Bull Ring Lets Gooooo

[petro]

And here, Putro explains why he prefers to rely on the words and thoughts of others.

You forgot the no pride I know what you are.

 

[TNHarley]

LOL @ the rube TNHillbilly calling anyone out.

Screw you faggot. Does your silly bumpkin ass want to debate?

 

[TNHarley]

Same place I was the last time you were gumming my ankles, shallow but pretentious twit. I didn't notice you ran here (is this your magic "bullring" where empty parrotry is considered debate?} to avoid pointing to one post where you think you showed some substance or one post where you backed up one of your empty and cliched assertions.

Okay, poorly educated boob, tell me something you would like to debate. Would you like to continue with how dictionaries are out to get you? How about "Refusing to point to one example of me doing substance is not cowardly."? Will you stop running from showing one time where you backed up any of your cliched parrotry long enough to regurgitate your latest gorging at the Rightard Media Trough of Brain Fat? Do you have a plan for how you are going to debate while also avoiding substance or refusing to back up your empty parrotry, Polly?

If I show up anywhere on this site tomorrow and forget your nobody ass exists, be sure to remind me that you've chosen a location for your latest humiliation. I know you'll be here whenever I am, your only alternative being to face your real life.

Popped in here to see if your nuts dropped.
I see they are still tickling your bladder.

 

[Wobbly]

Popped in here to see if your nuts dropped.
I see they are still tickling your bladder.

Don't know why you have an obsession about testicles dropping, PubertyBoy, but you asked me to come here and "debate" your dumb ass over ... something. I should point out that we are here, because you ran from showing even one post where you showed substance, or one post where you backed up one of your empty, cliched, and parroted assertions.
So, I followed your ass here and asked you to pick a topic upon which you wanted debate.

Imagine my surprise, when I came here and discovered that you run from backing up your challenge, throwing the limp-wristed flailing above to cover yet another skedaaddle. You would have to imagine it what does not exist.

 

[Wobbly]

You forgot the no pride I know what you are.

You can't even parrot properly, and you're only here due to a forlorn hope that HarleyQueen can put a smackdown on the liberal who put your parroted dumbassery in neon. This particular sissy slap didn't even rise to the level of a no-pride I-know-you-are.

 

[TNHarley]

Don't know why you have an obsession about testicles dropping, PubertyBoy, but you asked me to come here and "debate" your dumb ass over ... something. I should point out that we are here, because you ran from showing even one post where you showed substance, or one post where you backed up one of your empty, cliched, and parroted assertions.
So, I followed your ass here and asked you to pick a topic upon which you wanted debate.

Imagine my surprise, when I came here and discovered that you run from backing up your challenge, throwing the limp-wristed flailing above to cover yet another skedaaddle. You would have to imagine it what does not exist.

I made the challenge and told you to pick a subject, you illiterate moron.

 

[basquebromance]

Screw you faggot. Does your silly bumpkin ass want to debate?

how come you're never homophobic to me. i deserve it, though i'm not gay, but i do wrestle muscular dudes LOL

 

[BackAgain]

how come you're never homophobic to me. i deserve it, though i'm not gay, but i do wrestle muscular dudes LOL

I hear you’re in a committed male/male relationship. Does he deny that he’s gay, too. Does he deny that you’re gay?

 

[basquebromance]

I hear you’re in a committed male/male relationship. Does he deny that he’s gay, too. Does he deny that you’re gay?

i don't believe in relationships. i love a variety of bro's but we don't have sex. we just wrestle. i don't get this constant fascination with my personal life. it's not that exciting i assure you

 

[Wobbly]

I made the challenge and told you to pick a subject, you illiterate moron.

Care to post a link to you doing that, gutless? And, even if you did, I don't take orders from cowards.

Oh, not for nothing, but the reason you believe dictionaries are out to get you is because you were so poorly educated you don't know about "Classical liberalism." It is a basic bit of knowledge, like ABC's-level of politics and governance. One of its primary characteristics is a belief in limited government. And, if you were anything other than a pretentious blowhard, you would know our Founders were all Classical Liberals who DID greatly limit government. You just need that limited government to blame for your inadequacies
Okay, we've seen you won't debate the cowardice of you running from pointing to some substance from you, or the cowardice of you refusing to point to an assertions you backed up. What else?
Be it resolved (that's how real debates begin, simp)

People who squeal about a big government never leave the firm embrace of the government, because they are cowardly Hondo-wannabes who know they wouldn't last five minutes without the nanny state. Too close to home?

The Free-lunch economics begun under St. Raygun the Senile and continued by Deplorable leaders today is a cowardly and dishonorable abrogation of the social contract. Okay, you'll have to look up "social contract." And "abrogation." And "the."

The economy was better under Obama than trump and better under Biden now than it was under trump.
Trickle-on economics has never worked. Trickle-UP economics has always worked.

Democrats have given us our best economies over the last hundred years. Repubs have given us the two greatest economic disasters of the last hundred years.

Okay, pick one or pick your own or run like a you. I know where my money is.

 

[basquebromance]

Care to post a link to you doing that, gutless? And, even if you did, I don't take orders from cowards.
Oh, not for nothing, but the reason you believe dictionaries are out to get you is because you were so poorly educated you don't know about "Classical liberalism." It is a basic bit of knowledge, like ABC's-level of politics and governance. One of its primary characteristics is a belief in limited government. And, if you were anything other than a pretentious blowhard, you would know our Founders were all Classical Liberals who DID greatly limit government. You just need that limited government to blame for your inadequacies
Okay, we've seen you won't debate the cowardice of you running from pointing to some substance from you, or the cowardice of you refusing to point to an assertions you backed up. What else?
Be it resolved (that's how real debates begin, simp)
People who squeal about a big government never leave the firm embrace of the government, because they are cowardly Hondo-wannabes who know they wouldn't last five minutes without the nanny state. Too close to home?
The Free-lunch economics begun under St. Raygun the Senile and continued by Deplorable leaders today is a cowardly and dishonorable abrogation of the social contract. Okay, you'll have to look up "social contract." And "abrogation." And "the."
The economy was better under Obama than trump and better under Biden now than it was under trump.
Trickle-on economics has never worked. Trickle-UP economics has always worked.
Democrats have given us our best economies over the last hundred years. Repubs have given us the two greatest economic disasters of the last hundred years.
Okay, pick one or pick your own or run like a you. I know where my money is.

YOU WILL FALL, BOW AT TNHARLEY'S FEET AND SAY YES TNHARLEY YOU ARE THE CHAMPION!

 

[BackAgain]

i don't believe in relationships. i love a variety of bro's but we don't have sex. we just wrestle. i don't get this constant fascination with my personal life. it's not that exciting i assure you

You’re confused. You think a comment brought about by replying to your own comment constitutes “fascination.”

It doesn’t.

You seem very gay. You also seem to be in denial about it. And frankly, I couldn’t care less if you’re gay or not.

 

[TNHarley]

how come you're never homophobic to me. i deserve it, though i'm not gay, but i do wrestle muscular dudes LOL

I dont call gay people faggots lol. Well, most of the time. Sometimes it slips out. Like in the case with toro

 

[Wobbly]

Okay, HarleyQueen says he will debate his silly, Hondo-wannabe posing and his hypocritical snivelings about a "nanny state" from the firm embrace of that state. I have chosen to include how this is a cowardly and dishonorable abrogation of the social contract.

Back in a bit with my opening.

 

[TNHarley]

Okay, HarleyQueen says he will debate his silly, Hondo-wannabe posing and his hypocritical snivelings about a "nanny state" from the firm embrace of that state. I have chosen to include how this is a cowardly and dishonorable abrogation of the social contract.

Back in a bit with my opening.

Please refrain from using your irrelevant word salad. For the love of gawd, try to act like an adult. TIA

 

[Wobbly]

First a little pro-bono, special ed for my "opponent"

You entered into a social contract with the government you blame for your failures. You don't know this, because you are too poorly educated ever to have heard of this social contract. This couples with your revealed ignorance of Classical Liberalism.


so·cial con·tract
/ˌsōSH(ə)l ˈkäntrak(t)/

noun
noun: social contract; plural noun: social contracts; noun: social compact; plural noun: social compacts

1. an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

You exchanged the absolute freedom Hobbes describes as belonging to "Natural Man" for the safety and convenience of civilization. Your end of the contract calls for you to obey and support the state. Thanks to Raygun and his free-lunch economics, you and your ilk accept the warm embrace of the state; you just don't want to pay for it. Taxes are not something you GIVE to the state, ignorant blowhard, it is the state's portion of what you produce under its protection and facilitation.

It occurs to me here that I need to include also my topic about trickle-up, help from the government, has always worked while trickle-on never has. It shows how the supposed nanny state has made the economy better, while the libertarianism so popular among those attracted by how simplistic it is - they feel even they can almost understand it. You, of course, deny being a libertardian, even though the only thing you've ever stood for is the Pogo-mocking belief that a popular sovereignty government is your oppressor. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Up next, an exploration of history in which, unlike HarleyQeen, I support my assertions above.

 

[Wobbly]

Please refrain from using your irrelevant word salad. For the love of gawd, try to act like an adult. TIA

It's too much trouble to put everything in one-syllable words just to accommodate your dumb ass, whiny.

 

[Wobbly]

History

The first example I can think of in which "big government" made America a lot better is the l "American System," a plan from the early 1800s to unite and strengthen the nation. It pushed for higher tariffs (big gov't), a big expansion of transportation, as financed and directed by "big government," big government "Maintenance of high public land prices to generate federal revenue," - wiki - and the creation of an early version of The (big government) Fed.

Henry Clay's "American System," devised in the burst of nationalism that followed the War of 1812, remains one of the most historically significant examples of a government-sponsored program to harmonize and balance the nation's agriculture, commerce, and industry.

U.S. Senate: Classic Senate Speeches

Classic Senate Speeches: Henry Clay

www.senate.gov

us gdp historical graphs 1820s - Google Search

Note the GDP Growth between following 1815 and the implementation of the American System. And, this doesn't even address what the American System did in terms of making us the UNITED States. BTW, HarleyQueen, the blue stuff is call a link, Here I am using it as citation. Look 'em up.

In the interest of brevity, I will now skip to the 20th Century and the Great Rightard Depression next.

 

[Wobbly]

Small gov't Repubs ruled all three branches of American government during the 20s. This led to the Great Rightard Depression. We saw the same thing following a period of Repub rule in the 2000s, leading to the Great Rightard Recession, the greatest economic disaster since the Great Rightard Depression. Specific causes?

There is much debate about this, but certainly Disparity of Wealth. 1930s High Society | History Detectives | PBS

This disparity of wealth was caused by a lack of regulation of the business practices if latter day Robber Barons who left the underclass with so little wealth they could not afford to buy what the wealthy were producing. Not the first or last time where the simplistic short-sightedness of selfish "conseratives" bit them on the ass and gave them a headache. This lack of "big government" oversight had led to America suffering through a depression about every twenty years. Many believed it was related to sunspots and their similar cycle. We know now depression are really caused by selfish brats who love the simplistic nature of libertardianism. The Great Rightard Depression and the failure of laissez-faire capitalism led to its demise around the world. Today, all developed countries have Mixed Economies, combining elements of free enterprise and SOSHALIZM!, because the people who lived through the simplistic libertarian fantasy never wanted to go through it again.

Okay, so Great Rightard Depression led to FDR. Repubs, then as now, did nothing but bitch about how long it took FDR to clean up their mess, just as they did under Obama. My favorite element of this is how poorly educated Deplorables like to squeal that FDR never did fix the Depression, that WWII didl This is actually most;y true. We can see now that FDR's big-govt efforts were inadequate. In fact, we got a recession in '37, when FDR took his foot off the gas and succumbed to Repub demands to cut spend out of fear of debt. Recession ended a year later, after FDR went back to the New Deal.

Yes, WWII did the most to end the Depression, but "conservatives" appear to believe that was because all the loud noises scared away the Depression demons. Actually, it was WWII, big-govt spending on a level that made FDR's prior efforts look like Coolidge.

Next up, how big-govt assistance led to stronger unions and maybe our best economy ever and the peak of the middle class, which began to decline under St. Raygun and trickle-on.

The "Shrinking" Middle Class? - San Francisco Fed

A vibrant middle class is often cited among the benefits of our competitive economic system. It is argued that a large and growing middle class is an antidote to poverty, an incentive for individuals to work and improve their economic position, and an answer to those who worry that the disparity...

www.frbsf.org

 

[TNHarley]

First a little pro-bono, special ed for my "opponent"

You entered into a social contract with the government you blame for your failures. You don't know this, because you are too poorly educated ever to have heard of this social contract. This couples with your revealed ignorance of Classical Liberalism.


so·cial con·tract
/ˌsōSH(ə)l ˈkäntrak(t)/

noun
noun: social contract; plural noun: social contracts; noun: social compact; plural noun: social compacts

1. an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

You exchanged the absolute freedom Hobbes describes as belonging to "Natural Man" for the safety and convenience of civilization. Your end of the contract calls for you to obey and support the state. Thanks to Raygun and his free-lunch economics, you and your ilk accept the warm embrace of the state; you just don't want to pay for it. Taxes are not something you GIVE to the state, ignorant blowhard, it is the state's portion of what you produce under its protection and facilitation.

It occurs to me here that I need to include also my topic about trickle-up, help from the government, has always worked while trickle-on never has. It shows how the supposed nanny state has made the economy better, while the libertarianism so popular among those attracted by how simplistic it is - they feel even they can almost understand it. You, of course, deny being a libertardian, even though the only thing you've ever stood for is the Pogo-mocking belief that a popular sovereignty government is your oppressor. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Up next, an exploration of history in which, unlike HarleyQeen, I support my assertions above.

What benefits do i get from the govt that i couldnt get without it?
What does the government provide that cant be done in the private sector? Make a list if you wish.
Obey the state? Nice terminology. Do you pray to them as well? Good grief.
You darn right I dont give the govt money. They take it from me. And then spend it on sending weapons to terrorists, money to dictators, use it to kill innocent people all over the world etc.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical - Thomas Jefferson
As far as the economy? Not sure how the government picking winners and losers with subsidization helps the economy. Perhaps you dont know the meaning of the word "better" Propping up failure is a horrible business model.
How about we look at healthcare costs. I am sure we can all agree that is extremely high, right? Lets look at why that is.
Why are drugs so high? Because the GOVERNMENT bans importing prescription drugs. What is so wrong with me getting insulin from Canada when it saves me 100 bucks? Only the government knows.

I wonder why costs started shooting up in 1965? I wonder if government taking over half the healthcare in the country had something to do with it? Ever hear of supply and demand? What about unnecessary regulations like requiring new practices to make a "certificate of need" to be considered by unelected bureaucrats? Which, essentially, can create monopolies in the healthcare sector. Which would drive up costs, and the market not allowing competition.
If you like more examples, I can post them as well.
What about the biggest transfer of wealth in history that happened during covid? Who can we blame that on? The answer is the government.
The more the government spends and regulates the economy, the more bureaucrats are hired, and the more funds they need. Which means more debt and less money in your pocket. Your great grandchildren will hate you. Just sayin' A good example of that is chip conundrum the government created. Then govt put that problem on our backs and it cost us billions upon billions. That happened because of lockdowns and demand for at home technology increased. That also caused the automobile chip problem because of demand.
Im not sure how any of this makes the economy "better"