Another day, another scandal. Criminy.

[pErvinalia]

I don't you rely on people who "never advocate reduced spending" you fucking dimwitted twat. THIS is why it is strawman. Give yourself a fucking uppercut.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't you rely on people who "never advocate reduced spending" you fucking dimwitted twat. THIS is why it is strawman. Give yourself a fucking uppercut.

I think you do. I did not characterize your argument one way and then proceed to knock it down. I made an assertion that you do, in fact, rely on those economists. You say you don't. And, you choose not to cite a single one in order to prove your argument. I could be wrong -- I always leave that possibility open. Go on -- put me in my place. Cite your "reduce spending" source. Since you've put this matter to bed before -- should be no problem.

All your layabout ways and collection of dole from the government is making your brains go soft.

[pErvinalia]

I don't you rely on people who "never advocate reduced spending" you fucking dimwitted twat. THIS is why it is strawman. Give yourself a fucking uppercut.

I think you do.

That's nice. I think you are totally clueless. You have a childishly simplistic view of the left. Not everyone fits your simplistic caricatures.

I did not characterize your argument one way and then proceed to knock it down.

You stated that I was "wrong" and then you proceeded to explain why I was wrong, which involved making up bullshit about who I was relying on for my information/argumentation.
That's a fucking strawman.

I made an assertion that you do, in fact, rely on those economists.

Based on your simplistic lefty caricature.

You say you don't. And, you choose not to cite a single one in order to prove your argument.

I don't have to cite shit to you. Until you admit you strawmanned me, I don't owe you anything. And even then, I don't engage with you because it's a brain-sappingly futile exercise.

I could be wrong

Get used to it.

-- I always leave that possibility open. Go on -- put me in my place.

I already have put you in your place.

Cite your "reduce spending" source. Since you've put this matter to bed before -- should be no problem.

We put it to bed with many hundreds of posts and many thousands of words and probably hundreds of figures. If you want to see what our sources were, then go and read the politics forum at rdf. I can't produce the same arguments here now, both because of physical impossibility of recounting so much material and argumentation, and because I gave up this fight a long time ago. I think there are so few people who take right libertarianism and Austrian style economics seriously, that it's simply not worth the self-masochism to engage on this topic any more.

All your layabout ways and collection of dole from the government is making your brains go soft.

Cheap shot. Fuck you. I'd bury your IQ in a fucking instant.

[Audley Strange]

Yes, that's it fight and bicker like little girls, that'll prove who's the smartest.

[pErvinalia]

I'm the smartest. We don't need to fight to know that.

And he can't even work out how he strawmanned me.

[FBM]

rEv, this is a reminder that these posts contain personal attacks on another member. Staff urges you to refrain from such posts, as they could eventually lead to temporary suspension if repeated. Please keep criticisms directed at the ideas rather than the person. Thank you.

[pErvinalia]

Not that I particularly care, but you should probably give him a warning for his personal attacks on me.

[JimC]

Not that I particularly care, but you should probably give him a warning for his personal attacks on me.

Report the ones you feel are PA's, and they will be looked at carefully...

[laklak]

Get a room, you two.

[pErvinalia]

Jim and I don't like each other that way, Lak.

[JimC]

Jim and I don't like each other that way, Lak.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't you rely on people who "never advocate reduced spending" you fucking dimwitted twat. THIS is why it is strawman. Give yourself a fucking uppercut.

I think you do.

That's nice. I think you are totally clueless. You have a childishly simplistic view of the left. Not everyone fits your simplistic caricatures.

That's fine - let's accept that arguendo. Now, back to the point -- Who are the economists upon which you rely who advocate reduced government spending, and under what circumstances do they advocate it?

All your layabout ways and collection of dole from the government is making your brains go soft.

Cheap shot. Fuck you. I'd bury your IQ in a fucking instant.

That's why you're evading a simple question.

It's pretty evident that it would take you about three seconds to type out the name of an economist or economic theory that you adhere to, advocate, or rely upon, which calls for reduced government spending under certain circumstances. Rather than do that, you decide to pursue dopey arguments about strawman fallacies (which you don't understand the meaning of), and "moving the goalposts" (which you also don't understand the meaning of).

Your choice what you want to do here -- I'm seriously interested in who this economist or what this economic theory is. I'd like to know about it. I don't know where the posts are where you claim to have set it out. But, it's really just this very defined point that I'm interested in -- reduced spending -- which economist or economic theory upon which you rely or which you advocate, or which supports your assertion that monetarist or "Austrian" economics has been "put to bed", also advocate for reduced spending from time-to-time?

What's the problem, Rev? Can't do it?

[pErvinalia]

Sorry, champ, but you don't get to make demands when you debate in fallacies. And besides, who said anything about an "economist" or "economic theory" that specifically supports my views? Are you intent on just creating my whole position for me? Fuck that. I've formed my views over years of reading a variety of things and listening to a variety of view points. If you can directly align your viewpoints to one or two economists, argumentum ad auctoritatem (since you like using fallacies so much), then that's your business. Don't expect that others operate in your own narrow way.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry, champ, but you don't get to make demands when you debate in fallacies. And besides, who said anything about an "economist" or "economic theory" that specifically supports my views? Are you intent on just creating my whole position for me? Fuck that. I've formed my views over years of reading a variety of things and listening to a variety of view points. If you can directly align your viewpoints to one or two economists, argumentum ad auctoritatem (since you like using fallacies so much), then that's your business. Don't expect that others operate in your own narrow way.

Laughable response. But, do as you like. It's your typical tactic -- evade, make personal attacks, insult.

[pErvinalia]

Let's refresh what has happened here: You invent a position for me, get called on it, refuse to admit it, then in another spot shift the goal posts, then continually demand that I name the economist who I got my idea from (despite there being absolutely no indication from me that I relied on any specific economist), continue to demand that I name an economist as a tactic to avoid owning up to your disingenuous debating, and then when I tell you specifically that I don't rely on one economist you act like you've got nothing to answer for. You dropped a lot of bollocks into this thread. Own it, or fuck off.