How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

So, Norman Says:

You can find out all those links but can't find a single year in history that the economy had reduced taxes and a fading recession at the same time? It's pretty hard to believe such an individual could graduate.

Look, if you are saying austerity works, great. Show the country in which it is working. Relative to the US, you are asking me to show you WHAT? I said you can not show a case where unemployment was reduced as a result of decreasing income taxes to the wealthy or as a general tax decrease to all.. Seems to be true. If there is such a case, it should be easy to prove it. Just a simple link from an impartial source. You failed that one.

Let me ask you similar annoying question to you as your defacto question.

Find me a SINGLE economy that practiced true austerity, that has had a deficit.

Asking what???
Ah, true austerity. Want to define what that means to you?? I am sure you will find something in any austerity effort that would make it not "true" austerity to you. But, if you asking what country had a deficit, when austerity was attempted, then you are truly naive. I am not aware of ANY that did not have a deficit when austerity started, and that still do not have as much of a deficit after austerity was attempted. Obviously you did not look at the subject before asking this question.

Perhaps now you understand what austerity is, and what it isn't. (answers you both questions at once: What is real austerity, and what it is supposed to do, for the 10th time).

Your question is unreadable. Perhaps a simple English class would help you. By the way, I must have missed the first 9 times. Austerity, me boy, is simply reduction of budget deficits by raising taxes/fees and lowering spending.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Kimura: "The private sector has net assets because of debt", mean nothing at all.

Yes, Kimura claims the more debt the better for the economy. I asked him if $50 or $100 trillion would be really really helpful. He said, yes!

He's about like Rushermer who claims the more you tax an economy the more you help it grow. This is like saying the more you choke a man the more you help him breath.

Neither can explain; both stick to it merely on the basis of ignorance and MSM brainwashing.

 

[Rshermr]

Kimura: "The private sector has net assets because of debt", mean nothing at all.

Yes, Kimura claims the more debt the better for the economy. I asked him if $50 or $100 trillion would be really really helpful. He said, yes!

He's about like Rushermer who claims the more you tax an economy the more you help it grow. This is like saying the more you choke a man the more you help him breath.

Neither can explain; both stick to it merely on the basis of ignorance and MSM brainwashing.

Yes, but then you lie. I never said taxing was good for an economy. Nor did I say it had much to do with making it grow. I simply said that taxing to create revenue for stimulus spending has always worked. And that you could not find a time when when decreasing income taxes to the wealthy or across the board to all has ever helped in times of a BAD unemployment economy. Just way to complex for you, me boy. And you have never shown such a case, where such income tax reductions during bad unemployment times have ever helped. Because you are incapable of actual thought.
Now, ed, me boy, I have shown you multiple times when tax increases have resulted in stimulus spending that has helped reduce high unemployment, and I have shown you times when lowering taxes during high unemployment times has caused higher unemployment. So, I have done my part. Your turn. Want to try to fail again??
Now, I know you want to say tax increases are always good. Or you want to say I have posted that raising taxes always leads to a better economy. I did not, however, say that. Because I know that to be untrue. But, a complex argument, with two factors where one factor allows the second is simply to difficult. So, to have something that you can wrap your simple mind around, you simply reduce my argument to "Rshermr says taxes always make the economy grow". But, that is simply your inadequate brain trying to capture what I said, and failing. Or, perhaps you are simply lying. Which you are prone to do.

By the way, who is Rushermer, you poor brainless twit??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I simply said that taxing to create revenue for stimulus spending has always worked.

too stupid!! thats identical to saying taxing an economy will help it grow. It is assumed the tax money will be spent!!!

Its pure stupidity based on the idiotic assumption that a dollar becomes magical when libturd bureaucrats waste in on soviet Solyndra projects!!

 

[Rshermr]

I simply said that taxing to create revenue for stimulus spending has always worked.

too stupid!! thats identical to saying taxing an economy will help it grow. It is assumed the tax money will be spent!!!

Its pure stupidity based on the idiotic assumption that a dollar becomes magical when libturd bureaucrats waste in on soviet Solyndra projects!!

Well, you failed to read what I said again. Maybe I should simply shorten it so that you can understand it. Ed is simply unhappy because he would like more money in his own hands so he can wipe his ass.
But again, you have failed to show a time when lowering taxes during high unemployment times has ever helped the economy. Poor brain deprived ed. If only he could understand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Its pure stupidity based on the idiotic assumption that a dollar becomes magical when libturd bureaucrats waste in on soviet Solyndra projects!!

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it???????????????

 

[Rshermr]

Its pure stupidity based on the idiotic assumption that a dollar becomes magical when libturd bureaucrats waste in on soviet Solyndra projects!!

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it???????????????

Uh, ed. It is not nice to attribute a statement to someone who did not make said statement. That would be your statement, me boy. Please do not attribute con drivel to me. Way dishonest, you fool.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Its pure stupidity based on the idiotic assumption that a dollar becomes magical when libturd bureaucrats waste in on soviet Solyndra projects!!

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it???????????????

Uh, ed. It is not nice to attribute a statement to someone who did not make said statement. That would be your statement, me boy. Please do not attribute con drivel to me. Way dishonest, you fool.

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it??????????????? Why????

 

[Rshermr]

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it???????????????

Uh, ed. It is not nice to attribute a statement to someone who did not make said statement. That would be your statement, me boy. Please do not attribute con drivel to me. Way dishonest, you fool.

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it??????????????? Why????

What I believe, based on your question, is that you have again proven yourself to be the single stupidest person on this board. And you have some real competition.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Uh, ed. It is not nice to attribute a statement to someone who did not make said statement. That would be your statement, me boy. Please do not attribute con drivel to me. Way dishonest, you fool.

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it??????????????? Why????

What I believe, based on your question, is that you have again proven yourself to be the single stupidest person on this board. And you have some real competition.

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it??????????????? Why??? Does it stimulate the economy or depress it?? Cat got your liberal tongue????.

 

[Oldstyle]

But Oldstyle. Of course you are not unhappy with your life. Study the subject, and you will find that stupid people are never unhappy with their lives. Visit a mental institution, and you will see a whole lot of people who are happy with their lives. I would be ashamed, but I am sure you are happy. Good for you, Oldstyle. No need for you to ever set your aspirations beyond what you are capable of.

I hate to point out the obvious here, Tommy...but if "I'm" the stupid one...then why am I always having to correct your 8th grade level grammar? Duh?

I've been successful with my career. Why would I be "ashamed"? You on the other hand seem to have to make up things about your life which can only lead one to believe that you haven't been very successful with yours. So who's the person who's really ashamed?

By the way, Oldstyle. When you started with the "undergrads don't teach classes at the college level" refrain, you asked me to provide you with specific information. And, you stated, as I recall, that if I did so, it would prove that I was not lying. And you would eat your words, or some such. I provided the information you requested, yet you have gone on for months saying that I am lying. So, me boy. You lied again. No integrity, Oldstyle. None at all. A person with integrity would keep their word. But you just ignore your commitments, and keep on with the personal attacks. Damn, it must by awful being you. A person with integrity would be ashamed, but you, oldstyle, have no shame.

For some reason, Tommy...you've gotten it into your head that when I questioned the veracity of your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...that we had some sort of "agreement" that if you provided an answer to my questions (no matter how unbelievable that answer was!) that I would not question it and never bring the subject up again. I'm sorry, little buddy...but that ISN'T something I ever agreed to. I thought you were telling a lie before and your answers only reinforced that impression.

Now you're claiming not to have said you had a private secretary as well? LOL You honestly think you can tell lies and if enough time goes by that people won't be able to recall them...don't you?

 

[Rshermr]

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it??????????????? Why????

What I believe, based on your question, is that you have again proven yourself to be the single stupidest person on this board. And you have some real competition.

so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it??????????????? Why??? Does it stimulate the economy or depress it?? Cat got your liberal tongue????.

You see, dipshit, I have looked and looked. And I can not find Soviet Solyndra. Nor Soviet Solyndra bureaucrats. But I do see ed. And ed is an idiot. Ed is incapable of actual conversation, as this post proves. And, Ed is incapable of learning anything. So, why should I spend my time talking to you. Because, you see, I prefer to deal with people that have class. And Integrity. And honesty. You lack all three, so why bother with you. Go back to your bat shit crazy con sites, where you belong. And see if you can post a hundred times per hour, so you can make more money. Dipshit. Jesus you are stupid. It must be pure hell being you.

You should post your normal drivel. You know. Every single solitary thing you post passes the Koch test. If it is good for the Koch brothers, it is good for Ed. Makes it easy. We understand whom you serve, and always know in advance what you will say about any given topic. Just like all of the cons out there. No need for a brain, just cut and paste. Sad existance, but you have to make a buck somehow, dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, you are about to see why you are to be known as a liar. Just a little mistake on your part. I set out a bit of bait, and you just bit. Thanks, Oldstyle. This will be educational to anyone out there that still wonders if you are a liar. So, lets take the last piece first. You said:

Now you're claiming not to have said you had a private secretary as well? LOL You honestly think you can tell lies and if enough time goes by that people won't be able to recall them...don't you?

No, Oldstyle. I do not lie. Lets see what I said. I did indeed say I had a private secretary. And that was true. I posted the following, which was the latest relative to you saying that I lied about having a secretary. I said the following :

Or the claim that I had a personal secretary. Jesus, that was an interesting one. Why you think that is bumping my rep is a mystery, oldstyle. But again, a standing offer to provide you $10K if I am lying. But again, you simply post personal attacks based on evidence of any kind. And refuse the offer to prove your claim. Because you know you will loose again. Just another personal attack.

Which you fully understood was that you questioned my claim that I had a personal secretary. Called me a liar. So, did you expect people to believe that I am offering you $10K to prove that I did not have a personal secretary. Maybe a class in logic would be good for you. But, of course, the truth is you are just trying to twist words to make it seem that I am changing what I have said several times. Tacky, oldstyle. And stupid. I would say nice try, but what you are trying to say is too stupid to bother with.

Now, there is your first statement from the above post:

For some reason, Tommy...you've gotten it into your head that when I questioned the veracity of your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...that we had some sort of "agreement" that if you provided an answer to my questions (no matter how unbelievable that answer was!) that I would not question it and never bring the subject up again. I'm sorry, little buddy...but that ISN'T something I ever agreed to. I thought you were telling a lie before and your answers only reinforced that impression.

Here is your problem. You lie so much you loose track of what you said. And, your posts are pretty much always in the archive, me boy. So, here is your post and my response, cut and pasted to this post. For all to see. Here we go, oldstyle:

Thread: Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM Post #166
Rshermr
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

I responded:

Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not provable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premise, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As was your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about. But it served a purpose. It showed me that you learn more teaching a class than attending one.

That is about as clear cut as it gets. Back in AUGUST OF LAST YEAR!!! So, I understand "eat my words", as would anyone who reads this post. Obviously you did not eat your words, now did you, Oldstyle.
I also understand "When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar". Now, me boy, perhaps you would like to explain why you have called me a liar, with no semblance of proof, over 30 times since then. You know better. You made a bargain, and you did not keep it.

So there you go, Oldstyle. Lets see what you said in your last post again:

For some reason, Tommy...you've gotten it into your head that when I questioned the veracity of your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...that we had some sort of "agreement" that if you provided an answer to my questions (no matter how unbelievable that answer was!) that I would not question it and never bring the subject up again.

So, you made the deal, saying if I did so it would prove to you that I was not a liar, and that you would eat your words. Really, Oldstyle. You do not see an agreement there? Of course you do, because you made the agreement.

I'm sorry, little buddy...but that ISN'T something I ever agreed to.

Sorry, Oldstyle. But it was what you agreed to. Which would make you, again, a bald faced liar. It could not be clearer. So, you are a liar who does not keep his agreements. Classy, Oldstyle, really classy.

I thought you were telling a lie before and your answers only reinforced that impression.

Sorry oldstyle. There was absolutely no lie in my anything I have ever said. Makes you crazy, eh oldstyle. Caught again. And again. And again. And no matter how hard you try, you can only make unsubstantiated accusations toward me. Which you love to do. And add a few more lies while you are at it.

Then, Oldstyle, to really, really prove that you are a liar and a game player, lets remember that the above exchange was in
August of last year. Eight months ago, Oldstyle. for OVER 8 months, since you started this claim a month or so before the above post, you have been playing your little game. Wasting everyone's time. And continuing to do what you committed that you would not do. I have to admit, Oldstyle, that if you are trying to set a record for dishonesty, you did a great job. And a great job of being a liar. And a game player. And, in general, a complete clown.

Sucks to get caught again, eh, oldstyle. Not sure how the hell you live with yourself. I really can not wait to see you try to lie your way out of this, Oldstyle. You will love the other posts that I have collected. Sad to have to do that, but when you deal with a liar, like you, sometimes it is simpler to collect the evidence as you go.

 

[Kimura]

As for Kimura, it sounds like you graduated as bookkeeper, your defintions are very non standard. That doesn't matter, what matters is saying things like: "The private sector has net assets because of debt", mean nothing at all. The first thing you would have to do after such statment is to explain "Then what?", as every bookeeping item behaves that exact same way. It tells you nothing of real world.

I never said that. I said that deficit spending creates net financial assets. These budget deficits add financial assets to the private sector, which helps to create the demand for real goods and services, thus allowing Americans to maintain income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to accrue financial assets at a far greater pace than would be possible without deficits. Period. Case closed. End of story.

Let's divide an economy into two items.

Let's not and say we did.

We call the first part "china", the second "USA". Yeah, one parts deficit is net asset of the 2nd part's. Does that mean deficit is good? of course not, but not necessarily the other way around either. You can do similar thing with any kind of division of an economy into "sectors". In your world there is two, Goernment and private sector, such imaginary division explains nothing though.

Trade deficits are a zero sum game. If one country runs a trade surplus, another must a trade deficit. All countries can't run trade surpluses at the same time. I use 'sectors' for the purposes sectoral accounting, so I can elaborate on stock and flow concepts.

The reason why the US can run a trade deficit is due to the fact that foreigners, who sell Americans imports, have a desire to accrue financial assets in US dollars relative to our desire to accrue the foreign sector's various currencies as financial assets.

This requires that the foreign sector sends more real goods and services to Americans than they expect Americans to send over to them. As long as this scenario continues unabated, this imbalance provides the US with some benefits. If foreigners change their minds, and no longer want to hold financial assets in US Dollars, then the direction of trade flows will reflect this. Naturally, under this scenario, US trade terms would change. Maybe foreigners will no longer want to accrue financial assets in the form of dollars, which would simply mean we would have to export as much as we import.

And in the real world, these deficits are a PROBLEM, that must be dealt with.

No, deficits aren't necessarily a problem, you're being duped by a bunch of ideologues in a political cargo cult.

There is a limit on deficit spending on bad times, if the govt policy would not always be to "go into more debt", perhaps it COULD spend more in the bad times without ultimately turning into Greece.

The US can't turn into Greece, it's impossible. The US government issues the US dollar, we haven't ceded our monetary sovereignty to the ECB or some other supranational entity. The US government can spend as many dollars as it desires into the domestic private sector economy. It doesn't have to obtain dollars from some third party, and it can always pay any of its debts. There is ZERO risk. What's critical to understand is that 'US debt' provides households, firms and others in the private sector with a way to put their wealth to work for them in a way risk-free manner. Government debt is nothing more than a savings account for the private sector.

And god forbid, perhaps there could actually be some savings that would be directed to actual investment so the economy could grow in the long run. The 0% interest rates that are used to

You have it backwards: investments add to savings. Savings aren't some finite pool in the economy, because savings is directly related to national income. For example, when we have an increasing national income, we have rising savings. If government spending stimulates economic growth, which will increase national income and GDP, savings will increase simultaneously. The is Act I in a multiple act play.

By the way, I didn't start insulting people. It was Ed and Oldstyle who started with the insults for no apparent reason. I was under the impression we could have a constructive dialogue without resorting to infantile outbursts and tirades.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious, Kimura...

What would you think about someone who claimed to have taught economics at the college level as an undergrad?

And if that same person didn't understand basic Keynesian priciples?

And if that same person didn't know that a reference to the "Chicago School" was a reference to an economic school of thought and not an actual college in Chicago?

Would you think that person was full of shit? Because I do...and that's with only two econ classes in my whole life!

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, you are about to see why you are to be known as a liar. Just a little mistake on your part. I set out a bit of bait, and you just bit. Thanks, Oldstyle. This will be educational to anyone out there that still wonders if you are a liar. So, lets take the last piece first. You said:

Now you're claiming not to have said you had a private secretary as well? LOL You honestly think you can tell lies and if enough time goes by that people won't be able to recall them...don't you?

No, Oldstyle. I do not lie. Lets see what I said. I did indeed say I had a private secretary. And that was true. I posted the following, which was the latest relative to you saying that I lied about having a secretary. I said the following :

Or the claim that I had a personal secretary. Jesus, that was an interesting one. Why you think that is bumping my rep is a mystery, oldstyle. But again, a standing offer to provide you $10K if I am lying. But again, you simply post personal attacks based on evidence of any kind. And refuse the offer to prove your claim. Because you know you will loose again. Just another personal attack.

Which you fully understood was that you questioned my claim that I had a personal secretary. Called me a liar. So, did you expect people to believe that I am offering you $10K to prove that I did not have a personal secretary. Maybe a class in logic would be good for you. But, of course, the truth is you are just trying to twist words to make it seem that I am changing what I have said several times. Tacky, oldstyle. And stupid. I would say nice try, but what you are trying to say is too stupid to bother with.

Now, there is your first statement from the above post:


Here is your problem. You lie so much you loose track of what you said. And, your posts are pretty much always in the archive, me boy. So, here is your post and my response, cut and pasted to this post. For all to see. Here we go, oldstyle:

Thread: Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM Post #166
Rshermr
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle


I responded:


That is about as clear cut as it gets. Back in AUGUST OF LAST YEAR!!! So, I understand "eat my words", as would anyone who reads this post. Obviously you did not eat your words, now did you, Oldstyle.
I also understand "When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar". Now, me boy, perhaps you would like to explain why you have called me a liar, with no semblance of proof, over 30 times since then. You know better. You made a bargain, and you did not keep it.

So there you go, Oldstyle. Lets see what you said in your last post again:

So, you made the deal, saying if I did so it would prove to you that I was not a liar, and that you would eat your words. Really, Oldstyle. You do not see an agreement there? Of course you do, because you made the agreement.

I'm sorry, little buddy...but that ISN'T something I ever agreed to.

Sorry, Oldstyle. But it was what you agreed to. Which would make you, again, a bald faced liar. It could not be clearer. So, you are a liar who does not keep his agreements. Classy, Oldstyle, really classy.

I thought you were telling a lie before and your answers only reinforced that impression.

Sorry oldstyle. There was absolutely no lie in my anything I have ever said. Makes you crazy, eh oldstyle. Caught again. And again. And again. And no matter how hard you try, you can only make unsubstantiated accusations toward me. Which you love to do. And add a few more lies while you are at it.

Then, Oldstyle, to really, really prove that you are a liar and a game player, lets remember that the above exchange was in
August of last year. Eight months ago, Oldstyle. for OVER 8 months, since you started this claim a month or so before the above post, you have been playing your little game. Wasting everyone's time. And continuing to do what you committed that you would not do. I have to admit, Oldstyle, that if you are trying to set a record for dishonesty, you did a great job. And a great job of being a liar. And a game player. And, in general, a complete clown.

Sucks to get caught again, eh, oldstyle. Not sure how the hell you live with yourself. I really can not wait to see you try to lie your way out of this, Oldstyle. You will love the other posts that I have collected. Sad to have to do that, but when you deal with a liar, like you, sometimes it is simpler to collect the evidence as you go.

Show me where I ever agreed to that.

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...so which is it now, Tommy? Are you claiming to have HAD a personal secretary or not? You've told so many lies at this point you're having a hard time keeping them straight...aren't you?

 

[Oldstyle]

That's the problem with being a pathological liar...you tell a lie. People doubt you and point out why what you've claimed sounds hard to believe...and you have to tell another lie. And then another...and then another. Pretty soon you've told so many lies you can't remember what you've said.

In this case you claimed to have taught college economics. But gee...you didn't even know basic Keynesian theory so I questioned your claim and asked what college it was that you were a professor at. Now there's a problem! You can't claim to be a professor because colleges keep lists of faculty and your name isn't going to be on any of those. So what to do!!! Simple...tell ANOTHER lie! That you weren't actually a professor but you were an undergrad who taught an economics class because the "real" professor couldn't be bothered.

But anyone who's been to college knows that isn't the way things work. Graduate students quite often help professors as teaching assistants but undergrads teaching college level courses? What college is going to do that? It's an entirely implausible story. So implausible that I start to query you ABOUT the subject that you supposedly know so much about that you were selected to teach your fellow students by a grateful professor...but you don't even know what the "Chicago School" refers to? If there were "bullshit alarms" in here they would have been BLARING at that point!

At this point I'm questioning your claim to even BE a college man because your spelling and grammar are so atrocious and you invent yet another hard to believe scenario to explain this. You're a busy executive whose private secretary has always handled your correspondence and SHE spell checks you and cleans up your 8th grade grammar mistakes! Well there you have it!!!

But you NEVER lie...right, Tommy? And we know this...because you say so? Too funny...

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, you are about to see why you are to be known as a liar. Just a little mistake on your part. I set out a bit of bait, and you just bit. Thanks, Oldstyle. This will be educational to anyone out there that still wonders if you are a liar. So, lets take the last piece first. You said:

Now you're claiming not to have said you had a private secretary as well? LOL You honestly think you can tell lies and if enough time goes by that people won't be able to recall them...don't you?

No, Oldstyle. I do not lie. Lets see what I said. I did indeed say I had a private secretary. And that was true. I posted the following, which was the latest relative to you saying that I lied about having a secretary. I said the following :

Which you fully understood was that you questioned my claim that I had a personal secretary. Called me a liar. So, did you expect people to believe that I am offering you $10K to prove that I did not have a personal secretary. Maybe a class in logic would be good for you. But, of course, the truth is you are just trying to twist words to make it seem that I am changing what I have said several times. Tacky, oldstyle. And stupid. I would say nice try, but what you are trying to say is too stupid to bother with.

Now, there is your first statement from the above post:


Here is your problem. You lie so much you loose track of what you said. And, your posts are pretty much always in the archive, me boy. So, here is your post and my response, cut and pasted to this post. For all to see. Here we go, oldstyle:

Thread: Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM Post #166
Rshermr
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle


I responded:


That is about as clear cut as it gets. Back in AUGUST OF LAST YEAR!!! So, I understand "eat my words", as would anyone who reads this post. Obviously you did not eat your words, now did you, Oldstyle.
I also understand "When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar". Now, me boy, perhaps you would like to explain why you have called me a liar, with no semblance of proof, over 30 times since then. You know better. You made a bargain, and you did not keep it.

So there you go, Oldstyle. Lets see what you said in your last post again:

So, you made the deal, saying if I did so it would prove to you that I was not a liar, and that you would eat your words. Really, Oldstyle. You do not see an agreement there? Of course you do, because you made the agreement.



Sorry, Oldstyle. But it was what you agreed to. Which would make you, again, a bald faced liar. It could not be clearer. So, you are a liar who does not keep his agreements. Classy, Oldstyle, really classy.

I thought you were telling a lie before and your answers only reinforced that impression.

Sorry oldstyle. There was absolutely no lie in my anything I have ever said. Makes you crazy, eh oldstyle. Caught again. And again. And again. And no matter how hard you try, you can only make unsubstantiated accusations toward me. Which you love to do. And add a few more lies while you are at it.

Then, Oldstyle, to really, really prove that you are a liar and a game player, lets remember that the above exchange was in
August of last year. Eight months ago, Oldstyle. for OVER 8 months, since you started this claim a month or so before the above post, you have been playing your little game. Wasting everyone's time. And continuing to do what you committed that you would not do. I have to admit, Oldstyle, that if you are trying to set a record for dishonesty, you did a great job. And a great job of being a liar. And a game player. And, in general, a complete clown.

Sucks to get caught again, eh, oldstyle. Not sure how the hell you live with yourself. I really can not wait to see you try to lie your way out of this, Oldstyle. You will love the other posts that I have collected. Sad to have to do that, but when you deal with a liar, like you, sometimes it is simpler to collect the evidence as you go.

Show me where I ever agreed to that.

Jesus, you are a liar, oldstyle. You do not believe "you will eat your words" means you will give up on the issue. You do not believe that "When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar"indicates youi would back off the issue. You see, Oldstyle, you know I was not lying. Then you asked for four pieces of info, which I provided. And you said you would eat your words and that it would prove, to you, that I was not lying to you. So, you want to tell me why you do not see that as the end of the issue.

I knew you would come back with this methodology. Because you have no integrity. And no class. Big surprise, oldstyle. Must suck to be you.

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...so which is it now, Tommy? Are you claiming to have HAD a personal secretary or not? You've told so many lies at this point you're having a hard time keeping them straight...aren't you?

So, Oldstyle says:

LOL...so which is it now, Tommy? Are you claiming to have HAD a personal secretary or not? You've told so many lies at this point you're having a hard time keeping them straight...aren't you?

No need to comment, dipshit. I only said one of the two, as you know. What I am saying is that you are a lying game player. Wasting peoples time. Lying all the time. And then proving that you are a liar. Sad, oldstyle, really sad. You are a little, little man.