I agree that has not been well studied

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohman446
    Public funded schools (at least on the elementary level) predates the 1900s. The 16th Amendment (authorizing the federal income tax) was not ratified until 1913.

    Your argument sounds compelling. It is factually flawed though.

    The Laffer curve - at least in its theoretical construct is sound. We can have another discussion about where were are on the curve (as the only points actually defined on the curve are a 0% and 100%) and I agree that has not been well studied
    my quip about schools was not that schools were only made after taxes (that is false), its the gilded age phenomena where families did take there children out of schools, and into the workplace, because they were too poor to feed themselves. because that was the standard of living was across the country.

    the problem is that the curve has no real world data to support it. at any point.

    i mean we have the data on tax rates, GDP, effective tax rates, income distribution etc etc etc, take a look and see how this conservative dogma melts away. corporate profits just hit another high, financial sector profits are nearing another record. the money is out there, and the middle class is who is producing that wealth, but we are seeing none of it. caterpiller is making record profits, and cutting there workers wages, thats not america. you work hard, your company does well, you should do better. but the middle class is actually worse off then it was 25 years ago. we have lost ground, lost standard of living. how can we be losing ground with the GDP of the country has doubled? where is that money going?

    supply side economics doesn't work. our economy isn't failing because of a lack of capital. its failing because of a lack of demand. the real job creators are a middle class that can purchase and buy things.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    my quip about schools was not that schools were only made after taxes (that is false), its the gilded age phenomena where families did take there children out of schools, and into the workplace, because they were too poor to feed themselves. because that was the standard of living was across the country.

    the problem is that the curve has no real world data to support it. at any point.

    i mean we have the data on tax rates, GDP, effective tax rates, income distribution etc etc etc, take a look and see how this conservative dogma melts away. corporate profits just hit another high, financial sector profits are nearing another record. the money is out there, and the middle class is who is producing that wealth, but we are seeing none of it. caterpiller is making record profits, and cutting there workers wages, thats not america. you work hard, your company does well, you should do better. but the middle class is actually worse off then it was 25 years ago. we have lost ground, lost standard of living.

    supply side economics doesn't work. our economy isn't failing because of a lack of capital. its failing because of a lack of demand. the real job creators are a middle class that can purchase and buy things.
    Taxing the rich does not fix this. There is a major difference between a middle class family buying a television that is built by their neighbor and one built in a country with virtually no worker protections in place. As long as we artificially inflate the standard of living by letting consumers purchase parts produced by cheap labor that is not part of our economy we are creating a problem.

    Personally I feel our government has a duty to tarrif those goods that are imported from countries that do not provide their workers a standard of living reasonably comparable to ours. This would allow many of the jobs lost to overseas competition to come back - as shipping still costs money. This increase in jobs would offset the loss in purchasing power caused by the increase in price of consumer goods.

    When you tax the rich too far they either find ways around it through accounting, evade it entirely, or simply move to countries that treat them better. The rich have the ability to create themselves a standard of living in other countries that the workes do not.

    Can the rich pay more? Possibly. I do not know where the tipping point is (nor do I expect you do). However we have to address one of the major other problems: our economy is no longer supporting itself - that is when we purchase something we are not buying something built by our neighbor with the same standard of living as us. Our government has a duty to protect our workers and they can through tarriffs in this case.


    Note: I am highly suspicious of your assertion that the standard of living has fallen in the last 25 years. Unless we really were that poor when I was young
    Last edited by Lohman446; 11-16-2012 at 03:25 PM.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    If you want peace, prepare for war.
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by wetwrks
    patraeus...he is being used as a destraction by the White House to draw attention away from the murder of us citizens.
    AND...now things have blown over and nothing is done about the fact that Obama claimed over and over that this was just a demonstration that got out of hand when all the evidence shows that Obama knew all along that this was a planned attack.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by wetwrks
    AND...now things have blown over and nothing is done about the fact that Obama claimed over and over that this was just a demonstration that got out of hand when all the evidence shows that Obama knew all along that this was a planned attack.
    and he called it that within 24 hours

    Petraeus did testify, and as i told you all, nothing crazy was revealed. barely even made the news because we already knew everything he talked about.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politi...ngs/index.html

    take off the tin foil hats folks. the rage media machine lies.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    I'm not sure exactly what anyone expects out of this.

    Are we pretty certain that Obam and the administration lied? Yep

    Are we pretty sure they continued to lie about what they knew and when? Yep

    I'm just not sure what the next step in the conversation is. Politicians routinely lie and cover up the truth. The entire purpose of the CIA involves allowing our elected leaders to make decisions based on information that may not be readily available to the public at the time.

    I don't like Obama or his politics. I think his handling of this situation was extremely poor. However we do not remove politicians because they lie. I just don't know what the intent of proving Obama lied is.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    offshore
    Posts
    7,227
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    and he called it that within 24 hours

    Petraeus did testify, and as i told you all, nothing crazy was revealed. barely even made the news because we already knew everything he talked about.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politi...ngs/index.html

    take off the tin foil hats folks. the rage media machine lies.
    Do you think that Obama will go the entire 8 years without a budget? I do. Raising the tax rates will do nothing but give the Democrats more money to piss away that we dont have. Biggest bunch of phonies I have ever seen.
    Email me for low prices on ALL AGD Products and more. tunaman5@verizon.net
    Tunamart

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    and he called it that within 24 hours

    Petraeus did testify, and as i told you all, nothing crazy was revealed. barely even made the news because we already knew everything he talked about.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politi...ngs/index.html

    take off the tin foil hats folks. the rage media machine lies.

    I saw the President's press conference. I saw the little snippets of UN Ambassador Rice making the rounds on the talk shows. They repeatedly said it was an act of violence that was driven by a youtube video.

    Why would they call it a terrorist attack on day 1, and for the next 2 weeks tell the public that it was just an innocent event inspired by a youtube vid?
    HARDY HAR HAR!

    And we're just gonna put a happy little bush in the corner right there, and it'll be our little secret. AND IF YOU TELL ANYONE! THAT, THAT BUSH IS THERE! I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE! AND I WILL CUT YOU!

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by dahoeb
    I saw the President's press conference. I saw the little snippets of UN Ambassador Rice making the rounds on the talk shows. They repeatedly said it was an act of violence that was driven by a youtube video.

    Why would they call it a terrorist attack on day 1, and for the next 2 weeks tell the public that it was just an innocent event inspired by a youtube vid?
    they also called it a terrorist attack.

    they called it a terrorist attack all those two weeks too.

    do you guys not get this? even the general who you all thought was part of the cover-up said it in so many words. there are two acts of violence in this attack, a violent and chaotic riot, and a planned deliberate attack. its not one or the other, its actually both.

    dont take my word for it, go read what the dear general said.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    they also called it a terrorist attack.

    they called it a terrorist attack all those two weeks too. So it was a terrorist attack AND a spontaneous attack spawning from a non-existant protest that occurred because of a video on youtube.

    do you guys not get this? even the general who you all thought was part of the cover-up said it in so many words. there are two acts of violence in this attack, a violent and chaotic riot, and a planned deliberate attack. its not one or the other, its actually both.

    dont take my word for it, go read what the dear general said.Uhhh...why would I?....Petraeus wasn't making the rounds on all the TV networks speaking out about this, the POTUS and Rice were.

    Susan Rice blaming the video

    Susan Rice says that a protest got out of hand within the first 2 minutes, skip to the 5 minute mark for the money shot.

    She also says 2 of the 4 Americans that were killed were providing security, as their function. This also proved false, they were former Navy Seals who were assigned in a completely separate building, blocks away, who made their way there to assist.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kklWr1CnAXs]FOX News (GASP!) Time line[/URL]

    skip to the 5:03 mark, watch until 5:50.
    Start again at 6:10. Watch 7:41 , they dodge "T" word again.
    7:50 Obama blames it on the Mohammed video on Letterman, but he does go on to say that "extremists and some terrorists used it as an excuse to participate and hijack" (paraphrased).

    Susan Rice "no protests" But wait, there was no protests, according to politico reporting for ABC and Susan Rice. Or according to the final entries in Ambassador Steven's journal. Or according to your Huffpo.

    Your one CNN link about Petraeus' testimony doesn't come close to erasing all the BS Obama's staff has been feeding the public regarding this.

    Best case scenario, the administration is incompetent. They spun up some garbage without all the facts and let the message go out to the 300+ million Americans.

    Worst case scenario, they deliberately tried downplay and throw smoke screens over the event to avoid any election backlash.
    Last edited by dahoeb; 12-13-2012 at 12:03 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •