Obamacare: $940 Billion becomes $2.5 Trillion

[_Droopy]

hj

[_Droopy]

[/i] n

[_Droopy]

I'm using a great deal of Heritage links for a very simply reason

The reason seems to be, simply, that you read little else. I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that you extend beyond the cozy boundaries of these Right Wing texts. If you're so "well read," why don't you ever cite peer-reviewed journals and articles? The only conclusion one can make is that you don't bother to read them. You are the equivalent of someone who's read The Collected Works of Normal Mailer several times and who therefore thinks he's "well read" in American literature.

You have neither the intelligence nor the intellectual honesty to pontificate upon what I read or do not read (and I've been over that time and again here over the years).

As someone with virtually no intellectual or moral credibility, your presence in this discussion harmonizes well with your presence in most other discussions.

Worthless.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You have neither the intelligence nor the intellectual honesty to pontificate upon what I read or do not read (and I've been over that time and again here over the years).

As someone with virtually no intellectual or moral credibility, your presence in this discussion harmonizes well with your presence in most other discussions.

Worthless.

Droopy,

Put up or shut up. You've carried on and on and on about how you are supposedly way more informed and well-read compared to everyone else on the board. If that's the case, then prove it. Link to some peer-reviewed pieces that support your position. Otherwise, you're going to have to concede that you are only familiar with Right Wing propaganda. Staying silent is only going to prove my point. And you'd better hurry! Otherwise, it's going to seem like you're desperately scouring the Web in search of stuff that will make you seem smart and well-read.

[_Droopy]

Droopy,

Put up or shut up. You've carried on and on and on about how you are supposedly way more informed and well-read compared to everyone else on the board. If that's the case, then prove it. Link to some peer-reviewed pieces that support your position. Otherwise, you're going to have to concede that you are only familiar with Right Wing propaganda. Staying silent is only going to prove my point. And you'd better hurry! Otherwise, it's going to seem like you're desperately scouring the Web in search of stuff that will make you seem smart and well-read.

Anyone who knows you and your history online Scratch, knows full well that none of this is anything but an act. You could care less about peer reviewed essays, or anything else of intellectual substance.

The Heritage Foundation is a prestigious and respected (except, of course, among intellectual poseurs) think tank, indeed, one of the most. Go look at its roster of PhD scholars, researchers and academics, and then compare that you your own utter lack of intellectual background or credibility (you're whole phony baloney idea that anyone's arguments must be derived from peer reviewed sources to be legitimate is a silly and transparent credentialist argument that only a bottom feeding organism such as yourself would even make in public).

Go foist this somewhere else Scratch (your marionette Beastie will love the idea).

[_Bond James Bond]

The Heritage Foundation is a prestigious and respected (except, of course, among intellectual poseurs) think tank, indeed, one of the most. Go look at its roster of PhD scholars, researchers and academics, and then compare that you your own utter lack of intellectual background or credibility (you're whole phony baloney idea that anyone's arguments must be derived from peer reviewed sources to be legitimate is a silly and transparent credentialist argument that only a bottom feeding organism such as yourself would even make in public).

You just appealed to academic authority and then attempted to to discredit standard academic systems of reviewing work carried out by academic authorities in the same sentence. Awesome.

[_Kevin Graham]

Notice that Dafty has not responded to my numerous refutations by credentialed economists and authorities on the matter of CRA. In fact, he ignored everything in my last post and responded with a slew of hyperlinks.

Again, this is typical of someone who has treaded outside his depth and must move the discussion to another thread in hopes that my last post will get buried and forgotten.

Let's just focus on one thing at a time to see how well Dafty can keep up.

The CRA argument has been reduced to dust and you hardly find anyone from the Right making that argument anymore because of it. Unless we're just talking about idiots like Hannity and Beck who have no credibility left to risk.

I produce conservative experts who concede this point and all Dafty can do is say he doesn't recognize their names in the "conservative intellectual movement."

What an idiot. This just goes to prove Dafty is never interested in truth and he is never interested in admitting to being wrong about anything. His mind is old and small, but at least its made up.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Anyone who knows you and your history online Scratch, knows full well that none of this is anything but an act. You could care less about peer reviewed essays, or anything else of intellectual substance.

Still not a single link, eh? Look, Droopy: just admit that your reading on this subject is narrow. Just admit it and let's be done with it. Enough of your two-faced nonsense.

The Heritage Foundation is a prestigious and respected (except, of course, among intellectual poseurs) think tank, indeed, one of the most.

I don't doubt that, Droopy, but this is beside the point. You have insisted again and again that people on the board are "poorly read" compared to you, and yet you won't demonstrate that your own reading on this topic extends beyond the ideologically-driven sources you've already listed. Are you seriously trying to claim that The Heritage Foundation is providing the whole story here? Are the articles peer-reviewed, Droopy?

You still have the opportunity to cite legit, scholarly journals on this topic. It's becoming clear that you haven't read any of them, though, which is quite a shame, and quite a blow to your already tenuous credibility.

Go look at its roster of PhD scholars, researchers and academics, and then compare that you your own utter lack of intellectual background or credibility (you're whole phony baloney idea that anyone's arguments must be derived from peer reviewed sources to be legitimate is a silly and transparent credentialist argument that only a bottom feeding organism such as yourself would even make in public).

This is yet another dodge. Why not just link the sources, Loran? You can't do it, can you. What a shame.

Go foist this somewhere else Scratch (your marionette Beastie will love the idea).

This must be a horrible embarrassment for you, Droopy. From now on, every time I see you trying to characterize some one else as "poorly read," I'm going to remind you about this thread. I'm going to remind you that, when challenged to show that you've done extensive and wide-ranging reading on this topic, you were forced to admit that your entire education had been derived from hardcore Right Wing materials.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Notice that Dafty has not responded to my numerous refutations by credentialed economists and authorities on the matter of CRA. In fact, he ignored everything in my last post and responded with a slew of hyperlinks.

Again, this is typical of someone who has treaded outside his depth and must move the discussion to another thread in hopes that my last post will get buried and forgotten.

Let's just focus on one thing at a time to see how well Dafty can keep up.

The CRA argument has been reduced to dust and you hardly find anyone from the Right making that argument anymore because of it. Unless we're just talking about idiots like Hannity and Beck who have no credibility left to risk.

I produce conservative experts who concede this point and all Dafty can do is say he doesn't recognize their names in the "conservative intellectual movement."

What an idiot. This just goes to prove Dafty is never interested in truth and he is never interested in admitting to being wrong about anything. His mind is old and small, but at least its made up.

Kevin, I have to applaud you for your patience here. I once played the game of reviewing a set of Droopy's "sources" and wound up regretting it. He just doesn't read legit scholarship. He reads polemics written by people with Ph.D.s without realizing that that's not the same thing as real, peer-reviewed scholarship.

Either way, it has been enormously entertaining to watch you make mincemeat out of his crappy arguments.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh so now suddenly Dafty cares about educated perspectives? Does he really think this is a matter of PhDs at Heritage vs. non-educated Liberals on blogs? Does he not know that there are think tanks on both sides of the political spectrum that employ credentialed economists, lawyers, etc? The more he writes the more he reveals his ignorance. No wonder he is so hypnotized by Heritage. He really thinks these guys are the only people with doctorates who are talking about his favorite Right Wing talking points. And since he refuses to accept the reality of their own political agenda and extreme bias, he actually believes theirs is an objective perspective, the only educated perspective, and therefore the last word.

ROFL!

Again, CRA Dafty. Let's see you deal with its refutation. Let's see if you can find any economist worth his salt still trying to salvage that debunked argument.