User avatar
By Vegas
04 Feb 2021, 8:23 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
User avatar
solon

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 12,475
Politics: Liberal

You are not getting the message you are too BORING for me. I wont read your posts since you HAD your chance and all you did was RUN COWARD. GFY

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

solon » 17 Apr 2021, 5:23 pm » wrote: You are not getting the message you are too BORING for me. I wont read your posts since you HAD your chance and all you did was RUN COWARD. GFY
You really think you are the very first idiot lib to make some lame excuse for why you are cowardly running away?  Nope, and I am sure you won't be the last.  You and I both know that if you could be the very first idiot lib to ever prove me wrong, you would absolutely do it in a heartbeat, regardless of how "BORING" I supposedly was.  Running away while I continually taunt, brag, boast, and bump with complete impunity would be completely irrational behavior.

Run, Forrest, run!!!  Lol...

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,325

Nighthawk » 17 Apr 2021, 4:46 pm » wrote: How the **** can I "deny" something when I don't even know if it is true or not?  Here it is, for the FIFTH time now-

I have no idea how it would compare to other welfare states in the world.  It may be the biggest or it may not.

Can you tell me how many more times it is going to take before it sinks through your incredibly thick skull, so I can look forward to you getting it?

Good luck.

Let's go  slow


Are you calling for the largest expansion of the welfare system the us has ever known?

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 17 Apr 2021, 5:49 pm » wrote: Let's go  slow

Are you calling for the largest expansion of the welfare system the us has ever known?
Seriously, how in the holy mother of **** did you get past elementary school without learning how to **** read?  Can you please tell me how this is possible?  Lol...

For the umpteenth time- I am NOT "calling" for any such thing.  All I have said is that means-tested welfare programs are clearly the lesser-of-two-evils compared to moronic MW laws.  Period.

Now, if you are asking if providing more welfare to the very small percentage of unskilled workers, which they themselves only make up a small percent of the overall workforce, that truly need it to avoid starvation is somehow a larger expansion than the US government going from essentially no welfare at one point to like $1 trillion per year in welfare today, then I would say that is extremely unlikely, ****-for-brains.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,325

Nighthawk » 17 Apr 2021, 6:56 pm » wrote: Seriously, how in the holy mother of **** did you get past elementary school without learning how to **** read?  Can you please tell me how this is possible?  Lol...

For the umpteenth time- I am NOT "calling" for any such thing.  All I have said is that means-tested welfare programs are clearly the lesser-of-two-evils compared to moronic MW laws.  Period.

Now, if you are asking if providing more welfare to the very small percentage of unskilled workers, which they themselves only make up a small percent of the overall workforce, that truly need it to avoid starvation is somehow a larger expansion than the US government going from essentially no welfare at one point to like $1 trillion per year in welfare today, then I would say that is extremely unlikely, ****-for-brains.
So do you deny your program would be a massive expansion of welfare benefits 



Just deny that
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 17 Apr 2021, 6:58 pm » wrote: So do you deny your program would be a massive expansion of welfare benefits 

Just deny that
Again, it is not "my program", dimwit.  It is simply a lesser-of-two-evils compared to moronic MW laws.  Apparently you are just too damn stupid to comprehend this, no matter how many times I explain it...

And I would not call providing more welfare to the very small percentage of unskilled workers, which they themselves only make up a small percent of the overall workforce, that truly need it to avoid starvation a "massive expansion", *******.  But even if it was, SO THE **** WHAT???  Why are you saying this is a bad thing?  If you have a point to make, then make it for ****'s sake.

Good luck.
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

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
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,325

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 12:26 pm » wrote: Again, it is not "my program", dimwit.  It is simply a lesser-of-two-evils compared to moronic MW laws.  Apparently you are just too damn stupid to comprehend this, no matter how many times I explain it...

And I would not call providing more welfare to the very small percentage of unskilled workers, which they themselves only make up a small percent of the overall workforce, that truly need it to avoid starvation a "massive expansion", *******.  But even if it was, SO THE **** WHAT???  Why are you saying this is a bad thing?  If you have a point to make, then make it for ****'s sake.

Good luck.
Thank you for admitting you want to create the largest welfare state in the world



See....that was not so hard

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,325

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 12:31 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.
Yes comrade.  Your socialist model would make Lenin jealous 


As long as you own it.....fine with me
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 12:37 pm » wrote: Thank you for admitting you want to create the largest welfare state in the world

See....that was not so hard
Where did I supposedly "admit" anything of the sort, dolt?  But even if I was, SO THE **** WHAT???  Why are you saying this is a bad thing?  If you have a point to make, then make it for ****'s sake.

Good luck.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,325

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 12:42 pm » wrote: Where did I supposedly "admit" anything of the sort, dolt?  But even if I was, SO THE **** WHAT???  Why are you saying this is a bad thing?  If you have a point to make, then make it for ****'s sake.

Good luck.
I just want you to own it comrade.


You are a socialist


Welcome aboard comrade
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 12:49 pm » wrote: I just want you to own it comrade.

You are a socialist

Welcome aboard comrade
Why the hell would I want to "own" a policy that I have clearly and repeatedly labeled as being "evil", ****-for-brains?  What, do you just not know the definition of the word "evil"?  Lol...

 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,325

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 12:53 pm » wrote: Why the hell would I want to "own" a policy that I have clearly and repeatedly labeled as being "evil", ****-for-brains?  What, do you just not know the definition of the word "evil"?  Lol...

Well you do own it


You are promoting it


You socialist lol

User avatar
solon

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 12,475
Politics: Liberal

I looked just to be sure and OF COURSE GUTLESS COWARD NightMORON never even TRIED to address the POINT I MADE AGAIN. I have made it SEVERAL TIMES never ONCDE had the GUTLESS COWARD addresssed it. He just repeats himself OVER AND OVER repeating the SAME LOGICAL FALLACIES I have pointed out OVER AND OVER. The tactic is like a sealion troll trying to WIN through BORING those tiving him a BEATDOWN to death bu just endlessly repearing himself and running AWAY from the CORE ISSUE which he is TOO STUPID to understand much less address

Actually that makes him a TYPICAL Randinista brainwashed MORON

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 1:14 pm » wrote: Well you do own it

You are promoting it

You socialist lol
So, in your dumb liberal fantasy land, someone calling a policy "evil" means that they are actually "promoting" it?  Lol...

Let's try a simple hypothetical scenario and see if that helps get this through your thick skull-

Suppose you are in some country where a racist genocidal dictator has taken power and he has also taken you as prisoner.  Further suppose that he is asking you to help decide his upcoming genocidal plans and you have one minute to decide between the following 2 options-

A:  he will kill one single black person.

or

B or refuse to answer with A or B: he will kill one million black people.

Do you say (A) or (B/no answer)?


 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,325

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 3:57 pm » wrote: So, in your dumb liberal fantasy land, someone calling a policy "evil" means that they are actually "promoting" it?  Lol...

Let's try a simple hypothetical scenario and see if that helps get this through your thick skull-

Suppose you are in some country where a racist genocidal dictator has taken power and he has also taken you as prisoner.  Further suppose that he is asking you to help decide his upcoming genocidal plans and you have one minute to decide between the following 2 options-

A:  he will kill one single black person.

or

B or refuse to answer with A or B: he will kill one million black people.

Do you say (A) or (B/no answer)?

Wait.....



Let me get this clear



The policy you are promoting is evil?????


Is that correct?  LOL

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

solon » 18 Apr 2021, 2:08 pm » wrote: I looked just to be sure and OF COURSE GUTLESS COWARD NightMORON never even TRIED to address the POINT I MADE AGAIN. I have made it SEVERAL TIMES never ONCDE had the GUTLESS COWARD addresssed it. He just repeats himself OVER AND OVER repeating the SAME LOGICAL FALLACIES I have pointed out OVER AND OVER. The tactic is like a sealion troll trying to WIN through BORING those tiving him a BEATDOWN to death bu just endlessly repearing himself and running AWAY from the CORE ISSUE which he is TOO STUPID to understand much less address

Actually that makes him a TYPICAL Randinista brainwashed MORON
Then let's see you post a link to some "POINT YOU MADE SEVERAL TIMES" that I did not very easily destroy. 

Good luck.

On the other hand, I can post numerous examples of points that I made which you very cowardly dodged like the scared little **** pansy that you are.  For example- Link.


If a worker generates $5/hr of profit to the business and the owner pays him something close to that amount, then this is obviously not "unfair" in any way, *******.  Whether that paycheck is enough for that worker "to live on", is completely IRRELEVANT to this determination of fairness.  Period.  Let's try another example to illustrate the idiocy of your position-

Suppose some poor person is selling some aluminum cans that he collected to a recycling center.  Let's say that, based on the current market price of scrap aluminum, his collection is worth $20 and that is exactly what he gets paid when he turns them in, but he "needs" at least $100 to stay alive until he can collect the same number of cans again.  Has that recycling center supposedly "exploited" this poor person or treated him "unfairly", since they did not pay him enough to stay alive?

Yes or no?

Good luck.



Strange, I don't see any post where you answered this simple question at all.  Instead, you cowardly ran the **** away.

Oops, there goes that dumb little lie.  Lol...

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 4:00 pm » wrote: Wait.....

Let me get this clear

The policy you are promoting is evil?????

Is that correct?  LOL
Let's try this again, since you obviously missed it the first time-

So, in your dumb liberal fantasy land, someone calling a policy "evil" means that they are actually "promoting" it?  Lol...

Let's try a simple hypothetical scenario and see if that helps get this through your thick skull-

Suppose you are in some country where a racist genocidal dictator has taken power and he has also taken you as prisoner.  Further suppose that he is asking you to help decide his upcoming genocidal plans and you have one minute to decide between the following 2 options-

A:  he will kill one single black person.

or

B or refuse to answer with A or B: he will kill one million black people.

Do you say (A) or (B/no answer)?
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,325

Nighthawk » 18 Apr 2021, 4:04 pm » wrote: Let's try this again, since you obviously missed it the first time-

So, in your dumb liberal fantasy land, someone calling a policy "evil" means that they are actually "promoting" it?  Lol...

Let's try a simple hypothetical scenario and see if that helps get this through your thick skull-

Suppose you are in some country where a racist genocidal dictator has taken power and he has also taken you as prisoner.  Further suppose that he is asking you to help decide his upcoming genocidal plans and you have one minute to decide between the following 2 options-

A:  he will kill one single black person.

or

B or refuse to answer with A or B: he will kill one million black people.

Do you say (A) or (B/no answer)?

So lets be clear....you don't want to use welfare instead of min wage laws......is that right?

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 18 Apr 2021, 4:05 pm » wrote: So lets be clear....you don't want to use welfare instead of min wage laws......is that right?
I do not "want" to use either one of these things, as they are both EVIL, you illiterate **** imbecile!  All I am saying is that welfare is a LESSER-OF-TWO-EVILS when compared to moronic MW laws.  Period. 

And since you cowardly dodged my simple question, here it is again for you-

Let's try a simple hypothetical scenario and see if that helps get this through your thick skull-

Suppose you are in some country where a racist genocidal dictator has taken power and he has also taken you as prisoner.  Further suppose that he is asking you to help decide his upcoming genocidal plans and you have one minute to decide between the following 2 options-

A:  he will kill one single black person.

or

B or refuse to answer with A or B: he will kill one million black people.

Do you say (A) or (B/no answer)?
 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Annoyed Liberall, Arris, Benson13, Bidennextpresident, Blutarski, Buffalo, Cannonpointer, ConsRule, Crazytrain, crimsongulf, Famagusta, FOS, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Jantje_Smit, nefarious101, neue regel, omh, PaperLi [Bot], Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, Semrush [Bot], SJConspirator, sooted up Cyndi, Steve Jobs [Bot], Taipan, Twitter [Bot], Vegas, Vegas giants, Yahoo [Bot], Zeets2 and 574 guests