So, Toro, attempting to prove something unknown to anyone but himself, says:
No. Rather than dealing with factual information, i.e. that over 500 economists and 5 Nobel laureates endorsed Romney, you instead attempt to discredit it by focusing on who reported it, even though it was widely reported at the time. That's to be expected from a partisan ideologue unable to respond intelligently.
I did not, my lying con, say the information was incorrect. What i did say (now pay attention, me boy) was that it was immaterial information provided by a completely partial source that does only one thing all the time: Attack democrats of any type and anything that they do. They are a completely partial source.
Now, had you read the drivel from the source you linked to, you would see that the attempt was to say that most economists supported romney. Which is not in fact supported at all. What I stated was the fact (Notice it is fact, and supported by rational sources) that 500 economists is something less than 3% of the economists in the US. Which would indicate that it was just more of the same for The Daily Caller. It does not, me boy, pass the giggle test. But nice try. Trying to support your sources article is a joke.
Krugman - and all the partisan tribal ideologues nodding in approval - said there were no reasonable Republicans. (Or that they are all lemmings.) Yet, over 500 economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorsed Romney. Are all these people "unreasonable?" Or is Krugman engaging in highly biased partisanship?
OK. Up to 3% of US economists support romney. Got it. And you think this proves WHAT?
Then, you are continuing to say that I said there are NO REASONABLE REPUBLICANS. I did not. You are, to put it simply, lying.
Did I call them lemmings?? Pretty much, but I can easily prove that:
House GOP Votes To Repeal Obamacare For 40th Time
House GOP Votes To Repeal Obamacare For 40th Time
Does that look like lemmings to you?? Sure does to those of us in the rational world. There was NO DOUBT on the first 39 votes that the repubs could not stop the ACA. NO chance at all. Yet the lemming like action of these clowns was to wast the time of congress to do it
40 TIMES
Then, we could talk about record obstruction of a do nothing republican congress. Unless, of course, you are a tool, and ignore all of the news.
Krugman, of course, doesn't respond, because he can't answer without rationalizing, backtracking or looking like a fool. The partisan hacks, though, have no such qualms, and howl in approval and resort to juvenile tactics such as shooting the messenger towards anyone who enters their lttle echo chamber and disagrees. It's funny when liberals try to discredit Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media, then do the exact the same thing as Fox News, et. al.
There is no liberal "fox news" because progressives would have nothing to do with a 24/7 attack outlet. Period. Only conservatives believe what they want to believe. Only cons support hundreds of bat shit crazy con web sites and fox. Because it makes them angry (which they want to be) and it is what they WANT to hear. As you have proven. The rational world knows that no political party is always wrong, as these outlets tell you the democratic party is. And the rational world recognizes what con tools do not want to recognize, like what is meaningful, and what the attempt is that is being made by a far right bat shit crazy web site. And they are smart enough not to get behind bat shit crazy web sites of any agenda. Unlike con tools like yourself. Who sees nothing at all wrong with using bat shit crazy conservative sites as their source. And who sees nothing wrong with telling you the meaning that claiming 500 economists support romney indicates.
Another trait of cons is that they tend to lie a lot. As an example, you indicate there is a left wing echo chamber. There is not, me boy. There is no well financed left wing echo chamber. just a few left wing web sites. Nothing orchestrated. And, me boy, i am not discrediting the message that there may be 500 economists that supported romney. What I am saying is that i have no reason to believe there are based on the source, and i resent the fact that you provide a source that would need everything they say vetted, based on that sources agenda and history. That should not be so hard for you to understand. AND, you of course ignore the rest of the document's point, which is the unsupported idea that most economists support romney and few support obama. Which is, according to most impartial sources, nonsense.
You are really just plain not passing the giggle test.
is like me using DailyKos & not expecting [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] to call me out on it. 
Come on Toro 
I thought you were better than that
) 
You're funny 
