tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[Rshermr]

If you really wanted to present the "truth" about who Reagan was...then you wouldn't be trying to mislead people about his tax policies. But telling the truth has never been your THING...has it?
:

Funny, me boy. I NEVER lie. And the idea that telling the truth, which you acknowledged was the truth, is not misleading about anything. I was not, me poor ignorant person, discussing his tax policies overall. I was, me poor ignorant person, discussing his tax policies in a specific situation. And, me poor ignorant person, saying that I was discussing his overall tax policies is in fact an untruth. Which is another way of saying YOU ARE LYING, AGAIN.

Now, here is a misleading statement from your little paragraph:

If you told the truth you never would have claimed to have taught college level classes as an undergrad.

The problem, of course, is this, me boy. I stated that I taught part of A basic economics class for the professor that had responsibility for that class. And gave you additional information about it. See above several posts.

Now,, is that taught college level classes??? Not in the minds of a rational person, of course. What I said was that I taught part of a professor's class under his direction. Only one class, multiple times. Now that, me boy, IS the truth.
Now, you have tried to twist this bit of truth over 50 times by now, without a hint of proof, UNTIL your recent statement that you had called my college, Central Washington University and talked to an official there who stated that it was very unlikely that I did as I said. Here are the problems, me boy:
1. The possibility that you talked to anyone, had you called, that new about what Lillard was doing over 45 years ago is somewhere between zero and none.
2. You neglected to mention whom you talked to.
3. You lied again, me boy. You talked to no one.

You seem to be quite impressed that I taught part of an economics class for Dr. Lillard over 45 years ago. WAY more impressed than I am. I am, in fact, not impressed at all. I mentioned it just in passing. You took that statement and go on to play your silly minded game over and over to the tune of over 50 times by now, for over a year. Then you amp up your bs with a claim to have talked to someone about my claim at the university to which I went. Actual proof, you say, for the first time.

You are a simple small minded lying clown. If you actually want me to believe you talked to someone at central, provide the name. Chances are I know him, or her. But you will not. Because you LIED, me poor small minded person. AGAIN.

Not bad. A two sentence paragraph. One lie, one misleading statement. Not bad. And typical oldstyle.

Impressed? Hardly...

What I WAS...was dubious. I couldn't believe that someone who claimed to have taught a college level economics class didn't understand basic Keynesian principles and didn't have a clue what I was talking about when I asked what economic school your argument was based on.

Did you take an economics class all those years ago? Quite possibly. But to say that you TAUGHT the subject is laughable. People that teach college level courses can hold a conversation about the topic they taught with ease. They don't rely on Wikipedia for their information and they understand basic terms like economic school. Your knowledge of economics is SO limited that it's obvious you were at best a mediocre student. Hardly the exceptional one that you claim to be.

You NEVER lie? That's exactly what someone who is a pathological liar would declare. It's why I refer to you as the Tommy Flanagan of this board.

well, me boy. You said you had called my college. And you said they doubted my statement. But, you seem to be unable to say whom you talked to. Funny, oldstyle. Lying again, I see.

No, me boy. I do make mistakes, something you do not admit for your own posts (though your mistakes and incorrect statements are legion). But I do not lie, particularly about what I have done with my life. Hardly worth bragging about, in my humble but correct opinion. If you have a lie you can prove, bring it on. But of course, you have tried that before, and been proved wrong and proved to be lying.

What was that name of the person at my college that you said you talked to??? I am hearing crickets.

 

[Rshermr]

So, we have established that Reagan is subject to the hero worship of Oldstyle. Here, oldstyle makes the following statements:

The majority of Reagan's 11 tax increases were rather minor consumption taxes on things like gasoline and cigarettes. His largest tax increase came in the form of the "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act" of 1982 but THAT was a tax increase in return for spending cuts that the Democratically controlled Congress promised to make...only to have the Democrats renege on the spending cuts. (Sound familiar?)

Yup. Just little tiny tax increases. Lets see what actually happened, and see if it squares with Oldstyles statement:

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983,

Uh oh, oldstyle. Reagan said his tax decreases would DECREASE the budget deficit. But within a couple years, he had increased it alarmingly, at least to Reagan and his administration.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

Uh oh, oldstyle. Biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime. Does not sound minor, now does it.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

Damn, more increases in taxes.

So, no, me boy, he did not raise income tax rates specifically. So, are you saying that the other tax increases did not raise revenue, and were not paid by taxpayers??
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Damn, those facts of reagan's history are a bother. Especially when they are talking about your hero.

Over the remainder of his presidency, Reagan would go on to sign a series of such increases, ultimately taking back about half of his 1981 tax cut, according to economist and historian Bruce Bartlett. The 1981 legislation marked a watershed in federal taxation, capping an era of tax cuts and starting a new one of increases. As economist Jerry Tempalski has noted, of the nine major tax laws enacted from 1968 to 1981, six reduced federal revenue. By contrast, nine of the 11 major tax laws introduced from 1982 to 1993 increased revenue.

Why Reagan Raised Taxes and We Should, Too: Echoes - Bloomberg

That's the kind of "truth" that you'll never hear from Rshermr though...because that's the kind of "truth" that progressives don't want you to know.

What truth is that, me poor ignorant con. That the tax increases were not all on income taxes. That they did not cancel out all of Reagan's tax increases. That is the truth, and I have said so before. No news there. Just an attempt to cover up the whole story on your part, Oldstyle. Sorry, your hero did indeed drive the deficit up, and he did indeed raise taxes to cover part of the deficit he created with his 1981 tax increase, done when the unemployment rate was high. That was a stupid move. Others not so much. For instance, tax decreases in 1986 were during low unemployment times. A GOOD time to consider tax decreases.

But then, you know all that. I have explained it over and over and over. Just does not stick with you. Because, of course, you only see what you want to see. And lie like a rug.

 

[Meathead]

Invariably, left-wing whining and lame attempts at historical revision so many years on only add to the stature of the man who set the standard for the modern presidency.

 

[Oldstyle]

Watching you try to explain economics is like watching a monkey try to use a slide rule.

Actually...I might be a little harsh on the monkey...I'm pretty sure Bonzo would be BETTER at using the slide rule then you are at comprehending economics, Rshermr.

 

[Rshermr]

Watching you try to explain economics is like watching a monkey try to use a slide rule.

Actually...I might be a little harsh on the monkey...I'm pretty sure Bonzo would be BETTER at using the slide rule then you are at comprehending economics, Rshermr.

Wow. Are you trying to set a record for posts to an economic board that have NOTHING to do with the subject of the economic thread, and nothing to do with economics at all???
Still waiting for the name of the person at my college that you made the claim that you talked to, oldstyle. So, you seem to admit that you were just lying. Got it.

 

[Rshermr]

Invariably, left-wing whining and lame attempts at historical revision so many years on only add to the stature of the man who set the standard for the modern presidency.

Well, meathead, thanks for the comic interlude. We all understand that reagan is your hero. But you make accusations that I have been rewriting history relative to reagan. Which is, of course, nonsense. Just more of your drivel based on your hero worship.

But if you have any point at all, you could be specific. What, me boy, did I say that was not true??? If you can prove it, I would owe you and your hero an apology.

Or, are you simply being yourself? That is, a delusional con tool? Of course you are.

 

[Meathead]

Invariably, left-wing whining and lame attempts at historical revision so many years on only add to the stature of the man who set the standard for the modern presidency.

Well, meathead, thanks for the comic interlude. We all understand that reagan is your hero. But you make accusations that I have been rewriting history relative to reagan. Which is, of course, nonsense. Just more of your drivel based on your hero worship.

But if you have any point at all, you could be specific. What, me boy, did I say that was not true??? If you can prove it, I would owe you and your hero an apology.

Or, are you simply being yourself? That is, a delusional con tool? Of course you are.

I am being myself, as I'm sure you are as well. I told you that I understand your pain, but I cannot give credence to someone who tries to instruct me on matters I know well based on his/her personal pain.

I further understand that Reagan changed America and the world in ways that I had not thought possible. There are dedicated communists and other ilks of totalitarianism who despise his accomplishments and to this day futilely try to discredit him. This I find the ultimate testament and praise to who Reagan was and what he accomplished.

 

[Rshermr]

Invariably, left-wing whining and lame attempts at historical revision so many years on only add to the stature of the man who set the standard for the modern presidency.

Well, meathead, thanks for the comic interlude. We all understand that reagan is your hero. But you make accusations that I have been rewriting history relative to reagan. Which is, of course, nonsense. Just more of your drivel based on your hero worship.

But if you have any point at all, you could be specific. What, me boy, did I say that was not true??? If you can prove it, I would owe you and your hero an apology.

Or, are you simply being yourself? That is, a delusional con tool? Of course you are.

I am being myself, as I'm sure you are as well. I told you that I understand your pain, but I cannot give credence to someone who tries to instruct me on matters I know well based on his/her personal pain.

I further understand that Reagan changed America and the world in ways that I had not thought possible. There are dedicated communists and other ilks of totalitarianism who despise his accomplishments and to this day futilely try to discredit him. This I find the ultimate testament and praise to who Reagan was and what he accomplished.

No one despises reagan. some, like you, simply adore him. Because you need to. Which is a trait of being a con. Which makes you ignorant. Again, not your fault. Just bad luck.

How do I know you are ignorant. Because the facts tell me so. And, me poor ignorant con, no president is as perfect as you think, in your tiny little mind, that reagan was.

 

[Meathead]

Well, meathead, thanks for the comic interlude. We all understand that reagan is your hero. But you make accusations that I have been rewriting history relative to reagan. Which is, of course, nonsense. Just more of your drivel based on your hero worship.

But if you have any point at all, you could be specific. What, me boy, did I say that was not true??? If you can prove it, I would owe you and your hero an apology.

Or, are you simply being yourself? That is, a delusional con tool? Of course you are.

I am being myself, as I'm sure you are as well. I told you that I understand your pain, but I cannot give credence to someone who tries to instruct me on matters I know well based on his/her personal pain.

I further understand that Reagan changed America and the world in ways that I had not thought possible. There are dedicated communists and other ilks of totalitarianism who despise his accomplishments and to this day futilely try to discredit him. This I find the ultimate testament and praise to who Reagan was and what he accomplished.

No one despises reagan. some, like you, simply adore him. Because you need to. Which is a trait of being a con. Which makes you ignorant. Again, not your fault. Just bad luck.

How do I know you are ignorant. Because the facts tell me so. And, me poor ignorant con, no president is as perfect as you think, in your tiny little mind, that reagan was.

This has gotten boring. Give it the rest it deserves,

 

[Rozman]

Yeah right, the economy is still in the tank, the Mid-east is burning and there are a half a dozen scandals in the administration so...let's talk about Reagan.

Looks like the Dems sent out a tweet to move off Bush and bring Reagan out for some bashing...Been seeing more and more attacks on Reagan.
Anything to keep the focus off Obama.

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah right, the economy is still in the tank, the Mid-east is burning and there are a half a dozen scandals in the administration so...let's talk about Reagan.

Looks like the Dems sent out a tweet to move off Bush and bring Reagan out for some bashing...Been seeing more and more attacks on Reagan.
Anything to keep the focus off Obama.

Your trailer tells it all. Useing the term whitey defines you as a racist. That is the nice thing about cons. Given time, most show you their stripes. And rozman is simple to categorize. Any studies on the subject? Why, yes, numerous:
Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

What a surprise.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah right, the economy is still in the tank, the Mid-east is burning and there are a half a dozen scandals in the administration so...let's talk about Reagan.

Looks like the Dems sent out a tweet to move off Bush and bring Reagan out for some bashing...Been seeing more and more attacks on Reagan.
Anything to keep the focus off Obama.

Rshermr...is a broken record.

He bashes Reagan because he doesn't want to defend Barry's abysmal record.

The fact is Reagan's policies created more wealth for more Americans than any other President in our nation's history. When you compare what Reagan did...to what Barack Obama has done over the past almost five years...you couldn't find a more stark contrast. At this time in Reagan's second term, his economic policies had the economy booming. At this point, Barack Obama doesn't even HAVE a plan to fix the economy. Larry Summers and Christina Romer did their "thing" with the original stimulus and it created so few jobs that they had to invent a new economic statistic "jobs saved" to coverup how bad it was.

But Rshermr doesn't want to touch that with a ten foot pole so instead he brings this silly crap about Reagan being a "tax and spend" conservative. I guess progressives figure if they can make Reagan out to be a big government...big tax guy...that will make Barry look less inept. So he's willing to pull out all the stops and post misleading statistics like his "11 tax increases!!!!" about Reagan. What's really sad is that he KNOWS he's being misleading...has admitted as such...but somehow thinks that it's OK because he's "technically" not lying.

 

[Rshermr]

Lets see what oldstyle is lying about this time:

But Rshermr doesn't want to touch that with a ten foot pole so instead he brings this silly crap about Reagan being a "tax and spend" conservative.

Lie number one. I never called reagan a tax and spend republican. Ever.

I guess progressives figure if they can make Reagan out to be a big government...big tax guy...that will make Barry look less inept.

You are the person who worships a president. It happens to be Reagan. I worship no president. sorry about that. And no president makes any other president look like anything. That would be the simplistic ideas of a con tool, like you, me boy. Each president has a different set of circumstances.
Now, are you trying to say that Reagan decreased the size of the government??? Because if you did, you are lying big time. Reagan himself said one of his biggest regrets was that he increased the size of the gov:

Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase

.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ronald Reagan would not be able to sign the Reagan Resolution. Reagan had Alzheimer's, and is not to blame for his hazy memory. What is the excuse of the Republicans today, tea party or old party, who so completely misimagine the Reagan presidency?

Let's start with item one in the Resolution: "We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s ‘stimulus’ bill." During Reagan's presidency, federal government spending rose from $517 billion to $991 billion. As a share of GDP, spending rose from 21.7 percent of the economy to 22.9 percent of the economy, before ending as Reagan left office at 21.3 percent. So the "Reagan Revolution" increased the size of government by 92 percent in dollar terms and reduced it by a whopping 0.4 percent as a share of GDP. The number of federal civilian employees went up. He added one cabinet department, and eliminated none. The deficit rose from 4.9 percent of GDP to 5.8 percent. The national debt rose from $909 billion to 2.6 trillion. (By contrast, under Democrat Bill Clinton, federal spending dropped from 22.1 percent of the economy to 18.4 percent – a drop of more than five percent.) Federal taxes as a share of the economy did decline slightly under Reagan, from 19 percent to 18.2 percent. But the Republican theory that cutting taxes would force the government to cut spending was not borne out.
No Room for Reagan - Michael Kinsley - The Atlantic

You really need to get a grip, oldstyle. Much of what you believe is based on lies, which have been told to you. And you have believed them. Because you want to. Now, the funny thing is, YOU ARE SAYING THAT i AM LYING TO YOU. BUT I AM NOT. YOUR FAVORITE CON BOSSES DID. YOU SHOULD BE PISSED AT THEM FOR LYING TO YOU, NOT ME FOR SIMPLY TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.

So he's willing to pull out all the stops and post misleading statistics like his "11 tax increases!!!!" about Reagan.

Now that is a stupid statement. You admitted that reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. So, you think that telling the truth is misleading. Do you know how stupid that is. Or are you simply playing games, as usual.

What's really sad is that he KNOWS he's being misleading...has admitted as such.

Wow. Another bald faced lie, me boy. I never believed, or ever said that I was misleading because I was not. That would be you, me boy. Apparently you just like to lie. Or is it that you do not care if what you say is a lie. Very, very major lack of integrity in you, oldstyle. Tacky.

.

.but somehow thinks that it's OK because he's "technically" not lying.

Technically, or truthfully, I did not lie, of course. The truth, you see, is exactly the opposite of lying.

Now lying, me boy, is you saying that you talked to someone at the college at which I attended, and that they said that what I posted was unlikely. That is a lie. And you do not post the name of the person to whom you talked as asked. Because you lied. You did not talk to anyone. That, me boy, is a lie.

Still waiting for that name. Though obviously, not holding my breath.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah, everybody but Rshermr lies...and Rshermr NEVER lies!!!

You've got no game...you post drivel from left leaning sites and then rant about "cons" and how they're all stupid and dishonest.

Funny how the only person on here that keeps getting caught making statements that are either completely wrong is you...like your contention that WWI was immediately followed by a depression...or completely unbelievable...like your story about teaching college classes as an undergrad.

You're a rather pathetic internet troll who has so little self esteem that you have to bolster your "credibility" by inventing lies about yourself like teaching economics when it's quite obvious that you have very little knowledge about the subject.

Then you turn around and accuse everyone else who doubts you of lying simply for pointing out how totally unbelievable your story is. YOU are the person who is the liar, Rshermr. You do it with your personal history and you do it with strings like this where you obscure Reagan's actual economic history with misleading posts about his "11 tax hikes".

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, having been proven wrong AGAIN, is desperate, AGAIN. And since he is incapable of economic argument, he says:

Yeah, everybody but Rshermr lies...and Rshermr NEVER lies!!!

Are you suggesting that I say that everyone lies, me boy. I do not, of course. There are a few that do, all whom have no way to make a point without lying. Like you. But that is a few. Most who post here try to be honest.

You've got no game...you post drivel from left leaning sites and then rant about "cons" and how they're all stupid and dishonest.

So, whether I have game or not is not going to be settled by you. You are a food services guy. And your economic arguments are GONE. You are simply making personal attacks. And I do not use left leaning sites. It is simply that, me boy, EVERY site that is not to the right of FOX is left leaning to you. Because, of course, you are a con tool.

Funny how the only person on here that keeps getting caught making statements that are either completely wrong is you...like your contention that WWI was immediately followed by a depression...or completely unbelievable.

..
Thats the best you can do??? You caught me making the mistake, which I admitted, of calling a recession a depression. A simple slip of terms.

like your story about teaching college classes as an undergrad.

No story. Simply the truth. You have tried to disprove that statement of mine over 50 times for over a year. You can not disprove it, me boy. So you lied again, saying you talked to someone at my college about my statement. But you are unable to name whom you talked to. Because, of course you LIED AGAIN. You have talked to no one. You are simply a sad little person incapable of telling the truth.

You're a rather pathetic internet troll who has so little self esteem that you have to bolster your "credibility" by inventing lies about yourself like teaching economics when it's quite obvious that you have very little knowledge about the subject.

Very funny, me boy. Hardly bolsters my credibility. Seems to impress you. But I am sure it impresses no one else. Including myself. Again, simply shows you are a sad little person.

Then you turn around and accuse everyone else who doubts you of lying simply for pointing out how totally unbelievable your story is. YOU are the person who is the liar, Rshermr. You do it with your personal history and you do it with strings like this where you obscure Reagan's actual economic history with misleading posts about his "11 tax hikes".

I do not lie. I do not accuse people who choose to doubt me of being liars. You are, however a liar, because you make accusations about talking to someone at my college, but are unable to tell me whom. Because you did not make any phone call, and you did not talk to anyone at my college. Very tacky, me boy. Do you have some proof, or are you simply admitting you lied???
Relative to Reagan raising taxes 11 times, that is the truth. I proved it to you. You could research it, and you would find it to be exactly as I said. What you need to do. me poor ignorant con, is try to understand that telling the truth, as I did, is the opposite of misleading. It was you, apparently, that was mislead. By someone that forgot to explain that Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. You should be pissed at them. Hell, I am simply educating you FOR FREE.

See what I mean, oldstyle. You are unable to make an economic argument, and then attack me personally. The same pattern every single time. Really, your problem is not me. I try to help you, and what do I get?? Just more personal attacks. Totally boring.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do you think anyone who actually went to college ever believed your tall tale about teaching college economics as an undergrad, Tommy? I mean REALLY? Professors and Grad Students teach at the college level...undergrads do not...especially undergrads who don't know the subject matter!

You didn't have the faintest idea what I was referring to when I asked you what school of economics you were basing your contention on. Every field has it's own terminology. People who are trained in a field understand that terminology and those that haven't been trained in it don't. You constantly whine about being attacked "personally" but the REASON you're being "attacked" is that you told a lie and were exposed in doing so.

As for you not accusing people who doubt you of being liars? That's all you DO, Tommy! They are liars...they are cons...they are stupid. That's been your response to EVERYONE who finds fault with your pathetically shallow attempts at economic argument.

The truth is...you wouldn't know a REAL economic argument if it ran up your pant leg and bit you on the willie. You're an internet poser...the Tommy Flanagan of the US Message Board. You post things like the "11 tax increases" of Ronald Reagan because misleading people with the crap you cut and paste from slanted sources is easier than making an intelligent argument about economics. Dispute that? Then show me one of your posts that you consider an intelligent look at a complex economic issue! Seriously, Dude...I can show literally dozens of posts where you come across as a complete noob to the study of economics...can you show me ONE where you don't?

 

[Rshermr]

Do you think anyone who actually went to college ever believed your tall tale about teaching college economics as an undergrad, Tommy? I mean REALLY? Professors and Grad Students teach at the college level...undergrads do not...especially undergrads who don't know the subject matter!

You didn't have the faintest idea what I was referring to when I asked you what school of economics you were basing your contention on. Every field has it's own terminology. People who are trained in a field understand that terminology and those that haven't been trained in it don't. You constantly whine about being attacked "personally" but the REASON you're being "attacked" is that you told a lie and were exposed in doing so.

As for you not accusing people who doubt you of being liars? That's all you DO, Tommy! They are liars...they are cons...they are stupid. That's been your response to EVERYONE who finds fault with your pathetically shallow attempts at economic argument.

The truth is...you wouldn't know a REAL economic argument if it ran up your pant leg and bit you on the willie. You're an internet poser...the Tommy Flanagan of the US Message Board. You post things like the "11 tax increases" of Ronald Reagan because misleading people with the crap you cut and paste from slanted sources is easier than making an intelligent argument about economics. Dispute that? Then show me one of your posts that you consider an intelligent look at a complex economic issue! Seriously, Dude...I can show literally dozens of posts where you come across as a complete noob to the study of economics...can you show me ONE where you don't?

Poor oldstyle. Again unable to argue economics he simply attacks. Just like any good con tool. Because he knows his arguments are ignorant. Poor guy. And he uses the same arguments, those that have been used over and over and over, and have been proven incorrect over and over.

Here is the thing, me boy. No one buys the arguments of a dish washer when he discusses economics. You loose ANY economic argument you make. So, you simply move to personal attacks. And no one cares. Because you are boring. And your posts are a total waste of everyone's time. Maybe you should talk about something you actually know about. What dish washing soap should we use, oldstyle?

Now, speaking of your lies, you lied when you stated that you talked to my college about my claim that I worked for a phd economist by the name of Lillard, and taught his econ for non econ majors class. You said you made a call to my college recently, and they told you that it was "highly unlikely" that I did so (some 45 years ago). Now, if you had done so, you would have at least a tiny amount of proof, LIKE THE NAME OF THE PERSON THAT YOU TALKED TO. And yet you are unable to provide that name, me boy. So, are you a liar, oldstyle?? As this proves, OF COURSE YOU ARE.

 

[Oldstyle]

Couldn't find a single post where you sounded intelligent about economics...could you, Tommy? So you went with your usual response...insults and accusations of me being a dishwasher?

Gee, since you NEVER lie perhaps you'd like to show how you arrived at at me being a dishwasher in the first place? You tell a lie every time you trot that one out, Rshermr and you know it. But that was your response when you got called out for being a fraud...personal attacks with a lie and you go back to it every time someone points out how outlandish it was claim that you taught economics in college as an undergrad.

You not only made a "mistake" about your claim that WWI was immediately followed by a Depression...you initially tried to deny you even said it. Was THAT a "mistake" as well, Tommy?
Funny how you make "mistakes" and everyone else tells lies...

 

[Rshermr]

Couldn't find a single post where you sounded intelligent about economics...could you, Tommy? So you went with your usual response...insults and accusations of me being a dishwasher?

Gee, since you NEVER lie perhaps you'd like to show how you arrived at at me being a dishwasher in the first place? You tell a lie every time you trot that one out, Rshermr and you know it. But that was your response when you got called out for being a fraud...personal attacks with a lie and you go back to it every time someone points out how outlandish it was claim that you taught economics in college as an undergrad.

You not only made a "mistake" about your claim that WWI was immediately followed by a Depression...you initially tried to deny you even said it. Was THAT a "mistake" as well, Tommy?
Funny how you make "mistakes" and everyone else tells lies...

Still can not name the guy you talked to at my college. What a surprise.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still can't find an intelligent post by you about economics? No surprise at all!