Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:01 pm

You seem to have opinions that you're not afraid to shriek. Let's put that to the test - and please, don't call the question communist and run away like a bitch. 

Now, there's a little pink poster on the board who slathers blue across his offerings, and he has run like a little bitch from this question. 

Okay, here it is. Run if you must, answer if you dare: Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?

Really?? This is all you have?? So let's examine things and see what is says!!

The SCIENCE SAYS that his DNA makes Jenner a MALE. That can't be changed. His MENTAL ILLNESS has convinced him he is a woman. I won't validate his mental illness as something "normal" when it's not. And neither needs to be a POLITICAL issue and one that POLITICS has indeed skewed mental illness into an issue of "equality" or "equity", depending on how your own mind is wrapped. It's actually neither since there should be NO politics in helping mentally ill people and it shouldn't involve "changing their sexual identity" as a way to treat it!!

*GHETTOBLASTER » 20 Dec 2024, 10:23 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2024, 10:23 pm

I wonder if one of the *** at this forum  created that account simply to make Conservatives look "inbred".......

No, he's either a troll or retarded. Nobody is going to waste their precious time doing what you suggested.

LOL

LowIQTrash » 22 Dec 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 12:16 pm

No, he's either a troll or retarded. Nobody is going to waste their precious time doing what you suggested.

LOL

There have been a couple times when Murdock slipped out of character and didn't sound like an autistic Wigger.
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Dec 2024, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 1:42 pm

There have been a couple times when Murdock slipped out of character and didn't sound like an autistic Wigger.

Probably off his meds

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 11:02 pm

You better double check what your census report considers "home ownership".
Unless the home is totally paid off your statistic  is a lie.
Let me know what the total percentage is of Americans who  are living in homes that are totally paid off.
If you could make our population decrease by half tomorrow...home values would decrease a similar amount, way more people would be living in paid off homes and with that  true wealth skyrockets for a greater percentage of the people.


 
Even though our population has increased massively since 1980...home ownership rates are UNCHANGED.

Are you making a concerted effort to appear obtuse? Just look at your stupid chart. It climbs MOUNT **** EVEREST from 94 to 2004, yeah? But that stupid mountain it is climbing is only 5 percentage points. The chart is built for tards, by tards. Look at the 65.6 starting point. Now look at the apex of the climb. There is only a 3.4% separation between those numbers.

As to your ***-SILLY argument about homes being "completely paid off," you have offered not a SHRED of evidence regarding what percentage of homes carried mortgages in any given year. Your chart says nothing about it, AND your chart is really, really stupid.

So, you've brought up another non-issue, you've made no actual argument whatsoever, and you've backed your non-argument with a chart that does not comment on your non-argument. 

It really does look like your throwing the game, son. 
 

*Beekeeper » 22 Dec 2024, 7:45 am » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 7:45 am

Really?? This is all you have?? So let's examine things and see what is says!!

The SCIENCE SAYS that his DNA makes Jenner a MALE. That can't be changed. 

Fox News calls him a woman. 

Do you respect Fox News as a legitimate news agency?

Yes/No

Cannonpointer » 22 Dec 2024, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 6:44 pm

Are you making a concerted effort to appear obtuse? Just look at your stupid chart. It climbs MOUNT **** EVEREST from 94 to 2004,

That's  the resolution of the chart.   
Look at the numbers instead.
There's actually NO CHANGE from one end to the time line to the other
I'm really amazed [and disappointed] that I had to point that out to you.
 

Cannonpointer » 22 Dec 2024, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 6:46 pm

Fox News calls him a woman. 

Do you respect Fox News as a legitimate news agency?

Yes/No

They can be a legitimate news agency and be WRONG on that one subject. 

But in your little NARROW MIND, that disqualifies them. ONLY because you are a shallow little bitch does that belief of yours happen.

Cannonpointer » 22 Dec 2024, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 6:44 pm

Are you making a concerted effort to appear obtuse? Just look at your stupid chart. It climbs MOUNT **** EVEREST from 94 to 2004, yeah? But that stupid mountain it is climbing is only 5 percentage points. The chart is built for tards, by tards. Look at the 65.6 starting point. Now look at the apex of the climb. There is only a 3.4% separation between those numbers.

As to your ***-SILLY argument about homes being "completely paid off," you have offered not a SHRED of evidence regarding what percentage of homes carried mortgages in any given year. Your chart says nothing about it, AND your chart is really, really stupid.

So, you've brought up another non-issue, you've made no actual argument whatsoever, and you've backed your non-argument with a chart that does not comment on your non-argument. 

It really does look like you’re throwing the game, son.

Since our predatory capitalist system treats housing as an investment, so shall I

Oh god, if my parents put even 2% of the money they spent on houses into Bitcoin back in 2012-2013, my family would be worth close to $100M

If they bought and held NVDA they would also be at $100M~

Instead they bought houses ~_~

I personally am not touching houses until RE prices collapse 75% by 2040

I actually have a diff take from most people. Home ownership is a huge waste of resources / time and we need to adopt a model similar to Singapore

Not everyone wants to raise cattle and chicken on a homestead (and suburban cut and paste homes built w shoddy materials and shoddier labor with EVEN **** HOAs are a nightmare)

Not to mention all these retarded regulations on RE (Inspections, fees, brokers, underwriting, disclosure agreements, contingency clauses, OMFG!!!! **** ALL OF YOU MIDDLEMEN PARASITES)

Meanwhile I can buy shares of some memecoin or **** and see my investment appreciate by 30% in a matter of 2-3 weeks


 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Dec 2024, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 8:13 pm

That's  the resolution of the chart.   
Look at the numbers instead.
There's actually NO CHANGE from one end to the time line to the other
I'm really amazed [and disappointed] that I had to point that out to you.

You ought to be apologetic, pointing it out to me. It debunks your very last claim, for **** sake. 
 

*Beekeeper » 22 Dec 2024, 8:25 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 8:25 pm

They can be a legitimate news agency and be WRONG on that one subject.

They are not "wrong," you dumb ***. Like you, they know a man from a woman. They are LYING, you dumb ***. About one of the most critical issues between libtards and conservatards.

*Beekeeper » 22 Dec 2024, 8:25 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 8:25 pm

But in your little NARROW MIND, that disqualifies them.

Of course it disqualifies them you **** moron. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. They are going along with the tranny agenda - just not at the same SPEED as the demonrats.

Again, you ****: They hate Trump. They opposed Trump. Murdocks control 150 other MSM outlets, and all of those are 100% woke. Grow the **** up, boy.

Cannonpointer » 22 Dec 2024, 11:41 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 11:41 pm

You ought to be apologetic, pointing it out to me. It debunks your very last claim, for **** sake.

WRONG...you first looked at the chart and thought it showed an increase in home ownership percentage.
Even though our population increased by 50% during that 30 year time period, home ownership percentage remained unchanged..which blows your theory [that population increase creates wealth] to smithereens     
 
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 23 Dec 2024, 12:33 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 12:33 am

WRONG...you first looked at the chart and thought it showed an increase in home ownership percentage.
Even though our population increased by 50% during that 30 year time period, home ownership percentage remained unchanged..which blows your theory [that population increase creates wealth] to smithereens     
 

The last time you thought you blew my position - which you continue to misrepresent - to smithereens was when you made a claim that your own chart has now debunked. 

My position has merely - and always - been that your claim about population growth threatening wealth is absolute ****. If and when you can show a single country whose population grew AND their poverty grew,  you'll at least be actually responding to my critique of your sky-is-falling globalist claptrap. 

I grew up in the 60s in a three bedroom, one bath house with a tiny kitchen and a swamp cooler. Mom, dad, and five kids in less than a thousand square feet. Every room was tiny. The entire housing INDUSTRY has utterly transformed in the past fifty years. Now, everyone has to have a two car garage and a bonus room in their mcmansion. Every kid needs their own bedroom - with at LEAST a shared jack-and-jill bathroom, if not their own bathroom. Everyone has been gaslighted to see their home as an investment, so the more you put in, the more you'll get out. Always buy more home than you need, because housing always goes up and as long as you can afford the mortgage, you can profit bigger when you sell your too-big-for-your-actual-needs house. 

In 1955, global extreme poverty was at 55%. Today, it's at 8.5%. That's orders of magnitude - downright miraculous. 

To save your thesis, you need to explain WHY global poverty has tanked, ascribing it to something other than population growth. You need to make the argument that poverty declined in SPITE of population growth. And you need to stop looking at **** like one nation's housing (especially when your example is proved false by your own chart in your next post). Home ownership in the United States has NOTHING TO DO with extreme global poverty. 

You keep acting like I have a thesis to defend - like I need to PROVE that the more people a country gets, the richer it becomes. I don't. I never made that claim. Radically curtailing extreme global poverty =/= everyone getting rich.

You are the one with a thesis to defend. You made the claim that population growth is making everyone poorer. I proved that extreme poverty has RADICALLY fallen while populations exploded - which kinda **** on your thesis. Talking about home ownership in America is not gonna rescue it. Explaining away the enormous drop in global extreme poverty, and making a case that population surges have slowed, rather than contributed to, the drop in poverty - THAT is what defending your thesis looks like. 

I cannot make your argument for you. And it appears that neither can you...
 

Cannonpointer » 23 Dec 2024, 1:01 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 1:01 am

The last time you thought you blew my position - which you continue to misrepresent - to smithereens was when you made a claim that your own chart has now debunked. 

I have already made my case - and you've run from it, trying desperately to find SOME measure that you believe refutes my position. My position has merely - and always - been that your claim about population growth threatening wealth is absolute ****. If and when you can show a single country whose population grew AND their poverty grew,  you'll at least be actually responding to my critique of your sky-is-falling globalist claptrap. 

I grew up in the 60s in a three bedroom, one bath house with a tiny kitchen and a swamp cooler. We're talking less than a thousand square feet, with three bedrooms. The only thing in that house that was large was when our neighbor Mildred came to visit. Try to find a house like that today. The entire housing INDUSTRY has utterly transformed in the past fifty years. Now, everyone has to have a two car garage and a bonus room in their mcmansion. Everyone has been gaslighted to see their home as an investment, so the more you put in, the more you'll get out. Always buy more home than you need, because housing always goes up and as long as you can afford the mortgage, you can profit bigger when you sell your too-big-for-your-actual-needs house. 

It's just silly to even compare the housing industry of 1970 to today's market. The entire ideasphere around home ownership has utterly altered. What you are doing with that silly and badly presented chart would be similar to me saying, in 1965 only this percentage of homes had air conditioning, and only in one room, at that. Now, because our population grew, EBBEBODY got em some air conditioning - in ebbey room! Hell, most have CENTRAL heat and air! Look what popalayshun done did!! Whoopie!!

 My position has always been overpopulation harms quality of life.
Your position has always been that population growth creates increased wealth and I've shown you several different ways where that is false.

BTW..anyone who wishes to live in the small house you grew up in can still do so. Thanks to overpopulation ...I know of houses like yours that are going for close to a million bucks in California now.

If our  population ever  decreases enough to make a measurable difference, the roads will seem larger, parking spaces in the city will be easier to find, commute times will drop in half, the highways wont wear out nearly as fast, real estate values will drop, demand for apartments to be constructed in Rural America will grind to a halt. The need for toll roads will certainly go away.
Much uninhabited property will lay dormant and be snatched up for pennies by the owners of adjacent lots [which raises their standard of living].
We might even see a return of single bread winner households with less need for 2 incomes to keep up with what will be more abundant housing and a lower  house payment.
There will be fewer people pumping water from our aquafers, less garbage generated, less pollution in the rivers, less poop to treat at the treatment plants.
None of our current technology shrinks though and  people will actually have more time to themselves instead of wasting as much of their lives stuck in traffic
 

Cannonpointer » 22 Dec 2024, 11:44 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 11:44 pm

They are not "wrong," you dumb ***. Like you, they know a man from a woman. They are LYING, you dumb ***. About one of the most critical issues between libtards and conservatards.

Of course it disqualifies them you **** moron. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. They are going along with the tranny agenda - just not at the same SPEED as the demonrats.

Again, you ****: They hate Trump. They opposed Trump. Murdocks control 150 other MSM outlets, and all of those are 100% woke. Grow the **** up, boy.

Seems the one needing to grow up is YOU, DICKSUCKYBOY!!

Please, try harder next time to NOT spew more hate than you already spew. Your own **** above validates this FACT.

And "lying"?? Like your CNN or MSNBC LIE TO YOU AND YOUR NASTY **** ILK?? THOSE kind of LIES that they KNOW are lies??  Yet, you want to call them "legitimate"?? And please, don't start in with your little DENIALS in some vapid attempt to validate your ****. 

 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am

 My position has always been overpopulation harms quality of life.

Which is DIRECTLY refuted by the statistics I have presented and you have failed to rebut.

Your rebuttal must address the argument, not flee it.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am

Your position has always been that population growth creates increased wealth and I've shown you several different ways where that is false.

You've not at all. You ran an abortion of an argument about home ownership in a single country, and then you refuted your own argument in the very next post. Not that the argument would have been worth a damn if you HADN'T, since it was utterly irrelevant to the topic.

Give me the bullet points of these arguments you believe refuted - nay, even bothered to address - my critique of your anti-population claim.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am

BTW..anyone who wishes to live in the small house you grew up in can still do so. Thanks to overpopulation ...I know of houses like yours that are going for close to a million bucks in California now.

Location, location, location. Speculation, speculation, speculation. Social insanity in California is not a good reason to kill of the people in Bangladesh. And as you correctly point out, you can live anywhere you want. And you can even bitch about it while you live there - perfectly legal.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am

If our  population ever  decreases enough to make a measurable difference, the roads will seem larger, parking spaces in the city will be easier to find, commute times will drop in half, the highways wont wear out nearly as fast, real estate values will drop, demand for apartments to be constructed in Rural America will grind to a halt. The need for toll roads will certainly go away.

Fewer people means less roads. You can google it. Toll roads are as old as written history - because roads have to be paid for, and fewer hands makes more work.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am

Much uninhabited property will lay dormant and be snatched up for pennies by the owners of adjacent lots [which raises their standard of living].
We might even see a return of single bread winner households with less need for 2 incomes to keep up with what will be more abundant housing and a lower  house payment.

Wait - which people are you thinking about doing away with? We might be approaching synthesis.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 1:30 am

There will be fewer people pumping water from our aquafers, less garbage generated, less pollution in the rivers, less poop to treat at the treatment plants.
None of our current technology shrinks though and  people will actually have more time to themselves instead of wasting as much of their lives stuck in traffic

I think audio books is a better idea than genocide.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 23 Dec 2024, 7:57 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 7:57 am

Which is DIRECTLY refuted by the statistics I have presented and you have failed to rebut.

Your rebuttal must address the argument, not flee it.

You've not at all. You ran an abortion of an argument about home ownership in a single country, and then you refuted your own argument in the very next post. Not that the argument would have been worth a damn if you HADN'T, since it was utterly irrelevant to the topic.

Give me the bullet points of these arguments you believe refuted - nay, even bothered to address - my critique of your anti-population claim.

Location, location, location. Speculation, speculation, speculation. Social insanity in California is not a good reason to kill of the people in Bangladesh. And as you correctly point out, you can live anywhere you want. And you can even bitch about it while you live there - perfectly legal.

Fewer people means less roads. You can google it. Toll roads are as old as written history - because roads have to be paid for, and fewer hands makes more work.

Wait - which people are you thinking about doing away with? We might be approaching synthesis.

I think audio books is a better idea than genocide.

Of course. As soon as we shrink back to155 MM the entire freeway system will just go POOF.........dry up and blow away.  
 

*Beekeeper » 23 Dec 2024, 6:54 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 6:54 am

Seems the one needing to grow up is YOU, DICKSUCKYBOY!!

Wee THAT'S not very muchure.

*Beekeeper » 23 Dec 2024, 6:54 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 6:54 am

Please, try harder next time to NOT spew more hate than you already spew. Your own **** above validates this FACT.

You seem upset, pook.

*Beekeeper » 23 Dec 2024, 6:54 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 6:54 am

And "lying"?? Like your CNN or MSNBC LIE TO YOU AND YOUR NASTY **** ILK?? THOSE kind of LIES that they KNOW are lies??  Yet, you want to call them "legitimate"?? And please, don't start in with your little DENIALS in some vapid attempt to validate your ****.

You have admitted that bruce is a boy. When you are born a boy, you stay a boy.

Fox lies, you drink, piss drinker. Mr. Rogers is more of a man that you are, you weak little fruit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM1ODJunrN8

Cannonpointer » 23 Dec 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 8:13 am

Wee THAT'S not very muchure.

You seem upset, pook.

You have admitted that bruce is a boy. When you are born a boy, you stay a boy.

Fox lies, you drink, piss drinker. Mr. Rogers is more of a man that you are, you weak little fruit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM1ODJunrN8

Yeah, little ****** like you always have to have some superiority complex fulfilled by denigrating others so you can feefee all important and ****!!

Run along amateur. You're starting to stink with your **** and lies.

*Beekeeper » 23 Dec 2024, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2024, 8:15 am

Yeah, little ****** like you always have to have some superiority complex fulfilled by denigrating others so you can feefee all important and ****!!

Run along amateur. You're starting to stink with your **** and lies.

You admit they lie.

You still tune in - and even defend.

You're a not man, fruitcake. A piss drinker.