Sit at Home Moms!!

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
Haha, that's the point. His policies were so left of centre that to say he was a follower of the Chicago school is hilarious. PN is basically calling Friedman a socialist haha. Embarrassing clanger. It's more funny because PN thanked your post - so he acknowledges you are right; and yet he doesn't know that by his posting he is arguing against you.
Piss ant, Reagan wasn’t left of center; the current Republicans are to the extreme right. That was his point dummy! You make a great case-study for the stupid MTV generation.

Ah, I know man. It is cringeworthy. There are so many red flags that he is learning things as he goes - and off Wiki - that I feel embarrassed for him. When he comes back after knowing a bit more he'll get it. Hopefully. At least he's exposed now for what he is.

No such things as Friedmanian haha. Cracks me up every time.
Don’t jump up and down like the effeminate Mary that you are. Try to learn something before asking for assistance from Diego Maradona, the Transylvanian school of bullshitting, and your grand master of hypocrisy. You should be embarrassed, but instead have the shame of a hyena.

Despite your homosexual love of Friedman and all your weekend cramming and copy-pasting, you still didn’t know the man himself praised Reagan for his policies. Glad to have taught another shit-for-brains a thing or two about American history.

Reagan followed the Tasmanian school of cryptography and was to the left of center, LOL! I'm still laughing!
 
Last edited:

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
IZ and Kaz, please beware of falling into the "herding" mentality that you both have voiced concerns about before. Just an observation.
I read the first line of the fanged one’s response to you (which is about the only thing I ever read of his posts). But, you see, herd mentality only happens when it’s the other guy who’s doing it… More drivel from the grand hypocrite himself.
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
Piss ant, Reagan wasn’t left of center; the current Republicans are to the extreme right. That was his point dummy! You make a great case-study for the stupid MTV generation.
Doubling the Dept of Ed is left of centre. Increasing the budget is left of centre. Increasing SS is left of centre. Are you trying to redefine left of centre? No one who increases government to the record levels that Reagan did can be considered a fiscal conservative or from the Chicago school. The aforementioned are facts, not opinions. Reagan increased government spending more than Carter - a Democrat. You can flail as much as you like, you're just humiliating yourself further.


Don’t jump up and down like the effeminate Mary that you are. Try to learn something before asking for assistance from Diego Maradona, the Transylvanian school of bullshitting, and your grand master of hypocrisy. You should be embarrassed, but instead have the shame of a hyena.

Despite your homosexual love of Friedman and all your weekend cramming and copy-pasting, you still didn’t know the man himself praised Reagan for his policies. Glad to have taught another shit-for-brains a thing or two about American history.

Reagan followed the Tasmanian school of cryptography and was to the left of center, LOL! I'm still laughing!
Effiminate Mary? Is that another one from the Happy Days era? Haha. Moron, Reagan considered himself an Austrian (a disciple of von Mises). Not a member of the Chicago school. The fact that Friedman may give him credit for some of his policies makes Friedman intellectually honest - unlike yourself he has a sense of nuance. But it doesn't mean he was a "Friedmanian" haha. Embarrassing. You need to bone up on your Wikipedia education.


IZ and Kaz, please beware of falling into the "herding" mentality that you both have voiced concerns about before. Just an observation.
Everyone is a member of a herd, I have no problem with herds BT jan. But one must be open, intellectually, at least, to the arguments of others. This thread has been embarrassing for PN though. You're witness to someone spouting nonsense about subjects he simply has no clue about - on the most basic levels. This kind of blind "herding" is what I am against. It may be funny to see him flail about, but it doesn't advance the discussion because he can't see how utterly wrong he is.

Personally, I never get into arguments I don't know much about. Not only not to embarrass myself a la PN, but to not mislead others - the latter I think is more reprehensible. Unfortunately, some here are just the other side of the coin to the extremists they detest. Worse, they can't see it in themselves.
 
Last edited:

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
Doubling the Dept of Ed is left of centre. Increasing the budget is left of centre. Increasing SS is left of centre. Are you trying to redefine left of centre? No one who increases government to the record levels that Reagan did can be considered a fiscal conservative or from the Chicago school. The aforementioned are facts, not opinions. Reagan increased government spending more than Carter - a Democrat. You can flail as much as you like, you're just humiliating yourself further.
No, you’re trying to redefine Reagan. Reagan was considered so to the right that Carter’s reelection campaign actually wanted to face Reagan instead of Bush as Carter hoped that Reagan’s extreme right ideas would put off middle-of-the road voters.

When Reagan took office, US economy was in a state of high inflation and low employment and he did what he had to do to get the economy going again. Sometime it’s not about left and right but right and wrong. Regardless of what your books tell you, Reagan was in fact a conservative. Twice in 1981 and then again in 1986 he pushed through across-the-board tax cuts that effectively lowered taxes from a high of 70% to near 25%. In an apparent attempt to shrink the size of the government, he famously said that “government is not the solution to our problem, it is the problem.” He went on a union-busting rampage the minute he took office by firing the air traffic controllers’ striking workers. He made across-the-board budget cuts that saw homeless people roaming the streets of large American cities even today.

He didn’t follow the Chicago school of economics to the tee, but then no one ever has. That’s what your books don’t teach you. That’s the problem with learning from a book and then shooting off one’s big mouth.
Effiminate Mary? Is that another one from the Happy Days era? Haha. Moron, Reagan considered himself an Austrian (a disciple of von Mises). Not a member of the Chicago school. The fact that Friedman may give him credit for some of his policies makes Friedman intellectually honest - unlike yourself he has a sense of nuance. But it doesn't mean he was a "Friedmanian" haha. Embarrassing. You need to bone up on your Wikipedia education.
Don’t like effeminate Mary? OK, then you’re a fag! Better? :)

Dipshit, you can bang your head against the wall about Reagan following the Austrian school of economy or chocolate making all you want, the fact remains that your argument is purely academic. Most people with brains – as opposed to the moron that you are – attribute supply-side economics to Chicago School of economy. Friedman praised the man because he came the closest to putting his ideas into practice.

Everyone is a member of a herd, I have no problem with herds BT jan. But one must be open, intellectually, at least, to the arguments of others. This thread has been embarrassing for PN though. You're witness to someone spouting nonsense about subjects he simply has no clue about - on the most basic levels. This kind of blind "herding" is what I am against. It may be funny to see him flail about, but it doesn't advance the discussion because he can't see how utterly wrong he is.

Personally, I never get into arguments I don't know much about. Not only not to embarrass myself a la PN, but to not mislead others - the latter I think is more reprehensible. Unfortunately, some here are just the other side of the coin to the extremists they detest. Worse, they can't see it in themselves.
Intellectually punk, as I said before, you couldn’t hold my jockstrap. If there are any extremists here it’s the likes of you and the guy for whom you serve as a tail. Your arguments lack substance as they are formed in weekend book-cramming sessions, which shows how intellectually dishonest, socially challenged, and logically inept you are. The fact that you argue ad nauseam about crap that could only have academic – you know, as opposed to actually what happened – value only shows that you are and have always been clueless. Trust me when I say you're known for this on this board ;)

If nothing else, you're now exposed for the shill that you are. I'm still laughing at Reagan being left of center! LOL!
 
Last edited:

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
2
Lord IZ, your huge typical persian ego is quite interesting to witness and its funny how the irony is lost on you. this is fun to watch on so many different levels.
I actually tried to put you on ignore but amazingly enough, I can't do that since you're a "moderator".:) I won't even get into how surreal it is that someone reported numerous times and even banned for baiting and flaming is now a Mod, but since they won't let me ignore you I'll go ahead and give you an honest response: You know why I treat you like an idiot?...Because even when you're not copy/pasting your political "opinions" you're still a parrot.

This whole "irony...lost on you" thing you can't seem to shut up about is something I said to that other genius in another thread, and ever since then you can't stop repeating it in almost every post you've addressed to me.:) And the fact that you and your fellow Kool Aid Warrior think you can parrot people's words back to them without embarrassing yourselves shows just how feeble-minded you really are.

You wanna talk about irony? Look at how you started calling me egotistical for pointing out Iranian cultural flaws yet keep referring to my ego as "typically Persian".:) Yes, you're that dumb. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt because of your age but you can only take the youth thing so far. The truth is you're just dim witted. That's all there is to it. This is just who you are and it's not likely to change as you get older.

As hard as it may be for you to impersonate an adult, start acting like a "moderator" and keep the pathetic attention-seeking comments to yourself. Otherwise, if a mod doesn't care about taking a thread down the toilet, I surely won't.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
This is not the first forum I have been to that the so-called moderators get into mud wrestling with the members. Here the so-called "managers" get in the game too.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
And, you must have lost your brain :)

What's this lame one-liner supposed to prove now, that Reagan was a left winger? LOL!
No but what this is supposed to prove is that the insecure hero of yours wakes up everyday and wishes to be somebody he is not. One day he is Reagan, next Lincoln and the next FDR. Did I miss someone? Oh yeah, he is Teddy Roosevelt too if time and place are right. Don't get me started on his fake accents.
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
No, you’re trying to redefine Reagan. Reagan was considered so to the right that Carter’s reelection campaign actually wanted to face Reagan instead of Bush as Carter hoped that Reagan’s extreme right ideas would put off middle-of-the road voters.

When Reagan took office, US economy was in a state of high inflation and low employment and he did what he had to do to get the economy going again. Sometime it’s not about left and right but right and wrong. Regardless of what your books tell you, Reagan was in fact a conservative. Twice in 1981 and then again in 1986 he pushed through across-the-board tax cuts that effectively lowered taxes from a high of 70% to near 25%. In an apparent attempt to shrink the size of the government, he famously said that “government is not the solution to our problem, it is the problem.” He went on a union-busting rampage the minute he took office by firing the air traffic controllers’ striking workers. He made across-the-board budget cuts that saw homeless people roaming the streets of large American cities even today.

He didn’t follow the Chicago school of economics to the tee, but then no one ever has. That’s what your books don’t teach you. That’s the problem with learning from a book and then shooting off one’s big mouth.
Are you stupid? You keep talking about what Reagan was purported to be. I know what he wanted and espoused, but he did the exact opposite. I gave you the facts and stats of his tenure yet you keep trying to redefine what left of centre is. If Reagan was on the right with his policies then left must have been communism by your definition. Any idiot who thinks Reagan did what he did because it was "right" should be sold some magic beans. That's the same reason Bush has to shit on free market principles to save the free market. Don't make me laugh. Next you'll tell me he was a "Friedmanian" too haha.

Saying "he didn't follow it to a T" is about the stupidest statement I've heard. He did the complete opposite on most things. Haha, but you don't know what you're talking about since you didn't know that the Chicago school existed until I told you it did.

Don’t like effeminate Mary? OK, then you’re a fag! Better? :)

Dipshit, you can bang your head against the wall about Reagan following the Austrian school of economy or chocolate making all you want, the fact remains that your argument is purely academic. Most people with brains – as opposed to the moron that you are – attribute supply-side economics to Chicago School of economy. Friedman praised the man because he came the closest to putting his ideas into practice.
LOL, I don't care what you call me sunshine. You keep humiliating yourself and flail with insults to save face. It isn't working.

You keep calling Reagan a "Friedmanian", but you're too stupid to wiki that he was actually a follower of the Austrian school. Austrian school =/= Chicago school. The Austrians, at the time - the article I linked you was a contemporary one - were shitting on him for not following through. The facet the two schools did agree with in large part is free markets and smaller government; so you making that mistake is predictable - you're learning as you go. BTW, the Austrian school was more prevalent and an older school than Chicago. Only your dumbass is revising history to call Reagan a "Friedmanian" LOL

The dumbest thing about your whole rant is that you are crapping on Reagonomics when it is essentially the position the left currently hold today. How stupid could you be to contradict yourself so many times? This is turning into some sick joke. Either you're bi-polar or have a masochistic personality disorder. No one can possibly be this dense.


Intellectually punk, as I said before, you couldn’t hold my jockstrap. If there are any extremists here it’s the likes of you and the guy for whom you serve as a tail. Your arguments lack substance as they are formed in weekend book-cramming sessions, which shows how intellectually dishonest, socially challenged, and logically inept you are. The fact that you argue ad nauseam about crap that could only have academic – you know, as opposed to actually what happened – value only shows that you are and have always been clueless. Trust me when I say you're known for this on this board ;)

If nothing else, you're now exposed for the shill that you are. I'm still laughing at Reagan being left of center! LOL!
You're not on my level. I've humiliated you several times over here whilst teaching you about the very things you're trying to argue against. You got so flustered with the name-calling I stopped so you don't have a heart-attack. As I said, bone up on your wiki education so you stop contradicting your own dumbass arguments. That way you'll start being taken seriously. From Einstein's theories just being theories, to not being able to cite an article against BT and IZ's contentions, to not knowing there is a Chicago school of economics, to citing a religious professor to argue against the greatest economic mind of the 20th century...yet your dumbass doesn't get the hint that we are laughing at you...chill out old-timer, you've already lost.
 
Last edited:
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
You must have missed your copy, cotton champ.

LOL, to be honest it is so true. They're basically the same, at least in terms of their economic side. Both the Rs and the Ds would have a heart attack but the facts in their spending is self-evident. The funny thing with those on the left is as soon as some start to compare Reagan to Obama, you see articles like these showing how Reagan spent so much more. And when it suits them they have morons like PN try to argue that Reagan was a "Friedmanian". LOL Contradicting themselves.

What is even more hilarious is PN's hero, Obama, makes the same exact point I did: that Reagan would be considered a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior," and tried to appeal to the centre to say that his policies are no more different to Reagan's.

[video=youtube;IMA08Vp4r3M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMA08Vp4r3M[/video]

This video is like the Coup de grâce.
 
Last edited:

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,650
1,566
A small island west of Africa
I have to say, I admire the time, the dedication and the perseverance you guys have to take an argument back and forth endlessly on an internet forum!
In over 10 years of being a member of various forums I haven't seen anything quite like it! It's really something to behold! :)
 

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
No but what this is supposed to prove is that the insecure hero of yours wakes up everyday and wishes to be somebody he is not. One day he is Reagan, next Lincoln and the next FDR. Did I miss someone? Oh yeah, he is Teddy Roosevelt too if time and place are right. Don't get me started on his fake accents.
LOL! Don't put too much pressure on your head my man. Obama is not my hero by any stretch of the imagination. But, you finally got it: it wasn't Reagan that was a socialist (LOL!), rather it's the entire US politics that continues to be dragged to the right. Bingo!

Still, I'd take Obama over the current Bozos in the Republican party any day.
 

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
Are you stupid? You keep talking about what Reagan was purported to be. I know what he wanted and espoused, but he did the exact opposite. I gave you the facts and stats of his tenure yet you keep trying to redefine what left of centre is. If Reagan was on the right with his policies then left must have been communism by your definition. Any idiot who thinks Reagan did what he did because it was "right" should be sold some magic beans. That's the same reason Bush has to shit on free market principles to save the free market. Don't make me laugh. Next you'll tell me he was a "Friedmanian" too haha.
Nah, you’re a moron. Keep banging your head against the wall, the fact remains that in these here States Reagan is known as the father of what is now called the neo-conservatism and no amount of bullshitting or incorrect spelling of the word “center” :))) is going to change that. A word of advice: if they ever let you into this country, make sure you don’t call Reagan a Socialist as they’ll first laugh their asses off and then send you back to Tasmania for fear of spreading Mad Cow Disease :)

Saying "he didn't follow it to a T" is about the stupidest statement I've heard. He did the complete opposite on most things. Haha, but you don't know what you're talking about since you didn't know that the Chicago school existed until I told you it did.
Whereas the crap that comes out of your mouth is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard! But, it’s OK koochooloo, go around calling Reagan a Socialist! LMAO!


LOL, I don't care what you call me sunshine. You keep humiliating yourself and flail with insults to save face. It isn't working.
Nah, I’m good. But, yeah, having hissy fits about Reagan being a Socialist doesn’t humiliate your ass. LOL!

You keep calling Reagan a "Friedmanian", but you're too stupid to wiki that he was actually a follower of the Austrian school. Austrian school =/= Chicago school. The Austrians, at the time - the article I linked you was a contemporary one - were shitting on him for not following through. The facet the two schools did agree with in large part is free markets and smaller government; so you making that mistake is predictable - you're learning as you go. BTW, the Austrian school was more prevalent and an older school than Chicago. Only your dumbass is revising history to call Reagan a "Friedmanian" LOL
Your ass is so stupid that you don’t even follow your own advice. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about Supply Side Economics. Open your eyes, shut your well-worn mouth, and learn:

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s, in the wake of the oil crisis in 1973. It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly the Chicago School and Neo-Classical School. An advocate of supply-side economics traced the school of thought's intellectual descent from the philosophers Ibn Khaldun and David Hume, satirist Jonathan Swift, political economist Adam Smith, and even Founding Father Alexander Hamilton.”

The dumbest thing about your whole rant is that you are crapping on Reagonomics when it is essentially the position the left currently hold today. How stupid could you be to contradict yourself so many times? This is turning into some sick joke. Either you're bi-polar or have a masochistic personality disorder. No one can possibly be this dense.
Bingo! The stupid child finally sees the light, even if yelling, scratching, and screaming the whole way!

The point, shmuck, is this: the US political discourse has been dragged to the right for over three decades now. Reagan started it all and now it’s so bad that Obama passes as a “leftist,” where in reality he’d be, at best, considered center right anywhere else.

Even though it's already been established that you're dense in the head, do you get it now dummy?

You're not on my level. I've humiliated you several times over here whilst teaching you about the very things you're trying to argue against. You got so flustered with the name-calling I stopped so you don't have a heart-attack. As I said, bone up on your wiki education so you stop contradicting your own dumbass arguments. That way you'll start being taken seriously. From Einstein's theories just being theories, to not being able to cite an article against BT and IZ's contentions, to not knowing there is a Chicago school of economics, to citing a religious professor to argue against the greatest economic mind of the 20th century...yet your dumbass doesn't get the hint that we are laughing at you...chill out old-timer, you've already lost.
LOL! You just got your ass handed to you more than once in this very post and you’re still barking. If nothing else, you’re tenacious.

From trying to change my argument to something else, to seeking help from bullshit books, to asking for aid from your patron saint of hypocrisy, all your attempts at trying to sound intelligent have failed. Then again, your credibility on this board always was a big fat zero. Do some more weekend-cramming before trying to take me on kiddo. Remember what I told you about punks like you and mincemeat! ;)
 
Last edited:

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
LOL, to be honest it is so true. They're basically the same, at least in terms of their economic side. Both the Rs and the Ds would have a heart attack but the facts in their spending is self-evident. The funny thing with those on the left is as soon as some start to compare Reagan to Obama, you see articles like these showing how Reagan spent so much more. And when it suits them they have morons like PN try to argue that Reagan was a "Friedmanian". LOL Contradicting themselves.
As your own stupid ass suggested, go read what Wikipedia says about Supply-side economics and quit humiliating yourself.

What is even more hilarious is PN's hero, Obama, makes the same exact point I did: that Reagan would be considered a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior," and tried to appeal to the centre to say that his policies are no more different to Reagan's.
Mroron, Obama is hardly my hero, but he is the only adult in the room. Obama’s attempt to be more like Clinton in his centered-ness may have been his undoing, but that doesn’t make Reagan a Socialist (LOL! I’m still laughing!)

This video is like the Coup de grâce.
More like Crap-on-your-face :)