US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

As for naming a single economic argument that I've made in the past month? Georgie, I'm the only one making economic arguments here! You're whining about "personal attacks" and calling me a liar to divert the conversation from yet ANOTHER example of you being clueless about there being two deals signed by Obama...the first with just China and the second...a full year later...with 145 other countries! If I hadn't pointed that out you'd STILL not know that it happened! You spend so much time spamming your liberal talking points from idiotic sites that you google trying to appear not to be an idiot that you've turned yourself into a COMPLETE idiot!

What's laughable is all you do is spam talking points because you're essentially totally ignorant of current events...yet you constantly accuse others of doing what you do!

I don't need to go to some (as you refer to them!) bat shit crazy con site to get talking points because I actually took economics in college and I actually know what's been taking place in the world around me!

 

[Rshermr]

Oh, so Obama wasn't involved in negotiation with the Chinese...he just signed the agreement? That is about as pathetic a claim as you've ever made, Georgie...and God knows you've made some pathetic ones! (My favorite, by the way, is that the reason you can't spell or write well is that your "secretary" normally proofs all of your correspondence...that's classic!)

Good. So you have no problem with the fact that the agreement, the Nov 2014 agreement specifically, which has since been integrated with the France agreement, was negotiated by professionals which did not include the President of the United States. Your having said Obama negotiated the deal simply showed again what a simpleton you are. The agreement was negotiated in Bejing, me boy. Over months. And Obama was not there except briefly at the end. When the deal was done by the professionals who had negotiated it. After it was don. To sign it. So, physically, what you say is stupid. Then, since you can find absolutely NO expert statement that Obama was negotiating the deal, would give rational people a pretty solid understanding that the was not the negotiator.
That you are a simple minded con troll is well established. But your suggestion that any president would go and spend months negotiating an agreement just does not pass the giggle test, me boy. Are you just trying to prove how stupid you are?

So, your attack on me is personal and just normal. Personal attacks are all you have, me boy. Trying to say a president negotiated an agreement is high on the list of stupid claims. But you have proven yourself capable of such, time and again. Just a simpleton con troll.
By the way, if you look at this thread for the past few days, you have used personal attacks against each person who has disagreed with you. All such persons. One new member with solid economic background was so irritated with you that he chose to stop posting entirely, letting you know on the way out that you were the reason. So, my questions are:
1. What is the purpose of your personal attacks?
2. Why do you make personal attacks with specific claims you can not prove?
3. Can you name a single economic argument that you have made in the past month?

So what you're saying is that Barry doesn't really do ANYTHING...just signs his name to stuff that someone else does all the work on? That he didn't have ANY input into the negotiation for that deal with China at all...just took credit for the work that someone else did?

You know what, Georgie? I've said all along that Barack Obama is an empty suit but it turns out that I give him more credit than you do! I think that he was involved every step of the way with negotiations with China on that deal. I think you're only saying he WASN'T because you don't want to admit that there were two deals made independent of each other and that Obama was part of the negotiations of each...especially the initial deal with China!

What you call "personal attacks" is my simply pointing out what a pathetic liar you are. If you didn't claim to be something that you OBVIOUSLY AREN'T you wouldn't be getting "attacked"! Or don't you grasp how that works...Mr "I NEVER EVER LIE"?[/QUOTE]
Ah. Opinion. Personal attack. And the beliefs of a food services employee. With no expert opinion. Nothing at all. No links to articles supporting your drivel.
If you really want to see an empty suit, find a mirror.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, so Obama wasn't involved in negotiation with the Chinese...he just signed the agreement? That is about as pathetic a claim as you've ever made, Georgie...and God knows you've made some pathetic ones! (My favorite, by the way, is that the reason you can't spell or write well is that your "secretary" normally proofs all of your correspondence...that's classic!)

Good. So you have no problem with the fact that the agreement, the Nov 2014 agreement specifically, which has since been integrated with the France agreement, was negotiated by professionals which did not include the President of the United States. Your having said Obama negotiated the deal simply showed again what a simpleton you are. The agreement was negotiated in Bejing, me boy. Over months. And Obama was not there except briefly at the end. When the deal was done by the professionals who had negotiated it. After it was don. To sign it. So, physically, what you say is stupid. Then, since you can find absolutely NO expert statement that Obama was negotiating the deal, would give rational people a pretty solid understanding that the was not the negotiator.
That you are a simple minded con troll is well established. But your suggestion that any president would go and spend months negotiating an agreement just does not pass the giggle test, me boy. Are you just trying to prove how stupid you are?

So, your attack on me is personal and just normal. Personal attacks are all you have, me boy. Trying to say a president negotiated an agreement is high on the list of stupid claims. But you have proven yourself capable of such, time and again. Just a simpleton con troll.
By the way, if you look at this thread for the past few days, you have used personal attacks against each person who has disagreed with you. All such persons. One new member with solid economic background was so irritated with you that he chose to stop posting entirely, letting you know on the way out that you were the reason. So, my questions are:
1. What is the purpose of your personal attacks?
2. Why do you make personal attacks with specific claims you can not prove?
3. Can you name a single economic argument that you have made in the past month?

So what you're saying is that Barry doesn't really do ANYTHING...just signs his name to stuff that someone else does all the work on? That he didn't have ANY input into the negotiation for that deal with China at all...just took credit for the work that someone else did?

You know what, Georgie? I've said all along that Barack Obama is an empty suit but it turns out that I give him more credit than you do! I think that he was involved every step of the way with negotiations with China on that deal. I think you're only saying he WASN'T because you don't want to admit that there were two deals made independent of each other and that Obama was part of the negotiations of each...especially the initial deal with China!

What you call "personal attacks" is my simply pointing out what a pathetic liar you are. If you didn't claim to be something that you OBVIOUSLY AREN'T you wouldn't be getting "attacked"! Or don't you grasp how that works...Mr "I NEVER EVER LIE"?

Ah. Opinion. Personal attack. And the beliefs of a food services employee. With no expert opinion. Nothing at all. No links to articles supporting your drivel.
If you really want to see an empty suit, find a mirror.[/QUOTE]

Here's a news flash for you, Georgie! In order to have an opinion that's worth anything...you have to have some knowledge to go along with it! Links? Those are the things that internet posers use to pretend that they aren't idiots!

 

[Rshermr]

Oh, so Obama wasn't involved in negotiation with the Chinese...he just signed the agreement? That is about as pathetic a claim as you've ever made, Georgie...and God knows you've made some pathetic ones! (My favorite, by the way, is that the reason you can't spell or write well is that your "secretary" normally proofs all of your correspondence...that's classic!)

Good. So you have no problem with the fact that the agreement, the Nov 2014 agreement specifically, which has since been integrated with the France agreement, was negotiated by professionals which did not include the President of the United States. Your having said Obama negotiated the deal simply showed again what a simpleton you are. The agreement was negotiated in Bejing, me boy. Over months. And Obama was not there except briefly at the end. When the deal was done by the professionals who had negotiated it. After it was don. To sign it. So, physically, what you say is stupid. Then, since you can find absolutely NO expert statement that Obama was negotiating the deal, would give rational people a pretty solid understanding that the was not the negotiator.
That you are a simple minded con troll is well established. But your suggestion that any president would go and spend months negotiating an agreement just does not pass the giggle test, me boy. Are you just trying to prove how stupid you are?

So, your attack on me is personal and just normal. Personal attacks are all you have, me boy. Trying to say a president negotiated an agreement is high on the list of stupid claims. But you have proven yourself capable of such, time and again. Just a simpleton con troll.
By the way, if you look at this thread for the past few days, you have used personal attacks against each person who has disagreed with you. All such persons. One new member with solid economic background was so irritated with you that he chose to stop posting entirely, letting you know on the way out that you were the reason. So, my questions are:
1. What is the purpose of your personal attacks?
2. Why do you make personal attacks with specific claims you can not prove?
3. Can you name a single economic argument that you have made in the past month?

So what you're saying is that BarryThat would be President Obama to people who have class and integrity but con trolls with no class use terms like you use doesn't really do ANYTHING...just signs his name to stuff that someone else does all the work on? That he didn't have ANY input into the negotiation for that deal with China at all...just took credit for the work that someone else did?, And you have no proof of any of the drivel that comes from you. Sad. I know you want to believe it so, so badly.

You know what, Georgie? You know my name, ass hole use it and stop the juvenile drivel. Or...Keep it up and show what a juvenile clown you are. Because you always fall back to juvenile personal attacks. I've said all along that Barack Obama is an empty suit again, if you want to see an empty suit, find a mirror but it turns out that I give him more credit than you do! And another lie. You know better than that.I think that he was involved every step of the way with negotiations with China on that deal. Ah, the authoritative opinion of a food services employee. Thanks for that, dipshit. I think you're only saying he WASN'T because you don't want to admit that there were two deals made independent of each other and that Obama was part of the negotiations of each...especially the initial deal with China!
Actually, I am not delusional like you. I do not think I know what he was doing. But I have done what I could to use a rational mind, and to spend some time researching the subject. And you have done neither. All you ever do, and shat you have done here, is simply post con talking points. Pure illiterate drivel with no proof of anything at all, simply you trying to get someone to believe what you want them to believe. From a simpleton con troll, a food services guy. You are way to delusional to take seriously.

What you call "personal attacks" is my simply pointing out what a pathetic liar you are.You have been caught lying multiple times, and want in the worst way to catch me lying. But you fail. Because I never lie. And it makes you so angry. You have no ingegrity If you didn't claim to be something that you OBVIOUSLY AREN'T you wouldn't be getting "attacked"! You know better, me lying con troll. If I lie, you would be able to prove it. In the same way I have proven you lie, with no question.

I never ever lie. Which is a simple thing. I value integrity, you do not. Everyone who gets into a argument with you ends up knowing what you are. And what they learn is:
1. You are a con troll.
2. You use personal attacks because of a lack of knowledge.
3. You lie constantly.
4. You have no back up for your simplistic con talking points.

Here is the thing, me boy. You can try to make excuses for your personal attacks. But they are still personal attacks. And they always show your lack of class and integrity.

 

[Rshermr]

Oh, so Obama wasn't involved in negotiation with the Chinese...he just signed the agreement? That is about as pathetic a claim as you've ever made, Georgie...and God knows you've made some pathetic ones! (My favorite, by the way, is that the reason you can't spell or write well is that your "secretary" normally proofs all of your correspondence...that's classic!)

Good. So you have no problem with the fact that the agreement, the Nov 2014 agreement specifically, which has since been integrated with the France agreement, was negotiated by professionals which did not include the President of the United States. Your having said Obama negotiated the deal simply showed again what a simpleton you are. The agreement was negotiated in Bejing, me boy. Over months. And Obama was not there except briefly at the end. When the deal was done by the professionals who had negotiated it. After it was don. To sign it. So, physically, what you say is stupid. Then, since you can find absolutely NO expert statement that Obama was negotiating the deal, would give rational people a pretty solid understanding that the was not the negotiator.
That you are a simple minded con troll is well established. But your suggestion that any president would go and spend months negotiating an agreement just does not pass the giggle test, me boy. Are you just trying to prove how stupid you are?

So, your attack on me is personal and just normal. Personal attacks are all you have, me boy. Trying to say a president negotiated an agreement is high on the list of stupid claims. But you have proven yourself capable of such, time and again. Just a simpleton con troll.
By the way, if you look at this thread for the past few days, you have used personal attacks against each person who has disagreed with you. All such persons. One new member with solid economic background was so irritated with you that he chose to stop posting entirely, letting you know on the way out that you were the reason. So, my questions are:
1. What is the purpose of your personal attacks?
2. Why do you make personal attacks with specific claims you can not prove?
3. Can you name a single economic argument that you have made in the past month?

So what you're saying is that Barry doesn't really do ANYTHING...just signs his name to stuff that someone else does all the work on? That he didn't have ANY input into the negotiation for that deal with China at all...just took credit for the work that someone else did?

You know what, Georgie? I've said all along that Barack Obama is an empty suit but it turns out that I give him more credit than you do! I think that he was involved every step of the way with negotiations with China on that deal. I think you're only saying he WASN'T because you don't want to admit that there were two deals made independent of each other and that Obama was part of the negotiations of each...especially the initial deal with China!

What you call "personal attacks" is my simply pointing out what a pathetic liar you are. If you didn't claim to be something that you OBVIOUSLY AREN'T you wouldn't be getting "attacked"! Or don't you grasp how that works...Mr "I NEVER EVER LIE"?

Ah. Opinion. Personal attack. And the beliefs of a food services employee. With no expert opinion. Nothing at all. No links to articles supporting your drivel.
If you really want to see an empty suit, find a mirror.

Here's a news flash for you, Georgie! In order to have an opinion that's worth anything...you have to have some knowledge to go along with it! Links? Those are the things that internet posers use to pretend that they aren't idiots![/QUOTE]

True. But no news flash. You see, if you did not know that it simply proves you are stupid. So, attacking again with no economic argument. What a surprise.

 

[Oldstyle]

When's the last time YOU made an economic argument? You spend most of your time declaring that you haven't lied. Oh, that and making up "conditions" so you can continue to pretend that you haven't lied and been caught doing so. You're a poser, Georgie. You're this board's answer to George Costanza.

 

[Rshermr]

As for naming a single economic argument that I've made in the past month? Georgie, I'm the only one making economic arguments here! You're whining about "personal attacks" and calling me a liar to divert the conversation from yet ANOTHER example of you being clueless about there being two deals signed by Obama...the first with just China and the second...a full year later...with 145 other countries! If I hadn't pointed that out you'd STILL not know that it happened! You spend so much time spamming your liberal talking points from idiotic sites that you google trying to appear not to be an idiot that you've turned yourself into a COMPLETE idiot!
Again, you are delusional. You can not find liberal talking points. And I never use liberal sites to provide proof of anything. Because I prefer truth. You may want to look the term TRUTH up.

What's laughable is all you do is spam talking points because you're essentially totally ignorant of current events...yet you constantly accuse others of doing what you do!
Jee. Thanks again for your personal opinion, mr. food services guy. And more proof of the fact that you simply attack.

I don't need to go to some (as you refer to them!) bat shit crazy con site to get talking points because I actually took economics in college and I actually know what's been taking place in the world around me!

Yes we know. You are a liar, a con troll, and post only con talking points. And you do not need to go to bat shit crazy con site. You just go there because it is the only place you like to go, and that provides you with the talking points you want to believe SO BADLY/
Again, no economic argument. Your attacks on me are hollow. The opinion of a food services worker. And, if you believe that you are making economic arguments, it proves you do not understand economics at all. You see, me boy, everyone who knows economics knows that what you make are at least 95% pure political arguments. In the form of con talking points. And personal attacks. And 5% really weak economic arguments.
I do not have to prove you make nearly no economic arguments. That is obvious to anyone. Please, show us an economic argument that you have made over the past month. Because all that I have seen are:
1. Personal attacks.
2. Unfounded attacks on anything that does not agree with your con troll agenda.
3. Lies.
4. Political arguments supporting bat shit crazy con agenda.
5. Patting yourself on the back.
6. Opinion of a food services guy.
But NO economic arguments.

 

[Oldstyle]

So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"? When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?

What was the last economic argument that you made here, Georgie?

 

[Rshermr]

When's the last time YOU made an economic argument? You spend most of your time declaring that you haven't lied. Oh, that and making up "conditions" so you can continue to pretend that you haven't lied and been caught doing so. You're a poser, Georgie. You're this board's answer to George Costanza.

Yesterday. It is only 8AM here where I am. But I am confident that as long as I am responding to your posts, there will be no economic arguments. At all.
So, you can think of no economic argument at all. But just more juvenile name calling and unfounded personal attacks. Got it, me boy.

 

[Oldstyle]

When's the last time YOU made an economic argument? You spend most of your time declaring that you haven't lied. Oh, that and making up "conditions" so you can continue to pretend that you haven't lied and been caught doing so. You're a poser, Georgie. You're this board's answer to George Costanza.

Yesterday. It is only 8AM here where I am. But I am confident that as long as I am responding to your posts, there will be no economic arguments. At all.
So, you can think of no economic argument at all. But just more juvenile name calling and unfounded personal attacks. Got it, me boy.

You made an economic argument yesterday? Really? What was that?

 

[Rshermr]

So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"? When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?

What was the last economic argument that you made here, Georgie?

Sorry. Delusion does not count as an economic argument. Saying that the white house is lying about jobs created or saved is a political argument. You think you won that political argument because you want to believe that. And because you are delusional. And you just proved my point. But you proved nothing because it was 1. Untrue. 2. A political argument. Thank you for proving my point.

Economic argument? How about the new thread I started YESTERDAY. That the employment numbers are improving again based on 287,000 new jobs in the month of June 2016. And support for the fact that the numbers were valid and supported by rational proof. YESTERDAY, I make economic arguments whenever I have a subject I judge to be worth discussing.
Did you happen to notice that your argument did not work?

 

[Oldstyle]

Did not work? Did you happen to notice that the person I made that argument to...hasn't been back since? He made a claim and I showed him quite clearly that it was false. Taking a page out of your play book, Georgie...I can only assume he'll avoid this string until he thinks I've forgotten.

 

[Rshermr]

When's the last time YOU made an economic argument? You spend most of your time declaring that you haven't lied. Oh, that and making up "conditions" so you can continue to pretend that you haven't lied and been caught doing so. You're a poser, Georgie. You're this board's answer to George Costanza.

Yesterday. It is only 8AM here where I am. But I am confident that as long as I am responding to your posts, there will be no economic arguments. At all.
So, you can think of no economic argument at all. But just more juvenile name calling and unfounded personal attacks. Got it, me boy.

You made an economic argument yesterday? Really? What was that?

Jesus, give it a minute, then read what I say. I can bring back economic arguments till the cows come home, because this is what I am here for. Unlike you, I am not here with an agenda to prove conservative points. That is, in my opinion, totally dishonest. And that is you.
Now, trot off and read my previous post, dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"? When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?

What was the last economic argument that you made here, Georgie?

Sorry. Delusion does not count as an economic argument. Saying that the white house is lying about jobs created or saved is a political argument. You think you won that political argument because you want to believe that. And because you are delusional. And you just proved my point. But you proved nothing because it was 1. Untrue. 2. A political argument. Thank you for proving my point.

Economic argument? How about the new thread I started YESTERDAY. That the employment numbers are improving again based on 287,000 new jobs in the month of June 2016. And support for the fact that the numbers were valid and supported by rational proof. YESTERDAY, I make economic arguments whenever I have a subject I judge to be worth discussing.
Did you happen to notice that your argument did not work?

So you didn't make an economic argument HERE...you made it in another string? When's the last economic argument you made here?

 

[Rshermr]

Did not work? Did you happen to notice that the person I made that argument to...hasn't been back since? He made a claim and I showed him quite clearly that it was false. Taking a page out of your play book, Georgie...I can only assume he'll avoid this string until he thinks I've forgotten.

You lost, badly, a discussion about jobs created and saved. As you have many times. What he said to you, as a person with actual economic background, was that you were mindless and that there was no intelligence in your discussion. And that he had had enough bullshit. And would not play with you any longer. Then, me boy, YOU LEFT. For some time.
Thanks again for proving you are a lying piece of shit. You have no, and I mean no, integrity. You are truly just a fucking con troll with no honesty or integrity. And you wonder why he left.

 

[Rshermr]

So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"? When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?

What was the last economic argument that you made here, Georgie?

Sorry. Delusion does not count as an economic argument. Saying that the white house is lying about jobs created or saved is a political argument. You think you won that political argument because you want to believe that. And because you are delusional. And you just proved my point. But you proved nothing because it was 1. Untrue. 2. A political argument. Thank you for proving my point.

Economic argument? How about the new thread I started YESTERDAY. That the employment numbers are improving again based on 287,000 new jobs in the month of June 2016. And support for the fact that the numbers were valid and supported by rational proof. YESTERDAY, I make economic arguments whenever I have a subject I judge to be worth discussing.
Did you happen to notice that your argument did not work?

So you didn't make an economic argument HERE...you made it in another string? When's the last economic argument you made here?

Are you suggesting that an economic argument is not an economic argument unless it is made in this thread? Are you just trying to prove you are stupid? You could win that argument, dipshit.
A couple days ago, when there was a person posting with rational points posting in this thread.
So, I made a new thread, in the same Economics area, and that does not count. Excuse me while I laugh at you for a while. Dipshit.

So, you admit it was an economics post, and it was yesterday. Thanks for that.
In this thread, it was before everyone with economic points left because they were thoroughly fed up with you, oldstyle. For the same reason no one is here now, except me defending myself from your personal attacks. And lies. Because you have NO INTEGRITY.

 

[Oldstyle]

Did not work? Did you happen to notice that the person I made that argument to...hasn't been back since? He made a claim and I showed him quite clearly that it was false. Taking a page out of your play book, Georgie...I can only assume he'll avoid this string until he thinks I've forgotten.

You lost, badly, a discussion about jobs created and saved. As you have many times. What he said to you, as a person with actual economic background, was that you were mindless and that there was no intelligence in your discussion. And that he had had enough bullshit. And would not play with you any longer. Then, me boy, YOU LEFT. For some time.
Thanks again for proving you are a lying piece of shit. You have no, and I mean no, integrity. You are truly just a fucking con troll with no honesty or integrity. And you wonder why he left.

Yeah, he said all that AFTER I showed him that he was completely wrong in his assertion that the 3 million jobs created or saved came from the CBO and not the Obama Administration.

 

[Oldstyle]

So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"? When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?

What was the last economic argument that you made here, Georgie?

Sorry. Delusion does not count as an economic argument. Saying that the white house is lying about jobs created or saved is a political argument. You think you won that political argument because you want to believe that. And because you are delusional. And you just proved my point. But you proved nothing because it was 1. Untrue. 2. A political argument. Thank you for proving my point.

Economic argument? How about the new thread I started YESTERDAY. That the employment numbers are improving again based on 287,000 new jobs in the month of June 2016. And support for the fact that the numbers were valid and supported by rational proof. YESTERDAY, I make economic arguments whenever I have a subject I judge to be worth discussing.
Did you happen to notice that your argument did not work?

So you didn't make an economic argument HERE...you made it in another string? When's the last economic argument you made here?

A couple days ago, when there was a person posting with rational points.
So, I made a new thread, in the same Economics area, and that does not count. Excuse me while I laugh at you for a while. Dipshit.
So, you admit it was an economics post, and it was yesterday. Thanks for that.
In this thread, it was before everyone with economic points left because they were thoroughly fed up with you, oldstyle. For the same reason no one is here now, except me defending myself from your personal attacks. And lies. Because you have NO INTEGRITY.

You've claimed that you're here arguing economic points, Georgie! As such you should be able to provide one. Yet you're not.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're going to have to go back a long way to find the last time you made a REAL economic argument, Georgie. You've spent most of your time here accusing me of being a liar. It's what you do when you have nothing else.

 

[Oldstyle]

So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"? When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?

What was the last economic argument that you made here, Georgie?

Sorry. Delusion does not count as an economic argument. Saying that the white house is lying about jobs created or saved is a political argument. You think you won that political argument because you want to believe that. And because you are delusional. And you just proved my point. But you proved nothing because it was 1. Untrue. 2. A political argument. Thank you for proving my point.

Economic argument? How about the new thread I started YESTERDAY. That the employment numbers are improving again based on 287,000 new jobs in the month of June 2016. And support for the fact that the numbers were valid and supported by rational proof. YESTERDAY, I make economic arguments whenever I have a subject I judge to be worth discussing.
Did you happen to notice that your argument did not work?

So you didn't make an economic argument HERE...you made it in another string? When's the last economic argument you made here?

Are you suggesting that an economic argument is not an economic argument unless it is made in this thread? Are you just trying to prove you are stupid? You could win that argument, dipshit.
A couple days ago, when there was a person posting with rational points posting in this thread.
So, I made a new thread, in the same Economics area, and that does not count. Excuse me while I laugh at you for a while. Dipshit.

So, you admit it was an economics post, and it was yesterday. Thanks for that.
In this thread, it was before everyone with economic points left because they were thoroughly fed up with you, oldstyle. For the same reason no one is here now, except me defending myself from your personal attacks. And lies. Because you have NO INTEGRITY.

So you admit that you haven't made a real economic argument here for weeks? So what have you been doing here? Oh, that's right...you've been accusing me of making personal attacks against you...as you accuse me of having no integrity...of being a dishwasher...of being a liar...or only posting con talking points? The person with no integrity here is you, Georgie! You're the one who promised the economic formula that the Obama White House used to compute "jobs saved" and then never delivered. You're the one who claimed that Obama never negotiated a global warming deal with just China when it's obvious to everyone BUT you that he did!