User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

FOS » 02 May 2021, 4:40 pm » wrote: Ugh. Such a long post. 

First of all, I do support unions. I do think that without a union, workers will tend to get screwed. Yes, high skilled labor as well.
 
So now you say you are okay with people forming a cartel to increase the price of their services?  You do realize that unions are just a form of a cartel, don't you?  I thought you were indicating that you were against this type of behavior in your posts above?  So companies "implicitly" colluding to fix prices, with no apparent use of FORCE whatsoever, is very bad, but workers "explicitly" colluding to fix prices, while absolutely benefiting from the use of FORCE (sometimes incredibly BRUTAL FORCE by union thugs bashing in the skulls of dissenters), is just wonderful and pure holy goodness?  Do you really not see your insane levels of hypocrisy here???
Also, I feel like there are 2 fundamental points we differ on. 1) simply the understanding that NOT competing is better for both parties is the only thing needed for implicit collusion.
Again, this is only true if 1.) no new entrants come along and 2.) no one cheats.  For any new company or any existing company that decides to cheat, it is absolutely better for that party, at least until everyone else abandons the cartel as well and thus stops them from reaping all the rewards for themselves.  For example, how do you explain the problems with rampant cheating among OPEC members, if NOT doing this is supposedly better for all parties?
If upstarts try to compete with any of you then simply sabotage or buy out their business.
Since when is it "simple" to illegally sabotage or buy out a potentially endless line of new businesses popping up to steal your massive, unjustified profits?  Lol...
This is what we see in the us economy...anyone who becomes competitive is bought out. 
So why wasn't your own example from above- Amazon - bought out when they "became competitive" with all the other retailers?

Oops, there goes that silly little ignorant theory...
2) corporations do not always follow some profit incentive. They sometimes can simply be seeking power. Consider this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

 In 1901, the government of Guatemala hired the United Fruit Company to manage the country's postal service, and in 1913 the United Fruit Company created the Tropical Radio and Telegraph Company. By 1930, it had absorbed more than 20 rival firms, acquiring a capital of $215 million and becoming the largest employer in Central America. In 1930, Sam Zemurray (nicknamed "Sam the Banana Man") sold his Cuyamel Fruit Company to United Fruit and retired from the fruit business. By then, the company held a major role in the national economies of several countries and eventually became a symbol of the exploitative export economy. This led to serious labor disputes by the Costa Rican peasants, involving more than 30 separate unions and 100,000 workers, in the 1934 Great Banana Strike, one of the most significant actions of the era by trade unions in Costa Rica.[4][5]
 
The granting of land ownership in exchange for the railroad concession started the first official competitive market for bananas and giving birth to the banana republic. Cuyamel Fruit Company and the Vaccaro Bros. and Co. would become known as being multinational enterprises. Bringing western modernization and industrialization to the welcoming Honduran nation. All the while Honduran bureaucrats would continue to take away the indigenous communal lands to trade for capital investment contracts as well as neglect the fair rights of Honduran laborers. After the peak of the banana republic era, resistance eventually began to grown on the part of small-scale producers and production laborers, due to the exponential rate in growth of the wealth gap as well as the collusion between the profiting Honduran government officials and the U.S. fruit companies (United Fruit Co., Standard Fruit Co., Cuyamel Fruit Co.) versus the Honduran working and poor classes.
So how does this seemingly irrelevant story supposedly causes models of capitalism to collapse as you posted above?

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

SJConspirator » 30 Apr 2021, 4:55 pm » wrote: 2 things.

1.  Your example of widget companies being unable to collude and become a monopoly, flies in the face of history and economics.  It presupposes that some company COULD come in and suddenly challenge major international corporations and take market share.  They cannot. 

 
Then instead of just blindly claiming it, just as you usually do, let's see you give an actual logical argument for a change as to how the colluding companies supposedly could stop other companies from doing what I posted other than by the use of FORCE. 

Good luck.
Monopolies exist,
No **** duh.  I never once posted that monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, etc.., even those not benefiting from the use of FORCE, do not exist at all.  I just said they were rare and could only slightly fix prices.  Since you didn't read it the first time, here it is again for you-

examples of cartels not using FORCE in the real world are extraordinarily rare and typically involve only a small group of companies in some kind of niche industry with very high barriers to entry, and even in these cases they are generally only able to fix prices slightly apart from fair market value to reduce the incentives for new entrants or cheating.
high barriers to market entry exists, and FORCE as you like to put it is used to squash competition and protect the profits of the biggest players.  Your pretense that these things don’t exist just makes you seem naive.
Then the obvious solution to this problem is to eliminate the ability of the cartel members, or some entity on their behalf, to use that FORCE to squash competition, dullard.  Viola, problem solved.

See how easy it is to solve problems when someone actually has a functioning brain that has not been completely brainwashed to hell and back?  Lol...
2.  man, you really want to be right. 
 even if you “win” the argument , somewhere other than in your own mind, it doesn’t even matter?  This isn’t a court case,  minimum wage is not on trial and the stakes here couldn’t be lower,  I think you invest too much in trying to be right on a irrelevant msg board
I do this because I get great enjoyment and fun out of utterly demolishing and humiliating you idiot libs with ease, and just wish I had more free time to do it more often.  You obviously wouldn't know what this is like, seeing as how you like to wallow in ignorance and abject stupidity based on the brainwashing you have received from your liberal masters...
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

FOS » 30 Apr 2021, 1:21 pm » wrote: What i am referring to is not some fairy tale. It is in fact a known economic phenomenon: https://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav ... 0collusion
it need not be a 'cartel'. There need not be any communication between the various people imposing this system...just an ability to look one move ahead and realize that competing with other companies for efficiency is bad for the salary of both CEOs

 
Well if it is happening "implicitly", then it is even LESS likely to be successful in the long term and everything I posted above is MORE likely to happen to cause it to collapse, assuming it is not some obscure niche industry and the fixed price is more than just slightly different than fair market value.  At least if it is "explicit", then the other members of the cartel can exert some level of peer pressure against any firm that chooses to cheat on the agreement.  If there is absolutely no agreement in the first place, and there is a very large difference in price from fair market value, then what is there to stop some company from cheating to their heart's content, to the detriment of all the other competitors???
and no, it does not only involve unskilled labor. It does indeed screw high skilled workers as well...
So why did you dodge the simple question I asked above?  Here it is again for you-

Why wouldn't we supposedly need big nanny government to set wage levels for every single occupation in existence, lest the evil employers "COLLABORATE" to "screw workers" of all types?  Why aren't all the professional or higher-skilled workers such as computer programmers, accountants, engineers, managers, etc.. that are not in a union being "screwed" like you claim would supposedly happen with unskilled laborers?  Why are all these supposedly greedy employers paying these professional or higher-skilled non-union workers one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law, if they really have this magical power over wages to which you ascribe them?  This is yet another simple question that I have never seen anyone believing this nonsense give a rational answer.
and this is why a CEO often makes hundreds of times more money than people who objectively have a more difficult job in their own company.
Don't you see that highly paid CEO's, assuming they are not themselves the sole or majority owner of the company, completely destroys your dumb little theory?  Why the hell would the supposedly "greedy" owners of the company vastly overpay these particular employees when they supposedly could "COLLABORATE" and fix their wages to screw them like all the other workers???  And the same thing could be asked for other highly paid workers, like movie stars.
now sometimes you might get a john mackey (of whole foods)...who for some reason felt an ethical duty to treat his workers well...so he created an environment that was very good for his workers and paid them very well. He obviously didnt have to...and john mackey himself is absurdly poor for being the CEO of a major grocery chain. The guy drives a honda civic, ffs.

so what happened to whole foods? well it was bought out by amazon, which is of course **** to its workers.

and amazon is an interesting case study itself...because it basically operated in the red in order to drive other companies out of business until it finally had a strong monopoly on various services. How did it do this? how did it not simply run out of money in its early stages...and why didnt anyone in the state bother suggesting a trust-busting sort of thing...
Again, don't you see how the examples in your own post are completely destroying your fairy tale theories?  Amazon cut its prices down to the bone, even selling things at a loss in many cases, to undercut all its competitors and gain market share, which you have been telling us would not happen because it would supposedly "ultimately be bad" for them and they would supposedly be in an "implicit" cartel to keep their prices high.  Oops, there goes that dumb little theory...
as they did for phone companies...
Ma Bell had a monopoly that could be abusive because it was protected by government FORCE, which I very, very clearly stated above was pretty much the only way this could occur in the real world- Link.

But Ma Bell could adopt such a pricing policy because of the telephone company’s monopoly position, which the government protected. Company officials knew that certain parts of its markets were tempting targets for potential competitors. But both Bell policy and public policy, backed by the police power of government, kept raiders out of these markets.
and kinda sorta did with microsoft?
The show trials against Microsoft were an example of what I clearly posted above-

the reason that there are laws against these kinds of things is because it is generally much easier for weaker companies to get help from the government to cripple the superior companies than it is to actually improve their own companies to compete against them fairly.
Well...nobody in our lifetimes is gonna know how that was possible unless they are close with power.

one would expect that amazon was only possible with explicit collusion between amazon, top political donors, and the people with the power to investigate fraud etc. And i would go further...they colluded not because of mutual monetary profit...but rather because of tribal solidarity. (This is one of the fundamental flaws of 'capitalists'...the assumption everyone will seek money and have no other motivations. It is untrue. people can have other motivations, and cheat, and then all your models collapse)
WTF are you babbling about?  How do these "other motivations" supposedly cause models of capitalism to collapse?
anyway if we live in an environment were such a thing is possible...then it is pointless even to dream about minimum wage. but it does prove the point that minimum wage is desirable...and a sort of check against oppression from corporate oligarchs...as the 2nd amendment is supposed to be a check against political oppression
How is a moronic MW law supposedly a "check against oppression" if the greedy employers are not the ones that pay the increased wages to the workers lucky enough to stay employed?  If you want me to repost the evidence that most employers of large amounts of unskilled labor could not afford to pay the beloved $15/hr being called for out of their profits even if they wanted to do so, just let me know.

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

FOS » 26 Apr 2021, 10:10 pm » wrote: Ok well...I'm not an idiot liberal...I'm a fascist. I'll answer.

 
Well that is almost as bad.
Because you have created a society fueled by greed, employers might easily decide they just want more money. This means they can **** more 17 year old hoes, after all.
It doesn't matter how "greedy" they are or what they "decide", because as long as they (or some other entity on their behalf) are not using FORCE or FRAUD in some matter (i.e a free market), they will only be able to make more money by better serving their customers.  Period.
Meanwhile I am sure you agree that employers...if they simply decide to COLLECTIVELY screw workers, they can.
No, why the hell would I agree to something that is economically illiterate nonsense?
This is why collusion is such taboo under capitalism. Yes? 
No, besides economic illiteracy, the reason that there are laws against these kinds of things is because it is generally much easier for weaker companies to get help from the government to cripple the superior companies than it is to actually improve their own companies to compete against them fairly.
'fair competition' after all just works on an honor system. Anyone can decide to COLLABORATE, and totally cheat the system. 
No, they can't.  You apparently don't understand basic cartel theory.  The only possible way for members of a cartel to successfully alter the prices of  goods or services significantly apart from fair market value in the long term (whether buying or selling them) is with the use of FORCE, either by themselves or from the government or another entity using it on their behalf.  This is because without using FORCE, there is no way that the cartel can stop new entrants from swooping in, or from existing cartel members from cheating on the agreement, to steal their excess profits for themselves.  Take the following simple example-

Suppose a group of companies in some region selling similar widgets decide to form a cartel and raise the price of their widgets from $10 in a free market to $100 each under the cartel.  While it is true that this will result in fantastic profits for the members of the cartel as long as it holds together, there is a MASSIVE incentive for a new entrant into the industry, or one of the existing cheating members, to sell their widgets for say, $70 each.  While this is lower profit per widget than selling them for $100 each, they will more than make up the difference by the the massive increase in volume, since they will pretty much have the entire widget market to themselves by undercutting all the other cartel members.  And likewise, there is still a MASSIVE incentive for yet another new entrant to swoop in and undercut that company and sell their widgets for say, $50 each.  And this will continue to be the case on and on and on until the price of the widgets eventually gets back down to fair market value of $10 each as the cartel collapses.


This is why examples of cartels not using FORCE in the real world are extraordinarily rare and typically involve only a small group of companies in some kind of niche industry with very high barriers to entry, and even in these cases they are generally only able to fix prices slightly apart from fair market value to reduce the incentives for new entrants or cheating.  Hell, even OPEC, which involves governments using FORCE, still has continuous problems with rampant cheating by many member nations.  The belief that some industries as ubiquitous as those that typically employ unskilled labor that are not using FORCE would be able to significantly fix prices for that labor is insanely idiotic.


And even if your silly little theory was correct, why would it only involve unskilled labor?  Why wouldn't we supposedly need big nanny government to set wage levels for every single occupation in existence, lest the evil employers "COLLABORATE" to "screw workers" of all types?  Why aren't all the professional or higher-skilled workers such as computer programmers, accountants, engineers, managers, etc.. that are not in a union being "screwed" like you claim would supposedly happen with unskilled laborers?  Why are all these supposedly greedy employers paying these professional or higher-skilled non-union workers one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law, if they really have this magical power over wages to which you ascribe them?  This is yet another simple question that I have never seen anyone believing this nonsense give a rational answer.
Guess what? Collaboration need not be explicit. It can be totally implicit. 'i realize that if I compete for you on wages, you will compete with me. This is ultimately bad for the two of us.'
That is great if there are only two of us employing people in some region, but that is not the case for about 99.999+ percent of people living in the US.  For most everywhere in the US, even if you don't compete with me on wages, there is a list of other "greedy" competitors about a mile long that will be very happy to do so in a nano second if I am significantly underpaying them.
And supposing business owners just decide to do that? What 'self organizing' mechanism will fix that, especially when barriers to competition with markets is too high?

None.

So the state steps in. Minimum wage. **** your collaboration. You are STILL making a positive profit per worker, but not paying them enough.
Again, examples where this can actually happen in the real world are extremely rare, especially for unskilled labor.  For almost all unskilled laborers, the "mechanism" that will "fix" this problem is just a simple free market, free from the use of FORCE.  Problem solved.


I appreciate your attempt to give a rational answer to my simple question, but sorry- no cigar.  You have apparently been reading too many fairy tales and not enough books on basic economics.  If you want to give it another try, feel free to do so.

Good luck.

 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

I will ask my amazingly simply question on this matter yet again, since none of the idiot libs have so far provided anything even slightly resembling a rational answer-

So for the people that based on their current skills, abilities, experience, etc.. can't earn a high enough wage in a free market to "support AT LEAST themselves", and society decides that they should be subsidized in some way as a result, why the hell do you idiot libs want to arbitrarily assign the responsibility of providing this subsidy to their employer? Employers are not adopting these people, they are simply an entity with which the workers are making an economic transaction. So why the hell should they have to give the workers any more in pay than the value the workers are providing to them? Why shouldn't the responsibility of providing a subsidy/charity to these people belong to society as a whole, to be collected and distributed in the fairest, most efficient, and least harmful manner possible?

I have asked this question of you idiot libs numerous times, and for some strange reason, none of you can ever give a rational answer. Can any of you idiot libs be the very first to do so?

Good luck.

Bump.

 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

SJConspirator » 22 Apr 2021, 7:42 pm » wrote: yeh yeh, yer a big important guy with very little time for the plebs.  **** off, jerk
So I am supposedly the jerk here, huh?

Throughout this thread, you have repeatedly falsely accused me of somehow wanting to hurt poor people like I am some kind of uncaring, heartless bastard, and yet I am supposedly the jerk?

Despite me repeatedly refuting your false accusations by showing that not only am I not advocating policies that hurt poor people, I am actually advocating lesser-of-two-evil policies that would help them far better than your moronic policies could ever dream of doing, you have still never apologized for those false accusations, and yet I am supposedly the jerk?

You have been tricked into supporting moronic MW laws by your liberal masters when they were brainwashing the ever-living **** out of you and you fell for it like a good little weak-minded sheep, and instead of being mad at them for tricking you, you say that I am supposedly the jerk?

As opposed to the way your masters have been lying to you, I have been graciously bestowing knowledge upon you ignorant "plebs" by educating you (free of charge, BTW) on the real truth of the harm of moronic MW laws (evidenced by the fact that no idiot lib has ever come remotely close to proving me wrong so far), and yet I am supposedly the jerk?

Despite the fact that I have answered every legitimate question and responded to all legitimate arguments, you idiot libs routinely dodge simple questions and run away like sniveling little cowards, and yet I am supposedly the jerk?


It sounds like you and I have very different views on what supposedly makes someone a jerk.  Lol...

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

SJConspirator » 21 Apr 2021, 7:40 pm » wrote: good lord, this guy is still going on about the minimum wage .  Of all the important topics facing our country, Nighthawk has no comment on any of them going on in other threads
 
I have plenty of comments on them, I just don't have the time to spend all night and day on forums like you loser liberal welfare queens.  Some people have these things called jobs, families, hobbies, responsibilities, etc..., *******.  That is why I limit my posts most of the time to very easy topics like this.  Hell, if you pitifully stupid cretins can't even grasp a simple subject, that based on basic economic theories and extremely simple logic, is so straightforward and cut-and-dried as the harm from moronic MW laws, what **** chance would you have to comprehend more complex topics? 
cuz NOTHING could compare to the importance of making sure working poor stay poor lol
How the hell does causing many of the working poor (that you are pretending to be so concerned about) to become unemployed completely because of moronic MW laws supposed to prevent them from staying poor, nimrod? 

And if that was supposedly my sinister goal, why the hell would I be advocating, as a lesser-of-two-evils, to provide aid in a manner that would result in roughly ***8 TIMES*** as much going to to each of the poor workers from a given amount of redistributed wealth compared to moronic MW laws, ****-for-brains?  Are you actually claiming that they way I supposedly want these poor people to "stay poor" is by giving them each MORE money???  Inside your head, this actually sounds like a logical argument, dolt?  Lol...


 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

I will ask my amazingly simply question on this matter yet again, since none of the idiot libs have so far provided anything even slightly resembling a rational answer-

So for the people that based on their current skills, abilities, experience, etc.. can't earn a high enough wage in a free market to "support AT LEAST themselves", and society decides that they should be subsidized in some way as a result, why the hell do you idiot libs want to arbitrarily assign the responsibility of providing this subsidy to their employer? Employers are not adopting these people, they are simply an entity with which the workers are making an economic transaction. So why the hell should they have to give the workers any more in pay than the value the workers are providing to them? Why shouldn't the responsibility of providing a subsidy/charity to these people belong to society as a whole, to be collected and distributed in the fairest, most efficient, and least harmful manner possible?

I have asked this question of you idiot libs numerous times, and for some strange reason, none of you can ever give a rational answer. Can any of you idiot libs be the very first to do so?

Good luck.

Bump.

 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 20 Apr 2021, 6:18 pm » wrote: Buh bye.  Not here....if you even see this
Vegas already told you that if you behave like an adult, he won't delete your posts.  That doesn't seem to unreasonable.

Good luck.
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 19 Apr 2021, 3:04 pm » wrote: But you lost this one
 
Lol...  you really think it is that easy to be the very first idiot lib to ever prove me wrong?  Just blindly claim that I somehow "lost this one", without actually refuting any of my arguments and then call it a day while you cowardly run away, moron?  Sorry, but if you believe that load of rancid ****, you are only lying to yourself, chump.  It will be a very cold day in hell before I "lose" a debate to a **** retarded imbecile such as yourself.  But feel free to give it a shot, if you like to continue getting humiliated.

Good luck.
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegas » 19 Apr 2021, 12:22 pm » wrote: Yes. It's the peanut gallery. I removed his post because I am sick of this *******'s middle school responses. He throws out 6th grade slogans. I enabled the peanut gallery for serious conversation. His post was nothing more than his usual sophomoric immature crap. I'll continue to do so if he continues. If he wants to act like an adult, then fine. But this thread was meant for adults who want to debate, not for toddlers who love to throw tantrums. 

 
So in the deleted post, he wasn't actually making an actual argument to advance the debate, like he is pretending above?  Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:  

Unfortunately, I think you have now given him an excuse for running away, as lame as it may be.  I can see it now - "I could have easily been the very first lib to ever prove Nighthawk wrong and finally put him in his place for a change, but that big meanie Vegas just wouldn't let me!!!"  Lol...
And yes, you are kicking his ***. However, I wouldn't brag. It's not nice to beat up kids with down syndrome.
You are right, it is probably not very nice to trash and humiliate these pitifully stupid little retards like I routinely do, but I just don't suffer fools lightly.  This is especially the case when they are advocating policies like moronic MW laws that cause so much needless harm to some of the most vulnerable people in society, all because they are too damn lazy to educate themselves for once in their lives or to at least stop allowing their liberal masters to brainwash the ever-living **** out of them so damn easily.  When I consider this, I tend to lose all sympathy for these ******* cretins and just unload on them...
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 19 Apr 2021, 10:12 am » wrote: **** you *******.  Learn how the peanut gallery works first
 
Where are the details on the peanut gallery?  I don't see anything in the FAQ.
before you call me a liar ****
Lol... you are one to talk.  How many **** times have you falsely accused me of lying throughout this thread, retard?  I have lost count, and you never did apologize for doing so when I proved your claims were false every single time. 

And I have not actually "called" you a liar, I have just said I "suspect" it, as your claims of posts being removed seem very dubious and suspicious. 
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 19 Apr 2021, 5:52 am » wrote: You dont understand the peanut gallery.  On this thread he can just remove individual posts.

The debate is over
Who can do this?  Vegas?

@Vegas , can you confirm his claim that you are removing his posts for some reason?  Or, as I suspect, is he just lying because he wants to cowardly run away since he knows he is being destroyed, and is just using this as a lame excuse?
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 7:50 pm » wrote: The debate is over.

You are talking to yourself when only one side is allowed to post
Again, who the hell is stopping you from posting???

And if they are stopping you from posting, how the hell I am seeing your posts such as this one?

Are you just lying to make it seem like you are not just cowardly running away?
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 4:36 pm » wrote: And you want neither.

Now I have you on record

You would prefer hungry children starve....quietly

Now its on record.  Thanks
I can tell you one thing for certain- you idiot libs are nothing if you are not predictable.  I knew that you were eventually going to post what you just did a long time ago.  Here is one post from 2019 where I magically foresaw the future - Link.

One thing I have observed from these idiot libs is that when they are getting their asses handed to them in a debate against a conservative, they will often resort to changing the subject by using a fallback claim that their conservative opponent is some kind of heartless bastard that thoroughly enjoys and advocates for poor children to be tortured and starved to death, or something similarly absurd.  They will never actually present any evidence or logical arguments to back up this claim, mind you- they will simply proclaim it as if it is a given fact.  By pretending that they have the moral high ground, they think it somehow eliminates the need to actually refute any opposing arguments or prove their case.  In their warped view, it is basically- "I claim I am good and you are evil, thus I automatically win the debate without having to actually prove anything." I have seen dozens of them go down this path, right before they cowardly run away...



Wow, it is like I am a modern-day ****!!!  Lol...
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 5:18 pm » wrote: Your **** boyfriend you **** *******.

**** off

The debate is over if I can't make my case
Well considering that I am not gay and thus I don't have a boyfriend, you are not really answering my question, *******.  Lol...

If someone is deleting your posts, I can guarantee that they are not doing it at my request.  For the record, if anyone is deleting vegasgiant's posts, please stop.  Just let him continue to show how unbelievably **** stupid he is and I will continue to humiliate him with ease.  Thanks.
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 5:06 pm » wrote: Are you so stupid that you don't know my posts are being removed?
Sorry, I don't live all night and day on message boards like you welfare queen libs.  Some people actually have these things called jobs, families, hobbies, responsibilities, etc..  Who is removing your posts?
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 4:59 pm » wrote: Debate is over ****. 
 
So you are conceding and/or cowardly running away, just like all the other idiot libs I have very easily destroyed in this thread?
This goes to the peanut gallery
What does that mean?
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 4:45 pm » wrote: I keep asking for your plan.

You keep denying you have one

My plan to to increase min wage

What is yours?
I never "denied" anything of the sort, you damn idiot.  I absolutely do have a plan, but as I very, very clearly posted above-

The correct solutions to truly help the poor are far more complex than what I have discussed so far in this thread, which is why I have refrained from doing so.  If you simple-minded cretins can't even grasp the extremely simple concept of welfare being a lesser-of-two-evils compared to moronic MW laws, then there is very little chance you will understand something more complicated.

So, are you ready to admit that you have now been educated on this topic such that you fully comprehend that welfare is easily a lesser-of-two-evils compared to moronic MW laws, and thus promise never to advocate for those moronic laws ever again?  If so, you may be ready for some further education.  Just let me know.

Good luck.
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4437

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 4:36 pm » wrote: And you want neither.

Now I have you on record

You would prefer hungry children starve....quietly

Now its on record.  Thanks
 
So simple logic is apparently not something you understand, huh?  I guess we can add that to the very, very long list of simple things that you just don't see capable of understanding.  Lol...

Pay very close attention to this very simple logic lesson, retard-

For someone to "prefer hungry children starve" simply because they are against government welfare and MW laws, then this would require that government welfare or MW laws to be the ***ONLY*** possible ways to prevent children from starving.

Now, are you claiming that government welfare or MW laws are the ***ONLY*** possible ways to prevent children from starving?

Yes or no?