Jump to content

Nighthawk

Member
  • Content Count

    3,516
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Libertarian

Profile Fields

  • Website URL
    Abc@abc.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Anytown, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If I am really all those things, then it should be extremely easy for someone to finally prove me wrong for a change instead of always cowardly running away while I continually bump the threads in which I participate to deafening silence. So why the hell has this NEVER happened??? Do you not find this at least a little bit strange, even in the slightest, dumbass? Nope, the truly "sick bastards" are the people that want to hurt the lowest-skilled workers, especially the black ones, by sentencing them to chronic unemployment with moronic MW laws, just because they foolishly think they may also be "sticking it" to some greedy rich employer in the process. I sincerely hope there is a special place in hell for people like you and other idiot libs that would go to such lengths to make the most vulnerable of our society suffer so badly just to satisfy their feelings of wealth envy and/or racism. Now, go cowardly run away like you always do after I spank you, chickenshit.
  2. I will ask you this yet again, since you cowardly dodged it the first time- If I am really a "Charlatan" with a "mediocre intellect", then it should be extremely easy for someone to finally prove me wrong for a change instead of always cowardly running away while I continually bump the threads in which I participate to deafening silence. So why the hell has this NEVER happened??? Do you not find this at least a little bit strange, even in the slightest, dumbass? Do any of the following thoughts ever pass through your tiny little pea-sized mind? "Hmmmm... neither I or any other poster can ever come remotely close to proving Nighthawk wrong. I wonder if that is because maybe, just maybe, he is actually correct and this basic economic theory stuff is not just a bunch of fancy-schmancy mumbo-jumbo? Maybe there really is a valid reason they call them the LAWS of supply and demand after all..." Lol...
  3. But yet you won't tell me what the hell you want me to analyze, despite my repeated attempts to get you to spit it the fuck out!!! I don't know how many different ways I can ask you to do this. As I very clearly told you above- I AM NOT A FUCKING MIND READER!!! So tell me what the hell you are talking about or just admit you are just full of shit and you are just pretending that there is some super-top-secret analysis that supposedly proves me wrong. Good luck. Oh really??? Then how do you explain this post - Link - where I clearly analyzed the data of the youth unemployment rate in Switzerland? Or this post - Link - where I analyzed the "DEVASTATING" and "CATASTROPHIC" effects of large increases in the MW laws in American Samoa and Puerto Rico? And these are just 2 examples of many. Oops... Like I told that retarded little twit lored above- do you not realize that it is possible to go back and link to previous posts to expose you when you are lying out your ass? Lol... And for the record, those analyses I just linked do not prove anything by themselves. They only serve as a supportive backup to the theory and logic, which are completely irrefutable. Period.
  4. You really think you are the first idiot lib to proclaim some variation of "I could easily prove you wrong and put you in your place, but I just don't wanna" and then insult my intelligence right before cowardly running away like a scared little pussy? Nope, not even close. If I had a dollar every time some idiot lib made a lame excuse as to why they supposedly didn't want to be the very first person to destroy me and then irrationally run for the hills instead of just doing it, I would be quite rich indeed. Lol...
  5. If I really have a "mediocre intellect", then it should be extremely easy for someone to finally prove me wrong for a change instead of always cowardly running away while I continually bump the threads in which I participate to deafening silence. So what the fuck are you waiting for, shithead? Good luck.
  6. No, you just issues some extraordinarily vague "challenge" for me to analyze ***something***, somewhere at a large website, with absolutely no indication of what in the holy hell you wanted me to analyze, what criteria to use for the analysis, or how it has anything to do with any argument I have ever made. You might as well have "challenged" me to analyze the price of tea in China or the alignment of the planets while you were at it... I HAVE DONE ANALYSIS, throughout this whole damn thread and countless others!!! And neither you or anyone else has ever come remotely close to ever proving me wrong. Period. Oh, you mean like cowardly dodging simple, clear questions, or refusing to even attempt to address another person's arguments, while simultaneously falsely accusing other people of doing the very thing that you are clearly guilty of doing numerous times? That is what you call "character"? Well, that is what most people would call blatant "hypocrisy." Do you know what that word means? So now the LAWS of economics and simple logic are just "talking points"??? No, data alone is completely meaningless without some sort of analysis or judgement of that data to draw some kind of conclusion. And how data is analyzed can be very subjective and often times it can be dead wrong (see my link on the garbage Card/Krueger study above). That is why logic, reason, and the LAWS of economic theory are vastly superior to any analysis of data. Period. I also posted a "diatribe" where I very clearly educated you on how to conduct a legitimate debate, as you obviously have no clue how to do so. And apparently I wasted my time because you obviously didn't learn a damn thing... Why the hell would I be "too cowardly" to do something when I am on the correct side of the argument??? I have absolutely no fear of any opposing argument that could possibly be made against my position because I know for a fact that I simply cannot be proven wrong. This is because doing this would require someone to simultaneously disprove the LAWS of economics and simple logic, which is obviously impossible. No, the reason I am not doing the analysis that you challenged me to do is BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT and you will not be more specific about your dumb little challenge despite my repeated requests for you to do so. While it is true that I am easily one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable posters around, I must confess that I AM NOT A FUCKING MIND READER. You really expect anyone to believe that you have discovered this super-top-secret analysis that no one else has ever thought about that suddenly proves moronic MW laws are a good policy, and yet you don't want to reveal this secret to the world? I will say it again- If you truly could be the first person to finally prove me wrong on this forum, you would not just issue vague "challenges" for me to go analyze some mysterious, unspecified thing, somewhere at a massive website with absolutely no clue as to exactly what that something should be or how it relates to anything I have said. No, if you really had something, you would clearly explain what you had and exactly how it proved me wrong. Cowardly running away from me while I continue to gloat, taunt, and brag with impunity when, supposedly, you could very easily put me in my place would be completely irrational behavior. Even if you didn't personally care if this behavior made you look like a coward and stroked my massive ego, you would at the very least post the secret information so that other posters that I continually destroy and humiliate would finally have some ammo to use against me. So you can try to sell your shit somewhere else, cause I ain't buying it... Good luck.
  7. What the fuck are you babbling about??? Where the hell have I stated that I don't want information or data, moron? FYI, a "study" is more than just data, dimwit. While a MW study may be based on data, the authors of the study are generally manipulating and analyzing that data in various ways to arrive a some sort of a conclusion about MW policies. And if those authors use incorrect assumptions, flawed methodology or calculations, or even inaccurate data, then that so-called study is nothing but a worthless pile of garbage and their conclusion is therefore completely meaningless, you damn idiot. On the other hand, if you want to accuse me of being in a "flawed/worthless/garbage/so-called-study" free zone, then that would be a valid accusation. Guilty as charged. Why the hell do you keep posting this list of rules like it proves something, numbskull? That is exactly what I have been doing throughout this thread, dunce. Are you too damn stupid to understand that this can be accomplished in ways other than just citing studies? Well that is obviously impossible for me to do when debating someone like you, as you can't by any stretch of the imagination be called anything even slightly resembling an "intelligent person." In fact, you seem to literally be functionally retarded. You can't understand simple points that are repeated to you numerous times, you can't answer simple, multiple-choice questions, you can't seem to remember the authors of the studies that you personally cited in a previous post in the same thread, and hell, in the post above you demonstrated that you barely even know how to fucking read. Lol... Well it looks like you have been breaking you own fucking rule, you damn imbecile. As I very clearly posted above in response to your foolishly citing the Card and Krueger garbage study- Link2 Card and Krueger purportedly debunked the decades-long economic consensus that raising the minimum wage reduces employment, claiming that a 1992 minimum wage increase in New Jersey raised employment. To this day, the study is still showered with superlatives like "groundbreaking" by well-wishers at NELP. But missing from that re-telling is the story's ending: Card and Krueger's headline-grabbing finding -- that raising the minimum wage had increased employment -- was discredited by another study that found serious problems with the quality of their data. Key questions in the data collection process were so ambiguous that Card and Krueger reported some fast-food locations changing from zero full-time employees to 29 in less than a year; others reported a dramatic drop in part-time employees, from 60 people down to 15. When actual payroll data was analyzed by economists Neumark and Wascher, the results flipped: far from boosting employment, the mandated wage increase in New Jersey had decreased employment -- just as standard economic theory would predict. So why the hell are you not following your own damn rule, shit-for-brains? Lol. I swear, it is getting just too damn easy to humiliate you idiot libs these days...
  8. If I am really "willfully ignorant", then it should be extremely easy for someone to finally prove me wrong for a change. So why has this NEVER happened??? Then let's see you post a link and quote of me supposedly "dodging" some direct, clear question. Or hell, just ask it again right now. Good luck. I agree wholeheartedly. For example, here is an example of someone asking simple, direct questions, and the person being asked cowardly ran away like a scared little pansy without giving any answer whatsoever- Link. In your wildest dreams, chump. The fact is, if you truly could be the first person to finally prove me wrong on this forum, you would not just issue vague "challenges" for me to go analyze some mysterious, unspecified thing, somewhere at a massive website with absolutely no clue as to exactly what that something should be or how it relates to anything I have said. No, if you really had something, you would clearly explain what you had and exactly how it proved me wrong. Cowardly running away from me while I continue to gloat, taunt, and brag with impunity when, supposedly, you could very easily put me in my place would be completely irrational behavior. Even if you didn't personally care if this behavior made you look like a coward and stroked my massive ego, you would at the very least post the secret information so that other posters that I continually destroy and humiliate would finally have some ammo to use against me. So you can try to sell your shit somewhere else, cause I ain't buying it... Good luck.
  9. So where did the little retarded twit conconfounded run off to? Lol... Bump.
  10. Anyone attempting to win a debate against someone like me on this subject, is not really a joke, it is a completely impossible task. Anyone foolishly trying to debate the pro side of moronic MW laws is trying to debate an entirely untenable position. It is similar to someone trying to debate that the earth is flat or something similarly preposterous and absurd. Actually, to be more specific, it is moronic MW laws, not just wages, at least regarding the posts that I have made. And what, exactly, does the census of employment and wages have to do with anything I have posted in this thread??? Just posting a link to some data that is loosely related to the topic at hand without showing how it is relevant at all to any point I have made IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Do you not even understand the basics of debating someone? If not, let me try to educate you: If someone made an argument or position where they stated that some statistic of quarterly employment or wages was "X", and you made a rebuttal argument that this statistic was actually "Y", and then you clearly cited why this was the case with a link to the exact data point in question, then this would actually be a legitimate debating tactic. The above scenario is clearly not what is happening in this thread with your inane posts. In this thread, you have made a dumb argument where you essentially claim that moronic MW laws aren't that bad because the "market wage" is already higher then the level of the MW. I made a rebuttal argument to this nonsense by clearly explaining that this is obviously not true for ALL workers, and thus if the current MW level somewhere is above the true "market wage" for ANY workers at all, then it is therefore a bad policy since it needlessly hurts these people. I also pointed out that the ongoing debate on this issue is not just limited to the current MW levels, as most of the proponents of moronic MW laws are advocating for levels that are much, much higher than the current MW levels as well as the "market wage" for most unskilled workers and thus would be very harmful to many, many people. I even provided a link to a direct quote from an idiot liberal politician recently advocating for such a sky-high MW of $20/hr to prove my claim. In response to my arguments, you did not make anything even slightly resembling a rational rebuttal argument. Instead, you just blindly posted a link with a ton of seemingly irrelevant data and challenged me to just analyze something, somewhere in this link that you won't even specify and say that I am somehow "balking" if I can't figure out what the hell you even want me to look at or respond to. Seriously- WHAT IN THE HOLY MOTHER OF FUCK, DUDE?!?!?!?!? Lol... If I am really any of those things, then it should be extremely easy for someone to finally prove me wrong for a change. So why has this NEVER happened??? Good luck.
  11. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why the hell you keep foolishly relying on these damn studies. I have very clearly explained to your ignorant ass that studies can potentially be flawed, and if they have ridiculous conclusions such as stating the moronic MW laws do not have an effect on unemployment of unskilled workers, then it is a virtual certainly that they are severely flawed garbage. So why on earth do you keep on citing these pieces of absolute trash as if they supposedly prove something, moron??? If you just use your damn head for something other than a hat rack for once in your life and think about this for at least one second, dimwit, then it should be extremely obvious why the idiotic conclusions of your dumb little flawed studies cannot possibly be correct. See if you can answer this simple question- If throughout the history of places and times that had moronic MW laws anywhere around the entire world, there had hypothetically been absolutely no MW laws whatsoever instead of the ones that actually existed, would there have been even one single, solitary person in the entire world that that was actually unemployed but wanted a job, that would have instead been able to get a job under this hypothetical scenario? In other words, has any moronic MW law EVER resulted in ANYONE on earth being unwillingly unemployed? A. Yes. or B. No. If your answer to this simple question is A, then you are admitting that moronic MW laws have caused unemployment. Period. This is what is known as LOGIC. And it should be simple enough that even a dull-witted child should be able to understand it with ease. So why the hell can't you idiot libs manage to grasp something so amazingly simple???
×
×
  • Create New...