So about General Petraeus

[Lohman446]

If the former director of the CIA's affair is front page news does that make anyone else nervous about the status of the secrets of our nation?

[cockerpunk]

i feel a strong correlation between this scandal and the plot of burn after reading.

[Lohman446]

LOL. I know Burn after Reading had a plot but it was so convulated its hard to remember it. I read the synopsis and recalled watching the moving but that plot line needs a three dimensional map to make sense.

[cockerpunk]

LOL. I know Burn after Reading had a plot but it was so convulated its hard to remember it. I read the synopsis and recalled watching the moving but that plot line needs a three dimensional map to make sense.

pretty much the same kind of thing this has exploded into.

[wetwrks]

This all strikes me as smoke and mirrors to cover the murder of the ambassador by the terrorists.

They have known all about this for something like 6 months and just when he is supposed to testify before Congress about the attack this hits the news.

[cockerpunk]

This all strikes me as smoke and mirrors to cover the murder of the ambassador by the terrorists.

They have known all about this for something like 6 months and just when he is supposed to testify before Congress about the attack this hits the news.

he will still probably testify. and all statements so far from him have supported the presidents version of events. as will all statements from any military folks. and all statements from all reasonable military commentators.

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!

the timing was as soon as he was re-elected so that this didn't become an election issue, attacking the military. cantor and the GOP has also known about this investigation and its results for some time. obama was planning on booting him but didn't want to look like he was purging the military of possible political competition right before and election.

[Tunaman]

he will still probably testify. and all statements so far from him have supported the presidents version of events. as will all statements from any military folks. and all statements from all reasonable military commentators.

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!

the timing was as soon as he was re-elected so that this didn't become an election issue, attacking the military. cantor and the GOP has also known about this investigation and its results for some time. obama was planning on booting him but didn't want to look like he was purging the military of possible political competition right before and election.
The ambassador and the Ex Seals called for help 4 times and were denied. Could have have a planeload of marines from Italy there in an hour. I dont care what anyones tries to tell me about this. OUR GOVERNMENT HUNG THEM OUT TO DRY!!! The entire Adminstration is lying and full of bull sheep. Hang them all! The State Dept is responsible for the security of the Embassy. They(she...Hillary) failed and people died. Fire them all, or bend over and get ready for some more Hope and Change. Let me get some more Koolaid for you...

[cockerpunk]

The ambassador and the Ex Seals called for help 4 times and were denied. Could have have a planeload of marines from Italy there in an hour. I dont care what anyones tries to tell me about this. OUR GOVERNMENT HUNG THEM OUT TO DRY!!! The entire Adminstration is lying and full of bull sheep. Hang them all! The State Dept is responsible for the security of the Embassy. They(she...Hillary) failed and people died. Fire them all, or bend over and get ready for some more Hope and Change. Let me get some more Koolaid for you...

none of that is actually true (help would have taken 4+ hours by all accounts), and all would have been to late.

the proper call was made, and that was to use the men already on the ground, to push through, and save who they could. they pushed down from the safe-house, into the embassy and saved who they could. this order was made as soon as the walls were breached.

there is a reason the military, petraaus, and most military commentators are saying calm the **** down, because there isn't anything crazy happening here. it was a bad situation, but the best call under the circumstances was made. and thanks to the courage of those men, many lives were saved.

now, were mistakes made? of course, like any fast developing situation that you have a limited knowledge to make decisions on, mistakes get made. that can be said of every battle fraught by any armed service ever. like our frequent warnings about 9/11 before it happened, hindsight is always 20/20.

but to say there is a coverup, and obama "hung them out to dry" is ridiculous.

did bush "hang them out to dry" on and before 9/11? did bush "hang them out to dry" when he invaded iraq on false intelligence data? where was the rage and calling for the heads of our leadership then, a lot more people died in both. oh sorry, there is a democrat in the white house, thats why.

this selective rage is really annoying.

[wetwrks]

none of that is actually true (help would have taken 4+ hours by all accounts), and all would have been to late.

This report states they could have had a spec opps team there within 2 hours:

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2012/10/26/help-denied-during-benghazi-attack-multiple-times/

And according to this article the fightine went on for more than 4 hours which is enough time for aid to arrive:

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2012/10/26/help-denied-during-benghazi-attack-multiple-times/

Moreover the Ambassador had repedidly requested more forces well before the event and had reported a growing threat against the Americans there.

And finally...our wonderful leader has reported to the UN several times that this wasn't a terrorist attack well after it was proven to be a terrorist attack.

[cockerpunk]

This report states they could have had a spec opps team there within 2 hours:

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2012/10/26/help-denied-during-benghazi-attack-multiple-times/

And according to this article the fightine went on for more than 4 hours which is enough time for aid to arrive:

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2012/10/26/help-denied-during-benghazi-attack-multiple-times/

Moreover the Ambassador had repedidly requested more forces well before the event and had reported a growing threat against the Americans there.

1. that is still too late
2. its unconfirmed, the source is "fox news" bwahaha
3. it was essentially special forces team that did the extraction that did happen

not saying mistakes weren't made, if we had known when the fight started that they were not going to be able to contain it, of course forces were sent. thats what did happen. they didn't get there soon enough, and they were less then 10 miles away. the pipe dream of some special forces based in another country could beat the guys already on the ground to the scene is ridiculous.

and again, hindsight is always 20/20. where was the rage and the calling for heads when it was shown that bush was actually briefed on the idea that 9/11 was going to happen, and yet did nothing? where is the outrage and calling for heads when bush invaded another country and killed thousands of americans, all for a lie?

let keep our eye on the ball people.

[wetwrks]

let keep our eye on the ball people.

Lets keep our eye on the ball? You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject. This isn't about Bush. This isn't about the original 9/11. This is about the killing of a US Ambassador by terrorists. This is about Obama claiming it was just an accident when all the evidence proved otherwise. This is about requests for aid that were outright refused and thus American lives were just written off as collateral.

You make accusations against Bush... If what he did was wrong then you should also be screaming against these similar wrongs.

[BigEvil]

You make accusations against Bush... If what he did was wrong then you should also be screaming against these similar wrongs.

That is the typical lib playbook. It's all Bush's fault.

[wetwrks]

That is the typical lib playbook. It's all Bush's fault.

Yep, that and to try changing the subject instead of arguing the points.

[going_home]

The ambassador wasnt at the embassy, he was at a so called "safe house".

The man knew too much and they wanted him dead, they being the pretender in chief and the thugs he calls his administration.

Doesnt matter, no one will ever swing for this murder.

There will never be another republican in the white house again.

They got away with stealing the election, so it will be done from now on.

Except for the lieutenant colonel, they picked on the wrong guy this time:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/nov/9/allen-west-asks-recount-amid-growing-vote-count-sc/

:shooting:

[Lohman446]

Ah politics. Where we throw blame and accusation in front of truth and answers.

[Freedy500]

Please dear god I hate seeing politics on AO. "Your tearing us all apart!" is what this makes me feel like. Lives were lost, politics have been decided for the time being. What has been done is done, no changing it however much we all wish. Sure a different call could have been made, lives could have been saved, but they weren't and we cant change that from arguments. It may matter that we do our best to prevent that from happening but it is obviously not as simple as it seems. Some of you or the public in general are making it look like a call was made out to a figure of authority no matter who it was but it wasn't as simple as "Hello take a choice, There are Seals and military personnel here along with innocent american citizens, Do you want them to die at no benefit to you or anyone else in this world and have a ton of trouble on your hands or do you want to send in some armed forces and save the day with the public thanking you. All that matters now is that we correct our mistakes and we take the guilty to justice. Nothing more than that. No more pointing fingers because whoever's fault it was knows there mistake and should know that they have created widows and mourning families that have a child with no father. Further blame will not do anything at all but cause a delay of our governments work and arguments among its citizens.

What is this arguing getting you? What is it accomplishing? It will not bring back those who were lost. It will only cause further debate on them and keeping this tragedy fresh in our memory. All any of this is doing (besides bringing those who were responsible for the attack to justice) is putting salt in a wound.

[Lohman446]

The problem arises in partisinship that is so ridiculous as to hinder any reasonable conversation.

Look at this thread: the posters cannot even agree on one set of facts. Add to it the spin put on by various news outlets and they pick and chose whatever facts they want to. This is not meant to be partisan but anyone who did not know (or should have known) that a destablized middle east would present a threat to our embassies and personal is not fit to lead. I don't buy that our current President is stupid (you don't get to be President by being stupid) so I believe he, and those around him, knew these risks. I also assume they had reasons to not increase security. It worries me that said reasons might have been political.

When discussion leads to indicate a mistake may have been made by a Republican the instant call is "what about (insert whatever Democrat you want)". The same is true in this thread in reverse. How often has defense of our current President consisted of faulting the previous President?

The funny thing about this all is that people think that the two party system actually gives us a lot of choice. Who was the last serious candidate of the two parties for president that was not bought and paid for by special interests? If it is an "us vs them" thing as was suggested in the last campaign the "us" does not include either of those available to vote for.

In reasonable political debate reasonable people can come to differing conclusions however they must be able to have discussion without insisting that whoever they supported before the discussion was right and everyone else was wrong.

I do know this about the situation: An Ambassador is sent to another country to have peaceful and reasonable discourse. When that country kills said ambassador it should tell us what they think of peaceful and reasonable discourse and our response should take that into consideration. "Talk softly but carry a big stick" requires use of that stick when talking fails.

[MANN]

"Talk softly but carry a big stick" requires use of that stick when talking fails.

QFT. unfortunately I do not believe this administration will respond this way.

[going_home]

Agreed.
The government is broken.
The two-party political system is broken.
Goldman Sachs owns the whole bunch, both parties.
With Santa Claus as president the only thing left is the crashing of the economy.
Very sad.

[cockerpunk]

Lets keep our eye on the ball? You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject. This isn't about Bush. This isn't about the original 9/11. This is about the killing of a US Ambassador by terrorists. This is about Obama claiming it was just an accident when all the evidence proved otherwise. This is about requests for aid that were outright refused and thus American lives were just written off as collateral.

You make accusations against Bush... If what he did was wrong then you should also be screaming against these similar wrongs.

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.

[Lohman446]

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.

There was no rage with Bush? Really. Do you honestly believe that or are you that selective about your attention?

This is why we cannot have adult conversations about this here. Its always "the other side" that is doing things wrong. Both sides display the kind of behavior you rally about and you know it yet you whine when the other side does it. The hypocrisy displayed in these conversations is ridiculous.

[Lohman446]

When I suggested, in the other thread, that this board was intellectually honest enough to handle political discussion I was wrong.

[cockerpunk]

QFT. unfortunately I do not believe this administration will respond this way.

yup, drone strikes are up 100% over bush era levels, and we don't carry a big stick?

rage media in action.

[cockerpunk]

There was no rage with Bush? Really. Do you honestly believe that or are you that selective about your attention?

This is why we cannot have adult conversations about this here. Its always "the other side" that is doing things wrong. Both sides display the kind of behavior you rally about and you know it yet you whine when the other side does it. The hypocrisy displayed in these conversations is ridiculous.

yes.

funny, i already gave you multiple examples. but if you need more i can provide.

[cockerpunk]

When I suggested, in the other thread, that this board was intellectually honest enough to handle political discussion I was wrong.

the problem is not maturity, its that we live in a post-factual era. facts no longer matter in politics. if we cannot agree on our facts, we cannot have a reasonable conversation. this is, again, the rage machine in action. facts don't matter, 99% of what planned parenthood does is abortions right? obama is weak on terror, you know, despite getting osama (while bush let him into pakastan and refused to chase him), drone strikes up to 2x more then bush era etc etc etc

the problem is, facts matter. thats what the GOP learned last week. when the rage machine bubble hits reality ... reality wins.

[Lohman446]

the problem is not maturity, its that we live in a post-factual era. facts no longer matter in politics. if we cannot agree on our facts, we cannot have a reasonable conversation. this is, again, the rage machine in action. facts don't matter, 99% of what planned parenthood does is abortions right? obama is weak on terror, you know, despite getting osama (while bush let him into pakastan and refused to chase him), drone strikes up to 2x more then bush era etc etc etc

the problem is, facts matter. thats what the GOP learned last week. when the rage machine bubble hits reality ... reality wins.

So the facts you argue are correct are correct and the facts others argue are not? First hand knowledge?

Obama did not get Osama. The brave men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities did. Obama simply did not stop it.

Was our military incursion into Pakistan legal btw?

[cockerpunk]

So the facts you argue are correct are correct and the facts others argue are not? First hand knowledge?

Obama did not get Osama. The brave men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities did. Obama simply did not stop it.

Was our military incursion into Pakistan legal btw?

facts can be verified for accuracy.

obama ordered the strike, while bush refused to chase osama into Pakistan, even when they knew he was escapinghttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

no, it was not legal, again, another strike on that whole "obama is weak" he did exactly what he had to, right or wrong, to get osama.

[Lohman446]

facts can be verified for accuracy.

obama ordered the strike, while bush refused to chase osama into Pakistan, even when they knew he was escapinghttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

no, it was not legal, again, another strike on that whole "obama is weak" he did exactly what he had to, right or wrong, to get osama.


How are you verifying your facts? Through first hand accounts of non-vested individuals? The point is your ability to verify facts is as questionable as those who you instantly dismiss.

Where was the outcry from the left about the illegal strike?

The point is you have selective attention if you think that its only the right that has this selective rage and if you cannot see that your egocentricity makes mine look to be a minor quirk.

[cockerpunk]

How are you verifying your facts? Through first hand accounts of non-vested individuals? The point is your ability to verify facts is as questionable as those who you instantly dismiss.

Where was the outcry from the left about the illegal strike?

The point is you have selective attention if you think that its only the right that has this selective rage and if you cannot see that your egocentricity makes mine look to be a minor quirk.

not true at all. bush's negligence on getting osama is well documented, by first hand accounts and data, and video, etc etc etc

i don't think anyone had too big of an issue about having to illegally land troops in Pakistan to shoot osama. tell these firefighters that we shouldn't have done it:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/05/02/2014940510.jpg

i don't personally have any issue with what obama did, nor would i protest if bush had done the same. sometimes what is right, and what is legal are not the same thing. heck, even the Pakistani government wasn't too pissed off. everyone knew we'd do whatever it took to get him.

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.

[cockerpunk]

here is just another example of selective rage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im8WhG-8FGw

[Lohman446]

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.

[cockerpunk]

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.

[cockerpunk]

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.

[Lohman446]

Are you really denying the left's attacks on Bush while he was in office, or for that matter to this day?

[wetwrks]

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.

[Lohman446]

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.

[cockerpunk]

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.

[Lohman446]

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.

[cockerpunk]

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"

[Lohman446]

and yet you have yet to present an issue that demonstrates "stacking the cards"

Ok. Lets hold your hand and go through your posts


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!


oh sorry, there is a democrat in the white house, thats why.

this selective rage is really annoying.


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"

[cockerpunk]

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.

[Lohman446]

So how do you classify the lefts involvement in OWS and the attacks on the supposed 1%?

[cockerpunk]

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?"

[Lohman446]

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.

[Ando]

Stop Feeding The Troll!!!!

[maniacmechanic]

you guys make my head hurt

[wetwrks]

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w214/wetwrks/5d28856b26c184b4dad277c11c4a041a.jpg

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

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981759030

[cockerpunk]

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.

[Lohman446]

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.

[cockerpunk]

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?

[Lohman446]

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

[cockerpunk]

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.

[Lohman446]

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

[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.

[cockerpunk]

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/politics/benghazi-hearings/index.html

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

[Lohman446]

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.

[Tunaman]

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/politics/benghazi-hearings/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.

[dahoeb]

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/politics/benghazi-hearings/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?

[cockerpunk]

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.

[dahoeb]

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxf77xQ_NLU)

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

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" (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/officials-no-protests-before-benghazi-attack-137978.html) 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.

[cockerpunk]

Susan Rice blaming the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxf77xQ_NLU)

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

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" (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/officials-no-protests-before-benghazi-attack-137978.html) 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.

i don't really care about what the rage machine has fed you, but its pretty obvious when you look at the statements made in the weeks afterward what happened, and now we are only getting more and more confirmation of that from the other players who know. it was called both a terrorist attack and a violent riot in response to a video, because it was both. it was both all along. lets face it, the rage machine tried to make this an issue only because of the presidential race to try and paint obama as weak on defense.

those of us outside the bubble, this is such a non-issue. but for you true believers, the more evidence that proves you wrong only proves you more right in your mind. there just isn't that much to get your panties in a bunch here. its a tragedy no doubt, and yes mistakes were made, as they always are in combat situations, yes there have been conflicting reports, as there always are in combat situations, hindsight is always 20/20, but there just isn't a vast conspiracy to surrender to the Muslims here, sorry.

[dahoeb]

i don't really care about what the rage machine has fed you, but its pretty obvious when you look at the statements made in the weeks afterward what happened, and now we are only getting more and more confirmation of that from the other players who know. it was called both a terrorist attack and a violent riot in response to a video, because it was both. it was both all along. lets face it, the rage machine tried to make this an issue only because of the presidential race to try and paint obama as weak on defense.

those of us outside the bubble, this is such a non-issue. but for you true believers, the more evidence that proves you wrong only proves you more right in your mind. there just isn't that much to get your panties in a bunch here. An American ambassador was killed and for weeks we weren't getting a straight story, yeah, nothing to get ticked about.... its a tragedy no doubt, and yes mistakes were made, as they always are in combat situations, yes there have been conflicting reports, as there always are in combat situations, hindsight is always 20/20, but there just isn't a vast conspiracy to surrender to the Muslims here, sorry.

- There was no riot according to the State Dept.

-ABC News reporting from the State Dept that there was no protest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hJf6Q_jPrJk).

- I just posted multiple videos of various Obama minions saying that it was a demonstration that either got out of control or was hijacked because of a distasteful, vile video. I've just posted video proof of this, but you clearly don't want to see it.


- But staying on topic, I opened this little debate over one point, that Obama declared this a terrorist attack to the public within 24hrs. Your assertion is absolutely false and you've provide ZERO evidence to support your point. What Petraeus reported has NOTHING to do with what Obama & Co said to the public. Find a video of one of Obama's administration reps directly calling this a terrorist attack within 24hr (or 48hrs for that matter) of the attack. You won't. They blasted the horrible evil vile disgusting guy who made the video and had an almost sympathetic tone (that's my arguable opinion) to the imaginary protestors.

I think this is just reflective of how incompetent our government is, more than anything else.

Whats conspiratorial about my position? What does the "rage machine" have to do with my position?

Anyways, there's no reason to even both debating this point with you since you refuse to have the objectiveness or intellectual honesty to acknowledge anything that contradicts what you believe. Wait, you did, "it's a conspiracy by the rage machine" or whatever.

[Lohman446]

Anyways, there's no reason to even both debating this point with you since you refuse to have the objectiveness or intellectual honesty to acknowledge anything that contradicts what you believe. Wait, you did, "it's a conspiracy by the rage machine" or whatever.

Its the classic adhominem attack. Rather than acknowledging the information you attack the source. Sometimes this is actually reasonable as the source should not be trusted. However as you watch a certain individual on this board do it for every bit of information that might possibly effect his world view or force him to think you learn that it is either a tool of cowardice, arrogance, or lack of intellectual honesty. It basically makes it impossible to have reasonable and respectful conversation.

Its named as a logical fallacy for a reason.

Good luck if you continue these conversations with said individual. I have simply decided the ignore feature exists for a reason.

[wetwrks]

i don't really care about what the rage machine has fed you

And we don't care what the LLM* has fed you. This was an attempt by the White House to make out like this was not a terrorist attack. The Patreus thing was an attempt to distract everyone so the attack could blow over. An attempt that seems to have worked. They had known about the Patreus scandal for more than 6 months and waited untill then to bring it up and persue it. If there was nothing to hide or cover up about the attack then they would have waited till he testified to go after Patreus. Instead they used it to distract the subject.












*LLM = Lying Liberal Media