Sit at Home Moms!!

[Kaz]

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

It doesn't matter what peons like yourself know him as, it matters what he did. Your own Messiah called Reagan a socialist.

Reagan was a neo-con. Much like Obama. You're onto something there.

BTW, 'centre' is the British way of spelling the word Americans spell as 'center'. Christ you're fucking dumb. Even the very smallest things you want to turn into an insult end up blowing up in your face. I guess you just like things blowing up in your face.

Nah, I’m good. But, yeah, having hissy fits about Reagan being a Socialist doesn’t humiliate your ass. LOL!

Yeah, but the problem is he is a socialist. He doubled DoE, increased SS, increased the budget, etc. These aren't the principles of a free marketer/small government idealed President - something both the Chicago school and Austrian's would be against.

It's like you. You can call yourself an intellectual as much as you want, the reality is you're a moron who gets kicks out of embarrassing himself on an online form. Fiction, reality, get it? Good.

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.”

Ok, for the nth time: Reagan was an Austrian. Austrian economics existed before 1970. You need to get off your wikipedia trip because it is embarrassing. The free-market/limited government ideals existed pre-1970s. Hayek and Keynes were having debates about this during the World Wars. Do you know what the "Road to Serfdom" was about?

It's funny, you give me 10 scattered responses which don't make sense because you don't know anything about economics; yet the answer is still the same. Get a clue for your own sake. No wonder he fooled people into believing he was a conservative economically, he just termed "supply-side economics" and mental midgets like yourself think it's something new. Per your own Wiki research, "supply-side economics" involves a reduction in taxes. Let me get back to my previous excerpt to educate you:

Taxes

Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.

If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.

Owned, again.

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 so stupid you can't seem to grasp econo-political distinctions. If you are talking about matters like abortion or homosexual unions, then you can talk about changing political paradigms in a social context. When you are talking about economic considerations, increasing the size of government is always left of centre - or better put: it is the opposite of fiscal conservatism. Interventionism is always the opposite of Laissez-faire economics. Communism is the always the opposite of Anarchy. These things will never be on the same side of the spectrum.

How do we know the same conceptions existed then and hadn't changed? Because the articles I cited, from a notable Austrian economist to boot, at the time was saying Reagan was not being conservative. So it wasn't some revisionist consideration; people even then were calling Reagan out because of it.

Moreover, you're too stupid to see you can't have it both ways. It doesn't actually matter if you consider it right or left. If you want to crap on Reaganomics, then you have to essentially say that Obama's economics and the economics of the left - what is considered left right now, to clarify for your dumbass - are crap too. You can't escape shitting on yourself it seems.

Even more humilating, you said Reaganomics is "Friedmanian" haha. I gotta whip out my favourite video again. It's some retard trying to change the discussion by talking about something completely irrelevant to try to pull the wool over other peoples' eyes. You're the retard, btw.

[video=vimeo;4525136]http://vimeo.com/4525136[/video]

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!

Haha, go read up on Wikipedia old timer, I'll be waiting for your next post to watch you poop on yourself again.

Punks and mincemeat, I love it...you really are a caricature. If you're Googling your insults too you need to get new sources. If you're like 50 years old and this dense then I just feel a bit sad for you :-ohno:

As your own stupid ass suggested, go read what Wikipedia says about Supply-side economics and quit humiliating yourself.
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!)
More like Crap-on-your-face

Your hero just basically said "Hey, I am just trying to do what Reagan did" and EXPLICITLY called him a socialist. So own it, and love it. For either you're left of centre or you're a conservative. But if you're the former, you have to accept that Reagan was also left of centre. You have to essentially pick between being gooz or chos. Great corner you've argued yourself into haha.

 

[Kaz]

Talk from both sides of your mouth much? At least admit to who you are.

Haha, this is one thing we have to get him to answer. If you like Obama's politics, then you can't criticise Reaganomics. Either hate both, or love both, because they're both largely the same.

 

[Flint]

Think with your ass often? At least read people's arguments before opining.

Admit to who you are, cotton champ. Come out and say you want to take my money right out of my back pocket, just like your idol. SOmehow you have a problem articulating your real thought. I am still waiting for you to convince naneh zahra that abortion is a good thing and then turn around and convince dokhtar khaleh that she should really be on the pill.

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

It doesn't matter what peons like yourself know him as, it matters what he did. Your own Messiah called Reagan a socialist.

Like I said, moron, if they ever let you into this country, call Reagan a Socialist at the border and see what they’ll insert into your stupid ass.

Reagan was a neo-con. Much like Obama. You're onto something there.

OK, the moron got one right.

BTW, 'centre' is the British way of spelling the word Americans spell as 'center'. Christ you're fucking dumb. Even the very smallest things you want to turn into an insult end up blowing up in your face. I guess you just like things blowing up in your face.

It was a joke Mary, don’t have a hissy fit

Yeah, but the problem is he is a socialist. He doubled DoE, increased SS, increased the budget, etc. These aren't the principles of a free marketer/small government idealed President - something both the Chicago school and Austrian's would be against.

It's like you. You can call yourself an intellectual as much as you want, the reality is you're a moron who gets kicks out of embarrassing himself on an online form. Fiction, reality, get it? Good.

LOL! Keep calling Reagan a Socialist moron. You’re good for a laugh!

But, I’ll humor your puny brain. Look at the first graph below. W increased non-military spending by 8 and 14 percent during his first and second terms respectively and poppy Bush increased the same by some 20 percent in his lone term in office. By contrast, Clinton increased the same non-military spending by 4.5 percent in his first term then decreased it by the same amount in his second and Obama increased the same by 8 percent. So that your small brain can grasp this, W and his daddy increased non-military spending by a grand total of 44% whereas Obama and Clinton together increased it by 8 percent.

So, according to your stupid ass, this makes W and his daddy, what, communists?! ROFLMAO!!! Does that then make Obama and Clinton conservatives?!

OK, OK, I’ll contain myself for a little more…now calmly look at the second graph. According to this one, if what Reagan increased in government spending makes him a Socialist (can't stop laughing!), then W had to be a communist, right?! You're a riot!

Have you always been this stupid or did you hit your head against the pavement as a child or something?

Ok, for the nth time: Reagan was an Austrian. Austrian economics existed before 1970. You need to get off your wikipedia trip because it is embarrassing. The free-market/limited government ideals existed pre-1970s. Hayek and Keynes were having debates about this during the World Wars. Do you know what the "Road to Serfdom" was about?

Moron, Reagan was an American

Seriously though, don’t have a hissy fit. Instead of a self-induced heart attack, calm down and stop quoting the books you worked so hard to memorize. The nation where he was a president of knows him as a conservative who kinda sorta followed the Chicago school. Period.

It's funny, you give me 10 scattered responses which don't make sense because you don't know anything about economics; yet the answer is still the same. Get a clue for your own sake. No wonder he fooled people into believing he was a conservative economically, he just termed "supply-side economics" and mental midgets like yourself think it's something new. Per your own Wiki research, "supply-side economics" involves a reduction in taxes. Let me get back to my previous excerpt to educate you:

Stupid, you suggested for me to do a “simple wiki” search and I did. The result is what I posted. Why are you acting like a fag? LOL!

Owned, again.

Do you frequent mental institutions for some form of psychotic treatment by any chance?

You're so stupid you can't seem to grasp econo-political distinctions. If you are talking about matters like abortion or homosexual unions, then you can talk about changing political paradigms in a social context. When you are talking about economic considerations, increasing the size of government is always left of centre - or better put: it is the opposite of fiscal conservatism. Interventionism is always the opposite of Laissez-faire economics. Communism is the always the opposite of Anarchy. These things will never be on the same side of the spectrum.

Calm the fu*k down kiddo. I grasped the “econo-political distinctions” when you were riding your tricycle and asking mommy for milk. Pure interventionism and Laissez fair economics only happen in the books you’ve been memorizing. The real world is always made up of some compromise between the two. This is what they don’t teach you in school.

How do we know the same conceptions existed then and hadn't changed? Because the articles I cited, from a notable Austrian economist to boot, at the time was saying Reagan was not being conservative. So it wasn't some revisionist consideration; people even then were calling Reagan out because of it.

What are you having a heart attack about shmuck? No one cares about your Austrian chocolate makers in this country.

Moreover, you're too stupid to see you can't have it both ways. It doesn't actually matter if you consider it right or left. If you want to crap on Reaganomics, then you have to essentially say that Obama's economics and the economics of the left - what is considered left right now, to clarify for your dumbass - are crap too. You can't escape shitting on yourself it seems.

And, therein lies the problem. You’re such a bigmouth dummy that you jump in feet first to show off how much you learned in school without ever knowing people’s positions. Of course Obama’s economic policies have been crap! If not for his overly right leaning tendencies and, some say, lack of spine, he would have spent his political capital on passing a much larger stimulus plan to drag this economy from its death throes. He would have then used whatever was left to end the rich and corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks. Had he done that, the US economy, and hence the world economy, would have been in a much better shape.

Even more humilating, you said Reaganomics is "Friedmanian" haha. I gotta whip out my favourite video again. It's some retard trying to change the discussion by talking about something completely irrelevant to try to pull the wool over other peoples' eyes. You're the retard, btw.

And, you call Reagan a Socialist, which makes you a comedian. Thanks for posting a video of yourself, BTW.

Haha, go read up on Wikipedia old timer, I'll be waiting for your next post to watch you poop on yourself again.

You must have been enjoying the shit I take on your face with every reply.

Punks and mincemeat, I love it...you really are a caricature. If you're Googling your insults too you need to get new sources. If you're like 50 years old and this dense then I just feel a bit sad for you :-ohno:

Feel whatever you want. You’re still a punk who couldn’t hold my jock strap…unless I let you

Your hero just basically said "Hey, I am just trying to do what Reagan did" and EXPLICITLY called him a socialist. So own it, and love it. For either you're left of centre or you're a conservative. But if you're the former, you have to accept that Reagan was also left of centre. You have to essentially pick between being gooz or chos. Great corner you've argued yourself into haha.

Gooz and Chos? Really? You’re more of a wimp than I thought! LOL!

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

Admit to who you are, cotton champ. Come out and say you want to take my money right out of my back pocket, just like your idol. SOmehow you have a problem articulating your real thought. I am still waiting for you to convince naneh zahra that abortion is a good thing and then turn around and convince dokhtar khaleh that she should really be on the pill.

Dear fluff,

You don’t have enough money for me to come after. The people whose money I’m after are the same people that are stealing from you too; you’re just too much of a simpleton to see it.

You should convince your naneh and dokhtar khaleh yourself, I'm busy.

 

[Mahdi]

In fairness, Mahdi is not a site manager. The "manager" under his name is a football term.

errr..

no!

once upon a time I used to manage the frontpage news when I actually knew what's going on in Iranian football. that title is part of my legacy. I never had anything to do with the forum though.


and you guys seriously need a new hobby

[video=youtube;E3wIJ774gJs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3wIJ774gJs[/video]
.

yeah..youtube's working again..

 

[Kaz]

It was a joke Mary, don’t have a hissy fit

Sure it was, like the rest of your argument.

LOL! Keep calling Reagan a Socialist moron. You’re good for a laugh!

Let's go to Wiki, your favourite scholarly source, to define socialism: Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy

You know what that means? It means funding SS and DoE, increasing taxes, etc, is of the socialist doctrine. That is definitive. It's not what some hick thinks, it is what actually exists.

But, I’ll humor your puny brain. Look at the first graph below. W increased non-military spending by 8 and 14 percent during his first and second terms respectively and poppy Bush increased the same by some 20 percent in his lone term in office. By contrast, Clinton increased the same non-military spending by 4.5 percent in his first term then decreased it by the same amount in his second and Obama increased the same by 8 percent. So that your small brain can grasp this, W and his daddy increased non-military spending by a grand total of 44% whereas Obama and Clinton together increased it by 8 percent.

So, according to your stupid ass, this makes W and his daddy, what, communists?! ROFLMAO!!! Does that then make Obama and Clinton conservatives?!

OK, OK, I’ll contain myself for a little more…now calmly look at the second graph. According to this one, if what Reagan increased in government spending makes him a Socialist (can't stop laughing!), then W had to be a communist, right?! You're a riot!

Have you always been this stupid or did you hit your head against the pavement as a child or something?

Are you stupid? Did you just actually make an argument FOR me? That is the whole point: Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, none of them are conservatives. They may be social conservatives on issues like abortion or homosexuality; but they are not fiscal conservatives. Thank you for proving my point. You're so stupid you digressed to Bush to make a point, not knowing I'd say the same thing for Dubya. All these idiots are the same. Only a simpleton like yourself still believes there are two alternatives in American politics.

You should stick to sports where the opposing teams wear contrasting uniforms so you can tell them apart.

Moron, Reagan was an American

Seriously though, don’t have a hissy fit. Instead of a self-induced heart attack, calm down and stop quoting the books you worked so hard to memorize. The nation where he was a president of knows him as a conservative who kinda sorta followed the Chicago school. Period.

No, he followed the Austrian school. He himself said so. Are you thick in the head? LOL, it doesn't actually make much practical difference since they overlap on many areas, but for the sake of accuracy: he wasn't a "Friedmanian" It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what you are. As I said, you think you're an intellectual, but every time you post you show you're dumb as dirt. Fiction, reality, get it? Good.

Stupid, you suggested for me to do a “simple wiki” search and I did. The result is what I posted. Why are you acting like a fag? LOL!

Because you can't even do a proper wiki search. But that kind of shows where you're at. You give 10 wrong answers when there is simply just 1 right one.

Calm the fu*k down kiddo. I grasped the “econo-political distinctions” when you were riding your tricycle and asking mommy for milk. Pure interventionism and Laissez fair economics only happen in the books you’ve been memorizing. The real world is always made up of some compromise between the two. This is what they don’t teach you in school.

I know I keep asking this, but you oblige me to: are you stupid? No one is looking for an example of interventionism or laissez faire - although you can name them - the point is that they are ideologically opposed. Meaning they can never be on the same spectrum. So when a dimwit like you claims that what Reagan did in the past wasn't left of centre, whatever it was it is the opposite of fiscal conservatism. You can't increase government to record levels and claim that he was a fiscal conservative or an Austrian or a Friedmanian because those are synonyms basically.

What are you having a heart attack about shmuck? No one cares about your Austrian chocolate makers in this country.

Except the President in question, who considered himself a disciple of the Austrian Chocolate makers. Schmuck lol.

And, therein lies the problem. You’re such a bigmouth dummy that you jump in feet first to show off how much you learned in school without ever knowing people’s positions. Of course Obama’s economic policies have been crap! If not for his overly right leaning tendencies and, some say, lack of spine, he would have spent his political capital on passing a much larger stimulus plan to drag this economy from its death throes. He would have then used whatever was left to end the rich and corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks. Had he done that, the US economy, and hence the world economy, would have been in a much better shape.

Dimwit, if he was fiscally conservative - or an Austrian or a "Friedmanian" lol - he wouldn't have bailed out or given stimulus to anyone. That's what Austrian's and "Friedmanians" advocate: no government help, let them go bankrupt. Obama is basically a socialist, he's not as much as the left would like him to be, but he is a socialist nonetheless. You need to spend more time on wiki learning these definitions and labels. Otherwise more punks like me will just shit on you.

Gooz and Chos? Really? You’re more of a wimp than I thought! LOL!

Oh, I love it, he doesn't even have a wrong answer to give anymore. Coup de grâce. His own hero arguing against him and agreeing with me. Calling Reagan a socialist. There there, it's ok. I won't tell your special-ed students you got owned again.

 

[Natural]

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.

dude I know I struck a nerve with you here because you know I have a point otherwise you wouldn't be writing 4 paragraphs in response to someone who you claim you want to ignore lol you're amusing. I love witnessing your huge ego at display without you being aware of it. it's pure comedy. keep it up bro

 

[masoudA]

dude I know I struck a nerve with you here because you know I have a point otherwise you wouldn't be writing 4 paragraphs in response to someone who you claim you want to ignore lol you're amusing. I love witnessing your huge ego at display without you being aware of it. it's pure comedy. keep it up bro

Poor Soul - everytime you are cornered, things turn into comedy for you.......it's good to know you can laugh and be amused at your shortcomings....

BTW - US elections are near....when do you start the campaign for Obama again? Are you working on the anti Rumni research right now?

 

[Natural]

Poor Soul - everytime you are cornered, things turn into comedy for you.......it's good to know you can laugh and be amused at your shortcomings....

BTW - US elections are near....when do you start the campaign for Obama again? Are you working on the anti Rumni research right now?

did you mean Romney

 

[Mahdi]

btw. if I ever let a cuss let go at you......you probably deserved it...no matter whether I'm manager, moderator or Young Gotti.

 

[masoudA]

did you mean Romney

Loool - yeh Romney, ...but you know how I feel about the bozo.....he is such a fake.....yet better than the implant!!

 

[mashdi]

BTW - US elections are near....

Yeah.it's the next best thing to Moscow Circus.looking forward to the clowns and their pa-menbari foot-soldiers in action to entertain me.

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

Sure it was, like the rest of your argument.

More like your entire being.

Let's go to Wiki, your favourite scholarly source, to define socialism: Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy

You asked me to do a “quick wiki” search since I was quoting from books and journals, apparently beyond your puny brain.

Yes, Reagan brought about the public “ownership of means of production!!” LOL! You are a comedian!

You know what that means? It means funding SS and DoE, increasing taxes, etc, is of the socialist doctrine. That is definitive. It's not what some hick thinks, it is what actually exists.

Moron jon, SS and DoE have been part and parcel of the American government since before you formed that empty space between your ears. Are you now professing that US has always been a Socialist contry?! LOL!

Are you stupid? Did you just actually make an argument FOR me? That is the whole point: Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, none of them are conservatives. They may be social conservatives on issues like abortion or homosexuality; but they are not fiscal conservatives. Thank you for proving my point. You're so stupid you digressed to Bush to make a point, not knowing I'd say the same thing for Dubya. All these idiots are the same. Only a simpleton like yourself still believes there are two alternatives in American politics.

No, you’re the pencil-neck moron who spends years memorizing pointless books to prove academic points. In this country, a conservative is one who cuts social programs, gives tax breaks to the rich, and goes on union busting rampages. The rest of your bullshit is academic mumbo jumbo meant to cover up what a miserable failure you are socially by winning some argument on a web site.

The logical conclusion of your harangue about Austrian chocolate makers is that all the Republican presidents were really closet Communists and Democratic presidents were really conservatives! LOL!

Why do we even have a system of government in this country? Let’s turn it all over to Kazem the genius!

You should stick to sports where the opposing teams wear contrasting uniforms so you can tell them apart.

And you should stick to wanking off in hopes of one day losing your virginity

No, he followed the Austrian school. He himself said so. Are you thick in the head? LOL, it doesn't actually make much practical difference since they overlap on many areas, but for the sake of accuracy: he wasn't a "Friedmanian" It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what you are. As I said, you think you're an intellectual, but every time you post you show you're dumb as dirt. Fiction, reality, get it? Good.

And, the stupid shmuck proves my point for me: “it doesn't actually make much practical difference since they overlap on many areas, but for the sake of accuracy blah blah blah”

Instead of trying to win cheap points on sports websites by making obscure, academic points and bullshitting everyone who calls you on it, try to learn what the real events on the ground have to teach your dumb ass!

Because you can't even do a proper wiki search. But that kind of shows where you're at. You give 10 wrong answers when there is simply just 1 right one.

You’re just dense beyond imagination. I’ve been humiliating your ass all along by quoting proper sources and you ask for a wiki one. Trouble is you can’t even grasp that!

I know I keep asking this, but you oblige me to: are you stupid? No one is looking for an example of interventionism or laissez faire - although you can name them - the point is that they are ideologically opposed. Meaning they can never be on the same spectrum. So when a dimwit like you claims that what Reagan did in the past wasn't left of centre, whatever it was it is the opposite of fiscal conservatism. You can't increase government to record levels and claim that he was a fiscal conservative or an Austrian or a Friedmanian because those are synonyms basically.

What an complete and utter dip shit you are!

Olagh jon, when Reagan increases government spending by the amounts that he did and yet eliminates countless business regulations, that is interventionism and laissez faire living side by side. Do you even know what those terms mean or do you have to refer to your weekend books for answers again?

Except the President in question, who considered himself a disciple of the Austrian Chocolate makers. Schmuck lol.

Try and grasp this with your puny brain: no one in this country cares if Reagan was a disciple of Indian school of curry making or Austrian Buddhist monks. His legacy will forever be that of the president who ushered in a new era of conservative politics, economic or social.

By all means though, carry on with calling Reagan a Communist! You’ll just be laughed out of the room like the rat-brain that you are! LOL!

Dimwit, if he was fiscally conservative - or an Austrian or a "Friedmanian" lol - he wouldn't have bailed out or given stimulus to anyone. That's what Austrian's and "Friedmanians" advocate: no government help, let them go bankrupt. Obama is basically a socialist, he's not as much as the left would like him to be, but he is a socialist nonetheless. You need to spend more time on wiki learning these definitions and labels. Otherwise more punks like me will just shit on you.

So, according to your stupid ass: Reagan, a Republican president, the father of neo-conservatism, who grew the size of the US government like a drunken sailor on shore-leave, was a Communist, and Obama, a Democratic president, who has actually been shrinking the size of the government, is a Socialist. Do I have that right?

Tell us genius, did US ever not have a Socialist or Communist president? LMAO!!

Oh, I love it, he doesn't even have a wrong answer to give anymore. Coup de grâce. His own hero arguing against him and agreeing with me. Calling Reagan a socialist. There there, it's ok. I won't tell your special-ed students you got owned again.

You’re such a dipshit that I want to just leave your ass in the cellars of stupidity where it belongs. The coup de grace word you keep throwing around, shmuck, is really crap-on-your-face. What Obama is trying to say is that the today’s Republican Party is so far to the right that even Reagan, the father of the new brand of conservatism, seems a leftist in comparison. You know, kinda like how you’re such a shmuck that even a school nerd is cool in comparison!

Reagan, dubya, and poppy Bush were all Communists! Oh lord, I can't stop laughing!

 

[Flint]

How's Sandra? Did she get her Walmart club card in the mail finally.

 

[IranZamin]

dude I know I struck a nerve with you here because you know I have a point otherwise you wouldn't be writing 4 paragraphs in response to someone who you claim you want to ignore lol you're amusing. I love witnessing your huge ego at display without you being aware of it. it's pure comedy. keep it up bro

Shuuut up badbakht. The only "point" you've ever proved around here is that you have the mental capacity of a 12 year old. And if they won't let me put your stupid ass on ignore I will crap all over you as I see fit. Just make sure you shampoo afterward.

 

[Natural]

Shuuut up badbakht. The only "point" you've ever proved around here is that you have the mental capacity of a 12 year old. And if they won't let me put your stupid ass on ignore I will crap all over you as I see fit. Just make sure you shampoo afterward.

spoken like a true adult. keep em coming

 

[IranZamin]

Once you start acting like an adult you'll be treated as such. If the adult part is too much at this point, at least try impersonating a moderator.

 

[Kaz]

You asked me to do a “quick wiki” search since I was quoting from books and journals, apparently beyond your puny brain.

No, you were paraphrasing from wiki and it was sad...and wrong.

Yes, Reagan brought about the public “ownership of means of production!!” LOL! You are a comedian!

Yes, when you set up welfare programs, you are definitively doing that. Bringing resources under government control. Do you even know the simplest definitions?

Moron jon, SS and DoE have been part and parcel of the American government since before you formed that empty space between your ears. Are you now professing that US has always been a Socialist contry?! LOL!

Yes, America, especially since the early 1900s has turned into a country with lots of socialist tendencies and programs. This is not really in dispute between the right or left. Whether they should have them is the dispute. Have you only recently started following politics? Another embarrassing statement.

No, you’re the pencil-neck moron who spends years memorizing pointless books to prove academic points. In this country, a conservative is one who cuts social programs, gives tax breaks to the rich, and goes on union busting rampages. The rest of your bullshit is academic mumbo jumbo meant to cover up what a miserable failure you are socially by winning some argument on a web site.

The logical conclusion of your harangue about Austrian chocolate makers is that all the Republican presidents were really closet Communists and Democratic presidents were really conservatives! LOL!

Hahahahaha, so you just admitted you know fuck-all about these distinctions. You're going by what the meeja, or the left-wing nutjobs say. A 'conservative' is a lot of things. Reagan wasn't a fiscal conservative. Reagan, wasn't a "Friedmanian" and he certainly wasn't an Austrian follower. He claimed to follow their ideals, but as has been proven - ad nauseam - he wasn't that.

LOL @ pencil neck. Keep 'em coming old timer.

Why do we even have a system of government in this country? Let’s turn it all over to Kazem the genius!

See anyone advocate anarchy? Nice try moron.

And you should stick to wanking off in hopes of one day losing your virginity

Pencil-neck and Virgin.

Awesome comebacks. Say hi to your wife for me.

And, the stupid shmuck proves my point for me: “it doesn't actually make much practical difference since they overlap on many areas, but for the sake of accuracy blah blah blah”

See, this is you giving yourself away again for the dumbass you are. Yeah, they overlap. But they don't overlap when it comes to Reagan's policies. It means they both oppose increasing government spending and propping up government departments. Another whopper.

Instead of trying to win cheap points on sports websites by making obscure, academic points and bullshitting everyone who calls you on it, try to learn what the real events on the ground have to teach your dumb ass!

Instead of trying to look like you know something then shitting on yourself because you don't even know the basics...actually, keep doing it, it's funny.

You’re just dense beyond imagination. I’ve been humiliating your ass all along by quoting proper sources and you ask for a wiki one. Trouble is you can’t even grasp that!

Sure you have.

What an complete and utter dip shit you are!

Olagh jon, when Reagan increases government spending by the amounts that he did and yet eliminates countless business regulations, that is interventionism and laissez faire living side by side. Do you even know what those terms mean or do you have to refer to your weekend books for answers again?

No, it isn't. That's the whole point of the Fed. You can't have laissez faire when there is a body regulating the money supply. That is why Friedman, ultimately, and the Austrians, always, wanted to abolish it. Don't worry, you didn't know the basics, I didn't expect your dumbass to know that.

It certainly, definitely, without question, means Reagan wasn't a fiscal conservative. So whether you think removing some regulations goes towards free market principles, increasing the size of government spending more than any President in history completely shits on the "keeping government small" concept.

Try and grasp this with your puny brain: no one in this country cares if Reagan was a disciple of Indian school of curry making or Austrian Buddhist monks. His legacy will forever be that of the president who ushered in a new era of conservative politics, economic or social.

By all means though, carry on with calling Reagan a Communist! You’ll just be laughed out of the room like the rat-brain that you are! LOL!

Haha, another victory. First you went to calling Reagan a "Friedmanian", then learning that he was actually a disciple of Austrian economics, to now saying no one cares. Khob ja-kesh, hamoon aval zer nemizadi.

So, according to your stupid ass: Reagan, a Republican president, the father of neo-conservatism, who grew the size of the US government like a drunken sailor on shore-leave, was a Communist, and Obama, a Democratic president, who has actually been shrinking the size of the government, is a Socialist. Do I have that right?

Tell us genius, did US ever not have a Socialist or Communist president? LMAO!!

Is this another fairy tale digression? Reagan a communist and Obama is shrinking the size of government - despite the fact that he made the biggest government handout in human history? When you learn what these terms are, you'll answer your own questions.

You’re such a dipshit that I want to just leave your ass in the cellars of stupidity where it belongs. The coup de grace word you keep throwing around, shmuck, is really crap-on-your-face. What Obama is trying to say is that the today’s Republican Party is so far to the right that even Reagan, the father of the new brand of conservatism, seems a leftist in comparison. You know, kinda like how you’re such a shmuck that even a school nerd is cool in comparison!

Reagan, dubya, and poppy Bush were all Communists! Oh lord, I can't stop laughing!

Communists, no. Socialists, yes, really, definitively. They promote government programs and use their resource to meddle in the private affairs of citizens. You know, like Reagan spending 1.7 billion on the "War on Drugs" whereas a "Friedmanian" or an Austrian would call for making them legal. Or Bush and TARP.

Coup de grace. This moron talks about me being lynched in America if I called Reagan a socialist - despite the fact that many people do...including the current President he idolises. You couldn't make this kind of idiocy up. And it isn't made up, it exists in this moron called PN.

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

spoken like a true adult. keep em coming

If only hypocrisy was "konnagh" to grab hypocrites by the throat... On another note, this is how I personally feel about being on the fanged-one’s ignore list