346d
@averagejoe1 saidSo, basically, you disagree with my answers. Fine. That is your perogative.
If they ‘guided’ them for one second, then they did, so my take is…he did not lie. It erupted thereafter. Oh, an inconvenient point?
On your empty trans answer….if you take your 11-yr old daughter to her swim meet at 2pm today, and the moderators allow a 6’2” man with hairy chest and arm pits, muscular legs and large male-size hands, huge thighs and lats, him being a ...[text shortened]... n the style of Sonhouse, but he will not answer. Let us just say we ‘just won’t like his answers’.
You can, however, not suggest your questions aren’t addressed.
Since the link I served is debunking your Tucker malarkey, I need respond to that “he didn’t lie” argument no more.
Your argument on “trans” is neither here not there. Have you ever witnessed anything like that happening first hand? I haven’t.
Because it doesn’t. It’s a ghost tale of exaggerations, created to rile you up over non-issues.
Does the EU have open borders (internally) ? Yes it does.
Has it affected the welfare systems in EU countries? No, it hasn’t.
And housing is a human right numb nuts. It says so in the UN charter on human rights. You just don’t agree. Fine. Bloody ignorant though.
Nothing says housing should be free. It should be affordable though. And if someone has 0 money… then do the bloody maths.
“If it’s a right it has to be free!”
Really? You have a right to a lawyer too. And someone is always paying them (even if it’s taxes).
Again and again… people answer your questions and you just don’t like the answers you are given. Your questions generally aren’t even proper questions, just wild theories that have no grounds in reality.
Even when someone agrees you have a point, like with trans people in sports, if they don’t agree with your solution you explode into a drunken haze of stupidity.
Just for the record, I hate golf. But I’d wipe the floor with you at badminton and smack you like a cracker smacks his wife, even playing left-handed, at table tennis.
I would mock you at football (soccer) and I’d hospitalise you in MMA.
Just so you know.
@shavixmir saidPseud Boy Known as Shag Doody for Brains.
And housing is a human right numb nuts. It says so in the UN charter on human rights. You just don’t agree. Fine. Bloody ignorant though.
Nothing says housing should be free. It should be affordable though. And if someone has 0 money… then do the bloody maths.
The UN is messed up but not even they are as doody for brains as you. Nowhere does it say a house is a right. A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. A piece of corrugated iron held up by some old pallets is not a 'right'. You have a right to acquire a house but that doesn't mean you can demand or force someone else to provide you a house, that would be a violation of their rights. No right exists that requires the violation of rights of others.
Stick to trash talking your ping pong or bragging up your donkey dick dildo collection, you're in way over your head with things like rights.
And let's remember how woeful the UN was when rights were being violated during the wuflu scam and mass medical experiment clotshot.
346d
@wajoma saidOnce again opening yer gob, spouting a whole load of nonsense and finding yourself amusing.
Pseud Boy Known as Shag Doody for Brains.
The UN is messed up but not even they are as doody for brains as you. Nowhere does it say a house is a right. A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. A piece of corrugated iron held up by some old pallets is not a 'right'. You have a right to acquire a house but that doesn't mean you can demand or for ...[text shortened]... e UN was when rights were being violated during the wuflu scam and mass medical experiment clotshot.
Lucky you do though. Noone else does.
346d
@wajoma saidKeep proving what a freaking idiot you are, man.
Pseud Boy Known as Shag Doody for Brains.
The UN is messed up but not even they are as doody for brains as you. Nowhere does it say a house is a right. A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. A piece of corrugated iron held up by some old pallets is not a 'right'. You have a right to acquire a house but that doesn't mean you can demand or for ...[text shortened]... e UN was when rights were being violated during the wuflu scam and mass medical experiment clotshot.
345d
@no1marauder saidThe country was hardly bordered during the times of Davy Crockett and the Alamo, it was a discovery yet to be rounded out. The land was claimed and developed by explorers Marauders, not migrants.
So the United States wasn't a country for its first 100 years? It allowed almost unrestricted migration into the country meaning it had far more of an "open border" than the US does now - which you insist we do even as the Feds remove more than 2 million migrants in a year.
Thanks for sharing such stupidity.
Then you strangely say for no reason that it (the aforementioned land) ‘had far more of an open border than United States has now’?
And then you say feds remove immigrants every year? So? I removed an unwanted armadillo from my land last week. What has that to do with anything?
So I repeat that yes, in the early days, immigration properly managed was very nice. Then the land got borders, and government to monitor their admittance. Is it monitoring water flow by blowing a hole in a dam, Grasshopper? A perfect analogy. You will not respond in kind.
You should have a resolution to stay with an issue. Let’s have happy new year, and not have to be asking the jester to monitor our posts.
345d
@no1marauder said“Better at providing for all the People” , the masses in your trained mind. Brrrrrrrr
And I already responded to that; the United States is better at providing for all the people in it now because of progressive reforms over the last 100 years. That those more than a 100 years ago were willing to countenance large levels of poverty and want and refuse to make social investments that lead to enhanced economic prosperity is no reason for us to repeat their stupid mistakes.
Your ref to prosperity…..Before the evolution of slugs, losers and dependent parasites, everyone pulled their weight, as Archie Bunker once said. Amazing that you compare yesteryear to our circumstance of today.
Yesteryear people/citizens were not Forced to pay the debts of others, **. You will not TOUCH a comment on this. Touche’.
So since our wealth is being redistributed, you cannot possibly compare to our prosperous ancestors. Sorry about slaves, but look how their descendants resultingly prospered.
**Has Sonhouse, who hates govt force like I do, ever commented on govt force to pay my neighbor’s debts?
@shavixmir saidYou left out darts.!! I would best you at darts, too old for tennis, you got me there,
So, basically, you disagree with my answers. Fine. That is your perogative.
You can, however, not suggest your questions aren’t addressed.
Since the link I served is debunking your Tucker malarkey, I need respond to that “he didn’t lie” argument no more.
Your argument on “trans” is neither here not there. Have you ever witnessed anything like that happening first h ...[text shortened]... tennis.
I would mock you at football (soccer) and I’d hospitalise you in MMA.
Just so you know.
We all know what each other thinks. The right to lawyer? Yeah, paid for, but not by the criminal who ain’t got no money. So, it is free to him. Geez. You sound like Marauder.
Tucker is over (saw him last week). But have you seen Sonhouse avoid the man swimming against little girls? How about your liberal self… I assume you are saying it is OK for men to swim with children. I asked Sunhouse , what if you went to the swim meet to watch your daughter, and she had to swim against that muscular expert male swimmer? Can you answer that and stop your waltzing?
I don’t think you qualify to compare fairyland to our problems here, and I am not into stats as much as you and Marauder. Life is short and I left research behind! I think it is fair to render personal opinions based on news which is available to all. December saw our largest influx yet, and as my granny said, those people are bringing (their country) here. They are bringing there here. Don’t sound right, does it. I think I will bring my large family to your house.
Both of you are insincere, and Marauder’s Pollyanna stance of how they will improve our country is not realistic……..UNLESS he is all for dumbing down., spreading the wealth. We could be using the expense of caaaaarring for them, billions, to feed our desperate brothers and sisters, I work at a food pantry facility, I see them everyday.
345d
@wajoma saidLibs leave out inconvenient facts…..or their Marx-teachings skip over the fact that, if someone ‘gets’ something, someone else has to have ‘given’ that something.
Pseud Boy Known as Shag Doody for Brains.
The UN is messed up but not even they are as doody for brains as you. Nowhere does it say a house is a right. A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. A piece of corrugated iron held up by some old pallets is not a 'right'. You have a right to acquire a house but that doesn't mean you can demand or for ...[text shortened]... e UN was when rights were being violated during the wuflu scam and mass medical experiment clotshot.
If they actually genuinely answered this conundrum in their minds, they could not.
345d
@shavixmir saidHe nailed you. Stick to soccer, no question you would kill us in soooccccceerrrr. Brute strength! The manager in my lumber yard could beat me up using his hat as a weapon.
Once again opening yer gob, spouting a whole load of nonsense and finding yourself amusing.
Lucky you do though. Noone else does.
345d
@averagejoe1 saidYou're really stupid enough to believe that the average person in the US in the late 1800s was more "prosperous" than people today?
“Better at providing for all the People” , the masses in your trained mind. Brrrrrrrr
Your ref to prosperity…..Before the evolution of slugs, losers and dependent parasites, everyone pulled their weight, as Archie Bunker once said. Amazing that you compare yesteryear to our circumstance of today.
Yesteryear people/citizens were not Forced to pay the debts of oth ...[text shortened]... s Sonhouse, who hates govt force like I do, ever commented on govt force to pay my neighbor’s debts?
You sure did "leave research behind".
345d
@no1marauder saidYou speak of prosperity of the Country, I am speaking of self-reliance of its people. The oil magnates, the railroad magnates, the financiers, the Henry Fords did a lot by themselves. One was worth 3%^ of the GDP. The major prosperity was accomplished by self-reliant people feeding into it all. This resulted in the success, WITHOUT government handouts and regulations. No sharing the wealth, which is a Marauder Mantra.
So the United States wasn't a country for its first 100 years? It allowed almost unrestricted migration into the country meaning it had far more of an "open border" than the US does now - which you insist we do even as the Feds remove more than 2 million migrants in a year.
Thanks for sharing such stupidity.
It is a joke that you can think that the huge weight of parasites is no problem!!!! hahahah
Marauder uses three phrases in the post he speaks of, as follows:
1) Partial public ownership
2) Government control over the market
3) Policies promoting social equality
Am I the only one who recognizes Marxism here? Brrrrrrrrrrrrr.
And the funny thing is, he is preaching like crazy on this thread about the immigrants (illegals....'undocumented' is a smoke screen) coming in to join our work force, and the country gets rich....HOW can a country get rich under Marxism!?!?!!??!!??!!?!??!?!??!??! (see above phrases).
Can Marauder answer the last question??
Remember my chant.."You cannot have welfare and open border at same time". With this post, I prove it. Whew.
345d
@AverageJoe1
Were citizens of 100 years ago forced to pay the debts of others? No. This is what I mean when I say you cannot compare 'then' to 'now'. Jesus.
345d
@averagejoe1 saidIt's useless talking to someone as stupid as you. You think that because a hand full of rich men had a stranglehold over the economy the country was "prosperous"? Here's a reality check:
You speak of prosperity of the Country, I am speaking of self-reliance of its people. The oil magnates, the railroad magnates, the financiers, the Henry Fords did a lot by themselves. One was worth 3%^ of the GDP. The major prosperity was accomplished by self-reliant people feeding into it all. This resulted in the success, WITHOUT government handouts and regulations. ...[text shortened]... chant.."You cannot have welfare and open border at same time". With this post, I prove it. Whew.
"The United States in 1900 Previous Next
Digital History ID 3175
Life expectancy for white Americans was just 48 years and just 33 years for African Americans--about the same as a peasant in early 19th century India. Today, Americans' average life expectancy is 74 years for men and 79 for women. The gap in life expectancy between whites and non-whites has narrowed from 15 years to 7 years.
In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21.
In 1900, the average family had an annual income of $3,000 (in today's dollars). The family had no indoor plumbing, no phone, and no car. About half of all American children lived in poverty. Most teens did not attend school; instead, they labored in factories or fields."
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.[WORD TOO LONG].
That's what you call "success"?
345d
Here's some fascinating data:
"Colonial America was the most income-egalitarian rich place on the planet. Among all Americans – slaves included – the richest 1% got only 8.5% of total income in 1774. Among free Americans, the top 1% got only 7.6%. Today, the top 1% in the US gets more than 20% of total income."
[And then laissez faire capitalism became the predominant ideology - no1]
"As Figure 2 shows, it did not stay that way. A long steep rise in US inequality took place between 1800 and 1860, matching the widening income gaps we have witnessed since the 1970s."
"From 1870 to WWI, American inequality moved along a high plateau with no big secular changes. Rather, the big drama followed afterwards. Figure 3 documents that the income share captured by the richest 1% fell dramatically between the 1910s and the 1970s, and the share of the bottom half rose, for almost all countries supplying the necessary data. "
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/unequal-gains-american-growth-and-inequality-1700