So about General Petraeus

[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!!!!