Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I was talking about the tired old, baseless rhetoric you presented. But, in your defense, it was presented in a haste to cover up your previous argument that the economic disaster happened because the democrats had taken control just ten months before it really happened, something you saw coming (regardless) 6-7 years ago. Nice argument... represents you VERY well.
The tired old baseless rhetoric was you going back to the Clinton administraton, to try to distract from the Obama administration.
No, I was talking about the tired old, baseless rhetoric you presented. But, in your defense, it was presented in a haste to cover up your previous argument that the economic disaster happened because the democrats had taken control just ten months before it really happened, something you saw coming (regardless) 6-7 years ago. Nice argument... represents you VERY well.
LOL, you're up to "partial" now. What was the other part?
LOL, so you'd rather try failed economic policies instead of ones that have shown some success, but still haven't been 100% proven, because they've never been tried en masse.
The tired old baseless rhetoric was you going back to the Clinton administraton, to try to distract from the Obama administration.
I'm not surprised mentioning Clinton era had your knickers in a wad. Of course, and as I brought up earlier, you had to go with your obligatory Obama rhetoric, whether it applies in the post you chose to pick to respond to or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
LOL, so you'd rather try failed economic policies instead of ones that have shown some success, but still haven't been 100% proven, because they've never been tried en masse.
Asking about real world application of what you called tried and successful economic policies is a whole different issue. Why, you can't have a debate entirely on Austrian economics that you so vehemently profess as the proven one? Albeit, you did claim, partial application of it, to which I asked... what was the other part? The least you could do is demonstrate and clarify, instead of childish bickering?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
