tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[CrusaderFrank]

Taxes were lower when Reagan left off so he must have lowered them

Obama ran up more deficit in a single year than Reagan did in 8

Reagan ran the whole government one less than an Obama deficit

So, does that ring they put in your nose to lead you around by leave a scar???

Cant own you any more than if you were shrunken head on my belt

 

[Rshermr]

Taxes were lower when Reagan left off so he must have lowered them

Obama ran up more deficit in a single year than Reagan did in 8

Reagan ran the whole government one less than an Obama deficit

So, does that ring they put in your nose to lead you around by leave a scar???

Cant own you any more than if you were shrunken head on my belt

It's ok, Crusader. Delusion is part of being a congenital idiot. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[Meathead]

So, does that ring they put in your nose to lead you around by leave a scar???

Cant own you any more than if you were shrunken head on my belt

It's ok, Crusader. Delusion is part of being a congenital idiot. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

It's OK Rshermr, Reagan still hurts 25 years on. We understand that. The legacy of his greatness lives on in many things, of which your whining is the least.

 

[Rshermr]

Cant own you any more than if you were shrunken head on my belt

It's ok, Crusader. Delusion is part of being a congenital idiot. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

It's OK Rshermr, Reagan still hurts 25 years on. We understand that. The legacy of his greatness lives on in many things, of which your whining is the least.

Funny how cons like you hate it when anyone tells the truth about Reagan. As a reagan fanatic, it is best to follow the dogma of the far right bat shit crazy con web sites than the simple, unvarnished truth. Because it is easier to believe what you want to believe than to believe the truth. Truth requires study, and truth is not always what you want to believe. Cons are fully capable of believing what they want. No one else in the world can do that as well. Most want truth. Cons would rather see history rewritten, then believe what is said by those great bat shit crazy con web sites, and attack those who discuss actual history. But it is ok, me boy, you have a well known congenital illness. Most common among cons. And it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

Now, I do feel sorry for you. These studies will help you to understand your malfunction. If you read and understand them. Which, I suppose, is asking way to much of someone with the malady that you have:

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[Rshermr]

Cant own you any more than if you were shrunken head on my belt

It's ok, Crusader. Delusion is part of being a congenital idiot. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

It's OK Rshermr, Reagan still hurts 25 years on. We understand that. The legacy of his greatness lives on in many things, of which your whining is the least.

Funny how cons like you hate it when anyone tells the truth about Reagan. As a reagan fanatic, it is best to follow the dogma of the far right bat shit crazy con web sites than the simple, unvarnished truth. Because it is easier to believe what you want to believe than to believe the truth. Truth requires study, and truth is not always what you want to believe. Cons are fully capable of believing what they want. No one else in the world can do that as well. Most want truth. Cons would rather see history rewritten, then believe what is said by those great bat shit crazy con web sites, and attack those who discuss actual history. But it is ok, me boy, you have a well known congenital illness. Most common among cons. And it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

Now, I do feel sorry for you. These studies will help you to understand your malfunction. If you read and understand them. Which, I suppose, is asking way to much of someone with the malady that you have:

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[Oldstyle]

It's ok, Crusader. Delusion is part of being a congenital idiot. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

It's OK Rshermr, Reagan still hurts 25 years on. We understand that. The legacy of his greatness lives on in many things, of which your whining is the least.

Funny how cons like you hate it when anyone tells the truth about Reagan. As a reagan fanatic, it is best to follow the dogma of the far right bat shit crazy con web sites than the simple, unvarnished truth. Because it is easier to believe what you want to believe than to believe the truth. Truth requires study, and truth is not always what you want to believe. Cons are fully capable of believing what they want. No one else in the world can do that as well. Most want truth. Cons would rather see history rewritten, then believe what is said by those great bat shit crazy con web sites, and attack those who discuss actual history. But it is ok, me boy, you have a well known congenital illness. Most common among cons. And it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

Now, I do feel sorry for you. These studies will help you to understand your malfunction. If you read and understand them. Which, I suppose, is asking way to much of someone with the malady that you have:

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

If you were here telling the "truth" about Ronald Reagan then you wouldn't feel the need to use misleading things like your "11 tax increases" to try and paint Reagan as someone that you know he wasn't.

Those that have the truth on their side...tell it. Those that don't...try to obscure the truth with misleading statistics. That's you, Rshermr. It's a sleazy tactic...which makes you a sleazy person.

 

[Oldstyle]

The question, me boy, was did he or did he not raise taxes 11 times. I said he did. Oldstyle said he did. Do you suggest that because he lowered income tax rates that he also never raised them, me poor ignorant con. Or do you have some other point.
If you are saying that he lowered taxes overall, you are agreeing with what I said. Now, what I also said was that when he took the unemployment rate to 10.8% he then went on to do a WHOLE LOT of stimulus spending funded by 11 tax increases and RECORD BORROWING.

I know, me boy, being a congenital idiot as you are makes things difficult. Compound statements are beyond you. But it is ok. Your problem is congenital. It is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

You deliberately attempt to mislead people about Reagan's tax policies and then declare that you aren't doing anything sleazy because technically you're not telling a lie?

You missed your calling, Rshermr...you should be working as Barack Obama's Press Secretary.

Well, oldstyle, all I said was the truth. So, how did you come to the conclusion that telling the truth was an act of misleading??? In that case, when I said regan lowered taxes overall, I must have been misleading, right??

Now I understand why you think it was sleazy. Con tools like you like lies. By lying you can feed your agenda. But here is a news flash, clown. Almost everyone, anywhere, believes that the truth is the opposite of misleading. And telling the truth is the opposite of sleazy.

Are you projecting again, me boy???

It must be odd to be a tool. Someone provides you with truth, and you call the person giving it to you names. Funny. Most, including myself, appreciate someone providing the truth. Which is why it is so hard to like you, me boy. Because you lie and play childish games. Which makes you irrelevant. But then little, tiny minds like yours often get hung up on hero worship, like your worship of ronnie. We understand. Your hero can do no wrong. And anyone who tells the truth about him, when it does not align with your agenda, is misleading. And Sleazy. Funny.

As I said, oldstyle. It is not your fault. Ignorance is often congenital. Like yours. Simply plain bad luck, me boy.

You told part of the truth...deliberately neglecting to tell what you KNOW to be the whole truth. That's not being truthful...that's being misleading. Interesting to see that you take such pride in NOT telling the truth...but not lying. Like I said before...you should have been Barack Obama's Press Secretary.

 

[Meathead]

It's ok, Crusader. Delusion is part of being a congenital idiot. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

It's OK Rshermr, Reagan still hurts 25 years on. We understand that. The legacy of his greatness lives on in many things, of which your whining is the least.

Funny how cons like you hate it when anyone tells the truth about Reagan. As a reagan fanatic, it is best to follow the dogma of the far right bat shit crazy con web sites than the simple, unvarnished truth. Because it is easier to believe what you want to believe than to believe the truth. Truth requires study, and truth is not always what you want to believe. Cons are fully capable of believing what they want. No one else in the world can do that as well. Most want truth. Cons would rather see history rewritten, then believe what is said by those great bat shit crazy con web sites, and attack those who discuss actual history. But it is ok, me boy, you have a well known congenital illness. Most common among cons. And it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

Now, I do feel sorry for you. These studies will help you to understand your malfunction. If you read and understand them. Which, I suppose, is asking way to much of someone with the malady that you have:

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Again, I feel understand your pain, but get over it. Whining about it 25 years on is not going to change his legacy, in fact it only serves to enhance it.

The term "butt-hurt" is pretty juvenile, but yet oddly appropriate here.

 

[Rebelitarian]

Reagan had Globalist puppet masters even back then.

He never cared for the Bushes but was ordered to have Bush Sr. as his VP cuz Bilderberg so ordered it.

There's a photo of him and Nixon online at a Bohemian Grove outing. All puppet Presidents indeed. After the assassination attempt Reagan was pretty much kept sedated while the Globalist Bushes did their part to destroy America before passing it on to the Clintons thento Bush Jr. now to Obama.

Endgame

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho]EndGame HQ full length version - YouTube[/ame]

This is what they were all working towards even to this day.

The infowarriors mainly in Texas put a stop to this tho.

 

[Rshermr]

You deliberately attempt to mislead people about Reagan's tax policies and then declare that you aren't doing anything sleazy because technically you're not telling a lie?

You missed your calling, Rshermr...you should be working as Barack Obama's Press Secretary.

Well, oldstyle, all I said was the truth. So, how did you come to the conclusion that telling the truth was an act of misleading??? In that case, when I said regan lowered taxes overall, I must have been misleading, right??

Now I understand why you think it was sleazy. Con tools like you like lies. By lying you can feed your agenda. But here is a news flash, clown. Almost everyone, anywhere, believes that the truth is the opposite of misleading. And telling the truth is the opposite of sleazy.

Are you projecting again, me boy???

It must be odd to be a tool. Someone provides you with truth, and you call the person giving it to you names. Funny. Most, including myself, appreciate someone providing the truth. Which is why it is so hard to like you, me boy. Because you lie and play childish games. Which makes you irrelevant. But then little, tiny minds like yours often get hung up on hero worship, like your worship of ronnie. We understand. Your hero can do no wrong. And anyone who tells the truth about him, when it does not align with your agenda, is misleading. And Sleazy. Funny.

As I said, oldstyle. It is not your fault. Ignorance is often congenital. Like yours. Simply plain bad luck, me boy.

You told part of the truth...deliberately neglecting to tell what you KNOW to be the whole truth. That's not being truthful...that's being misleading. Interesting to see that you take such pride in NOT telling the truth...but not lying. Like I said before...you should have been Barack Obama's Press Secretary.

Jesus, oldstyle. Lets see. Would you like a 50 page post so that I get all of the truth out??? Can you show me a post where you have told "all of the truth". What I did, me boy, is make you look stupid. Which is not that hard. And you are doing it to yourself now. Again.

But knock yourself out. Go ahead and explain why telling the truth is bad. Obviously you think it is. Dipshit.

So, nice of you to help to prove my statement, which is that cons are generally stupid. Again, oldstyle. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[Rshermr]

It's OK Rshermr, Reagan still hurts 25 years on. We understand that. The legacy of his greatness lives on in many things, of which your whining is the least.

Funny how cons like you hate it when anyone tells the truth about Reagan. As a reagan fanatic, it is best to follow the dogma of the far right bat shit crazy con web sites than the simple, unvarnished truth. Because it is easier to believe what you want to believe than to believe the truth. Truth requires study, and truth is not always what you want to believe. Cons are fully capable of believing what they want. No one else in the world can do that as well. Most want truth. Cons would rather see history rewritten, then believe what is said by those great bat shit crazy con web sites, and attack those who discuss actual history. But it is ok, me boy, you have a well known congenital illness. Most common among cons. And it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

Now, I do feel sorry for you. These studies will help you to understand your malfunction. If you read and understand them. Which, I suppose, is asking way to much of someone with the malady that you have:

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

If you were here telling the "truth" about Ronald Reagan then you wouldn't feel the need to use misleading things like your "11 tax increases" to try and paint Reagan as someone that you know he wasn't.

Those that have the truth on their side...tell it. Those that don't...try to obscure the truth with misleading statistics. That's you, Rshermr. It's a sleazy tactic...which makes you a sleazy person.

So, me boy. You admitted that he did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Looks like you agree that I have truth on my side. Which, of course, is true. He did other things, of course, as I have stated. Funny how you are ignoring those things.
So, I will just keep on with the truth, thanks. The facts, truth, and what happened over time. I know you are totally enamored with roonnie. I can not say that I feel that way about any president, past or present.

Thing with you, me boy, is that you hate all democratic presidents. And LOVE ronnie. Which makes you look like what you are. A con tool. Who, apparently, hates the truth.

 

[Rshermr]

It's OK Rshermr, Reagan still hurts 25 years on. We understand that. The legacy of his greatness lives on in many things, of which your whining is the least.

Funny how cons like you hate it when anyone tells the truth about Reagan. As a reagan fanatic, it is best to follow the dogma of the far right bat shit crazy con web sites than the simple, unvarnished truth. Because it is easier to believe what you want to believe than to believe the truth. Truth requires study, and truth is not always what you want to believe. Cons are fully capable of believing what they want. No one else in the world can do that as well. Most want truth. Cons would rather see history rewritten, then believe what is said by those great bat shit crazy con web sites, and attack those who discuss actual history. But it is ok, me boy, you have a well known congenital illness. Most common among cons. And it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

Now, I do feel sorry for you. These studies will help you to understand your malfunction. If you read and understand them. Which, I suppose, is asking way to much of someone with the malady that you have:

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Again, I feel understand your pain, but get over it. Whining about it 25 years on is not going to change his legacy, in fact it only serves to enhance it.

The term "butt-hurt" is pretty juvenile, but yet oddly appropriate here.

Thanks for posting. You feel understand something, apparently. One or the other, anyway. Thanks for helping to prove my premise that cons are stupid.

 

[Dot Com]

Reagan's tax increases live on in FICA. Krugman sums up/hits the nail on the head as it were, why Reagan had it easy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Tax_revenue

Economist Paul Krugman argued the economic expansion during the Reagan administration was primarily the result of the business cycle and the monetary policy by Paul Volcker.[59] Krugman argues that there was nothing unusual about the economy under Reagan because unemployment was reducing from a high peak and that it is consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases if inflation remains low

 

[Oldstyle]

Funny how cons like you hate it when anyone tells the truth about Reagan. As a reagan fanatic, it is best to follow the dogma of the far right bat shit crazy con web sites than the simple, unvarnished truth. Because it is easier to believe what you want to believe than to believe the truth. Truth requires study, and truth is not always what you want to believe. Cons are fully capable of believing what they want. No one else in the world can do that as well. Most want truth. Cons would rather see history rewritten, then believe what is said by those great bat shit crazy con web sites, and attack those who discuss actual history. But it is ok, me boy, you have a well known congenital illness. Most common among cons. And it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

Now, I do feel sorry for you. These studies will help you to understand your malfunction. If you read and understand them. Which, I suppose, is asking way to much of someone with the malady that you have:

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

If you were here telling the "truth" about Ronald Reagan then you wouldn't feel the need to use misleading things like your "11 tax increases" to try and paint Reagan as someone that you know he wasn't.

Those that have the truth on their side...tell it. Those that don't...try to obscure the truth with misleading statistics. That's you, Rshermr. It's a sleazy tactic...which makes you a sleazy person.

So, me boy. You admitted that he did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Looks like you agree that I have truth on my side. Which, of course, is true. He did other things, of course, as I have stated. Funny how you are ignoring those things.
So, I will just keep on with the truth, thanks. The facts, truth, and what happened over time. I know you are totally enamored with roonnie. I can not say that I feel that way about any president, past or present.

Thing with you, me boy, is that you hate all democratic presidents. And LOVE ronnie. Which makes you look like what you are. A con tool. Who, apparently, hates the truth.

I hate all Democratic Presidents? LOL You base this on what? Here's a newsflash for you, Sparky...I thought Clinton was about as sleazy as they come in his dealings with women but as a fiscal conservative I actually liked the majority of his economic policies. Clinton was savvy about economics.

I thought Jimmy Carter was the almost polar opposite of Slick Willie...a genuinely nice man who was a babe in the woods when it came to Washington politics. He was probably our most intelligent President ever yet he struggled with leading the country.

Lyndon Johnson was your prototypical "Good 'Ole Boy" Southern Democrat. Even though I didn't agree with much of his "New Society" agenda I give him credit for being an adroit politician who knew how to get things done.

Do I "hate" Barack Obama? Not really. I readily admit that I find him to be both pompous and entitled. I'm actually amazed at what he's been able to do. Who would have ever thought that a charter member of the Choom Gang could end up becoming President of the United States? It's astounding that someone who hasn't really accomplished anything exceptional in his entire adult life managed to get elected President not once...but twice. Think about that! If you tried to sell this story to Hollywood as a screenplay they'd laugh you out the room.

 

[Oldstyle]

Funny how cons like you hate it when anyone tells the truth about Reagan. As a reagan fanatic, it is best to follow the dogma of the far right bat shit crazy con web sites than the simple, unvarnished truth. Because it is easier to believe what you want to believe than to believe the truth. Truth requires study, and truth is not always what you want to believe. Cons are fully capable of believing what they want. No one else in the world can do that as well. Most want truth. Cons would rather see history rewritten, then believe what is said by those great bat shit crazy con web sites, and attack those who discuss actual history. But it is ok, me boy, you have a well known congenital illness. Most common among cons. And it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

Now, I do feel sorry for you. These studies will help you to understand your malfunction. If you read and understand them. Which, I suppose, is asking way to much of someone with the malady that you have:

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

If you were here telling the "truth" about Ronald Reagan then you wouldn't feel the need to use misleading things like your "11 tax increases" to try and paint Reagan as someone that you know he wasn't.

Those that have the truth on their side...tell it. Those that don't...try to obscure the truth with misleading statistics. That's you, Rshermr. It's a sleazy tactic...which makes you a sleazy person.

So, me boy. You admitted that he did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Looks like you agree that I have truth on my side. Which, of course, is true. He did other things, of course, as I have stated. Funny how you are ignoring those things.
So, I will just keep on with the truth, thanks. The facts, truth, and what happened over time. I know you are totally enamored with roonnie. I can not say that I feel that way about any president, past or present.

Thing with you, me boy, is that you hate all democratic presidents. And LOVE ronnie. Which makes you look like what you are. A con tool. Who, apparently, hates the truth.

If you really wanted to present the "truth" about who Reagan was...then you wouldn't be trying to mislead people about his tax policies. But telling the truth has never been your THING...has it? If you told the truth you never would have claimed to have taught college level classes as an undergrad.

 

[Rshermr]

If you were here telling the "truth" about Ronald Reagan then you wouldn't feel the need to use misleading things like your "11 tax increases" to try and paint Reagan as someone that you know he wasn't.

Those that have the truth on their side...tell it. Those that don't...try to obscure the truth with misleading statistics. That's you, Rshermr. It's a sleazy tactic...which makes you a sleazy person.

So, me boy. You admitted that he did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Looks like you agree that I have truth on my side. Which, of course, is true. He did other things, of course, as I have stated. Funny how you are ignoring those things.
So, I will just keep on with the truth, thanks. The facts, truth, and what happened over time. I know you are totally enamored with roonnie. I can not say that I feel that way about any president, past or present.

Thing with you, me boy, is that you hate all democratic presidents. And LOVE ronnie. Which makes you look like what you are. A con tool. Who, apparently, hates the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Oldstyle]

So, me boy. You admitted that he did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Looks like you agree that I have truth on my side. Which, of course, is true. He did other things, of course, as I have stated. Funny how you are ignoring those things.
So, I will just keep on with the truth, thanks. The facts, truth, and what happened over time. I know you are totally enamored with roonnie. I can not say that I feel that way about any president, past or present.

Thing with you, me boy, is that you hate all democratic presidents. And LOVE ronnie. Which makes you look like what you are. A con tool. Who, apparently, hates the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impressed? Hardly...

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When Reagan entered office, tax rates were X, if he "raised taxes 11 times" where should tax rates be when Reagan left office?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan's tax increases live on in FICA. Krugman sums up/hits the nail on the head as it were, why Reagan had it easy:

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Economist Paul Krugman argued the economic expansion during the Reagan administration was primarily the result of the business cycle and the monetary policy by Paul Volcker.[59] Krugman argues that there was nothing unusual about the economy under Reagan because unemployment was reducing from a high peak and that it is consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases if inflation remains low

LOL. Krugman

You think he's serious?

Let's quote the architect of the Failed Stimulus as an economic guru

Obama's runs up bigger deficits in a year than Reagan did in 8, if Krugman was in the same solar system as correct, the economy would be making real record gains

LOL. Krugman

 

[Oldstyle]

When Reagan entered office, tax rates were X, if he "raised taxes 11 times" where should tax rates be when Reagan left office?

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

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