Shaggie jumps into threads all the time.
Likes to back up his buddies.
You do it hrmwrm and your a Troll
I am used to the Double standard of the shag hole
but it makes for fun filling up a thread.
This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
but it makes for fun filling up a thread.
Ford nut, hrmwrm,
What is your problem here? All you have in this thread is work to distort, lie and smear me in an effort to harass me. You have done nothing but act rude and obnoxious here and killed any chance of any decent debate here. You have not provided anything of relevance to the debate, only made irrelevant personal attacks on me and tried to manufacture dishonesty on my part. You re being very vindictive and petty. Why?
And before you try and claim "you do it all the time" in some fashion....so what? Even if that is true, it does not justify your actions at all. Your actions are still immature, hateful, obnoxious and dishonest. If it is true that "I do it all the time" and that is your justification, all that means is that you are just as much of a hypocrite as you accuse me of being.
What is your problem here? All you have in this thread is work to distort, lie and smear me in an effort to harass me. You have done nothing but act rude and obnoxious here and killed any chance of any decent debate here. You have not provided anything of relevance to the debate, only made irrelevant personal attacks on me and tried to manufacture dishonesty on my part. You re being very vindictive and petty. Why?
And before you try and claim "you do it all the time" in some fashion....so what? Even if that is true, it does not justify your actions at all. Your actions are still immature, hateful, obnoxious and dishonest. If it is true that "I do it all the time" and that is your justification, all that means is that you are just as much of a hypocrite as you accuse me of being.
You should all take note where the true anger, ad hominem attacks and rudeness (that is a means of debate) is coming from here. Also, note how quickly is spreads. As soon as I lighten up, ford nut and hrmwrm get more bold and overrun this thread. Soon, others, like Glenn start showing up and perpetuating the rudeness. It spreads like a cancer.
This is why the rudeness and insults from the right are necessary here; you have to fight fire with fire. The difference is, the rudeness from one side is consistently dishonest, vindictive and a means of debate, while the rudeness from the other side is honest and only ment to counter that rudeness and dishonesty. If you don't counter that dishonesty and rudeness, it overruns this forum, as it has in the past.
This is why the rudeness and insults from the right are necessary here; you have to fight fire with fire. The difference is, the rudeness from one side is consistently dishonest, vindictive and a means of debate, while the rudeness from the other side is honest and only ment to counter that rudeness and dishonesty. If you don't counter that dishonesty and rudeness, it overruns this forum, as it has in the past.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
You know what I have to say about this:
YouTube - Batman Dance
YouTube - Try to watch this without laughing or grinning
YouTube - Batman Dance
YouTube - Try to watch this without laughing or grinning
luxuryrules
Dedicated LVC Member
While we're at it... my dad had the opportunity to meet Viktor Belenko back in the late 70s. One of the most memorable things Viktor mentioned was:
"In a land of equals, some people are more equal than others."
Had to grin when I first heard that.
The claim is not unfounded as has been proven a number of times in this thread (see posts 6, 9 and 18 for example). Certian people have intentionally ignored that and lied in order to smear me.
You are perpetuating that lie.
And, even if your premise is true, it doesn't justify the insults which have no relevance to the issue (posts 37, 53, 58, 66, 67, 70, 75), the lies and distortions or the general vindictiveness and anger.
Your attempt at a smear of me through where I live (post #70) is a prime example. It has absolutely no relevance to the debate or to my credibility. It is only an attempt to dishonestly smear and belittle me by belittling Topeka.
ford nut
Local nut case
I don't think you have proven a thing Shag.....And I don't think I am alone.
You think you have.
You know whats funny I don't think your being dishonest about it, I just disagree.
If that makes me a troll or vindictive or petty in your eyes....oh well.
I don't simply think I have, I have. The facts speak for themselves. You are simply refusing to acknowledge them. If this was an honest disagreement, you could counter the facts I cited or the connection to this. You haven't. All you have done is assert that I haven't proven anything; a fallacious proof by assertion argument that dishonestly avoids any debate.
But that clearly was never your goal. You simply claim that I haven't proven anything and then smear me. That is your overridding goal. Your vindictivness is rather clear here. You are claiming that I can't prove my point, or am being "smacked around" or whatever by intentionally ignoring my evidence.
It is pretty clear that you are being disingenuous here now by trying to mischaracterize it as simply and honest diagreement when you have intentionally and blatantly ignored the proof I present and then lie and say I didn't provide any proof (as you did in posts 14, 28, 32, 39 and 74). It is simply a means to attack me, which you demonstrated in each of those posts.
Coming in here and not countering any argument but simply throwing out dishonest accusations, lying and intentionally ignoring any evidence in the thread that counters your claim is, by definition, troll behavior. Posting what you post here which is in no way aimed at debating, only harassing is also troll behavior. It is not merely a matter of perception, as you are trying to mischaracterize it, it is a fact.
And it is consistent with your actions throughout the politics and current events forum here. All you do anymore is come in here is try to demonize people who you have had disagreements with here in the past. You don't even try to debate, only misdirect, and distort their arguments, claim "victory" by someone else over one of us who have strongly disagreed with you in the past, belittle and lie about those of us who have strongly disagreed with you in the past. Your actions are consistently vindictive and hateful. You clearly are not interested in debate.
ford nut
Local nut case
You have yet to prove people have wrote these nasty letters because of the encouragement of the left.
You try to back out in post #6 citing it as a example
I need to supply facts ??? What do you call that shag...shifting the burden of proof ????
Nope just over you Shag...she owns you son.
As part of you "proof" you quote this article:
Although the headline may refer to anti-capitalists it does not provide any connection within the article and certainly no mention of Democrats. Could just as well be communists or any other group. I am starting to believe that your reading comprehension may be on a par with your spelling, either that or you are grasping at straws to support an unsupportable argument. Yes Shagdrum this time it was meant to be an insult since you appear to be happy insulting others.
Although the headline may refer to anti-capitalists it does not provide any connection within the article and certainly no mention of Democrats. Could just as well be communists or any other group. I am starting to believe that your reading comprehension may be on a par with your spelling, either that or you are grasping at straws to support an unsupportable argument. Yes Shagdrum this time it was meant to be an insult since you appear to be happy insulting others.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
shagdrum, you started with a headline you couldn't back up, so you got made a little fum of. then you started smearing and demeaning with troll attacks.
i gotta give it to ya, you don't give up.
but nobody started attacking you until you attacked first. merely pointed out that you haven't proven your claim, nor had a preponderance of evidence in your favour. you haven't shown anywhere the political affiliation of these ticked off people, which is what your headline claimed.
You have yet to prove people have wrote these nasty letters because of the encouragement of the left.
You try to back out in post #6 citing it as a example
You are once again, dishonestly mischaracterizing my argument, as is the norm for you. I never said or implied these specific actions were specifically encouraged by the left. I said the hatred is what the democrats are encouraging. Are you incapable of honesty in making an argument? Your history on this forum shows that you are.
More mischaracterization. I never said you need to supply facts, I was pointing out that if you had an honest disagreement with me (as you are trying to mischaracterize your actions), you would have honestly tried to counter my argument by doing something like countering the facts or challenging the logical connection of those fact. Instead, what you are doing is intentionally avoiding any honest debate (you have shown yourself to be incapable of having one) and simply trying to demonize and dishonestly marginalize me.
Only if you ignore any argument I make, which you do.
If you had honestly read the article (which I doubt you did), you would have found this little passage:
Shortly after the vandalism was discovered, a group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals claimed responsibility in an email sent to news organizations under the name Moira McLeod and the address bankbossesarecriminals@mail.com.
It read: 'Fred Goodwin's house in Edinburgh was attacked this morning. We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made unemployed, destitute and homeless.
'This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed. This is just the beginning.'
Last night police were urgently trying to trace the origins of the email. Security sources said they had no knowledge of a group using the name 'Bank Bosses Are Criminals' but are investigating the movements of known anti-capitalists to see if they are linked to the attack.
It read: 'Fred Goodwin's house in Edinburgh was attacked this morning. We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made unemployed, destitute and homeless.
'This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed. This is just the beginning.'
Last night police were urgently trying to trace the origins of the email. Security sources said they had no knowledge of a group using the name 'Bank Bosses Are Criminals' but are investigating the movements of known anti-capitalists to see if they are linked to the attack.
The organization that claims responsibility for the attack is anti-capitalist. The sentiment they express in their email is explicitly anti-capitalist and the police view the group as anti-capitalist.
If you are expecting the group to specifically call themselves "anti-capitalist", then what you are doing is dishonestly raising the burden of proof in a fallacious manner called moving the goalposts:
Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Your argument is not valid. To use that tactic suggests intellectual dishonest on your part.But I did back up the headline in posts 6, 9 and 18. You are dishonestly ignoring that fact. The comments of ford nut and you were never aimed at challenging that argument only ignoring it and spreading a lie that I had not backed up the headline. If you will look, I didn't comment on either of you until you both posted here either lying or perpetuating a lie that I had not backed up the claim when I had (again in posts 6, 9 and 18).
As to the troll comment, that is not a smear it is accurate. The actions of both of you in this thread have been aimed at harassing me and demonizing me and specifically not having an debate. That is, by definition, troll behavior. It is not a smear if it is the truth.
More dishonesty and distortion from hrmwrm, as is the norm. I didn't "attack" either one of you until you both lied or perpetuated a lie about me.
And this thread is not in a vacuum. Both you and ford nut's history on this forum shows you to be exceedingly dishonest and to use personal attacks as a means of debate. None of my "attacks" are a means of debate, the are honest and accurate critiques.
ford nut
Local nut case
Headline Shag...... This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging
I would think This would mean the e-mails and hate threats.
Anyone reading it would believe you were implying these specific actions in the article you posted.
All you have done from that point is backed away from what you posted.
Knock off the poor me routine Shag.
But I did back up the headline in posts 6, 9 and 18. You are dishonestly ignoring that fact. The comments of ford nut and you were never aimed at challenging that argument only ignoring it and spreading a lie that I had not backed up the headline. If you will look, I didn't comment on either of you until you both posted here either lying or perpetuating a lie that I had not backed up the claim when I had (again in posts 6, 9 and 18).
As to the troll comment, that is not a smear it is accurate. The actions of both of you in this thread have been aimed at harassing me and demonizing me and specifically not having an debate. That is, by definition, troll behavior. It is not a smear if it is the truth.
More dishonesty and distortion from hrmwrm, as is the norm. I didn't "attack" either one of you until you both lied or perpetuated a lie about me.
And this thread is not in a vacuum. Both you and ford nut's history on this forum shows you to be exceedingly dishonest and to use personal attacks as a means of debate. None of my "attacks" are a means of debate, the are honest and accurate critiques.
more insolent dishonesty from you. there is nothing that states factually any of your claim. explain to me the difference between posts 6,9 18. they refer to the same articles and don't back up your headline. they are along the same story lines, but don't help your directional smear tactic.
"We know we sound paranoid and we really can't believe we're actually on the same side as Rush"
this is from one of your articles. so it sounds like a smear tactic from the right.
and your history is very dishonest. you have misquoted me numerous times that i have caught you in our arguements. misquoting journalists or politicians etc. to make your point is one thing, but misquoting the person your arguing with to grasp a straw is deceitful at the least.
if anything, the things you post up show a distinct campaign to create hatred towards the left without a direct connection.
and i'm not perpetuating a lie. you are with this continuation of deceit over something you still can't prove.
early on you said YOU connected the dots. so you are trying to perpetuate your own conspiracy theory. you have a lot of info on who allowed the bonuses, and a few groups who are outraged by the aig bonuses and others bonuses, but still NOTHING that ties these facts to your headline. it's still an assumption on your part.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
Just let the banks crumble......like a computer...if it has problems....just retart the thing and fix the problems in DOS mode
Well, you would like to think that, I'm sure. But that is clearly not what the headline said. It never said anything about actions
let alone these specific actions. It only ever referred to the emotions and sentiments that those actions are ultimately based in; the hatred they are based in.
But if you acknowledge that, then you can't continue with the mischaracterization of what I said, can you.
How about you honestly read what I said instead of trying to manipulate it in an effort to smear me.
No, only you. If I had wanted to claim that the actions were encouraged by the Democrats, I would have said so. You are spinning, as is the norm for someone with no integrity and honesty.
How about you knock off the lies and dishonest smears, not to mention the habitual troll behavior here.
There doesn't need to be any difference between those posts; no one has challenged them in any honest fashion. I threw down the gauntlet, the evidenciary burden of proof is not on me anymore until those facts are logically challenged. There are only two ways to do honestly do that; either challenge the facts in some fashion, or challenge the logic in the argument that cites the facts. Instead what you and everyone else has done is to ignore those facts as long as possible.
Now you are trying to move the goalposts by claiming that something has to "state factually" my claim when all it has to do is logically support my claim. You are forcing an even higher burden of proof of an explicit statement that is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate. But then you couldn't keep smearing me, could you.
Even if I am somehow being dishonest, it doesn't justify your dishonesty. Ever hear the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Can you provide some context for that quote or are you gonna stick with taking it out of context?
It may "sound" like a smear tactic to some, but that doesn't prove that it is a smear tactic. When you look at the facts, it checks out. But you can't keeps smearing me if you admit that, right?
If I am so dishonest and have misquoted you numerous times and you have caught me, then you can cite examples. I don't remember any of those times. I think you are lying. Provide proof (with links) or STFU. I will give you an example of what you need to provide.
- In post #47 of the thread at this link, you mischaracterize Intelligent Design as relying on, "superstition or omnipotence or otherworldly explanations". I show that as a mischarcterization in post #50
- in post #43 of that same thread (as I point out in post #44 of that thread), you are making two fallacious arguments; you are moving the goalposts and making a fallacious red herring argument.
- In post #48 of this thread you mischaracterize me "excelling" at arguments that are dishonest, misleading personal attacks.
- In post #66 of this thread, you effectively call me an "@$$hole"; a characterization that has absolutely no relevance to any debate in this thread or to my credibility and really, as any a legitimate argument, only belongs on an elementary school playground
Again, even if I am being dishonest and have a history of dishonesty (as you claim), it doesn't justify your dishonest. It just makes you a dishonest hypocrite.
In fact, to point to "dishonesty" on my part in defense of your own dishonesty only serves to distract from your dishonesty and is a fallacious ad hominem argument called Tu Quoque:
The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions
Even though you acknowledged the proof I provided earlier in this post, you are back to claiming I didn't prove it?! You are demonstrating your dishonesty in lying when you claim I didn't prove anything.
In post #41 of this thread, you agree with ford nut when he intimates that I have yet to support my premise when I already had in posts 6, 9 and 18. Ford nut is, by implication, lying about my actions and by agreeing with him, you are perpetuating that lie.
In post #44 you repeat the assertion that I haven't backed up my claim when I had in posts 6, 9 and 18. You are, therefore, lying.
Neither your nor ford nut have yet to in any way try and counter what I pointed out in those three posts. All you have done is denied they exist. Then, in this thread, you actually acknowledge the existence of that evidence, then gp back to denying it's existence.
Well, at least you are finally trying to attack the logical connection of the proof I provided to the claim in the headline. Interesting that it only took over three pages of personal attacks, smears and lies to get to that point. In this thread at least, it seems that any type of argument for you only comes as a byproduct of attempting to demonize someone.
Either way, you are mischaracterizing my argument when you call it a "conspiracy theory". You are also removing the context of the argument when you claim that only assumptions tie my facts to the headline.
For it to be only "assumptions", there would have to be two sets of outrage directed at AIG; one that was due to these bonuses and one totally unrelated to it. The fact is that the only outrage directed at AIG in this instance was the populist outrage due to the payment of the rentention bonuses. Here is what I wrote:
- The Democrats created this mess by creating and passing the legislation that specifically allowed for these bonuses; they passed this with full knowledge and no oversight
- When the bonuses were paid, Democrats expressed vehement indication that was clearly false because they knew about this all along.
- They conducted hearings and made sure to publicly demonize there people. The Democrats illegally taxed, threatened to "name names" and generally worked to intimidate and disingenuously marginalize these people through what is basically a witch hunt that the left created.
- Leftist organizations, like ACORN (who Obama worked for) have seen fit to bus people to these execs houses and protest in front of those homes and at their jobs.
- Vandalizing has occurred as well death threats as a result of the false indignation of the left here.
- even internationally, leftist anti-capitalist groups have taken to violent measures to intimidate these people and unjustly punish them.
- This has caused a number of execs to leave their jobs due, at least in part, to safety concerns. Some of these execs have even received death threats against themselves and their families.
Now, where specifically is the flaw in that connections? All you have done is claim that the connections is based in assumptions. What assumptions? What further evidence would be needed to prove it is not an "assumption"? You need to be more specific in your argument.
But, shag – I have challenged the ‘logic’ – you have yet to prove that the left has actively fostered this ‘vile hate’. Not one memo, not one recorded phone call, no email message, nothing. No one in this article is claiming that the left ‘inspired’ them in any way to place those calls or write those emails.
All your ‘points of proof’ that you continually repaste – I have answered each one of them (in posts 16, 25, 27, 57 and 60.)
I have also given a much more plausible reason why these things are happening – one that doesn’t involve a ‘leftist conspiracy theory’.
Once again – if you want to go back to the beginning – rather than the conspiracy that you have manufactured Shag – who is to blame for the hatred? Could it be corporate America who has been functioning with some odd sense that they are ‘entitled’ to this rate of compensation. That the ‘average’ CEO is entitled to compensation at the rate of 400 times the average worker, and doesn’t ever seem to be ‘punished’ for doing a poor job. I think by looking at those facts, rather than some mysterious ‘behind the scenes’ organized manipulation by the Left/Democrats, you will find your answer. The vile hatred that these executives are experiencing is perhaps self inflicted.
Sure - just look at the Christian Coalition, Christian Reconstructionism or NRLC...
I am, frankly suprised you showed back up. I figured you were ignoring this thread unless and until Cal came back (it would have been the wiser thing for you to do at this point, IMO). Ford nut and hrmwrm have pretty well been dominating this thread for a while now.
Where did you challenge the logic? In post number 8, you changed the focus from the info I had offered as proof to the article in question. That wasn't a challenge of the logic in the argument I laid out in post #6, but a misdirection to focus only on the article in post #1. When I pointed that out and reiterated my argument in post #9, you repeated the same tactic by asking for proof "within the article". In post #25, you ask for proof of, "quotes where the left is encouraging hateful phone calls...[and/or]...Threatening emails". The headline never said that. What you were doing there was setting up a strawman mischaracterization of my argument.
I have shown that the Dems specifically and knowingly allowed the bonus payments that inspired the initial outrage. Then I showed how they had taken actions that put fuel on the fire (conduct hearings, punitive tax, threaten to "name names", etc.)
You are once again, moving the goalposts. There is no need for a "recorded phone cal, email message" or anything of that nature to prove the point that the left is encouraging this hatred. They can, and did encourage it publicly and everyone saw that as it was all over the news at the time.
In this video, dated 3/17/09, Chuck Schumer tried to bully the AIG employees and Barney Frank calls for retaliation from the government as an owner of the company.
YouTube - AIG paid 73 employees bonuses of $1 million or more; 11 of whom are no longer there
Here is a video (dated 3/16/09) of Lawrence Summers (Director of the White House's National Economic Council for Obama), Christina Romer (Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers) and Barney Frank (as well as Mitch McConnell) expressing disingenuous shock, dishonestly trying to blame Bush (claim that the problem was inherited when the law allowing this was created under and signed by Obama) and making a veiled call for retaliatory firings. It is an example of what was on the Sunday news shows and indicative of what was on the nightly news during this whole incident
YouTube - TPMtv: Sunday Show Roundup: Whatcha Gonna Do?
Here is a video of Barney Frank and the AIG CEO at the congressional hearing where Frank refuses to give AIG Families Confidentiality Despite Death Threats and calls for the names of those who received bonuses and didn't return them. Can you say intimidation?
YouTube - Barney Frank Won't Give AIG Families Confidentiality Despite Death Threats
In this video from March 18th, 2009, Obama says he is "outraged" by these actions despite the fact that he knew about the bonuses and signed into law a bill allowing for their payment. He then capitalized on that anger in the video and later on when, in a meeting with bank CEO's he said, "My administration...is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
YouTube - President Obama Talks about AIG Bonuses at Town Hall - 03/18/09
And no one in that article needs to in order to prove my claim. You keep trying to move the goalposts.
Post #16: You didn't challenge any of the facts I cite concerning the AIG thing and didn't honestly challenge the logic of the argument. All you did was offer dishonest and fallacious arguments; moving the goalposts (asking for proof, "within the article"), and obfuscate by pointing out that some republicans voted for the AIG tax as well.
Post #25: More of the same. No challenge of any of the facts in the argument and no honest challenge of the logic in the argument. Only fallacies and obfuscation.
Post #27: same as the previous two posts as well as going off into some tangential issues that are not really that relevant to the original point.
Post #57: You offer one line that doesn't challenge any of the facts or the logic behind the argument. It is simply an assertion based in the myopic Marxist class-struggle formulation that has absolutely no relevance to the original debate and only distracts from it.
Post #60: Again, nothing to do with challenging the facts I laid out or honestly challenging the logic behind the argument I originally laid out. It is concerned with tangential arguments the developed from the original argument.
Your reason is only "more plausible" to someone who ignores and/or rejects certain facts and shares your myopic Marxist class-struggle view (which your argument is based in, though I doubt you realize it). Most people in this country do not share that Marxist view and your argument is not "more plausible" to them. But since you assume that view, I doubt you would realize that. And debating the class struggle thing is an issue for a completely different thread.
Besides, I have provided facts that back up my argument. You haven't countered those facts or show a lack of a logical connection. You have simply presented an "alternative" spin (your class struggle argument) to the AIG outrage that ignores the facts I laid out. That only serves as a red herring in this argument.
You are also mischaracterizing my argument when you imply it is a "leftist conspiracy theory". That was not what I was arguing. You are setting up a strawman, again.
It is liberal/governmental incompetence mixed with liberal political opportunism.
I really don't know why you want to still try and have some sort of debate here. Ford nut and hrmwrm have pretty well ruined any chance of that. This thread is now nothing more then their dishonest smears and lies of me and my countering them. No honest debate can be had in that atmosphere.
Where did you challenge the logic? In post number 8, you changed the focus from the info I had offered as proof to the article in question. That wasn't a challenge of the logic in the argument I laid out in post #6, but a misdirection to focus only on the article in post #1. When I pointed that out and reiterated my argument in post #9, you repeated the same tactic by asking for proof "within the article". In post #25, you ask for proof of, "quotes where the left is encouraging hateful phone calls...[and/or]...Threatening emails". The headline never said that. What you were doing there was setting up a strawman mischaracterization of my argument.
I have shown that the Dems specifically and knowingly allowed the bonus payments that inspired the initial outrage. Then I showed how they had taken actions that put fuel on the fire (conduct hearings, punitive tax, threaten to "name names", etc.)
You are once again, moving the goalposts. There is no need for a "recorded phone cal, email message" or anything of that nature to prove the point that the left is encouraging this hatred. They can, and did encourage it publicly and everyone saw that as it was all over the news at the time.
In this video, dated 3/17/09, Chuck Schumer tried to bully the AIG employees and Barney Frank calls for retaliation from the government as an owner of the company.
YouTube - AIG paid 73 employees bonuses of $1 million or more; 11 of whom are no longer there
Here is a video (dated 3/16/09) of Lawrence Summers (Director of the White House's National Economic Council for Obama), Christina Romer (Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers) and Barney Frank (as well as Mitch McConnell) expressing disingenuous shock, dishonestly trying to blame Bush (claim that the problem was inherited when the law allowing this was created under and signed by Obama) and making a veiled call for retaliatory firings. It is an example of what was on the Sunday news shows and indicative of what was on the nightly news during this whole incident
YouTube - TPMtv: Sunday Show Roundup: Whatcha Gonna Do?
Here is a video of Barney Frank and the AIG CEO at the congressional hearing where Frank refuses to give AIG Families Confidentiality Despite Death Threats and calls for the names of those who received bonuses and didn't return them. Can you say intimidation?
YouTube - Barney Frank Won't Give AIG Families Confidentiality Despite Death Threats
In this video from March 18th, 2009, Obama says he is "outraged" by these actions despite the fact that he knew about the bonuses and signed into law a bill allowing for their payment. He then capitalized on that anger in the video and later on when, in a meeting with bank CEO's he said, "My administration...is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
YouTube - President Obama Talks about AIG Bonuses at Town Hall - 03/18/09
And no one in that article needs to in order to prove my claim. You keep trying to move the goalposts.
Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Post #16: You didn't challenge any of the facts I cite concerning the AIG thing and didn't honestly challenge the logic of the argument. All you did was offer dishonest and fallacious arguments; moving the goalposts (asking for proof, "within the article"), and obfuscate by pointing out that some republicans voted for the AIG tax as well.
Post #25: More of the same. No challenge of any of the facts in the argument and no honest challenge of the logic in the argument. Only fallacies and obfuscation.
Post #27: same as the previous two posts as well as going off into some tangential issues that are not really that relevant to the original point.
Post #57: You offer one line that doesn't challenge any of the facts or the logic behind the argument. It is simply an assertion based in the myopic Marxist class-struggle formulation that has absolutely no relevance to the original debate and only distracts from it.
Post #60: Again, nothing to do with challenging the facts I laid out or honestly challenging the logic behind the argument I originally laid out. It is concerned with tangential arguments the developed from the original argument.
Your reason is only "more plausible" to someone who ignores and/or rejects certain facts and shares your myopic Marxist class-struggle view (which your argument is based in, though I doubt you realize it). Most people in this country do not share that Marxist view and your argument is not "more plausible" to them. But since you assume that view, I doubt you would realize that. And debating the class struggle thing is an issue for a completely different thread.
Besides, I have provided facts that back up my argument. You haven't countered those facts or show a lack of a logical connection. You have simply presented an "alternative" spin (your class struggle argument) to the AIG outrage that ignores the facts I laid out. That only serves as a red herring in this argument.
a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument
Even if there is a legitimate reason for the populist anger, that doesn't change the fact that the Dems and leftists did add fuel to the fire here, which is all that is necessary to prove my claim. You are trying to argue that they didn't need to, but that doesn't counter the fact that they did.You are also mischaracterizing my argument when you imply it is a "leftist conspiracy theory". That was not what I was arguing. You are setting up a strawman, again.
It is liberal/governmental incompetence mixed with liberal political opportunism.
I really don't know why you want to still try and have some sort of debate here. Ford nut and hrmwrm have pretty well ruined any chance of that. This thread is now nothing more then their dishonest smears and lies of me and my countering them. No honest debate can be had in that atmosphere.
Wiser? Why Shag? Actually I was out being a good capitalist – earning money – traveling for work, and buying a pair of shoes that probably cost more than you make in a week, heck maybe 2 weeks (the cutest John Galliano red sling backs – if you guys would see my shoe closet, yes, I have a closet for shoes – it alone would convince you I am no Marxist
)So, I guess I wait for Cal (is this similar to Waiting for Godot? I will play the part of Vladimir
) But, in the meantime – because you posted your little snippets of the left talking about the bonuses… here are a couple more examples of the right’s indignation over this little AIG snafu…
How about Grassley’s (R-Iowa) comment…
Sen. Charles Grassley is so angry over AIG bonuses that he says the executives should resign or kill themselves.
In a comment aired this afternoon on WMT, an Iowa radio station, Grassley (R-Iowa) said: “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”
In response to a POLITICO inquiry, Grassley spokeswoman Jill Gerber clarified Grassley’s comments, saying “clearly he was speaking rhetorically – he meant there’s no culture of shame and acceptance of responsibility for driving a company into the dirt in this country. If you asked him whether he really wants AIG executives to commit suicide, he’d say of course not.”
From the New RepublicIn a comment aired this afternoon on WMT, an Iowa radio station, Grassley (R-Iowa) said: “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”
In response to a POLITICO inquiry, Grassley spokeswoman Jill Gerber clarified Grassley’s comments, saying “clearly he was speaking rhetorically – he meant there’s no culture of shame and acceptance of responsibility for driving a company into the dirt in this country. If you asked him whether he really wants AIG executives to commit suicide, he’d say of course not.”
A mere six weeks later, DeMint and Inhofe are now attacking the administration for failing to curb these executive payouts. In a long diatribe delivered on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Inhofe abandoned his earlier defense of businesses to make their own decisions about compensation to express his "deep anger" over the pay. "I don't know how someone at AIG giving out or receiving a bonus right now can look at themselves in the mirror," Inhofe thundered on the floor. "You can be sure that we will do all we can to right this wrong and get these bonuses back." DeMint has also found ways to channel his newfound anger against corporate pay. In a letter sent to the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, DeMint, along with David Vitter and Jim Bunning, demanded that AIG contracts be formally subpoenaed to determine why the company was "specifically exempt[ed]" from the executive compensation limits. In other words, DeMint is now asking why AIG hasn't been forced to comply with the conditions that he had so vehemently opposed.
What was once emblematic of a free-market economy--the ability of private industry to determine its wages--is now the sign of a Democrat-led "fiasco" caused by a "lack of transparency and accountability," in the words of DeMint's letter to the Banking Committee. Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to be steamed about AIG's bonuses, but it sure would be nice if Senate Republicans spared us the rank hypocrisy next time.
What was once emblematic of a free-market economy--the ability of private industry to determine its wages--is now the sign of a Democrat-led "fiasco" caused by a "lack of transparency and accountability," in the words of DeMint's letter to the Banking Committee. Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to be steamed about AIG's bonuses, but it sure would be nice if Senate Republicans spared us the rank hypocrisy next time.
My reason is more plausible because it makes far more sense shag – people are angry because of economic strife.
And if you define your points of debate one more time shag, I will depart – I know them, and I also know why you insert them. I haven’t moved the goalpost – you set the goalpost and can’t back it up with the article that you used in post 1. There is not one thing in that article that backs your claim that the left is encouraging vile hatred. Not one thing. There is far more in that article that supports the fact that these people are angry because of their economic situation.
When I introduced class warfare (your labeled ‘red herring’) I was doing it to show that there is a far simpler and more logical reason – people are mad because they are out of work and they are seeing their tax dollars support huge, and what appears to them, unjustifiable bonuses. There isn’t any fanning going on here. What is going on is typical political posturing. Those politicians need to be re-elected every 2 (or 6) years. Both sides have spoken out against this. That is part of the reason I believe that this isn’t a politics issue, but an economic issue. Both sides have articulated their anger over the bonuses at AIG. Even though it seems rather hypocritical from the right. I mean, they were the ones that insisted that no compensation restrictions be put into place when the TARP funds were first voted in under Bush/Paulson. And now they are blaming the Democrats for allowing compensation to happen – come on, one or the other, but not both…
ford nut
Local nut case
Nope not only me.......It appears you are the one alone here shag.
More shag hole double standard
I am suprised you don't let this thread die.
The more you dig the deeper the hole gets.