Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

[uscitizen]

Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

Well doing things like giving Amgen 500 billion of taxpayer money in the fiscal cliff bill might have something to do with it.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle is out posting dogma again. Because it is dogma, he can not find a single nonpartisan source to back up his statements. Only the bat shit crazy con web sites, which he does not want to use. Because then people will understand where he gets his dogma. Lets look:

Trickle Down only exists in the minds of progressives like you, Tommy...lemmings that don't understand economics and have been brain washed by MSNBC and Think Progress.

Right, oldstyle. Your definition of trickle down is your opinion. Now, my definition came from the source. The person who was the Budget Director for Ronald Reagan when the the term was first used. You know that. His name is David Stockman. And he was there, among the originators of the term. And who first used the term publicly? Why, David Stockman. See the link below:
David Stockman on Supply Side an
Here are your problems, Oldstyle.: 1. Some of the people who originated it are still around. 2. There are recordings of who used the term, over and over. 3. In the beginning, those people were not trying to duck trickle down, they were using it to justify Supply Side economics. 4. Lots of people remember that. 5. There are all kinds of non partisan sources that will explain that to you. 6. There are NO non partisan sources that back up your statement that supply side was invented by critics of Supply Side. 7. Your statement that it was invented by critics of supply side just does not pass the giggle test.




What about the Koch Brothers is progressive crap, oldstyle?? That they are buddies with your conservative libertarian economist??? That the fact that he posts on bat shit crazy con web sites is true, and I documented it??? I know you hate even a little research, which is all that I did. Because you do not want anyone to notice your hero, the libertarian economist, is posting there. But, unfortunately, he is. Over and over and over and over.



No, I did not come up with that. Economists did. Not your favorite economist, of course, but a large majority who disagree with you and your economist.



If what you say had any truth, you would be able to see your link to the experts who would back you up. But instead, all we see is a statement from a guy who had two classes in economics. One from a libertarian economist (No, that is not an oxymoron. An economist can take the koch money, for instance, and then write about the wonders of libertarian economic thought.) Where is that link, oldstyle?? Oh, I get it. It is your opinion. And you know how much we value your opinion.

That pretty much sums you up...doesn't it?

No, but it does sum you up.

"Two decades of rigorous economic research have found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job loss. While the simplistic theoretical model of supply and demand suggests that raising wages reduces jobs, the way the labor market functions in the real world is more complex. Researchers have examined the scores of minimum wage increases that have occurred at the state and federal level and found that these raises have not cut jobs or slowed job growth."
The Job Loss Myth | Raise The Minimum Wage

"Increasing the Minimum Wage During Rough Economic Times Does Not Kill Jobs"
The Facts on Raising the Minimum Wage When Unemployment Is High | Center for American Progress Action Fund

How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy
How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy LearnVest

So, your statement about minimum wage is supported on the web, but ONLY by bat shit crazy con sites, as far as I can find. So, here you are again. Saying that you are not a con tool. Yet all the non partial sites disagree with you. And you are perfectly aligned with the only sources that AGREE with you. The bat shit crazy con web sites. And I am sure fox agrees. So lets do the Koch test, oldstyle. Why would the Koch bros. benefit from no minimum wage? Pretty obvious, eh, Oldstyle. Why, because it would keep their costs down by allowing them to pay poverty wages. Funny how the Koch test always explains your postings. Must be just a coincidence.

Let me get this straight...

Did you REALLY just accuse me of using "bat shit crazy" sites and then cite the ones that you did to provide "proof" that raising minimum wage doesn't cost jobs? Do you even understand how much of a hypocritical idiot you are when you do stuff like this?

Oldstyle, Oldstyle, Oldstyle. You are SOOO predictable. To you, any site to the left of Fox is not a good cite. You can not prove why, just your method of trying to deflect the truth. If....If... you ever had an actual impartial site that would support the drivel that you put out, I think you would use it. But then, it is hard to find support for drivel.


What about the Koch Bros. is "crap"? That they pay everyone on the planet to hold the conservative views that they do. According to you...they pay me to blog here and Thomas Sowell to write what he writes. THAT is what is "crap".

Ah, but you are lying again. I did not ever say that the Koch brothers pay everyone. Just that they pay a number. And I did not say they pay you. Or your libertarian economist hero. I only questioned it. Really, oldstyle, I have no problem if you state what I HAVE said. But putting words in my mouth is dishonest. As in another LIE from you, Oldstyle.

 

[Rshermr]

Do you really want to get into another discussion about "trickle down" economics? You know you're going to once again demonstrate how little you know about economics and I'm going to bust your chops about being a fraud.

You can't help yourself though...can you? You read that nonsense on your progressive web sites and you just HAVE to push it here.

Oldstyle, you have a high opinion of your economic knowledge. I am so happy for you. I mean, two classes in econ, and you have such a great base of economic knowledge. And a poor memory of who lost that little argument about trickle down. But sure, dipshit, bring it on. I will be happy to serve it back down your throat. Quote that ignorant argument from your libertarian economist, because I know it makes complete sense to you. But let me provide you with a little education. You can win that argument only in your own little mind.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle is out posting dogma again. Because it is dogma, he can not find a single nonpartisan source to back up his statements. Only the bat shit crazy con web sites, which he does not want to use. Because then people will understand where he gets his dogma. Lets look:


Right, oldstyle. Your definition of trickle down is your opinion. Now, my definition came from the source. The person who was the Budget Director for Ronald Reagan when the the term was first used. You know that. His name is David Stockman. And he was there, among the originators of the term. And who first used the term publicly? Why, David Stockman. See the link below:
David Stockman on Supply Side an
Here are your problems, Oldstyle.: 1. Some of the people who originated it are still around. 2. There are recordings of who used the term, over and over. 3. In the beginning, those people were not trying to duck trickle down, they were using it to justify Supply Side economics. 4. Lots of people remember that. 5. There are all kinds of non partisan sources that will explain that to you. 6. There are NO non partisan sources that back up your statement that supply side was invented by critics of Supply Side. 7. Your statement that it was invented by critics of supply side just does not pass the giggle test.




What about the Koch Brothers is progressive crap, oldstyle?? That they are buddies with your conservative libertarian economist??? That the fact that he posts on bat shit crazy con web sites is true, and I documented it??? I know you hate even a little research, which is all that I did. Because you do not want anyone to notice your hero, the libertarian economist, is posting there. But, unfortunately, he is. Over and over and over and over.



No, I did not come up with that. Economists did. Not your favorite economist, of course, but a large majority who disagree with you and your economist.



If what you say had any truth, you would be able to see your link to the experts who would back you up. But instead, all we see is a statement from a guy who had two classes in economics. One from a libertarian economist (No, that is not an oxymoron. An economist can take the koch money, for instance, and then write about the wonders of libertarian economic thought.) Where is that link, oldstyle?? Oh, I get it. It is your opinion. And you know how much we value your opinion.




No, but it does sum you up.

"Two decades of rigorous economic research have found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job loss. While the simplistic theoretical model of supply and demand suggests that raising wages reduces jobs, the way the labor market functions in the real world is more complex. Researchers have examined the scores of minimum wage increases that have occurred at the state and federal level and found that these raises have not cut jobs or slowed job growth."
The Job Loss Myth | Raise The Minimum Wage

"Increasing the Minimum Wage During Rough Economic Times Does Not Kill Jobs"
The Facts on Raising the Minimum Wage When Unemployment Is High | Center for American Progress Action Fund

How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy
How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy LearnVest

So, your statement about minimum wage is supported on the web, but ONLY by bat shit crazy con sites, as far as I can find. So, here you are again. Saying that you are not a con tool. Yet all the non partial sites disagree with you. And you are perfectly aligned with the only sources that AGREE with you. The bat shit crazy con web sites. And I am sure fox agrees. So lets do the Koch test, oldstyle. Why would the Koch bros. benefit from no minimum wage? Pretty obvious, eh, Oldstyle. Why, because it would keep their costs down by allowing them to pay poverty wages. Funny how the Koch test always explains your postings. Must be just a coincidence.

Let me get this straight...

Did you REALLY just accuse me of using "bat shit crazy" sites and then cite the ones that you did to provide "proof" that raising minimum wage doesn't cost jobs? Do you even understand how much of a hypocritical idiot you are when you do stuff like this?

Oldstyle, Oldstyle, Oldstyle. You are SOOO predictable. To you, any site to the left of Fox is not a good cite. You can not prove why, just your method of trying to deflect the truth. If....If... you ever had an actual impartial site that would support the drivel that you put out, I think you would use it. But then, it is hard to find support for drivel.


What about the Koch Bros. is "crap"? That they pay everyone on the planet to hold the conservative views that they do. According to you...they pay me to blog here and Thomas Sowell to write what he writes. THAT is what is "crap".

Ah, but you are lying again. I did not ever say that the Koch brothers pay everyone. Just that they pay a number. And I did not say they pay you. Or your libertarian economist hero. I only questioned it. Really, oldstyle, I have no problem if you state what I HAVE said. But putting words in my mouth is dishonest. As in another LIE from you, Oldstyle.

"I think you are one more of the paid to post folks on this blog. And you do love your Libertarian economist friend, with his close ties to CATO. Who pay all sorts of people to post. But then, it could be one of the other nut case right wing think tanks, or their many organizations. And i am sure you will not tell us."

You didn't say what again? You talk so much "shit" that you can't keep track of it all. You see a question mark in that statement? I don't...

 

[Rshermr]

Let me get this straight...


Oldstyle, Oldstyle, Oldstyle. You are SOOO predictable. To you, any site to the left of Fox is not a good cite. You can not prove why, just your method of trying to deflect the truth. If....If... you ever had an actual impartial site that would support the drivel that you put out, I think you would use it. But then, it is hard to find support for drivel.


What about the Koch Bros. is "crap"? That they pay everyone on the planet to hold the conservative views that they do. According to you...they pay me to blog here and Thomas Sowell to write what he writes. THAT is what is "crap".

Ah, but you are lying again. I did not ever say that the Koch brothers pay everyone. Just that they pay a number. And I did not say they pay you. Or your libertarian economist hero. I only questioned it. Really, oldstyle, I have no problem if you state what I HAVE said. But putting words in my mouth is dishonest. As in another LIE from you, Oldstyle.

"I think you are one more of the paid to post folks on this blog. And you do love your Libertarian economist friend, with his close ties to CATO. Who pay all sorts of people to post. But then, it could be one of the other nut case right wing think tanks, or their many organizations. And i am sure you will not tell us."

You didn't say what again? You talk so much "shit" that you can't keep track of it all. You see a question mark in that statement? I don't...

Oldstyle, you are an idiot. What you obviously do not understand is the word 'think'. Here:
"to consider something likely"
Think - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
You see, Oldstyle, my mistake was based on the fact that I normally converse with people that have higher reasoning ability than you.
Sorry you were so confused. I hope the definition helped you. You can look up the word 'likely' yourself, should you find that word confusing too.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah, but you are lying again. I did not ever say that the Koch brothers pay everyone. Just that they pay a number. And I did not say they pay you. Or your libertarian economist hero. I only questioned it. Really, oldstyle, I have no problem if you state what I HAVE said. But putting words in my mouth is dishonest. As in another LIE from you, Oldstyle.

"I think you are one more of the paid to post folks on this blog. And you do love your Libertarian economist friend, with his close ties to CATO. Who pay all sorts of people to post. But then, it could be one of the other nut case right wing think tanks, or their many organizations. And i am sure you will not tell us."

You didn't say what again? You talk so much "shit" that you can't keep track of it all. You see a question mark in that statement? I don't...

Oldstyle, you are an idiot. What you obviously do not understand is the word 'think'. Here:
"to consider something likely"
Think - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
You see, Oldstyle, my mistake was based on the fact that I normally converse with people that have higher reasoning ability than you.
Sorry you were so confused. I hope the definition helped you. You can look up the word 'likely' yourself, should you find that word confusing too.

As Rshermr does his best Bill Clinton imitation...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0]Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube[/ame]

Don't accuse people of things and then back off the accusation with semantics, Tommy. It simply shows you for what you are...someone who plays fast and loose with the truth.

 

[Rshermr]

"I think you are one more of the paid to post folks on this blog. And you do love your Libertarian economist friend, with his close ties to CATO. Who pay all sorts of people to post. But then, it could be one of the other nut case right wing think tanks, or their many organizations. And i am sure you will not tell us."

You didn't say what again? You talk so much "shit" that you can't keep track of it all. You see a question mark in that statement? I don't...

Oldstyle, you are an idiot. What you obviously do not understand is the word 'think'. Here:
"to consider something likely"
Think - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
You see, Oldstyle, my mistake was based on the fact that I normally converse with people that have higher reasoning ability than you.
Sorry you were so confused. I hope the definition helped you. You can look up the word 'likely' yourself, should you find that word confusing too.

As Rshermr does his best Bill Clinton imitation...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0]Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube[/ame]

Don't accuse people of things and then back off the accusation with semantics, Tommy. It simply shows you for what you are...someone who plays fast and loose with the truth.

Sorry, dipshit. Saying I think tells you, yes, even you, that I was not certain. So you said that I said you took money from the Koch bros. What I said was I thought you took money from the koch brothers or some other conservative source. See the difference yet???
So, here you are, making personal attacks again. Look, I can not help that you are an idiot. And that you love to play games.

So, Oldstyle, do you want to take a crack at explaining the republican fiscal policy, or have you given up. And by the way, you made the statement that you had crushed me in our discussion about trickle down. I said that was a lie. Now, I see you have given up on that argument. I was kind of looking forward to your effort. Even though it is a distraction, it is always fun to crush you.

 

[Oldstyle]

"So you said that I said you took money from the Koch bros. What I said was I thought you took money from the koch brothers or some other conservative source. See the difference yet???

No, Tommy...I don't. What I see is you trying to parse words to try to extricate yourself from yet ANOTHER corner that you've painted yourself into.

 

[Rshermr]

"So you said that I said you took money from the Koch bros. What I said was I thought you took money from the koch brothers or some other conservative source. See the difference yet???

No, Tommy...I don't. What I see is you trying to parse words to try to extricate yourself from yet ANOTHER corner that you've painted yourself into.

that is because, me boy, you do not understand the english language. Afraid I can not help you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, Oldstyle, do you want to take a crack at explaining the republican fiscal policy,

Its been the same since Jefferson founded the Party in 1792- small taxes and small government. They looked at history and figured out the big government monopolies don't work!!

Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

 

[Too Tall]

And so what, dipshit. Did you think it was ok to loose over 200 servicemen in Lebanon, but a problem to loose four americans, state and military, in Benghazi???? Or are you simply trying to prove that you are stupid?

For the second time...it's LOSE...not LOOSE! Calling someone else "stupid" when you can't spell is the epitome of "stupid".

Can't spell...don't know a country in the Middle East from one in Africa...don't have a clue about economics? Are you always this ignorant or do you save it up for this chat site?

.
Nah. I just toss in a typo once in a while so that you can have something to feel proud about. God knows you need it. Relative to critisizing someone about their knowledge of economics, i would suggest you look at my last post. Apparently you are to ignorant to know when you have been hammered. Really funny, a dish washer who just got crushed now back with a spelling fix. You really need to get a life, Oldstyle.

What is really funny is that when this series of posts started,I predicted exactly what you would do in the exact order. And you came through in flying colors. Made the two stupid arguments I said you would. Perfect and on cue. Had them stuffed back down your ignorant throat. As I said would happen. And now revert to the personal attacks. 1 2 3. In exactly the order I suggested. Oldstyle, you are simply stupid. And, thinking you can argue economics is probably the most amusing of your statements. Poor Oldstyle. Screwed again. Funny.

I should send you the stupid studies. They will tell you that stupid people, though what they say is dumb, think they are really smart. Because, Oldstyle, they do not recognize all of the things that they do not know. So they love the con nonsense, as it gives them the answers they need. No need to do all that troublesome studying and reading. And that is you, oldstyle. Just plain stupid.

Libya and Lebanon both stare with an L, but It would take a rather ignorant person to think that is a typo.

The difference between a suicide bomber in Lebanon against a military installation and an armed terrorist attack against an American consulate in Libya are not comparable.

Even an asshole like Hillary Clinton should have known that there would be an increase in attacks on American installations on the anniversary of the attack on the WTC. The attack on the Marine barracks was unprecedented and unpredictable.

 

[Rshermr]

For the second time...it's LOSE...not LOOSE! Calling someone else "stupid" when you can't spell is the epitome of "stupid".

Can't spell...don't know a country in the Middle East from one in Africa...don't have a clue about economics? Are you always this ignorant or do you save it up for this chat site?

.
Nah. I just toss in a typo once in a while so that you can have something to feel proud about. God knows you need it. Relative to critisizing someone about their knowledge of economics, i would suggest you look at my last post. Apparently you are to ignorant to know when you have been hammered. Really funny, a dish washer who just got crushed now back with a spelling fix. You really need to get a life, Oldstyle.

What is really funny is that when this series of posts started,I predicted exactly what you would do in the exact order. And you came through in flying colors. Made the two stupid arguments I said you would. Perfect and on cue. Had them stuffed back down your ignorant throat. As I said would happen. And now revert to the personal attacks. 1 2 3. In exactly the order I suggested. Oldstyle, you are simply stupid. And, thinking you can argue economics is probably the most amusing of your statements. Poor Oldstyle. Screwed again. Funny.

I should send you the stupid studies. They will tell you that stupid people, though what they say is dumb, think they are really smart. Because, Oldstyle, they do not recognize all of the things that they do not know. So they love the con nonsense, as it gives them the answers they need. No need to do all that troublesome studying and reading. And that is you, oldstyle. Just plain stupid.

Libya and Lebanon both stare with an L, but It would take a rather ignorant person to think that is a typo.

The difference between a suicide bomber in Lebanon against a military installation and an armed terrorist attack against an American consulate in Libya are not comparable.

Even an asshole like Hillary Clinton should have known that there would be an increase in attacks on American installations on the anniversary of the attack on the WTC. The attack on the Marine barracks was unprecedented and unpredictable.

Well, you do know assholes. What is that old saying that applies to you so perfectly - it takes one to know one??
And sorry, my poor ignorant con. There were warnings regarding the the lebanon bombing. You must have missed that, dipshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And they can never, ever show when decreasing taxes has helped in a bad economy. .

right, so raising taxes or strangling a man will help revive an economy and a man????

This is actually what liberals would have us believe!!

 

[Rshermr]

And they can never, ever show when decreasing taxes has helped in a bad economy. .

right, so raising taxes or strangling a man will help revive an economy and a man????

This is actually what liberals would have us believe!!

Ed, back on your meds. You are totally incoherent again.

 

[Oldstyle]

For the second time...it's LOSE...not LOOSE! Calling someone else "stupid" when you can't spell is the epitome of "stupid".

Can't spell...don't know a country in the Middle East from one in Africa...don't have a clue about economics? Are you always this ignorant or do you save it up for this chat site?

.
Nah. I just toss in a typo once in a while so that you can have something to feel proud about. God knows you need it. Relative to critisizing someone about their knowledge of economics, i would suggest you look at my last post. Apparently you are to ignorant to know when you have been hammered. Really funny, a dish washer who just got crushed now back with a spelling fix. You really need to get a life, Oldstyle.

What is really funny is that when this series of posts started,I predicted exactly what you would do in the exact order. And you came through in flying colors. Made the two stupid arguments I said you would. Perfect and on cue. Had them stuffed back down your ignorant throat. As I said would happen. And now revert to the personal attacks. 1 2 3. In exactly the order I suggested. Oldstyle, you are simply stupid. And, thinking you can argue economics is probably the most amusing of your statements. Poor Oldstyle. Screwed again. Funny.

I should send you the stupid studies. They will tell you that stupid people, though what they say is dumb, think they are really smart. Because, Oldstyle, they do not recognize all of the things that they do not know. So they love the con nonsense, as it gives them the answers they need. No need to do all that troublesome studying and reading. And that is you, oldstyle. Just plain stupid.

Libya and Lebanon both stare with an L, but It would take a rather ignorant person to think that is a typo.

The difference between a suicide bomber in Lebanon against a military installation and an armed terrorist attack against an American consulate in Libya are not comparable.

Even an asshole like Hillary Clinton should have known that there would be an increase in attacks on American installations on the anniversary of the attack on the WTC. The attack on the Marine barracks was unprecedented and unpredictable.

The first thing you have to understand about Rshermr...is that whenever he gets "off message" from whatever progressive site he's getting his material from, he becomes about as clueless a poster as you'll find here. This is a guy who claims to have had a private secretary who would normally proofread all of his writings for errors and THAT is why he comes across as borderline illiterate here. I guess we're supposed to believe that he's actually "brilliant" but too busy running successful businesses to deal with detail like punctuation and spelling so he only APPEARS to be an idiot.

 

[rdean]

Why do I have to do research for you? You sit in front of the Internet. Learn to use Google. Anything I say you will simply call a "lie" because you don't know enough about anything to actually discuss. The GOP have so much pride and confidence in ignorance. Remember, these people view "Trickle Down" as sound economic policy. They believe you clan cut education and infrastructure and have a sound future. They believe lowering the minimum wage and cutting benefits will lead to high paying jobs. They have to be delusional. What else could it be?

Greed. Not for ed. He works for pennies. For his heroes, the Koch bros., for instance. And their friends.
Watch his posts. If it is good for the koch bros, ed is for it.

Trickle Down only exists in the minds of progressives like you, Tommy...lemmings that don't understand economics and have been brain washed by MSNBC and Think Progress. Koch Brothers? Right back to posting progressive "crap"...aren't you? At the same time you accuse others of getting their information from "bat shit crazy" web sites you're here spamming nonsense gleaned from exactly those kinds of places. Raising the minimum wage is your solution? Why? It's been proven over and over again that doing so simply causes the people with the fewest job skills to lose their jobs or not be hired at all. So why would any rational person advocate for that? Because they are naive and uninformed? That pretty much sums you up...doesn't it?

You just spouted "Prosperity through lower wages" and you make fun of someone else? Hilarious!

 

[Oldstyle]

Greed. Not for ed. He works for pennies. For his heroes, the Koch bros., for instance. And their friends.
Watch his posts. If it is good for the koch bros, ed is for it.

Trickle Down only exists in the minds of progressives like you, Tommy...lemmings that don't understand economics and have been brain washed by MSNBC and Think Progress. Koch Brothers? Right back to posting progressive "crap"...aren't you? At the same time you accuse others of getting their information from "bat shit crazy" web sites you're here spamming nonsense gleaned from exactly those kinds of places. Raising the minimum wage is your solution? Why? It's been proven over and over again that doing so simply causes the people with the fewest job skills to lose their jobs or not be hired at all. So why would any rational person advocate for that? Because they are naive and uninformed? That pretty much sums you up...doesn't it?

You just spouted "Prosperity through lower wages" and you make fun of someone else? Hilarious!

No, Deanie...what I "did" was point out the sad but true reality that when you raise the minimum wage by as large an amount as you starry eyed progressives would like to...you are going to cost people jobs...and the people that will lose those jobs are the ones least able to afford to go without.

I don't find anything "hilarious" about an unemployment rate nearing 40% for black teens. I find that deeply disturbing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Trickle Down" as sound economic policy.

As long as poor people don't invent new products that trickle up to middle class and upper class people we have to conclude that trickle up is perfectly liberal and idiotic.

 

[Too Tall]

.
Nah. I just toss in a typo once in a while so that you can have something to feel proud about. God knows you need it. Relative to critisizing someone about their knowledge of economics, i would suggest you look at my last post. Apparently you are to ignorant to know when you have been hammered. Really funny, a dish washer who just got crushed now back with a spelling fix. You really need to get a life, Oldstyle.

What is really funny is that when this series of posts started,I predicted exactly what you would do in the exact order. And you came through in flying colors. Made the two stupid arguments I said you would. Perfect and on cue. Had them stuffed back down your ignorant throat. As I said would happen. And now revert to the personal attacks. 1 2 3. In exactly the order I suggested. Oldstyle, you are simply stupid. And, thinking you can argue economics is probably the most amusing of your statements. Poor Oldstyle. Screwed again. Funny.

I should send you the stupid studies. They will tell you that stupid people, though what they say is dumb, think they are really smart. Because, Oldstyle, they do not recognize all of the things that they do not know. So they love the con nonsense, as it gives them the answers they need. No need to do all that troublesome studying and reading. And that is you, oldstyle. Just plain stupid.

Libya and Lebanon both stare with an L, but It would take a rather ignorant person to think that is a typo.

The difference between a suicide bomber in Lebanon against a military installation and an armed terrorist attack against an American consulate in Libya are not comparable.

Even an asshole like Hillary Clinton should have known that there would be an increase in attacks on American installations on the anniversary of the attack on the WTC. The attack on the Marine barracks was unprecedented and unpredictable.

Well, you do know assholes. What is that old saying that applies to you so perfectly - it takes one to know one??
And sorry, my poor ignorant con. There were warnings regarding the the lebanon bombing. You must have missed that, dipshit.

I would think that an International Peace Keeping force in Lebanon would be in danger, especially since they were armed military troops.

The only ignorance I saw was was you not knowing what country this attack took place in. Calling it a typo is a sign of desperation.

 

[Oldstyle]

Libya and Lebanon both stare with an L, but It would take a rather ignorant person to think that is a typo.

The difference between a suicide bomber in Lebanon against a military installation and an armed terrorist attack against an American consulate in Libya are not comparable.

Even an asshole like Hillary Clinton should have known that there would be an increase in attacks on American installations on the anniversary of the attack on the WTC. The attack on the Marine barracks was unprecedented and unpredictable.

Well, you do know assholes. What is that old saying that applies to you so perfectly - it takes one to know one??
And sorry, my poor ignorant con. There were warnings regarding the the lebanon bombing. You must have missed that, dipshit.

I would think that an International Peace Keeping force in Lebanon would be in danger, especially since they were armed military troops.

The only ignorance I saw was was you not knowing what country this attack took place in. Calling it a typo is a sign of desperation.

Oh, boy...now you've done it! Rshermr is going to trot out his "liberals are smarter than conservatives" post that he spams EVERY time someone points out how clueless he is. The thing that's amusing about that claim is that if it really WERE true...then there must be some REALLY smart liberals out there to make up for the Rshermr's, Deanie's and Sallow's of this board!

What I really love about this board's resident Tommy Flanagan is how he showers anyone he disagrees with a barrage of "dipshit's" but then complains about "personal attacks".