Liberal Forum

*GHETTO BLASTER » 20 Dec 2024, 10:03 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2024, 10:03 pm

Feel free to contribute something of substance then.
Instead of just blurting out childish gibberish that you learned from watching Beavis & Butthead...share some of your on topic knowledge / wisdom with us. 
As far as I know..you've never contributed anything more than 7th grade level  jibber jabber to any discussion..
It would be too easy to make your profile simply disappear without a trace..then you would have no audience at all.
Your only recourse at that point would be to create another FAKE CONSERVATIVE MULLET HEAD  ACCOUNT.     :rofl:  
 

You defend symbolism over substance every day, so what substance of matter exceeds your character role playing daily? Your genetic sole position adapting here since day of conception, not just date of birth.

Your missing link to evolving is not accepting the 0-9 months you existed it the womb of your mom placed their by a sperm from your dad naturally or artificially. Your mom's willing participation of not.

All this doesn't matter if you chose after birth to believe life isn't eternally separated as genetically here so far factually interpreted 24/7/52.

*Beekeeper » 21 Dec 2024, 6:44 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 6:44 am

Only YOU would try that angle.

"Debunking" Communism is easy. It's NEVER succeeded. Hence, the entire ideology is a failure and only results in suffering and misery of those living under it. Except for those ELITE trying to run things as they continue to persecute the masses who disagree.

See, easy.

Like a bumper sticker. 
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 12:43 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:43 am

Your dream is to destroy all of what you just described.

People who tell other folks what their dreams are have no dreams of their own.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 12:43 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:43 am

You've even said that people should be fined for owning undeveloped land.   

Or not.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 12:43 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:43 am

Your claim is "More people.... More better"...now all I can ask is for you to actually  LIVE IT.

I have backed that claim up - in spades. And you've never even made a run at arguing the contrary position. Rather, you ascribe false positions to me - easier to attack.

What you cannot do and will not do is make any case against my FACTS. I have given specific country examples. Is your google broken, or is your case weak? Has to be one or the other, if all you can do is ascribe false positions to me.
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 8:23 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:23 am

Like a bumper sticker.

Sucks for you that I don't play your stupidity games, huh, *** FACE??

*Beekeeper » 21 Dec 2024, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:49 am

Sucks for you that I don't play your stupidity games, huh, *** FACE??

No, son. It sucks for you that you play a panty game. You're a girl. 
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:52 am

No, son. It sucks for you that you play a panty game. You're a girl.

Wanna find out if "you're a girl"?? Kicking your *** is child's play. Because "keyboard warriors" are pussies that pretend to be tough until it comes time to "be tough" and then you **** RUN like the coward you are!!

Communism doesn't REQURE me to argue against it. IT'S A FAILURE and that's the ONLY ARGUMENT I NEED TO MAKE. PERIOD!!

Now, DANCE, ASSHOLE because you got nothing but **** AND BLUFF!!

*Beekeeper » 21 Dec 2024, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 10:14 am

Wanna find out if "you're a girl"?? Kicking your *** is child's play. Because "keyboard warriors" are pussies that pretend to be tough until it comes time to "be tough" and then you **** RUN like the coward you are!!

Communism doesn't REQURE me to argue against it. IT'S A FAILURE and that's the ONLY ARGUMENT I NEED TO MAKE. PERIOD!!

Now, DANCE, ASSHOLE because you got nothing but **** AND BLUFF!!

An old woman labelling anything that challenges her programming "communism" kicks only her own ***, old woman. 

That's why she has to run. Name call whatever threatens her, then skirt-hike. 
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 10:32 am

An old woman labelling anything that challenges her programming "communism" kicks only her own ***, old woman. 

That's why she has to run. Name call whatever threatens her, then skirt-hike.

Dicksucker, to even ATTEMPT to "argue the points" of COMMUNISM would validate that it's a legitimate form of governance. It's A FAILURE and was from the moment Marx decided to put his FAILED IDEOLOGY based on his OWN INABILITY to be anything BUT A FAILURE IN LIFE to a book.

PERIOD!!

Now, run along and go suck some more dicks. Between you and BV, it's hard to tell which MORON is the worst.

*Beekeeper » 21 Dec 2024, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 11:43 am

Dicksucker, to even ATTEMPT to "argue the points" of COMMUNISM would validate that it's a legitimate form of governance. It's A FAILURE and was from the moment Marx decided to put his FAILED IDEOLOGY based on his OWN INABILITY to be anything BUT A FAILURE IN LIFE to a book.

PERIOD!!

Now, run along and go suck some more dicks. Between you and BV, it's hard to tell which MORON is the worst.

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?
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:26 am

I have backed that claim up - in spades. And you've never even made a run at arguing the contrary position.

 

I've given you both India and Africa as examples that prove your "more creates prosperity" theory is not always true.
You remind of the people who claim that since the USA was built on mass immigration that mass immigration will always make us stronger.
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:03 pm

I've given you both India and Africa as examples that prove your "more creates prosperity" theory is not always true.

You have not.

I showed you India's 1960 population and poverty, contrasted with today's. As population rose, poverty dropped dramatically. Just SAYING "India" isn't an argument. Try harder.

If you have a COUNTRY that has experienced more poverty as population went up, name it. If you cannot name it, it does not exist.

You done?

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:03 pm

You remind of the people who claim that since the USA was built on mass immigration that mass immigration will always make us stronger.

You remind me of my Uncle Delford.

Don't get me started on THAT guy's failings.
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:09 pm

You have not.

I showed you India's 1960 population and poverty, contrasted with today's. As population rose, poverty dropped dramatically. Just SAYING "India" isn't an argument. Try harder.

If you have a COUNTRY that has experienced more poverty as population went up, name it. If you cannot name it, it does not exist.

You done?

You remind me of my Uncle Delford.

Don't get me started on THAT guy's failings.

India suffered a horrible famine that killed tens of millions of those overly horribly populated people back then.
Same goes for the badly overpopulated masses of Africa.
Every time Mother Nature tries to make a population correction in places like that ...it's the WHITE DO GOODERS to the rescue
Billions of those people have walked the Earth yet needed the help of outsiders to advance from a Stone Age existence.... which proves your "Millions of Monkeys with Millions of Typewriters will eventually write a best seller" premise is not always true.
 
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:16 pm

India suffered a horrible famine that killed tens of millions of those overly horribly populated people back then.

Well, at least you are trying.

AGAIN, the poverty that was doing the damage dropped DRAMATICALLY (I've already given you the numbers) as the population rose. You're too cute by half trying to blame the problem on precisely the thing that cured the problem. That's like blaming an E.R. doctor for the gunshot wound he's treating.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:16 pm

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 12:09 pm

If you have a COUNTRY that has experienced more poverty as population went up, name it. If you cannot name it, it does not exist.

Same goes for the badly overpopulated masses of Africa.

If you have a COUNTRY that has experienced more poverty as population went up, name it. If you cannot name it, it does not exist.

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 5:11 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 5:11 pm

Well, at least you are trying.

AGAIN, the poverty that was doing the damage dropped DRAMATICALLY (I've already given you the numbers) as the population rose. You're too cute by half trying to blame the problem on precisely the thing that cured the problem. That's like blaming an E.R. doctor for the gunshot wound he's treating.

If you have a COUNTRY that has experienced more poverty as population went up, name it. If you cannot name it, it does not exist.

Massive India  [with all of the millions of extra great minds that come along  their massive population]....kept getting conquered and FINANCIALLY DOMINATED over and over throughout the ages by much smaller nations .      
too bad they didn't keep detailed  GDP numbers in Inida and the jungles of Afrtica back then to prove your point.....    
 
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 5:31 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 5:31 pm

Massive India  [with all of the millions of extra great minds that come along  their massive population]....kept getting conquered and FINANCIALLY DOMINATED over and over throughout the ages by much smaller nations .      
too bad they didn't keep detailed  GDP numbers in Inida and the jungles of Afrtica back then to prove your point.....  

Is this ^ some sort of argument, or evidence, in your mind? Are you truly unaware that the CIA Fact Book and many other sources make those numbers available for the price of a hoogle (hasty google)? Here- watch. It's like **** magic: India's GDP in 1960 was $37.03 billion. Shazam! India's GDP in 2023 was $3.57 trillion, according to Statista. This was an all-time high for the country, and is expected to increase to $6 trillion by the end of the decade. SHAZAM! Mo people mo money - deal with it.

As I said before, you will not (because you cannot) name a single nation whose poverty went UP as their population went up.
In every case, population rise occasions declines in poverty.
So your original **** - the tired "not enough" canard - is utterly refuted.

Now, you're on to other things - though I admit that what those things are gets harder to suss as I continue to challenge your position. Your responses are getting less and less specific, less and less related to the topic, less and less responsive to the evidence which refutes your entire premise. You're not making an argument - you're just bitching from a metaphorical bar stool. 

And let me say further, so long as a single atom can power a city, one bloody well tires of the sophomoric, un-thought-through, unsupportable claptrap about there EVER being "not enough" of ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN. God designed this world to provide for humanity, not to fail humanity. To the degree that ANYTHING is in short supply, including diamonds, there is human machination behind it. 

There's enough. There's always enough. Wake up to THAT much, at least. If humanity needs it, the earth will produce it. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 7:19 pm

Is this ^ some sort of argument, or evidence, in your mind? Are you truly unaware that the CIA Fact Book and many other sources make those numbers available for the price of a hoogle (hasty google)? Here- watch. It's like **** magic: India's GDP in 1960 was $37.03 billion. Shazam! India's GDP in 2023 was $3.57 trillion, according to Statista. This was an all-time high for the country, and is expected to increase to $6 trillion by the end of the decade. SHAZAM! Mo people mo money - deal with it.

As I said before, you will not (because you cannot) name a single nation whose poverty went UP as their population went up.
In every case, population rise occasions declines in poverty.
So your original **** - the tired "not enough" canard - is utterly refuted.

Now, you're on to other things - though I admit that what those things are gets harder to suss as I continue to challenge your position. Your responses are getting less and less specific, less and less related to the topic, less and less responsive to the evidence which refutes your entire premise. You're not making an argument - you're just bitching from a metaphorical bar stool. 

And let me say further, so long as a single atom can power a city, one bloody well tires of the sophomoric, un-thought-through, unsupportable claptrap about there EVER being "not enough" of ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN. God designed this world to provide for humanity, not to fail humanity. To the degree that ANYTHING is in short supply, including diamonds, there is human machination behind it. 

There's enough. There's always enough. Wake up to THAT much, at least.

By 1960 India's population was greater than ever before and they are dying of starvation by the 10s of millions. India had by then 100s of millions of people by then so if we use your logic they should have been experiencing all time record prosperity.
All animals..[not just people] with have lower birth rates when times are tough. When times are good [like post WW2] we saw the exact opposite happen. The WWII Gen didn't **** their way to prosperity...sorry it happened entirely the other way.

When you look back 40, 50, 60 years in time and compare raw dollar figures it will always look like we are all millionaires now.
The truth is the USA has grown from 200 million in 1970 to almost 350 million today and a smaller percentage of people own  homes outright. I'll bet the same holds true for the cars that they are making payments on well after the car is towed to the wrecking yard.
Those are the true measures of comparative wealth..
Far fewer people than those in 1970 have  pensions too.
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:05 pm

... so if we use your logic they should have been experiencing all time record prosperity.

This is a perversion of India's history - a deliberate pretense of ignorance, I suspect. You are ignoring the internal and external issues that India was facing in 1960, not least of which was outdated agricultural norms and poor farm to market infrastructure. India was only recently free of Britain, and was still freeing parts of the nation from Portugal. It was dealing with internecine religious strife. Life expectancy was 41 years.

Today, it has TRIPLE the population it had in 1960, and life expectancy, at 67 years, is more than half again what it was then.

Evidence is not on your side.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:05 pm

...The WWII Gen didn't **** their way to prosperity...sorry it happened entirely the other way.

YOU are the one making a claim - the tired as **** claim that there are too many people and not enough cookies.

I NEVER suggested we can "**** our way to prosperity." I have made no argument that had India controlled its population, it would be worse off. I am simply throwing **** your LONG-debunked globalist claptrap. There are NOT too many people, and there are NOT too few cookies, and I have proved it with facts. I have challenged you over and over to produce ONE example of a country that had significant population growth and did NOT see a decline in poverty. Nothing in that challenge or in any argument I've made suggests that controlling population will cause poverty - only that population does not induce it.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:05 pm

When you look back 40, 50, 60 years in time and compare raw dollar figures it will always look like we are all millionaires now.

Well, then, don't do that. It's stupid. 

What I do is compare absolute poverty rates from one period to another, to hip you that your more people = less **** claim is hogwash for simpletons.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:05 pm

The truth is the USA has grown from 200 million in 1970 to almost 350 million today and a smaller percentage of people own  homes outright. I'll bet the same holds true for the cars that they are making payments on well after the car is towed to the wrecking yard.
Those are the true measures of comparative wealth..
Far fewer people than those in 1970 have  pensions too.

Now you are reaching - clumsily, like that too-soon teat grab in the theater when I was 14 and still learning my night moves. Do you EVER google any of this ****?

According to data from the Census Bureau, in 1970, approximately 64.2% of Americans owned a home.

 

As of the second quarter of 2024, approximately 65.6% of Americans own a home, according to recent data from Bankrate and Trading Economics.

In 70, a car that didn't kill you would give you a hundred thousand miles, and it cost about a year's pay. Today, a car WON'T kill you and gives you triple those miles and costs about a year's pay. And it'll give you directions and summon emergency help if you need it and are unable. It'll drive over cabled roads, it'll get several times better gas mileage, it'll give you a much smoother ride - hell, it'll drive FOR you, if you buy the right car.

But all of that - home ownership, car ownership - is off topic. Even if your false claim about home ownership were true, it would not be evidence for your thesis. A mobile society is comprised of many demographics, including RENTERS BY CHOICE. Not every renter cannot buy a home.

The topic is that population is not a problem worth fretting about, and I have proved my case - as have you. I thank you for your assistance. My name is Tom Bodett, and I've turned a light on for ya.
 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 8:57 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:57 pm

This is a perversion of India's history - a deliberate pretense of ignorance, I suspect. You are ignoring the internal and external issues that India was facing in 1960, not least of which was outdated agricultural norms and poor farm to market infrastructure. India was only recently free of Britain, and was still freeing parts of the nation from Portugal. It was dealing with internecine religious strife. Life expectancy was 41 years.

Today, it has TRIPLE the population it had in 1960, and life expectancy, at 67 years, is more than half again what it was then.

Evidence is not on your side.

YOU are the one making a claim - the tired as **** claim that there are too many people and not enough cookies.

I NEVER suggested we can "**** our way to prosperity." I have made no argument that had India controlled its population, it would be worse off. I am simply throwing **** your LONG-debunked globalist claptrap. There are NOT too many people, and there are NOT too few cookies, and I have proved it with facts. I have challenged you over and over to produce ONE example of a country that had significant population growth and did NOT see a decline in poverty. Nothing in that challenge or in any argument I've made suggests that controlling population will cause poverty - only that population does not induce it.

Well, then, don't do that. It's stupid. 

What I do is compare absolute poverty rates from one period to another, to hip you that your more people = less **** claim is hogwash for simpletons.

Now you are reaching - clumsily, like that too-soon teat grab in the theater when I was 14 and still learning my night moves. Do you EVER google any of this ****?

In 70, a car that didn't kill you would give you a hundred thousand miles, and it cost about a year's pay. Today, a car WON'T kill you and gives you triple those miles and costs about a year's pay. And it'll give you directions and summon emergency help if you need it and are unable. It'll drive over cabled roads, it'll get several times better gas mileage, it'll give you a much smoother ride - hell, it'll drive FOR you, if you buy the right car.

But all of that - home ownership, car ownership - is off topic. Even if your false claim about home ownership were true, it would not be evidence for your thesis. A mobile society is comprised of many demographics, including RENTERS BY CHOICE. Not every renter cannot buy a home.

The topic is that population is not a problem worth fretting about, and I have proved my case - as have you. I thank you for your assistance. My name is Tom Bodett, and I've turned a light on for ya.

Those were the excuses I fully expected to see come in.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 9:15 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 9:15 pm

Those were the excuses I fully expected to see come in.

Yeah yeah - excuses. Not refutations. Not brutal takedowns. Not unassailable refutations. Excuses.        

You claimed home ownership has declined. I put the lie to that claim. You blathered about cars. I made an incisive and incontestable observation that cut your argument in half. You blathered about pensions - a THIRD off-topic tangent that I simply ignored. 

*The issue was never homeownership. But I still destroyed your irrelevant claim. 
*The issue was not the quality of cars - and you should never have even THOUGHT about introducing that topic. Cars are probably the single biggest area where the working man has come far ahead in the past 50 years, able to get three times the value for his coin.
*The issue was never pensions. Utterly irrelevant to the topic and unworthy of a third brutal hoogle.

The issue is whether global population is worth fretting over. It's whether the whole "population crisis" is a thing. I've made a good argument that it isn't. You've responded to each of my arguments with blather and twaddle. 

Look, I was really hoping you would give my argument a good contest. For example, you could have made the case that correlation is not causation and that what has reduced poverty is not more people but rather better tech. You could have argued that if India had controlled its population better, then that better tech would have done even MORE good for its people. You could have insisted that poverty reduction has happened in SPITE of, not because of, population growth. That was your proper argument, and I have waited for a long time for you to make it.

I would not agree with that, but I'd at least have had to do something other than play speed bag with a marshmallow, fielding irrelevancy after irrelevancy while watching you make crazy and easily disproven claims that can be destroyed with a mere hoogle and zero analysis. 

At the end of the day, when you find yourself parroting the elite party line, you need to be nervous that SOMEWHERE down the line, you zigged where you should have zagged.

The simple fact is, my position is based in faith, principle, and humanity - not in any set of facts that I can prove. I can never prove that more people = more available resources and less poverty. It's an argument that can go on forever (if one eschews irrelevancies, which one has not done). I WILL say that there is a whole big **** of a lot of correlation which would SUGGEST that more people = less poverty and longer life spans. But I would never say that I can prove it. I don't have the chops to back up such an argument, even though I believe the argument is true and I believe there ARE people with the chops to prove it. 

I don't need to make any "excuses" for believing that cutting human population is the piss-poorest way of tackling our problems ever **** from an elitist think tank and consumed by a gulled population. And I will say AGAIN: So long as a single atom contains sufficient energy to power (or destroy) an entire city, don't talk to me about shortages. Of anything. The pretense of shortages is a sucker's game, devised to transfer power and wealth to a select few.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 10:21 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 10:21 pm

Yeah yeah - excuses. Not refutations. Not brutal takedowns. Not unassailable refutations. Excuses.      

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.