User avatar
Blackvegetable

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 77073

Blackvegetable » 04 May 2021, 2:58 pm » wrote: @Nighthawk  

@Zeets2  

Come on down..

Let's see your heads explode....
Bump.

Those be some pussies, I tell ya...
 
Huey's tramp stamp reads:

Don't bother if it is going to be from behind. It could be anyone.


Why Smelly Mincing Mendacious Midgets, And Like Cretins, Must Always Answer BV's Questions The 1st Time.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=56099

User avatar
FOS

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11544

Nighthawk » 04 May 2021, 3:02 pm » wrote: 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???

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?

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...

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...

So how does this seemingly irrelevant story supposedly causes models of capitalism to collapse as you posted above?

i have no issue per se with cartels.

unions give a way to organize and empower people who have no other means of doing so

i believe amazon received assistance from people with political power...it was on a mission for something bigger than profit so nobody was going to buy it out.

the story isnt irrelevant. This absurd banana company received support from the us government so that it was able to totally control the economies of various countries. Same story with east india tea company

User avatar
Blackvegetable

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 77073

@Nighthawk  

@Zeets2  


Come on down..


Let's see your heads explode....
Huey's tramp stamp reads:

Don't bother if it is going to be from behind. It could be anyone.


Why Smelly Mincing Mendacious Midgets, And Like Cretins, Must Always Answer BV's Questions The 1st Time.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=56099

User avatar
FOS

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11544

Nighthawk » 02 May 2021, 4:27 pm » wrote: 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???

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

WTF are you babbling about?  How do these "other motivations" supposedly cause models of capitalism to collapse?

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.
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.

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. If upstarts try to compete with any of you then simply sabotage or buy out their business. This is what we see in the us economy...anyone who becomes competitive is bought out. 

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.

User avatar
sooted up Cyndi

Post

User avatar
Water Cooler Poleece
Water Cooler Poleece
Posts: 16242

Nighthawk » 02 May 2021, 4:27 pm » wrote: 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???

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

WTF are you babbling about?  How do these "other motivations" supposedly cause models of capitalism to collapse?

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.
 You know what I think is precious about you.. Your persistence on the topic..  :clap:  Your a diehard!
Image
Cheers

User avatar
SJConspirator

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5483

Nighthawk » 30 Apr 2021, 12:18 pm » wrote: Well that is almost as bad.

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.

No, why the hell would I agree to something that is economically illiterate nonsense?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Monopolies exist, 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.

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


Image
 
The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air - it is a right proclaimed by the very fact of their existence. Henry George

User avatar
FOS

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11544

Nighthawk » 30 Apr 2021, 12:18 pm » wrote: Well that is almost as bad.

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.

No, why the hell would I agree to something that is economically illiterate nonsense?

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.

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.

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.

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.
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

and no, it does not only involve unskilled labor. It does indeed screw high skilled workers as well...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.

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...as they did for phone companies...and kinda sorta did with microsoft? 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)

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 
 

User avatar
FOS

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11544

Nighthawk » 26 Apr 2021, 9:53 pm » wrote: 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.
Ok well...I'm not an idiot liberal...I'm a fascist. I'll answer.

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.

Meanwhile I am sure you agree that employers...if they simply decide to COLLECTIVELY screw workers, they can. This is why collusion is such taboo under capitalism. Yes? 

'fair competition' after all just works on an honor system. Anyone can decide to COLLABORATE, and totally cheat the system. 

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.'

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. 
 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5483

Nighthawk » 22 Apr 2021, 7:38 pm » wrote: 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? 

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...

yeh yeh, yer a big important guy with very little time for the plebs.  **** off, jerk
 
The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air - it is a right proclaimed by the very fact of their existence. Henry George

User avatar
SJConspirator

Post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5483

Nighthawk » 21 Apr 2021, 7:26 pm » wrote: 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.


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 cuz NOTHING could compare to the importance of making sure working poor stay poor lol
The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air - it is a right proclaimed by the very fact of their existence. Henry George

User avatar
Vegas giants

Post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8584

Nighthawk » 20 Apr 2021, 6:25 pm » wrote: 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.
Hes a **** liar.  Buh bye
Vegas feels gun deaths will only be a threat to americans when they are trending toward 33 millions deaths a year
viewtopic.php?p=1654409#p1654409
Cannon pointer is a gay man
He claims to be trans but openly admitted to me he is actually a gay man.
viewtopic.php?p=1586167#p1586167
Here he admits he will lie and cheat
viewtopic.php?p=1611521#p1611521
HE IS SIMPLY A FLAT OUT LIAR AND IS AFRAID OF A REAL DEBATE

User avatar
Vegas giants

Post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8584

Nighthawk » 20 Apr 2021, 6:14 pm » wrote: 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.
Buh bye.  Not here....if you even see this
Vegas feels gun deaths will only be a threat to americans when they are trending toward 33 millions deaths a year
viewtopic.php?p=1654409#p1654409
Cannon pointer is a gay man
He claims to be trans but openly admitted to me he is actually a gay man.
viewtopic.php?p=1586167#p1586167
Here he admits he will lie and cheat
viewtopic.php?p=1611521#p1611521
HE IS SIMPLY A FLAT OUT LIAR AND IS AFRAID OF A REAL DEBATE

User avatar
Vegas

Post

User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness
Posts: 22981

Nighthawk » 19 Apr 2021, 3:01 pm » wrote: 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? Image  

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...

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...

Yes, exactly. It was just him slinging middle school slang as if he was in a shouting match in a playground. He is very predictable. If he is going to act like a 6th grader, then he could at least mix it up. It's always one or a combo of the following:

1. I accept your concession
2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
3. Get my car (that's a reference to me living in Vegas. He thinks everyone here works as a valet chauffer.)
4. You still got nothing...right after you gave him evidence.
5. What" or ""huh, did you say something?"
6. Calls you gay.

This is his pallet when painting his masterpiece of an argument. 
BlackVeg offers us the peak of his intellect.


Image

User avatar
Vegas giants

Post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8584

Nighthawk » 19 Apr 2021, 3:01 pm » wrote: 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? Image  

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...

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...
Debate with Vegas then.....but you don't even know how the forum works.  LOL

But you lost this one
 
Vegas feels gun deaths will only be a threat to americans when they are trending toward 33 millions deaths a year
viewtopic.php?p=1654409#p1654409
Cannon pointer is a gay man
He claims to be trans but openly admitted to me he is actually a gay man.
viewtopic.php?p=1586167#p1586167
Here he admits he will lie and cheat
viewtopic.php?p=1611521#p1611521
HE IS SIMPLY A FLAT OUT LIAR AND IS AFRAID OF A REAL DEBATE

User avatar
Vegas

Post

User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness
Posts: 22981

Nighthawk » 19 Apr 2021, 10:05 am » wrote: 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?

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. 


And yes, you are kicking his ***. However, I wouldn't brag. It's not nice to beat up kids with down syndrome.
BlackVeg offers us the peak of his intellect.


Image

User avatar
Vegas giants

Post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8584

Nighthawk » 19 Apr 2021, 10:31 am » wrote: Where are the details on the peanut gallery?  I don't see anything in the FAQ.

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.
Not my job to teach you the forum.
Vegas feels gun deaths will only be a threat to americans when they are trending toward 33 millions deaths a year
viewtopic.php?p=1654409#p1654409
Cannon pointer is a gay man
He claims to be trans but openly admitted to me he is actually a gay man.
viewtopic.php?p=1586167#p1586167
Here he admits he will lie and cheat
viewtopic.php?p=1611521#p1611521
HE IS SIMPLY A FLAT OUT LIAR AND IS AFRAID OF A REAL DEBATE

User avatar
Vegas giants

Post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8584

Nighthawk » 19 Apr 2021, 10:05 am » wrote: 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?
**** you *******.  Learn how the peanut gallery works first before you call me a liar ****
 
Vegas feels gun deaths will only be a threat to americans when they are trending toward 33 millions deaths a year
viewtopic.php?p=1654409#p1654409
Cannon pointer is a gay man
He claims to be trans but openly admitted to me he is actually a gay man.
viewtopic.php?p=1586167#p1586167
Here he admits he will lie and cheat
viewtopic.php?p=1611521#p1611521
HE IS SIMPLY A FLAT OUT LIAR AND IS AFRAID OF A REAL DEBATE

User avatar
Vegas giants

Post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8584

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 8:52 pm » wrote: 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?
You dont understand the peanut gallery.  On this thread he can just remove individual posts.

The debate is over
 
Vegas feels gun deaths will only be a threat to americans when they are trending toward 33 millions deaths a year
viewtopic.php?p=1654409#p1654409
Cannon pointer is a gay man
He claims to be trans but openly admitted to me he is actually a gay man.
viewtopic.php?p=1586167#p1586167
Here he admits he will lie and cheat
viewtopic.php?p=1611521#p1611521
HE IS SIMPLY A FLAT OUT LIAR AND IS AFRAID OF A REAL DEBATE

User avatar
Vegas giants

Post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8584

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 6:30 pm » wrote: 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.
It's over sweetheart.   
Vegas feels gun deaths will only be a threat to americans when they are trending toward 33 millions deaths a year
viewtopic.php?p=1654409#p1654409
Cannon pointer is a gay man
He claims to be trans but openly admitted to me he is actually a gay man.
viewtopic.php?p=1586167#p1586167
Here he admits he will lie and cheat
viewtopic.php?p=1611521#p1611521
HE IS SIMPLY A FLAT OUT LIAR AND IS AFRAID OF A REAL DEBATE

User avatar
Vegas giants

Post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8584

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 6:47 pm » wrote: 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...
The debate is over.


You are talking to yourself when only one side is allowed to post
 
Vegas feels gun deaths will only be a threat to americans when they are trending toward 33 millions deaths a year
viewtopic.php?p=1654409#p1654409
Cannon pointer is a gay man
He claims to be trans but openly admitted to me he is actually a gay man.
viewtopic.php?p=1586167#p1586167
Here he admits he will lie and cheat
viewtopic.php?p=1611521#p1611521
HE IS SIMPLY A FLAT OUT LIAR AND IS AFRAID OF A REAL DEBATE