Ok, let's talk brass tax

[BT]

So how was a) addressed in your paragraph or by your post?

[sirs]

It didn't require addressing.  It was merely an accurate point being made. 

[BT]

I guess i'll never understand how certain people think.

[sirs]

As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful

[BT]

As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful

What predisposed conclusions did i jump to?

[BT]

Is this an example of jumping to predisposed conclusions?

Because, as usual, you're trying to apply something, I never said or even implied, like thinking that I think Stossel is a Republican, or that he's some GOP operative/pundit.  You seem to be so bent on trying to find something I said as wrong, your consistent coloring of what I actually said, keeps leading you to some pretty huge erroneous conclusions/assumptions.
My comments are pretty specific, not to mention transparent.  If you were to bother to drop the anti-sirs bias, you would have noted that that lead paragraph a) the ongoing accusations from the left that Republicans say they want to see cuts, but won't provide any specific examples, b) had Stossel as an unknown to me, party wise, and completely irrelevant to c) the hope that someone(s) in the GOP level of leadership is paying attention to what he's advocating

[sirs]

Not at all.  Your consistent trend of doing precisely what you quoted is a prime example of accurate deduction, and what you've been doing with so many of my postings

As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful

What predisposed conclusions did i jump to?

Well THIS time it was some need to supposedly correct me for erroneously implying Stossel was some GOP pundit/spokesperson.  Then going on about that, when his party affiliation was completely irrelevant to the point being made

[BT]

Not at all.  Your consistent trend of doing precisely what you quoted is a prime example of accurate deduction, and what you've been doing with so many of my postings

As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful

What predisposed conclusions did i jump to?

Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP

to which i replied that Stossel was a libertarian.

which took two links away from your original link to verify.



Well THIS time it was some need to supposedly correct me for erroneously implying Stossel was some GOP pundit/spokesperson.  Then going on about that, when his party affiliation was completely irrelevant to the point being made

Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP

to which i replied that Stossel was a libertarian.

which took two clicks away from your original link to verify.

Notice i didn't append dumbass or any other slur to the simple provision of information.

So how you took that simple reply as an attack, i don't know.

[Plane]

A list of specific cuts the RSC is proposing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-gets-specific-on-cuts_n_811557.html


Diffrent versions of same story;
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/01/house_republicans_unveil_25_tr.html

http://globalhealth.kff.org/Daily-Reports/2011/February/02/GH-020211-Budget.aspx



And Paul Ryan
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryans_daring_budget_p.html

[sirs]

Not at all.  Your consistent trend of doing precisely what you quoted is a prime example of accurate deduction, and what you've been doing with so many of my postings

As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful

What predisposed conclusions did i jump to?

Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP

to which i replied that Stossel was a libertarian.

which took two clicks away from your original link to verify.

Notice i didn't append dumbass or any other slur to the simple provision of information.

So how you took that simple reply as an attack, i don't know.

Not so much an attack, just an ongoing issue you apparently have with my posts, predisposed to finding some error in them, and then trying to pound away on that, even when it's barely a footnote in the points being made, not to mention the incorrect predisposed conclusion you apparently had that I thought Stossel was connected to the GOP

[BT]

Not so much an attack, just an ongoing issue you apparently have with my posts, predisposed to finding some error in them, and then trying to pound away on that, even when it's barely a footnote in the points being made, not to mention the incorrect predisposed conclusion you apparently had that I thought Stossel was connected to the GOP

It was clear from the start that you did not know who Stossel was. That is why I informed you. Why would letting you know that he was a libertarian be considered an attack?

[sirs]

Why is knowing Stossel's party affiliation pertinent?  It was neither asked for nor was it relevent to the point being made.  If it were merely you "informing" me, then there wouldn't have been multiple posts following that point of "informing" that basically kept asking about why was he and the GOP were being discussed in the same paragraph by me, even declaring how he wasn't a spokesperson for the GOP, when I never claimed he was.  You made another error in judging my post is all.  No biggie, but the pattern is problematic

[BT]

Why is knowing Stossel's party affiliation pertinent?

Because he wrote the article you posted.

It was neither asked for nor was it relevent to the point being made

Because you weren't sure

if he was a spokesperson for the GOP

. He isn't.

If it were merely you "informing" me, then there wouldn't have been multiple posts following that point of "informing" that basically kept asking about why was he and the GOP were being discussed in the same paragraph by me, even declaring how he wasn't a spokesperson for the GOP, when I never claimed he was. 

Because you replied to my informational post with an

and......................?

I was surprised you didn't know who he was. He's been on air espousing libertarian viewpoints for 20 some years. I was surprised that you felt the need to be upset about claims from the left about a lack of a GOP plan and then counter with a plan from someone you weren't sure was a GOP spokesperson, like perhaps Paul Ryan, who seems to have a roadmap for deficit reduction which he talked about after the SOTU Address.

There is an old axiom in law and politics and that is don't ask a question to which you don't already have the answer.

You seem to have made an error in judgment thinking my reply was an attack.

[sirs]

And yet you kept bringing Stossel up, and imploring me how he wasn't a spokesperson or had the same priorities as the GOP, which again, I never claimed he had in the 1st place.  Your continued references to Stossel's being a libertarian had squat to do with anything, and you validated all the above with your subsequent responses to Cu4

You were wrong for assuming that.  Just move on, I forgive you

[BT]

I didn't ask for forgiveness. You misinterpreted intent.