Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD in economics won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! Why should anyone believe you, Rshermr?

AH, oldstyle. Back to washing dishes. Your punctuation help is not needed. Because, you see, this is not a formal letter. If you are having problems understanding the statement, let me know and I will school you. dipshit.

You see, oldstyle, not everyone takes the time that you have to check every word and all of your punctuation. I know, and knew when I typed the paragraph, that the K should be properly punctuated. But, you stupid clown, the paragraph was not about capitalization. It was about your inability to understand anything. But you understand, oldstyle, you are simply playing games. And you lied, 15 times, on this single thread. And you are caught. But you try to just keep on keeping on. dipshit. No integrity.

of course as a conservative he beat you badly which explains why you're so pissed off. I love it!!

And, to prove you are in trouble, you bring out your other brother, ED. Who is widely recognized as a congenital idiot. And you expect help from Ed.

Pathetic, Oldstyle. Just flat pathetic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AH, oldstyle. Back to washing dishes. Your punctuation help is not needed. Because, you see, this is not a formal letter. If you are having problems understanding the statement, let me know and I will school you. dipshit.

You see, oldstyle, not everyone takes the time that you have to check every word and all of your punctuation. I know, and knew when I typed the paragraph, that the K should be properly punctuated. But, you stupid clown, the paragraph was not about capitalization. It was about your inability to understand anything. But you understand, oldstyle, you are simply playing games. And you lied, 15 times, on this single thread. And you are caught. But you try to just keep on keeping on. dipshit. No integrity.

of course as a conservative he beat you badly which explains why you're so pissed off. I love it!!

And, to prove you are in trouble, you bring out your other brother, ED. Who is widely recognized as a congenital idiot. And you expect help from Ed.

Pathetic, Oldstyle. Just flat pathetic.

If you find a substantive aspect of conservatism/libertarianism pathetic why be so afraid to say why for the whole world to see?

What does your fear of substance and love of personal attack tell us about the liberal IQ and character?

 

[Rshermr]

Now, Now ed. Trying to change what I said is disingenuous. What I said was pathetic was Oldstyle looking for you to help him out of his lying ways. And there you are, being dishonest again. And of having absolutely no ability to make rational sense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now, Now ed. Trying to change what I said is disingenuous. What I said was pathetic was Oldstyle looking for you to help him out of his lying ways. And there you are, being dishonest again. And of having absolutely no ability to make rational sense.

typical liberal personal attack because a liberal will get killed when he tries substance. You're the perfect advertisment!

Why not try to say somethiing intelligent in support of liberalism?? Show the liberals an econ professor can do it, and with ease!!

 

[Rshermr]

Now, Now ed. Trying to change what I said is disingenuous. What I said was pathetic was Oldstyle looking for you to help him out of his lying ways. And there you are, being dishonest again. And of having absolutely no ability to make rational sense.

typical liberal personal attack because a liberal will get killed when he tries substance. You're the perfect advertisment!

Why not try to say somethiing intelligent in support of liberalism?? Show the liberals an econ professor can do it, and with ease!!

Because, oldstyle, you post bs, say it is true, and go away when you are proven wrong. You never, ever actually admit you were wrong. Just do not do it. So, you never can follow an argument. It simply ends when you, ed, can not find a come back.

It is called not having integrity. And we all understand that you have none. Which makes conversation with you totally impossible.

Let me know if you have more questions, though I think I am done with you.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've got news for you, Sparky...you were pretty much done as soon as you invented your friend with the PhD in economics...the one that loves to come on here and talk politics but won't talk about economics.

If there was a bull shit detector on this site it would start blaring as soon as your "I taught economics in college as an undergrad" ass logged on.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle makes the following statement?

What your posts "show" is that you have consistently dodged my question.

You lie, oldstyle. Again. Lets take this question from you, and my answer, and see what it is that you are trying to do, oldstyle.

In Post 405, you said:

Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.

I responded:


Could not be clearer, dipshit. What is your problem, me boy. Just game playing. And trying to avoid the obvious. You are lying.

Then Oldstyle says:


Sorry, Oldstyle. What your post says is that you are playing games. Or, you are just plain but stupid. You see, oldstyle, people who disagree with a statement argue the statement. You never argued it, but rather just kept asking the same question again and again.

Then Oldstyle says:


And of course, I am not changing the subject. I have been consistently telling you the same thing. Nice try, Oldstyle. But another lie from Oldstyle. Who IS trying to change the subject.

You have asked the same question over 10 times, gotten consistent answers, and you have never questioned the answers. Then you say you wanted to hear that there were no economic theories that suggested raising taxes in a bad economy. And that I never said that.

Lets see, Oldstyle, if we can find you lying again:

So, oldstyle asks:

Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..

I responded:

We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for.

So, there it is, Oldstyle, in black and white. So, you WERE lying. And you are caught again.

And there are other posts, several in fact, that say the same thing. If you are suggesting that I check out over 100 economic theories, to find if one of them suggests raising taxes in a bad economy, then that would be further proof that you are delusional. What I told you is that it makes no difference. Because, as you fully understand, and as you were told over and over, the subject is stimulus. Which, my con tool, is also the subject of the thread. And it is what you are trying to avoie. By playing games and lying.

Gee, Little Buddy...you don't have to check out over 100 economic theories...all YOU have to do is ask your friend who has the PhD in economics to tell you which ones apply. But you can't DO that...can you? Because as anyone with any common sense knows...your friend only exists in your head.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle says:
I

've got news for you, Sparky...you were pretty much done as soon as you invented your friend with the PhD in economics...the one that loves to come on here and talk politics but won't talk about economics.

Now that was an interesting statment, oldstyle. Perhaps you would like to go back and show me where I said that my friend "loves to come on here and talk politics but not about economics". Is it a lie, oldstyle, or are you just incapable of reading??

If there was a bull shit detector on this site it would start blaring as soon as your "I taught economics in college as an undergrad" ass logged on.

I never lie. If I did, by this time, you would have proof. And you have NONE. Just lots of bluster, trying to get away from your own lies. Regardless of how hard you try, oldstyle, you just point to things you would like to be lies. Because you do not want to discuss your untruths. Or your mistakes. You just go on, and make more stupid statements. Sad, Oldstyle, really sad.

 

[Rshermr]

I've got news for you, Sparky...you were pretty much done as soon as you invented your friend with the PhD in economics...the one that loves to come on here and talk politics but won't talk about economics.

If there was a bull shit detector on this site it would start blaring as soon as your "I taught economics in college as an undergrad" ass logged on.

You know you sure put out the bs, oldstyle, for a guy who has been offered a ticket to $10K. If I thought I had you in a lie, and you made that offer, I would be on a plane. Sorry, oldstyle, you already lost that one. Unless, of course, you would like to change your mind and come on out.

But you won't, because you know I do not lie. Which is why you can never catch me in one.

Or is it that you are impressed, oldstyle, and feeling kind of puny about your poor little insignificant life. funny thing is, I am just a regular guy. Not overly successful by my measure. And you are going on about my friend, and my teaching an econ class. I almost feel sorry for you oldstyle. But you had your chance, not anyones fault but your own that you have to wash dishes.

Just think how cool it would be if you could come out and prove I had no econ prof friend. Cmon, man, put up the bucks, and lets see who wins this little wager.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

QUOTE]Gee, Little Buddy...you don't have to check out over 100 economic theories...all YOU have to do is ask your friend who has the PhD in economics to tell you which ones apply. But you can't DO that...can you? Because as anyone with any common sense knows...your friend only exists in your head.[/QUOTE]

But you see, Oldstyle, you are a clown. Calling me little buddy is funny. And delusional. You have, you say, a degree in history. But you have such a little life that you feel like insulting me by calling me a liar when I mention I have a freind with a phd in economics. But with your history degree, you wash dishes. And you call someone little. You really should not throw rocks, oldstyle, from your LITTLE house of glass. And, of course, I do not lie. Never. Which is the majority of your problem. I have caught you in outright lies many times. You never have. Never, Oldstyle. So, lets look at a few of your lies about the tax question you keep posting, over and over and ober. Where I have answered the question you asked over and over and over.

So, you asked your question AGAIN above. And again, OLDSTYLE, as all of my answers have said, I do not care what economic theories suggest raising taxes in bad economic times. Because one would never do that. It is not about taxes, but about Stimulus, which taxes can finance. As they did for Reagan and for Clinton.

Now, look again at the following posts, and you will see that said over and over. Dipshit.

Post 314

Quote:
Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?
I responded:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.


Post 327

Quote:
All that verbal diarrhea and yet you can't give me the economic school that asks for tax increases in a slow economy? You say that economics isn't "static" so you can't use just one school of thought? So what schools WOULD you use? What NEW school is this Administration using when it calls for tax increases in the midst of a weak economy?

I responded:
Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack.

Post 405

Quote:
Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.

I responded:
I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

Quote:
It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.
I responded:
I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

Post 402

Quote:
So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?
I responded:
So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax decreases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

post 475
So, Oldstyle, in trying to mask his lies about the Clinton administration, does the conservative twist:

Quote:
Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..
I responded:
We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for. Ah, so you do not believe in stimulative spending, eh? No one believes in that?? Well, obviously that is untrue. Reagan did. Used it a Great deal. And apparently you disagree with Bruce Bartlett. Who is Bartlett? You know who he is, but for grins: Bruce Reeves Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post 531

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

I responded:
Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

Post 547

Quote:
And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...
I responded:
I could care less which theory teaches tax increases as a METHOD of financing stimulus. Because, for the 23rd time the subject is not taxes, but it is stimulus. And most theories DO teach stimulus as a tool. We are talking about STIMULUS me poor dishwasher. Not taxes. Unless you want to talk about what the economic teams associated with the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. Which used taxes to provide Stimulus which is taught by many schools as part of a number of economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. These posts show that you were:
1, Completely disingenuous
2. Playing games
3. Lying
4. Trying to change the subject

So, makes you a disingenuous clown. And you would wonder why anyone would laugh at you.

 

[Oldstyle]

All those quotes show is that you've continuously ducked the question about what school of economics advocates tax increases in a bad economy.

I'm trying to change the subject? Dude, you keep whining because I WON'T change the subject.

The fact is...THERE IS NO SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS THAT ADVOCATES RAISING TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY...which brings us full circle to you having to explain why it is that we just DID raise taxes in a bad economy.

Of course asking YOU to explain anything relating to economics is asking a lot since you know next to nothing about the subject.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, me delusional con tool. You believe that you have won some argument related to the subject of this thread. You have not, of course. You loose every single time. Always.

there are PHD's in economics that post on this site. Mostly in the Economics area, as one would expect. None wants to argue politics with you. It is kind of like putting a little league pitcher on the mound against a major league home run champ. And, if you were wondering, you would be the little league pitcher out there on the mound. It would not be fair to you, and it would bore the shit out of them. So, why the hell would you ask why my friend would want to argue economics with a dish washer? tends to show you are delusional, dipshit.

So after we get done addressing your lie, maybe you would like to bring one of your "wins" forward. Should be amusing.

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD in economics won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! Why should anyone believe you, Rshermr?

Oldstyle. You are delusional. Why would he want to discuss anything related to economics with a dishwasher who can not understand a really simple statement. And who keeps asking the same thing, time after time, totaling over 10 times. And who can not put together a simple question if he is unable to get the statement. And then, he of course, realizes that the dish washer is playing games. Why, oldstyle, is he not discussing economics with you? You really ask that? Probably for the same reason that those posting normally in this site, that do have PHD's, never bother to discus economics with you. And why I am done with you, Oldstyle. Because you are dishonest. You lie with no compundtion. And play silly games. And you are very, very immature. So, any other questions, Oldstyle.

And, relative to your questioning my simple statement about having a friend with an econ PHD. Which is, of course, simply another dodge. Because you do not want to discuss your lies. But what is pathetic about you is that you say I am lying, and I give you the opportunity to make $10K if I can not produce my freind. And you know you are caught again. So you ignore the wager. Which is no surprise, oldstyle, because you really know I am not lying and you do not want to lose the bucks. Pathetic, oldstyle. If I beleived something as much as you say you do, and I had the offer I made to you, I would be on the plane. Cmon, oldstyle. What is your problem. No balls, old boy??

And you wonder why we laugh at you.

So you have a friend who has a PhD in economics but he won't be joining in the conversation we're having because he's "above" petty discussions on a chat board? Gee, Little Buddy...how convenient! I mean someone who was cynical might think that you were saying that because you totally made up the friend.

So let me see if I've got this straight? You're going to send me a plane ticket that I'm going to then use to fly all the way across the country so you can let me meet your friend who's got the PhD in economics? We're going to do THAT instead of simply having your friend join in on the conversation and help you out with your inability to name an economic school that advocates tax raises in weak economies?

I don't know how to break this to you, Rshermr but I believe that you've got $10,000 to pay me ALMOST as much as I believe that you taught economics at the college level as an undergrad, have a friend who has a PhD in economics and that you were a successful business man. I think you are an internet "poser".

 

[Rshermr]

All those quotes show is that you've continuously ducked the question about what school of economics advocates tax increases in a bad economy.

I'm trying to change the subject? Dude, you keep whining because I WON'T change the subject.

The fact is...THERE IS NO SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS THAT ADVOCATES RAISING TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY...which brings us full circle to you having to explain why it is that we just DID raise taxes in a bad economy.

Of course asking YOU to explain anything relating to economics is asking a lot since you know next to nothing about the subject.

Dipshit. I have told you, obviously, the same thing time after time. Can you tell me why Reagan raised taxes in a bad unemployment situation. Or why Clinton raised taxes with high unemployment. Or why FDR raised raised taxes with high unemployment.

Sure you can, Oldstyle. For the same reason I have told you time after time.

The question is, Oldstyle, why are you playing your little game of pretending I did not tell you. Because I did.

So, why the lies, Oldstyle?? We know, oldstyle, it is because you are caught in your lie. And lack the integrity to be honest.

then, Oldstyle says the following:

Of course asking YOU to explain anything relating to economics is asking a lot since you know next to nothing about the subject.

Yes, sure, I see oldstyle. A dish washer. Pretending to not understand over 10 posts saying the same thing. Asking the same question every one of those over ten times. Never asking for clarification. And you say I know nothing about economics. Right. Good try Oldstyle. And you wonder why I would say that I laugh at you. Dipshit. I laugh at you because you say really, really stupid things. And because you look like a fish flopping on the boat bottom. Caught, and trying to get out of it.

Then there is this other nugget from above, Oldstyle:

I'm trying to change the subject? Dude, you keep whining because I WON'T change the subject.

All you have to do, oldstyle, is admit you were lying, and that you were playing games. Simple. And obvious that you were. And you post over and over and OVER about things not having to do with the subject of this thread. Jesus, Oldstyle, you are a tool. And totally disingenuous. Then you try to say am whining. Dipshit. Get a clue.

Then there is THIS little effort of misdirection.

The fact is...THERE IS NO SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS THAT ADVOCATES RAISING TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY

So, if you know that, Why are you asking that question over ten times. I believe we are to 15 by now, dipshit. Because you know it makes no difference. And I do not know, and do not care, if there is such a advocacy for raising taxes in a bad economy. As I have told you multiple times. Check the list, dipshit. It is there.

Which, over all, is why you are such an asshole. You are simply playing games, oldstyle. If I had your lack of integrity, I would feel like shit. Apparently this is normal for you. Why, oldstyle, do you not feel like an asshole, when you obviously are.

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD in economics won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! Why should anyone believe you, Rshermr?

Oldstyle. You are delusional. Why would he want to discuss anything related to economics with a dishwasher who can not understand a really simple statement. And who keeps asking the same thing, time after time, totaling over 10 times. And who can not put together a simple question if he is unable to get the statement. And then, he of course, realizes that the dish washer is playing games. Why, oldstyle, is he not discussing economics with you? You really ask that? Probably for the same reason that those posting normally in this site, that do have PHD's, never bother to discus economics with you. And why I am done with you, Oldstyle. Because you are dishonest. You lie with no compundtion. And play silly games. And you are very, very immature. So, any other questions, Oldstyle.

And, relative to your questioning my simple statement about having a friend with an econ PHD. Which is, of course, simply another dodge. Because you do not want to discuss your lies. But what is pathetic about you is that you say I am lying, and I give you the opportunity to make $10K if I can not produce my freind. And you know you are caught again. So you ignore the wager. Which is no surprise, oldstyle, because you really know I am not lying and you do not want to lose the bucks. Pathetic, oldstyle. If I beleived something as much as you say you do, and I had the offer I made to you, I would be on the plane. Cmon, oldstyle. What is your problem. No balls, old boy??

And you wonder why we laugh at you.

So you have a friend who has a PhD in economics but he won't be joining in the conversation we're having because he's "above" petty discussions on a chat board? Gee, Little Buddy...how convenient! I mean someone who was cynical might think that you were saying that because you totally made up the friend.

So let me see if I've got this straight? You're going to send me a plane ticket that I'm going to then use to fly all the way across the country so you can let me meet your friend who's got the PhD in economics? We're going to do THAT instead of simply having your friend join in on the conversation and help you out with your inability to name an economic school that advocates tax raises in weak economies?

I don't know how to break this to you, Rshermr but I believe that you've got $10,000 to pay me ALMOST as much as I believe that you taught economics at the college level as an undergrad, have a friend who has a PhD in economics and that you were a successful business man. I think you are an internet "poser".

Same deal, oldstyle, I will put $10K in a trust. You pay into it, I will too. I pay your airfare, you come on out, you walk away with $10K if you are correct. If not, I get yours. Simple, dipshit. So put up or shut up. Or are you simply to small to do so? And oldstyle, he could care less about talking with a liar on the web. Few economists would. And a dish washer at that.
But then, you will not. Because you know you are just talking out your ass. Small time dipshit, Oldstyle. Big mouth, no guts. Wonder why anyone would laugh at you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle. You are delusional. Why would he want to discuss anything related to economics with a dishwasher who can not understand a really simple statement. And who keeps asking the same thing, time after time, totaling over 10 times. And who can not put together a simple question if he is unable to get the statement. And then, he of course, realizes that the dish washer is playing games. Why, oldstyle, is he not discussing economics with you? You really ask that? Probably for the same reason that those posting normally in this site, that do have PHD's, never bother to discus economics with you. And why I am done with you, Oldstyle. Because you are dishonest. You lie with no compundtion. And play silly games. And you are very, very immature. So, any other questions, Oldstyle.

And, relative to your questioning my simple statement about having a friend with an econ PHD. Which is, of course, simply another dodge. Because you do not want to discuss your lies. But what is pathetic about you is that you say I am lying, and I give you the opportunity to make $10K if I can not produce my freind. And you know you are caught again. So you ignore the wager. Which is no surprise, oldstyle, because you really know I am not lying and you do not want to lose the bucks. Pathetic, oldstyle. If I beleived something as much as you say you do, and I had the offer I made to you, I would be on the plane. Cmon, oldstyle. What is your problem. No balls, old boy??

And you wonder why we laugh at you.

So you have a friend who has a PhD in economics but he won't be joining in the conversation we're having because he's "above" petty discussions on a chat board? Gee, Little Buddy...how convenient! I mean someone who was cynical might think that you were saying that because you totally made up the friend.

So let me see if I've got this straight? You're going to send me a plane ticket that I'm going to then use to fly all the way across the country so you can let me meet your friend who's got the PhD in economics? We're going to do THAT instead of simply having your friend join in on the conversation and help you out with your inability to name an economic school that advocates tax raises in weak economies?

I don't know how to break this to you, Rshermr but I believe that you've got $10,000 to pay me ALMOST as much as I believe that you taught economics at the college level as an undergrad, have a friend who has a PhD in economics and that you were a successful business man. I think you are an internet "poser".

Same deal, oldstyle, I will put $10K in a trust. You pay into it, I will too. I pay your airfare, you come on out, you walk away with $10K if you are correct. If not, I get yours. Simple, dipshit. So put up or shut up. Or are you simply to small to do so? And oldstyle, he could care less about talking with a liar on the web. Few economists would. And a dish washer at that.
But then, you will not. Because you know you are just talking out your ass. Small time dipshit, Oldstyle. Big mouth, no guts. Wonder why anyone would laugh at you.

So your friend wouldn't be willing to talk to a "liar" on the web...but he WOULD be willing to talk to that same "liar" in person? Yeah, that makes sense...(eye-roll)

You see...there is the problem when you start telling lies, Rshermr. Once you tell one...you inevitably have to tell another to cover for the first one. So you started out lying about being an economics major. Then you had to embellish THAT lie so you claimed that you taught college economics as an undergrad. Then you invented a friend with a PhD in economics that comes here and laughs at my posts because they are so wrong headed. Then you had to come up with an excuse why your imaginary friend can't join in the conversation so of course your friend won't lower himself to actually post here because he's a PhD and can't waste time on something like that...but he CAN take time out of his busy schedule to meet someone in person that he wouldn't exchange posts with on the web? Step by step, Little Buddy...people like you inevitably hang themselves.

 

[Rshermr]

So oldstyle is trying to avoid the subject at hand, his having lied over 10 times on one issue, and having been caught. So he tries to change the subject again:

So your friend wouldn't be willing to talk to a "liar" on the web...but he WOULD be willing to talk to that same "liar" in person? Yeah, that makes sense...(eye-roll)

the eye roll is cute oldstyle. Immature like the rest of your posts. As your post says, why would he want to talk to a liar on the web. Because you would try to play games again. No question about it. And he sees no earthly reason to do so. Hell, he questions MY sanity for playing your little games. In person is summary, Oldstyle. We meet at a mutually agreable firm that verifies documents, he gives you five minutes, and we are done. And, it is worth it. I get, or you get, the $10K. So, if you are not full of shit, as I say you are, you walk with $10K.

Now, if you do not want to travel, we could find another way. So, how do we prove across the web that he is my friend? You know better, oldstyle. You will not believe. You will play games. Why would anyone want to play this game with you. So, we make it summary. And it has to contain $. And it has to be worth my time. $10K IN TRUST.

You see...there is the problem when you start telling lies, Rshermr. Once you tell one...you inevitably have to tell another to cover for the first one. So you started out lying about being an economics major. Then you had to embellish THAT lie so you claimed that you taught college economics as an undergrad. Then you invented a friend with a PhD in economics that comes here and laughs at my posts because they are so wrong headed. Then you had to come up with an excuse why your imaginary friend can't join in the conversation so of course your friend won't lower himself to actually post here because he's a PhD and can't waste time on something like that...but he CAN take time out of his busy schedule to meet someone in person that he wouldn't exchange posts with on the web? Step by step, Little Buddy...people like you inevitably hang themselves.

So, you are jealous, I understand. I NEVER lie. Which is why you can provide no proof that I ever lied. Never, Oldstyle. And you know it. So you play games. And try really, really hard to get the subject changed so that you do not have to explain why you lied over 12 times on one subject. So you want to pretend I am lying. Tacky, oldstyle. So why did you ask "what economic theory advocate raising taxes in a bad economy? OVER 12 TIMES, after I had answered that same question EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU ASKED IT. With answers that you can not argue with. And with answers that you NEVER QUESTIONED. And with answers that were as clear as a bell. Go back to Post 590, and you will see 10 of those exchanges, and it becomes clear that you lied. Only you try to Ignore. Any rational person would say something similar to "what the hell is with that clown."

So, Oldstyle, do you simply give up and thereby admit you were lying? Or do you admit you were playing games. And that you are a liar. And a liar who feels NO compunction about lying.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah yes...your valuable "time"...would that be the very same time that you seem to have no problem wasting here cutting and pasting post after post that simply shows that you never did have an answer to the question I was asking? Too funny...

http://www.myspace.com/video/my-cousin-vinny/my-cousin-vinny-counter-offer/40709157

There is a way to prove that you're not full of shit, Rshermr. Put your imaginary friend on and him and I will talk a little economics. Should be easy for him to do because he's got a PhD in the subject...right? I don't think that will ever happen though because I think you made him up and the only person left to talk economics would be you pretending to be him and between you and me, Little Buddy? You don't have the chops to pull off pretending to be an authority on economics because you don't even know the basics.

 

[Oldstyle]

And the absurdity of your claim that I try to change the subject...while at the same time whining that I've asked the same question 12 times is breathtaking.

The person who has desperately sought to change the subject would be the same person who needs to embellish his resume. All I've ever done is seek a straight answer to a simple question. And your claim that I never questioned your answers? LOL I laughed at each and every one of those "answers", "Tommy" because none of them ever provided the name of a school of ecnomics that advocated tax raises in a weak economy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact is...THERE IS NO SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS THAT ADVOCATES RAISING TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY...which brings us full circle to you having to explain why it is that we just DID raise taxes in a bad economy.

seem like we've all enjoyed watching Rushermer dodge this issue for weeks now!! He has all the time in the world for personal attack but will never be substantive? We all know what that says about liberalism.

 

[Rshermr]

Ah yes...your valuable "time"...would that be the very same time that you seem to have no problem wasting here cutting and pasting post after post that simply shows that you never did have an answer to the question I was asking? Too funny...

Now, I am really surprised that you would have a problem of cutting and pasting your LIES, oldstyle Funny, you get caught, you attack. Because, me boy, you do not have the integrity to admit that you are lying. You just continue lying, and attacking. Typical, oldstyle, of someone who can not support what they are doing. Which is playing games.

Attacking, and posting cute little videos. That would be you, oldstyle. Because you can not tell anyone why you posted the same question over 12 times. And I answered it over 12 times.

There is a way to prove that you're not full of shit, Rshermr. Put your imaginary friend on and him and I will talk a little economics. Should be easy for him to do because he's got a PhD in the subject...right? I don't think that will ever happen though because I think you made him up and the only person left to talk economics would be you pretending to be him and between you and me, Little Buddy? You don't have the chops to pull off pretending to be an authority on economics because you don't even know the basics.

Which would be Oldstyle, who is unable to put up and make some money. Putting my buddy on the web would prove nothing. And you are REALLY Delusional if you believe that you have the knowledge to discuss economics, me poor little con tool. You may be able to tell him something about washing dishes, but he is not interested in you at all. You are totally insignificant. You simply do not know it. Because you are stupid. So, why are the PHD's In economics that do post to the economics section of this site not discuss things with you , Oldstyle. Let me give you a quick news flash. Because you are now well known as a joke. Nice going Oldstyle. Bye bye.