Ryan's double-speak..

[Lord Jim]

I've got 20 bucks that says rube will respond again with something along the lines of:

" All crap, no substance. Where's the lie?"

Who wants in on that action?

[rubato]

I have no intention of wasting my life mining the crap postings of a moron. You have to post the statement of Paul Krugman which is alleged to be a lie and the evidence that this is so.

So far. You are a zero.

Zero

Zero

zero

You are a zero. Stupid.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

You have to post the statement of Paul Krugman which is alleged to be a lie and the evidence that this is so.

So far. You are a zero....[edited for brevity, by removing multiple repetitions of the word, "zero"]

You are a zero. Stupid.

yrs,
rubato

Damn, I'm sorry nobody took me up on that bet...

I could have covered the cost of a pizza with that 20 bucks...

[Lord Jim]

I have no intention of wasting my life mining the crap postings of a moron.

And yet you have spent way more time posting diversionary crap in this thread for days than it would have taken you to respond in a straight forward and direct way to the allegation made in that article, at the outset....

How do you account for this seeming incongruity?

[rubato]

Still unable to find that lie? You're doing as well as OJ is at finding 'the real killers'.

Maybe you should start by posting where it came from among his extensive writings which are avail. online and then quoting the exact passage which you claim to be untruthful?

Can you do that?



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

[Guinevere]

[Joe Guy]

Anybody want to talk about Myth Romney and Lyin' Ryan?

[rubato]

OJ was too busy to help you?

Too bad.

But so far you're a zero.

Rubato = many examples of lies by Coulter, Ryan, Romney, Limbaugh

LJ = zero

sooorrrry.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LMAO

I can't figure out what the funniest part of this is....

Is it the fact he can't understand the article, or the fact that despite my having re-posted a link for him to the original Krugman piece in question at least 3 times, he keeps insisting I haven't done it....

Or is it the fact that he insists on returning over and over to this thread to remind everyone that he can't understand the article or see a link that's been posted multiple times?

On second thought I can figure it out....

It's definitely number 3 that's the funniest....



It's like he's saying:

"Yo folks, just in case you had forgotten what a complete imbecile I am, let me post again so there's no doubt about it"

OJ was too busy to help you?

Yeah, I guess he was too busy helping you find the link to the Krugman piece....

sooorrrry.

Yep rube, you're on to something there....

Of all your many sooorrrry performances over the years, this one, for sheer tenacity of sooorrrryness and scope of dunderheadedness, really ranks as the sooorrrryest....

If I had personally designed a course for you to follow to demonstrate with absolute conclusiveness how both completely delusional and lacking in mental ability you are, I couldn't possibly have come up with any thing better than the performance you have been putting on in this thread...

It's like an early birthday present....

After this mondo bizzarro performance, there can't possibly be a single person left on this board who doesn't "get" what a low functioning head case you are...

Way to go!

But please do feel free to return to this thread and remind everyone again....

[rubato]

If you cannot post the statement which is alleged to be a lie then there is no lie.

LJ = Zero

rubato = all the points in the game.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

That's the spirit rube....

You go girl!

[rubato]

Still zero?

Well that's you then.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

You go girl!

Ahem. He's got your chromosomal type, you own him, not we women.

[rubato]

Still waiting for you to post the statement by Paul Krugman which you claim is a lie.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

It is a desire for clarity.

You have posted some dimwit who 'claims' Krugman lied but is vague about what the lie is supposed to be and is dishonest about the Tax Policy Center (which is famously non-partisan).

You have said that Krugman Lied and have failed to quote the lie itself and to show data that shows it is a lie (not some RW idiot used to the low standards for truth of Republicans).

There are lots of stupid people who don't like science and don't like Krugman; you have lots of company. Your dim little mind appears to have grasped the problem you are in since you are now using the term 'alleged' at lot and you know that you cannot post the lie and the proof because there really is none.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Oh I'm so glad I saved this; here you go again sweet cheeks:

LMAO

Un-fucking-believable....

Rube, I am beginning to think that you are attempting to make amends to me for the reprehensible things you have said by providing me with an endless source of amusement....

If that's the case, it's not necessary; a simple apology would do....

Y'know, if anyone else were doing this, I'd assume that they were being sarcastic and just trying to jerk my chain a bit....

But in your case, I'm pretty much convinced that you simply do not understand the article, and haven't even the wit to grasp the fact that you don't understand it....

Your decision to return yet again to this bewilders me; even by your standards...

Are you concerned that there might be someone left here that still doesn't get the fact that you don't understand the article, and you want to make certain they know it too?

Here again is the link to Krugman's original NY Times Op ed piece which is the subject of the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opini ... .html?_r=1

And here again, is the link to the article I posted, (which includes the quote..which appears in an additional quote box in the middle of the article...that the author asserts represents the lie Krugman told)

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7205&p=89096&hilit=krugman#p89096

Now, if the lie and the argument supporting that he lied, were hidden in some way in that article....

If it was written in code, or if it was a palindrome, or buried in a single sentence in four pages of text....

I might feel the need to provide you with more help sorting it out...

But you don't really need an Enigma machine to find it...

In reviewing that article, I believe it's about 13 paragraphs long and at least nine of those paragraphs (beginning with the very first sentence) deal directly with the alleged lie, and the supporting evidence to back the allegation up....

Rube, I am about this far away from starting a thread with a poll asking the question, "Can you see an allegation of a lie in this article?" (whether you think the allegation is true or not) just to demonstrate to you how far away from rocket surgery this is....

Of course if I did that, you would no doubt claim that the only reason everyone could see the allegation is because all the respondents are "rubato-hater" drunks who can't read a complete book....

I'm still at a loss to understand why a person would keep bringing up one of their own previous fuck ups to attempt to divert attention from their most current fuck up, (you'd think a halfway rational person would want to divert attention from their most recent fuck up by drawing attention to somebody else's fuck up, right?) but I confess that what passes for a "mental process" for rube contains many mysteries for me....

You have posted some dimwit who 'claims' Krugman lied but is vague about what the lie is supposed to be and is dishonest about the Tax Policy Center (which is famously non-partisan)

Actually rube for anyone who can read for comprehension, there's nothing whatsoever that is "vague" about the allegation; it is both specific and detailed. For anyone with sixth grade reading skills, no "clarification" would be needed.

Feel free to deconstruct his arguments.

(Of course in order to do that, you'd have to be able to understand them, so I see where you might be having a problem.)

[Lord Jim]

What I absolutey do not understand, is why you keep wanting to broadcast the fact, over and over, that you cannot read or understand a simple 13 paragraph article...

If I had that sort of embarrassing reading disability, I would be going out of my way to try to conceal it from others...

Not trumpeting the fact from the roof tops, which is what you've decided to do...

Lord knows that just in the regular course of your posting, you provide more than enough glaring evidence for what a dolt you are, without the need to keep reposting this bit of proof for it over and over again...

Every time you post "Where's the lie Paul Krugman is supposed to have told" you might as well post, "I am a complete imbecile who can't read or understand a simple article"... at this point, the two sentences are completely interchangeable...

Why you keep doing this to yourself is a total mystery to me...I have difficulty processing that sort of compulsion for making ones self look bad...I can't begin to relate to it, since it's not something I have any sort of personal acquaintance with....personally I go out of my way to try to avoid making myself look like a clueless nimrod, but for some reason you go out of your way to broadcast the fact...there's some pathology at work with you rube, that I can't even begin to relate to....

I just don't get it....

[Guinevere]

[MajGenl.Meade]