Jump to content
Tommywilley84

How many of you are openly racist?

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Its like having a debate concerning the merits of John Maynard Keynes with a 1st grader. The 1st grader can brag (like you do) but when simple terminology is brought into the discussion and the first grader clearly and admittedly has no idea what is being said.... it is no longer a discussion. You were exposed... plain  and simple. 

If I have supposedly been "exposed... plain  and simple", then it should be extremely easy to finally prove me wrong and put me in my place for a change.  So what the fuck are you waiting for?  Even if you don't care if I get shut up, surely all the other people I have easily destroyed would appreciate it if you could give them a helping hand as to how to defeat me for once.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, johndnorth said:

Another brutal ass kicking by Nighthawk. I never get sick of the mauling. BUMP.

Thanks.  It is really quite enjoyable, but I wish at least one of these pitifully stupid little twits would give me at least a slight challenge every now and then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

If I have supposedly been "exposed... plain  and simple", then it should be extremely easy to finally prove me wrong and put me in my place for a change.  So what the fuck are you waiting for?  Even if you don't care if I get shut up, surely all the other people I have easily destroyed would appreciate it if you could give them a helping hand as to how to defeat me for once.

 

Good luck.

Your post is more evidence of how hollow, empty your boasting is. A lot of bragging and tough talk and yet again nothing of substance... I should not expect anything else so its on me. Definition of insanity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, impartialobserver said:

Your post is more evidence of how hollow, empty your boasting is. A lot of bragging and tough talk and yet again nothing of substance... I should not expect anything else so its on me. Definition of insanity...

Again- if you don't like me boasting, bragging, and taunting with impunity, then the solution is quite simple- PROVE ME WRONG.  I have made dozens of posts in this thread alone.  If you can't find one single thing of "substance" that someone that has supposedly been "exposed" has posted that you can disprove, then I guess everyone can see which one of us is truly "hollow" and "empty" and is just making "tough talk."  It is not just "talk", when you can back it up with an undefeated record, dimwit.

 

Good luck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

Again- if you don't like me boasting, bragging, and taunting with impunity, then the solution is quite simple- PROVE ME WRONG.  I have made dozens of posts in this thread alone.  If you can't find one single thing of "substance" that someone that has supposedly been "exposed" has posted that you can disprove, then I guess everyone can see which one of us is truly "hollow" and "empty" and is just making "tough talk."  It is not just "talk", when you can back it up with an undefeated record, dimwit.

 

Good luck. 

That's the problem. All of your posts are bragging and boasting with nothing to back it up. It is difficult to take someone serious when they blatantly do not know what the word, "nonbinding" means. One can't "defeat" bragging and boasting on an anonymous internet forum. Take your hollow victories. No one but you cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

That's the problem. All of your posts are bragging and boasting with nothing to back it up. It is difficult to take someone serious when they blatantly do not know what the word, "nonbinding" means. One can't "defeat" bragging and boasting on an anonymous internet forum. Take your hollow victories. No one but you cares.

So you are claiming that in all of the posts I have made in this thread, I have stated absolutely nothing other than just plain "bragging and boasting"?  No statistics of typical fast food restaurant profit margins and other expenses?  No explanations of how companies will pay for increased wages in the long term using irrefutable logic?  No links to arguments from USSC decisions?  No links to studies that support my claims?  No passages from economics books?  And you, on the other hand, have supposedly filled all your posts with "substance" on the topic I am debating?

 

You do realize that anyone can very easily look back at the posts made in this thread and see which one of us is truly full of shit and lying out their fucking ass, don't you?  What a fucking retard...  Lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

So you are claiming that in all of the posts I have made in this thread, I have stated absolutely nothing other than just plain "bragging and boasting"?  No statistics of typical fast food restaurant profit margins and other expenses?  No explanations of how companies will pay for increased wages in the long term using irrefutable logic?  No links to arguments from USSC decisions?  No links to studies that support my claims?  No passages from economics books?  And you, on the other hand, have supposedly filled all your posts with "substance" on the topic I am debating?

 

You do realize that anyone can very easily look back at the posts made in this thread and see which one of us is truly full of shit and lying out their fucking ass, don't you?  What a fucking retard...  Lol...

Where did impartialobserver go?  Lol...

 

Bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2020 at 11:39 AM, Nighthawk said:

You mean the one JSTOR study that you just linked multiple times, dumbass?  If so, I have already clearly shown the ways that this so called study was so badly flawed it was just a worthless piece of trash, created by a bunch of brainless morons.  You, on the other hand, have STILL not "dealt with" this-

 

How about the fact that I cited a study from a group & author that ***YOU*** claimed to be "scholarly experts" (your exact description of them here- Link).  Are you now claiming that they are not "credible" and thus your earlier description of them was in fact a lie? 

 

Will you answer this time or will you cowardly dodge the question like a sniveling little pansy yet again?

 

Good luck. 

 

If I am really just posting "bullshit", then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove it, instead of cowardly dodging simple questions like a scared little chickenshit.  So what the fuck are you waiting for?

 

Good luck.

 

I only pointed that out because ***YOU*** were moronically claiming that your dumb position is based on "basic economic principles", when it clearly is not, retard.

 

 

If I have "never taken a course in Economics" and my positions are not truly "superior", then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove it, instead of cowardly dodging simple questions like a scared little chickenshit.  So what the fuck are you waiting for?

 

Good luck.

 

 

If you don't like me bragging and boasting, then the solution is quite simple- PROVE ME WRONG.  You can lay claim to being the very first idiot lib on this forum to ever do so.

 

Good luck.

 

No, I did not use the word "never", you illiterate fucking cretin.  I gave a list of possible caveats & clarifications to my claims here- Link.  Are you EVER going to learn how to read???  Lol...

 

 

See above.

 

And you STILL have not even attempted to make anything even slightly resembling a rational argument as to why employers should arbitrarily be assigned the responsibility of giving charity to these workers instead of SOCIETY AS A WHOLE in the most efficient, fairest, and least harmful method possible, despite my having asked you this about a half dozen times, dumbass.  Is that because you simply have no reason whatsoever?  You just believe this because it is what your liberal masters told you to think, dimwit?  Lol...

 

 

If you claim this is not true, then let's see you post a link to where some idiot lib has proven me wrong.  

 

Good luck.

Because nothing says "victory!" like re-bleating the same dishonesties and pathetic boasting?  You have the integrity of a trump.

 

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong.  Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion.  Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected.  You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

 

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

 

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up, countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic."  You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation, you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full.  You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space.  Dumb as you are, I don't think you even fool yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

Because nothing says "victory!" like re-bleating the same dishonesties and pathetic boasting?  You have the integrity of a trump.

No, nothing says "victory!" like when their opponent cowardly and repeatedly dodges most of the simple questions they are asked like a scared little pansy.  Now, who do we know that has been doing that in this debate?  Hmmm???

 

And the reason I keep on repeating things is because as I clearly posted above-

 

Unfuckingbelievable...  I don't know if it is because of your illiteracy, your stupidity, or you are just certifiably insane, but somehow you are simply not comprehending what I am telling you, no matter how much I dumb it down so that even a complete dullard should be able to grasp it with ease.  There has been a repeating pattern in this debate- you make a ridiculously idiotic argument, I thoroughly and completely demolish it, and in the next post you use the same argument again, without ever showing how my demolition of it was supposedly wrong.  It is as if my refutation of your idiocy went right in one ear and out the other, without you ever absorbing it.  And this is happening over and over and over.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

If you want me to stop repeating something, then PROVE THAT THING WRONG, you damn imbecile.  From now on, I am going to start putting things you have ignored and I have to continually repeat in blue.  If you keep ignoring them, then I will keep right on posting them again and again and again.

 

Good luck.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong. 

I already very, very clearly explained to your ignorant ass why ANY study that  shows the money coming from profits (apart from the caveats I listed above) absolutely HAS TO BE WRONG.  Period.

 

I am sure if I looked hard enough, I could discover the flaws in any other so-called study you happen to find with similar moronic conclusions.  The reason I know for an absolute fact that they are flawed is because such a moronic conclusion is completely ILLOGICAL, and thus completely impossible.  And as I asked you above-

 

"First of all, why in the holy hell would these supposedly "greedy" bastards take the money out of their profits???  If investors/entrepreneurs needed a certain return on investment based on the risk being taken to open these businesses before, why the hell would this number magically change just because an industry-wide input cost to the business changed?"  And what was your response to this question?  That's right, as usual, it was-

 

DEAD FUCKING SILENCE.

 

Maybe another simple question will help-  Suppose that as a result of a MW increase, the profit margins for a certain industry in a given region will decrease from say 5% down to 1% in the short term.  Will this result in:

 

A.  more investment into this industry, because we all know that the evil, greedy entrepreneurs & investors don't give a damn about how much profits they can possibly make when deciding what business to open?

 

or

 

B.  less investment into this industry, because investment always seeks out a higher reward for a given risk?

 

Do you say A or B?  Or will you cowardly dodge the question like you usually do?

 

Good luck. 

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion. 

Where is your quote from the study that backs up this claim?  I will admit I have not gone through it line-by-line, but a cursory glance does not seem to state that the examination of this industry was just an unrelated and irrelevant side note that had nothing whatsoever to do with their actual study.  If you can provide evidence of it stating this, then I will withdraw this particular criticism of the study.  Of course, this would beg the question of why the hell they would even bother to waste time and effort on this industry and put it in the report in the first place if it was not part of the study, moron?  The only reasons I can see for them analyzing this industry are that they are fucking retards or they were severely biased with an preset agenda to try to make it look like that profits would be reduced, in any way they could twist the data to make it appear so.  In either case, it means that the entire study cannot be trusted and is nothing more than worthless trash.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

This was not the only flaw or criticism I had, dullard.  Again-

 

In fact, here is a statement from their conclusions that further shows how flawed and useless their garbage study truly is-

 

We could not find any evidence that low wage firms were forced out of business by the
higher wage costs resulting from the minimum wage. One explanation for this absence
of an exit effect may be because our time period is still too short and that in the very long
run there is significant exit. It may also be that there is less entry into the low wage
sectors as a result of the minimum wage.

 

 

As I have told you over and over and over and over ad nauseum- I am talking about what happens in the LONG TERM, dunce.  In the SHORT TERM, all kinds of strange things can happen, including lower profits, until the industry has time to adjust, nimrod.  This adjustment could include simply having fewer total companies in the industry with which to divide the available customers.

 

And here is another bit of abject stupidity from your precious piece of trash study-

 

An alternative explanation is that firms were
making profits from paying low wages prior to the minimum wage introduction and that
one consequence of the introduction of the minimum wage to the UK labour market was
to moderate these “excess” profits by channelling them back to the wages of low paid
workers.

 

 

Someone needs to ask these brainless fucking idiots the very obvious question that would arise if this ignorant fantasy was reality- if this industry truly had all these massive "excess profits", then why in the holy mother of hell wouldn't there be more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more new "greedy" companies piling into that industry every day to cash in on those massive profits for themselves, until the resulting increased competition eventually brought the profits down to reasonable levels?  What, do these brainiacs think that the entire world just suddenly ran completely out of "greedy" people that wanted to easily get filthy rich?  Lol...

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected. 

Again, those 2 statements are not mutually exclusive, dunce-

The "nearly all" was referring to the one possible source they were examining: price increases on consumers, you fucking illiterate retard.  They were not examining the other possible sources in that study.  For example, if hypothetically, 90% of the cost was passed onto consumers, 5% was transferred from workers that lost their jobs entirely, and 5% was from eliminating services like cashiers, then someone saying "nearly all of the minimum wage increase is passed through to consumers" and "ALL of the cost came from something other than profits" then BOTH WOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY BE TRUE STATEMENTS, moron!!!

 

And as I also posted above-

And who really gives a damn if the cost is truly "all" passed on or just "mostly all" passed on?  From a philosophical perspective in the context of this debate, the difference is meaningless.  The main point is that switching to a moronic living wage law instead of welfare to subsidize workers will primarily adversely affect consumers and not the greedy employers, opposed to what you idiot libs like to foolishly pretend, regardless of whether it is all or mostly all.  It seems like you are just trying to split hairs on an irrelevant distinction (that you are falsely accusing me of even making) because you have absolutely nothing else with which to refute my argument.  How pathetic...

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

Let's examine a couple of statements, shall we?  Here are your exact words:

 

1.  "You claim I never answered where money for a livable wage would come from, when clearly I said it would come from employers, "

 

Note that you did NOT put words such as "a tiny part of" in front of the word "it" in this statement, implying that 100% would come from the evil employers.

 

And here is what your beloved "scholarly experts" concluded in their study:

 

2.  "nearly all of the minimum wage increase is passed through to consumers."

 

These 2 statements cannot both be correct.  One of them HAS TO BE WRONG.  So which is it?  Are you lying, or are your beloved "scholarly experts"?

 

Good luck.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

Again- if you want me to stop repeating something, then PROVE THAT THING WRONG.

 

Good luck.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up,

Then let's see you post a quote where I said any such thing, or admit that you are a fucking liar.

 

Good luck.

 

Here is what I ACTUALLY said- Link.

 

But that does not apply to the scenarios I have been discussing, you illiterate twit.  I have very, very clearly and repeatedly stated that I have been talking about a cost increase affecting "an entire industry."   As my link above very clearly explains-

 

Of course, most firms cannot raise prices by themselves without losing business to competitors. A unilateral increase in McDonald’s burger prices would send diners to Burger King or Wendy’s. But when cost increases hit every firm in an industry, these firms can collectively raise prices. Though higher prices will drive some customers away, no single firm faces a competitive disadvantage.

 

As a result, most affected businesses respond to mandatory starting-wage increases by raising prices.

 

 

 

Or as I clearly posted from the excellent book on economics in the link in my post above- Economics in One Lesson-

 

It is usually assumed that an increase in wages is gained at the expense of the profits of employers. This may of course happen for short periods or in special circumstances. If wages are forced up in a particular firm, in such competition with others that it cannot raise its prices, the increase will come out of its profits. This is much less likely to happen, however, if the wage increase takes place throughout a whole industry. The industry will in most cases increase its prices and pass the wage increase along to consumers...

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic." 

Where did I say I have never taken a course in economics, you damn lying piece of shit?  Of course I have done this, dolt.  Not that alone this really means anything these days.  Hell, look at AOC for example.  She supposedly majored in economics, but whenever she discusses any economic issue she comes across as an air-headed, babbling, idiotic twit that doesn't know the most rudimentary economic concepts any more than she knows her ass from a hole in the ground - Link.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation,

Lol...  Where do you imagine you have done this, other than in your insane fantasies?  Was it when you-

 

1.  Repeatedly engaged in numerous logical fallacies, including some that even after I pointed them out to you and gave you an example of slavery to demonstrate how fallacious and stupid it was, that you STILL continued to use like some kind of damn imbecile- Link?

 

2.  Ignored most of the arguments I have made throughout this thread, causing me to have to continually repeat them (like the parts of this post in blue)?

 

3.  Cowardly refused to answer most of my extremely simple questions, despite asking some of them over and over and over?

 

4.  Lied about statements that I supposedly made, but you were never able to actually produce a quote of me ever saying them?

 

5. Citing studies that either didn't back up your claims in any way or were just badly flawed outliers, while ignoring the studies that I cited?

 

So, which one of these things supposedly left me "wallowing in humiliation", dipshit?  Lol...

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full. 

If you want to claim that my boast on this issue is a lie, then yes, you will have to provide evidence of this being the case by posting an example.  If I am really as dumb as you say, then you should be able to find numerous examples of this in just a 2 minute search of my posts.

 

Good luck.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space. 

No, I just thoroughly enjoy destroying and humiliating you idiot libs, and then continually gloating about it after you all cowardly run away.  I know it is being a bad sport, like pointing at the scoreboard when routing an opponent in a sporting event, but it is tons of fun, so I will continue to do it.  If you don't like it, then tough shit.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 10:07 PM, RickyTavy said:

Dumb as you are, I don't think you even fool yourself.

If I am really so "dumb" then then it should be extremely easy to finally prove me wrong and put me in my place for a change.  So what the fuck are you waiting for? 

 

Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 2:50 PM, Tommywilley84 said:

In public that is. I see alot of people on here being rather ballsy with their choice of words to describe anyone who isn't white. Just curious if you are that bold in real life interaction. If so how do others react?

Who cares? The world will always has assholes. That's the way it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

No, nothing says "victory!" like when their opponent cowardly and repeatedly dodges most of the simple questions they are asked like a scared little pansy.  Now, who do we know that has been doing that in this debate?  Hmmm???

 

And the reason I keep on repeating things is because as I clearly posted above-

 

Unfuckingbelievable...  I don't know if it is because of your illiteracy, your stupidity, or you are just certifiably insane, but somehow you are simply not comprehending what I am telling you, no matter how much I dumb it down so that even a complete dullard should be able to grasp it with ease.  There has been a repeating pattern in this debate- you make a ridiculously idiotic argument, I thoroughly and completely demolish it, and in the next post you use the same argument again, without ever showing how my demolition of it was supposedly wrong.  It is as if my refutation of your idiocy went right in one ear and out the other, without you ever absorbing it.  And this is happening over and over and over.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

If you want me to stop repeating something, then PROVE THAT THING WRONG, you damn imbecile.  From now on, I am going to start putting things you have ignored and I have to continually repeat in blue.  If you keep ignoring them, then I will keep right on posting them again and again and again.

 

Good luck.

 

I already very, very clearly explained to your ignorant ass why ANY study that  shows the money coming from profits (apart from the caveats I listed above) absolutely HAS TO BE WRONG.  Period.

 

I am sure if I looked hard enough, I could discover the flaws in any other so-called study you happen to find with similar moronic conclusions.  The reason I know for an absolute fact that they are flawed is because such a moronic conclusion is completely ILLOGICAL, and thus completely impossible.  And as I asked you above-

 

"First of all, why in the holy hell would these supposedly "greedy" bastards take the money out of their profits???  If investors/entrepreneurs needed a certain return on investment based on the risk being taken to open these businesses before, why the hell would this number magically change just because an industry-wide input cost to the business changed?"  And what was your response to this question?  That's right, as usual, it was-

 

DEAD FUCKING SILENCE.

 

Maybe another simple question will help-  Suppose that as a result of a MW increase, the profit margins for a certain industry in a given region will decrease from say 5% down to 1% in the short term.  Will this result in:

 

A.  more investment into this industry, because we all know that the evil, greedy entrepreneurs & investors don't give a damn about how much profits they can possibly make when deciding what business to open?

 

or

 

B.  less investment into this industry, because investment always seeks out a higher reward for a given risk?

 

Do you say A or B?  Or will you cowardly dodge the question like you usually do?

 

Good luck. 

 

Where is your quote from the study that backs up this claim?  I will admit I have not gone through it line-by-line, but a cursory glance does not seem to state that the examination of this industry was just an unrelated and irrelevant side note that had nothing whatsoever to do with their actual study.  If you can provide evidence of it stating this, then I will withdraw this particular criticism of the study.  Of course, this would beg the question of why the hell they would even bother to waste time and effort on this industry and put it in the report in the first place if it was not part of the study, moron?  The only reasons I can see for them analyzing this industry are that they are fucking retards or they were severely biased with an preset agenda to try to make it look like that profits would be reduced, in any way they could twist the data to make it appear so.  In either case, it means that the entire study cannot be trusted and is nothing more than worthless trash.

 

This was not the only flaw or criticism I had, dullard.  Again-

 

In fact, here is a statement from their conclusions that further shows how flawed and useless their garbage study truly is-

 

We could not find any evidence that low wage firms were forced out of business by the
higher wage costs resulting from the minimum wage. One explanation for this absence
of an exit effect may be because our time period is still too short and that in the very long
run there is significant exit. It may also be that there is less entry into the low wage
sectors as a result of the minimum wage.

 

 

As I have told you over and over and over and over ad nauseum- I am talking about what happens in the LONG TERM, dunce.  In the SHORT TERM, all kinds of strange things can happen, including lower profits, until the industry has time to adjust, nimrod.  This adjustment could include simply having fewer total companies in the industry with which to divide the available customers.

 

And here is another bit of abject stupidity from your precious piece of trash study-

 

An alternative explanation is that firms were
making profits from paying low wages prior to the minimum wage introduction and that
one consequence of the introduction of the minimum wage to the UK labour market was
to moderate these “excess” profits by channelling them back to the wages of low paid
workers.

 

 

Someone needs to ask these brainless fucking idiots the very obvious question that would arise if this ignorant fantasy was reality- if this industry truly had all these massive "excess profits", then why in the holy mother of hell wouldn't there be more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more new "greedy" companies piling into that industry every day to cash in on those massive profits for themselves, until the resulting increased competition eventually brought the profits down to reasonable levels?  What, do these brainiacs think that the entire world just suddenly ran completely out of "greedy" people that wanted to easily get filthy rich?  Lol...

 

Again, those 2 statements are not mutually exclusive, dunce-

The "nearly all" was referring to the one possible source they were examining: price increases on consumers, you fucking illiterate retard.  They were not examining the other possible sources in that study.  For example, if hypothetically, 90% of the cost was passed onto consumers, 5% was transferred from workers that lost their jobs entirely, and 5% was from eliminating services like cashiers, then someone saying "nearly all of the minimum wage increase is passed through to consumers" and "ALL of the cost came from something other than profits" then BOTH WOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY BE TRUE STATEMENTS, moron!!!

 

And as I also posted above-

And who really gives a damn if the cost is truly "all" passed on or just "mostly all" passed on?  From a philosophical perspective in the context of this debate, the difference is meaningless.  The main point is that switching to a moronic living wage law instead of welfare to subsidize workers will primarily adversely affect consumers and not the greedy employers, opposed to what you idiot libs like to foolishly pretend, regardless of whether it is all or mostly all.  It seems like you are just trying to split hairs on an irrelevant distinction (that you are falsely accusing me of even making) because you have absolutely nothing else with which to refute my argument.  How pathetic...

 

Let's examine a couple of statements, shall we?  Here are your exact words:

 

1.  "You claim I never answered where money for a livable wage would come from, when clearly I said it would come from employers, "

 

Note that you did NOT put words such as "a tiny part of" in front of the word "it" in this statement, implying that 100% would come from the evil employers.

 

And here is what your beloved "scholarly experts" concluded in their study:

 

2.  "nearly all of the minimum wage increase is passed through to consumers."

 

These 2 statements cannot both be correct.  One of them HAS TO BE WRONG.  So which is it?  Are you lying, or are your beloved "scholarly experts"?

 

Good luck.

 

Again- if you want me to stop repeating something, then PROVE THAT THING WRONG.

 

Good luck.

 

Then let's see you post a quote where I said any such thing, or admit that you are a fucking liar.

 

Good luck.

 

Here is what I ACTUALLY said- Link.

 

But that does not apply to the scenarios I have been discussing, you illiterate twit.  I have very, very clearly and repeatedly stated that I have been talking about a cost increase affecting "an entire industry."   As my link above very clearly explains-

 

Of course, most firms cannot raise prices by themselves without losing business to competitors. A unilateral increase in McDonald’s burger prices would send diners to Burger King or Wendy’s. But when cost increases hit every firm in an industry, these firms can collectively raise prices. Though higher prices will drive some customers away, no single firm faces a competitive disadvantage.

 

As a result, most affected businesses respond to mandatory starting-wage increases by raising prices.

 

 

 

Or as I clearly posted from the excellent book on economics in the link in my post above- Economics in One Lesson-

 

It is usually assumed that an increase in wages is gained at the expense of the profits of employers. This may of course happen for short periods or in special circumstances. If wages are forced up in a particular firm, in such competition with others that it cannot raise its prices, the increase will come out of its profits. This is much less likely to happen, however, if the wage increase takes place throughout a whole industry. The industry will in most cases increase its prices and pass the wage increase along to consumers...

 

Where did I say I have never taken a course in economics, you damn lying piece of shit?  Of course I have done this, dolt.  Not that alone this really means anything these days.  Hell, look at AOC for example.  She supposedly majored in economics, but whenever she discusses any economic issue she comes across as an air-headed, babbling, idiotic twit that doesn't know the most rudimentary economic concepts any more than she knows her ass from a hole in the ground - Link.

 

Lol...  Where do you imagine you have done this, other than in your insane fantasies?  Was it when you-

 

1.  Repeatedly engaged in numerous logical fallacies, including some that even after I pointed them out to you and gave you an example of slavery to demonstrate how fallacious and stupid it was, that you STILL continued to use like some kind of damn imbecile- Link?

 

2.  Ignored most of the arguments I have made throughout this thread, causing me to have to continually repeat them (like the parts of this post in blue)?

 

3.  Cowardly refused to answer most of my extremely simple questions, despite asking some of them over and over and over?

 

4.  Lied about statements that I supposedly made, but you were never able to actually produce a quote of me ever saying them?

 

5. Citing studies that either didn't back up your claims in any way or were just badly flawed outliers, while ignoring the studies that I cited?

 

So, which one of these things supposedly left me "wallowing in humiliation", dipshit?  Lol...

 

If you want to claim that my boast on this issue is a lie, then yes, you will have to provide evidence of this being the case by posting an example.  If I am really as dumb as you say, then you should be able to find numerous examples of this in just a 2 minute search of my posts.

 

Good luck.

 

No, I just thoroughly enjoy destroying and humiliating you idiot libs, and then continually gloating about it after you all cowardly run away.  I know it is being a bad sport, like pointing at the scoreboard when routing an opponent in a sporting event, but it is tons of fun, so I will continue to do it.  If you don't like it, then tough shit.

 

If I am really so "dumb" then then it should be extremely easy to finally prove me wrong and put me in my place for a change.  So what the fuck are you waiting for? 

 

Good luck.

 

Uh oh.  The ignorant blowhard has broken out his best crayons for this one.  Oh well, desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

Because nothing says "victory!" like re-bleating the same dishonesties and pathetic boasting?  You have the integrity of a trump.

 

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong.  Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion.  Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected.  You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

 

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

 

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up, countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic."  You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation, you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full.  You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space.  Dumb as you are, I don't think you even fool yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2020 at 11:45 AM, RickyTavy said:

Uh oh.  The ignorant blowhard has broken out his best crayons for this one.  Oh well, desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

Because nothing says "victory!" like re-bleating the same dishonesties and pathetic boasting?  You have the integrity of a trump.

 

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong.  Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion.  Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected.  You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

 

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

 

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up, countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic."  You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation, you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full.  You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space.  Dumb as you are, I don't think you even fool yourself.

 

Dumbass, I just completely obliterated everything you posted, point-by-point.  So why the hell are you just posting it all again as if this never happened???  I will post this again-

 

Unfuckingbelievable...  I don't know if it is because of your illiteracy, your stupidity, or you are just certifiably insane, but somehow you are simply not comprehending what I am telling you, no matter how much I dumb it down so that even a complete dullard should be able to grasp it with ease.  There has been a repeating pattern in this debate- you make a ridiculously idiotic argument, I thoroughly and completely demolish it, and in the next post you use the same argument again, without ever showing how my demolition of it was supposedly wrong.  It is as if my refutation of your idiocy went right in one ear and out the other, without you ever absorbing it.  And this is happening over and over and over.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

 

Dumbass, I just completely obliterated everything you posted, point-by-point.  So why the hell are you just posting it all again as if this never happened???  I will post this again-

 

Unfuckingbelievable...  I don't know if it is because of your illiteracy, your stupidity, or you are just certifiably insane, but somehow you are simply not comprehending what I am telling you, no matter how much I dumb it down so that even a complete dullard should be able to grasp it with ease.  There has been a repeating pattern in this debate- you make a ridiculously idiotic argument, I thoroughly and completely demolish it, and in the next post you use the same argument again, without ever showing how my demolition of it was supposedly wrong.  It is as if my refutation of your idiocy went right in one ear and out the other, without you ever absorbing it.  And this is happening over and over and over.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

Good luck.

 

Uh oh.  The ignorant blowhard has broken out his best crayons for this one, and his self-fellatio has become even more vigorous.  With any luck the latter means he will soon be smoking a post-coital cigarette and will cease his frenzied, public onanism.

 

Because nothing says "victory!" like re-bleating the same dishonesties and pathetic boasting?  You have the integrity of a trump.

 

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong.  Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion.  Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected.  You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

 

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

 

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up, countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic."  You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation, you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full.  You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space.  Dumb as you are, I don't think you even fool yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RickyTavy said:

Uh oh.  The ignorant blowhard has broken out his best crayons for this one, and his self-fellatio has become even more vigorous.  With any luck the latter means he will soon be smoking a post-coital cigarette and will cease his frenzied, public onanism.

 

Because nothing says "victory!" like re-bleating the same dishonesties and pathetic boasting?  You have the integrity of a trump.

 

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong.  Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion.  Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected.  You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

 

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

 

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up, countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic."  You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation, you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full.  You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space. 

You are like a petulant child, sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting- "I can't hear you, I can't hear you."  Lol...

 

44 minutes ago, RickyTavy said:

Dumb as you are, I don't think you even fool yourself.

If I am really so "dumb", but yet you can't disprove anything I have actually posted, or even answer most of my simple questions, what the hell does that say about you, idiot?

 

 

Don't worry, I will be sure to keep this thread bumped for a long time so everyone can see your childish antics, outright lies, pathetic cowardice, and utter stupidity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic, 

 

I saw someone at a store with a shirt on that was very obviously White Nationalist. The reaction was that most in the store steered clear of him. Not out of fear... he was maybe 5'5" , maybe 150 lbs and mid 50's at the youngest. It was rather obvious that the folks there viewed him with the same distaste as if he had squatted down and taken a dump in the open. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

You are like a petulant child, sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting- "I can't hear you, I can't hear you."  Lol...

 

If I am really so "dumb", but yet you can't disprove anything I have actually posted, or even answer most of my simple questions, what the hell does that say about you, idiot?

 

 

Don't worry, I will be sure to keep this thread bumped for a long time so everyone can see your childish antics, outright lies, pathetic cowardice, and utter stupidity.

 

Break your crayon?  That's what happens when you get frustrated and press too hard.  Oh, do I appear to be bothered by you bumping this thread and putting your ignorance in neon?  I give you citations from the most credible of sources, and you give me self-fellating impotence.

 

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong.  Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion.  Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected.  You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

 

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

 

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up, countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic."  You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation, you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full.  You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 1:04 PM, RickyTavy said:

 Oh, do I appear to be bothered by you bumping this thread and putting your ignorance in neon? 

Why the hell would you bumping the thread supposedly "bother" me???  It saves me from having to bump it as often myself.

 

Bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Why the hell would you bumping the thread supposedly "bother" me???  It saves me from having to bump it as often myself.

 

Bump.

I suppose I get a kick out of pointing out the sad impotence behind your frenzied self-fellatio.  It's the least I could do, considering how much effort you put into your ankle gumming.

 

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong.  Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion.  Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected.  You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

 

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

 

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up, countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic."  You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation, you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full.  You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RickyTavy said:

I suppose I get a kick out of pointing out the sad impotence behind your frenzied self-fellatio.  It's the least I could do, considering how much effort you put into your ankle gumming.

 

1.  You repeat the dishonesty about one study being flawed, adding to that dishonesty by saying it shows the other JSTOR studies I gave you must be wrong.  Again, one study cites one industry, among the many industries it examined, and concedes that one industry was under price control and so did not really apply to the overall conclusion.  Having no honor, you pretend you discovered this "flaw" the study pointed out and assert this means the entire study is wrong, even though that was only one of several industries examined.

 

2.  Being trump slimy, you repeat the dishonest claim some study supported your dumbassery.  That study only said that in the restaurant industry, MOST wage increases would be passed along to consumers.  You dishonestly represent that as supporting your idiocy that NO profits would be affected.  You add the Deplorable sleaze of asking if I am saying that those who did a study that does not support your idiocy are lying, because you are a Deplorable and victim-wannabe is your first reflex.

 

3.  I have pointed out the above repeatedly, but it has not even slowed you down, let alone stopped you from repeating your casual dishonesty.

 

4.  You support your clumsy dishonesty with nothing but long-winded bragging about what a MightyMouth you are.  You are so ignorant of even basic Economics that you said concepts like cost incidence and elasticity of demand are things I made up, countering only with your fatuous insistence that you compensate for never having taken a course in Economics with your self-declared "impeccable logic."  You insist you have never been defeated by any liberal here.  Moving past you being too stupid to see how I have you wallowing in humiliation, you demand that I search the archives to find some other liberal who spanked your flabby red ass.  Hell, feeb, I mostly skim the boring crap you throw at me.  I'm not about to go looking for more your lying and bobbing your head in your own lap so you can boast with your mouth full.  You are a sad little nobody hoping that if you blow yourself hard enough you can inflate your justifiably flat ego to the point you can be somebody in cyber-space. 

 

 

 

Poor tavy. The liberal asshole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Duck615 said:

Poor tavy. The liberal asshole

Sorry, kind of in a hurry.  Don't have time for your pathetic pleas for attention today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RickyTavy said:

Sorry, kind of in a hurry.  Don't have time for your pathetic pleas for attention today.

Ah time for u to suck ur daddy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Duck615 said:

Ah time for u to suck ur daddy...

Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than the limp-wristed gay stuff that so dominate your tiny mind, if your begging for attention is gonna have any success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RickyTavy said:

Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than the limp-wristed gay stuff that so dominate your tiny mind, if your begging for attention is gonna have any success.

You are gonna have to update your repertoire.  You comebacks are old, stale, and overused.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Huey said:

You are gonna have to update your repertoire.  You comebacks are old, stale, and overused.  

It's still good enough for you to steal material to build your wimpy, no-pride I-know-you-are's, li'l groupie/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • By deezer shoove

    grgle


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • Test


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...