Liberal Forum

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 6:29 pm » wrote:
Are we talking about today or the Reagan and Carter presidencies? I'm not defending anything. I'm forcing you to defend your OP. The most fun thing is knowing you know you can't defend it anymore and watching you bring up all matter of unrelated topics.

You are being dishonest. I have already granted that my OP was ill conceived and did not really set up the battle that I wish to have: An honest comparison of the two presidents, rather than me having to prove the more narrow and difficult claim that Carter was better on the economy. Here is my quote, snapback intact:

Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote: On top of all that, pal, I already acknowledged very clearly that you have partially defeated my OP, and I have as a result clarified my thesis. Sometimes OPs are written in haste, and what one is looking to argue is not clearly enunciated. If all you wanted was to prove Carter's economy - after inflation - was stagnant, then you are the victor and may the force be with you. But there are other comparisons left to make, for ME - and I say your drug store cowboy cannot - ON BALANCE - stand up to my peanut farmer. Puddemup, puddemup.

Yet you, in the face of that, continually try to stick me with an OP that I have abandoned, bowing to your superior evidence.

I remain in the fight, but with the modified thesis that Carter was better for America and that Reagan was a disaster for America. His economic model is a proven failure. We're still using it - derr.

Carter was still on FDRnomics - but with the added weight of LBJ's great society and Nixon's withdrawal from Bretton Woods. Give all of that, plus the energy crisis, Carter made a fine showing. Reagan sold us down the tubes and stabbed the working man in the back. I have shown you the math. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that you have not yet apologized.