kallend 2,184 #26 August 5, 2010 QuoteQuote Why not critique the message instead of the messenger? Not following your own advice? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3814603;search_string=messenger;#3814603 Quote(post #10) Sometimes the messenger reveals himself to be clueless. That's why it's important to establish that the messenger has credibility. Are you trying to claim that Saint Ronald Reagan's Director of Management and Budget has no credibility on economic issues? You're funny, as we saw when you couldn't figure out the length of a presidential term.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #27 August 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Why not critique the message instead of the messenger? Not following your own advice? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3814603;search_string=messenger;#3814603 Quote(post #10) Sometimes the messenger reveals himself to be clueless. That's why it's important to establish that the messenger has credibility. Are you trying to claim that Saint Ronald Reagan's Director of Management and Budget has no credibility on economic issues? I figured you would miss the point. Just using your own words to show your hypocrisy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #28 August 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why not critique the message instead of the messenger? Not following your own advice? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3814603;search_string=messenger;#3814603 Quote(post #10) Sometimes the messenger reveals himself to be clueless. That's why it's important to establish that the messenger has credibility. Are you trying to claim that Saint Ronald Reagan's Director of Management and Budget has no credibility on economic issues? I figured you would miss the point. Just using your own words to show your hypocrisy. No, you didn't. My words were "That's why it's important to establish that the messenger has credibility." Being a former Director of Reagan's OMB establishes that Stockman has more credibility than mnealtx or timmyfitz on economic issues. You're just pissed that one of your own is actually telling the truth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 August 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why not critique the message instead of the messenger? Not following your own advice? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3814603;search_string=messenger;#3814603 Quote(post #10) Sometimes the messenger reveals himself to be clueless. That's why it's important to establish that the messenger has credibility. Are you trying to claim that Saint Ronald Reagan's Director of Management and Budget has no credibility on economic issues? I figured you would miss the point. Just using your own words to show your hypocrisy. No, you didn't. My words were "That's why it's important to establish that the messenger has credibility." Being a former Director of Reagan's OMB establishes that Stockman has more credibility than mnealtx or timmyfitz on economic issues. You're just pissed that one of your own is actually telling the truth. I notice that Boardman only talks about the Rep's spending - so much for all that twaddle from you above about bias. Of course, that just proves my point again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #30 August 5, 2010 Quote I notice that Boardman only talks about the Rep's spending - so much for all that twaddle from you above about bias. Of course, that just proves my point again. The thread is about STOCKMAN, Reagan's Director of the OMB. One of YOUR guys. A fully credentialed CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. His bias appears to be towards telling the truth to his fellow Republicans.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 August 5, 2010 Quote Quote I notice that Boardman only talks about the Rep's spending - so much for all that twaddle from you above about bias. Of course, that just proves my point again. The thread is about STOCKMAN, Reagan's Director of the OMB. One of YOUR guys. A fully credentialed CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. His bias appears to be towards telling the truth to his fellow Republicans. and if he said the oposite you would call him clueless You read like a bad paper back bookTranslated Got nothing to do with who said what with you. Only if you agree with the message or not"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #32 August 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote I notice that Boardman only talks about the Rep's spending - so much for all that twaddle from you above about bias. Of course, that just proves my point again. The thread is about STOCKMAN, Reagan's Director of the OMB. One of YOUR guys. A fully credentialed CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. His bias appears to be towards telling the truth to his fellow Republicans. and if he said the oposite you would call him clueless The point is that Mr. Stockman, elected to the United States House of Representatives (R, Michigan) for the 95th Congress, reelected in two subsequent elections, serving from January 3, 1977, until his resignation January 27, 1981 to accept appointment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under U.S. President Ronald Reagan, did NOT say the opposite, he told the unpalatable truth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 August 5, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote I notice that Boardman only talks about the Rep's spending - so much for all that twaddle from you above about bias. Of course, that just proves my point again. The thread is about STOCKMAN, Reagan's Director of the OMB. One of YOUR guys. A fully credentialed CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. His bias appears to be towards telling the truth to his fellow Republicans. and if he said the oposite you would call him clueless The point is that Mr. Stockman, elected to the United States House of Representatives (R, Michigan) for the 95th Congress, reelected in two subsequent elections, serving from January 3, 1977, until his resignation January 27, 1981 to accept appointment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under U.S. President Ronald Reagan, did NOT say the opposite, he told the unpalatable truth. then say your shit instead of dancing around others questions and points with comments aimed at posters Then you post this shit here and you get caught in your hypocrisy and finally post something with a pointAnd my point stands as well. It does not matter who the hell said what to most of us. If you agree with it then he/she is some one to be listened to. If not they are clueless. So, YOU think it is the truth because YOU believe it. Just because YOU agree with it does not make it so. (although I am sure it does in your own mind) "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #34 August 5, 2010 SO basically your point is that you and your ilk think this guy is just another RINO traitor to the cause worthy of being tossed under the bus..... Got it... nope.. no hypocrisy there oh Mr Repubican Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #35 August 5, 2010 QuoteBut the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes. Seem to recall you being an avid supporter of Keynesianism when it's your guy doing the deficit spending.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 August 5, 2010 Quote SO basically your point is that you and your ilk think this guy is just another RINO traitor to the cause worthy of being tossed under the bus..... Got it... nope.. no hypocrisy there oh Mr Repubican Got it? Got what??No where in this thread have I commented on anything you refer to here Thanks I needed that"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #37 August 5, 2010 Your attempt to shoot the messenger is so transparent as to be funny. It won't work, though, because his conservative Republican credentials are impeccable.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #38 August 5, 2010 QuoteYour attempt to shoot the messenger is so transparent as to be funny. It won't work, though, because his conservative Republican credentials are impeccable. As impeccable as your hypocrisy"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #39 August 5, 2010 Both of you (Amazon and Rush) cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #40 August 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteYour attempt to shoot the messenger is so transparent as to be funny. It won't work, though, because his conservative Republican credentials are impeccable. As impeccable as your hypocrisy All any of your right wingers have managed to come up with is attacks on me. None of you have come up with a single error in what David Stockman said, or managed to impeach his credibility on economics or as a conservative. Illustrates pretty nicely the poverty of your position. Thanks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 August 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour attempt to shoot the messenger is so transparent as to be funny. It won't work, though, because his conservative Republican credentials are impeccable. As impeccable as your hypocrisy All any of your right wingers have managed to come up with is attacks on me. None of you have come up with a single error in what David Stockman said, or managed to impeach his credibility on economics or as a conservative. An entirely one-sided, "It's all the fault of the Reps" commentary - and of course it's complete bullshit. But, since it dovetails so nicely with your opinion, you're going to call it gospel truth. QuoteIllustrates pretty nicely the poverty of your position. Thanks. You just keep reinforcing over and over what I said in the second post - he agrees with you, so he's good to go. Anyone else is obviously biased and to be disregarded. Illustrates pretty nicely the poverty of your standards.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 August 6, 2010 QuoteAre you trying to claim that Saint Ronald Reagan's Director of Management and Budget has no credibility on economic issues? Since you constantly mention "voodoo economics", you have made the claim yourself, over and over again. You only give him any credibility now because he is agreeing with you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #43 August 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour attempt to shoot the messenger is so transparent as to be funny. It won't work, though, because his conservative Republican credentials are impeccable. As impeccable as your hypocrisy All any of your right wingers have managed to come up with is attacks on me. None of you have come up with a single error in what David Stockman said, or managed to impeach his credibility on economics or as a conservative. Illustrates pretty nicely the poverty of your position. Thanks. I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose or you really just dont get it Your thread title is what? Oh ya, “An honest Republican”!! You are constantly attacking the poster or the posters sources anytime a post is made where an opinion or position is stated that you don’t agree with. And in those cases it looks like THE PARTY AFFILIATION DOES NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO YOU!!!! Now somehow it does becomes important to you?? Just because you happen to agree with a self identified conservative THIS TIME??? Bias seems to be a major story line in your posts regarding these topics. What about your biases???? Hmmmmmmm? If this person had taken the opposite side of the topic he would just be another biased political hack to you Many of us have posted comments made from someone in other parties (just as you have here) when they do not seem to follow the party line or talking points. But at least when I do it I try to make it clear (and that can be difficult on line) that I am just poking the other side with a stick. Cause I know that the persons party affiliation is not important for the most part. It is the position or opinion that is. Now, for some reason, party identification is important to you. Why? Well I have to assume because you happen to agree with this person Well you can’t have it both ways John. Even though you try to"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #44 August 6, 2010 Thank you and Mike for confirming that you can't actually rebut anything Stockman wrote, so all you can do is attack me. QED.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 August 6, 2010 Quote Thank you and Mike for confirming that you can't actually rebut anything Stockman wrote, so all you can do is attack me. QED. We don't need to - you've already indicted him 50 separate times with your 'voodoo economics' quote. Thanks for showing yet again that the only credential you accept is agreement with you. And here's a tissue.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 August 6, 2010 Quote Thank you and Mike for confirming that you can't actually rebut anything Stockman wrote, so all you can do is attack me. QED. blah blah blah If you call this an attack you are very thined skined"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #47 August 6, 2010 So, mike and rush, do you actually have anything to rebut the items brought forward in the article? Be a lot more interesting to read than this "last post" contest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #48 August 6, 2010 QuoteSo, mike and rush, do you actually have anything to rebut the items brought forward in the article? Be a lot more interesting to read than this "last post" contest. If he and you cant take it drop out I learned this from him"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 August 6, 2010 Post 41Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #50 August 6, 2010 QuotePost 41 one sided and bullshit? That's all you got in response? I would have thought you would have had something a bit more thoughtful in response. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
