Liberal Forum

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 11:29 am

how about from the VP of Venezuela?

https://youtu.be/apseHD6BsCs?si=ah0PxqJtLjrd--uy

https://youtu.be/g4mvYbu1p6Y?si=2KIAyDGvN42XkBuw

your research stops at the cuck level when it comes to Greenland

Let's not pay too much attention to what one of "THE HAVES" thinks about the revolution.....  

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm

Because it would be a **** lie

So you are claiming that those handful of people you showed represent all of the Venezuelan people? That massive crowd celebrating was AI I guess. The Venezuelan-Americans celebrating here in the US is also AI. 

**** idiot.

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm

Nope. You want me to do your work for you. **** that noise.

  I see why BV eats your lunch on the regular 

you said “research”

I did and you didn’t like the question that I asked AI   

Remember my post that you ran from?

here it is again 

Q . will greenland let us put up a defense system

AI Overview

+7Greenland, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, already hosts U.S. military bases under a 1951 defense agreement, allowing for U.S. military activities, but Greenlanders and Denmark oppose U.S. sovereignty or major control, with Denmark increasing its own Arctic defense while Greenlanders fear loss of autonomy and resources despite the U.S. push for a "Golden Dome" missile defense system on the island for strategic reasons
. 
Current Situation & Agreements

• 1951 Defense Agreement: This treaty grants the U.S. legal rights to operate military bases, like the Pituffik Space Base, in Greenland, which is governed by Denmark.
• U.S. Strategic Interest: The U.S. views Greenland as crucial for Arctic defense, missile interception (Golden Dome), and countering Russian/Chinese influence, as noted by President Trump's recent demands for U.S. control.
• Danish Position: Denmark, while acknowledging U.S. security needs and agreeing to expand cooperation, refuses to sell or cede control, viewing it as a sovereign part of the Kingdom. 

Greenland's Stance & Public Opinion

• Not For Sale: Greenland's leaders and people firmly state the island is not for sale, emphasizing self-determination.
• Resource Concerns: Some Greenlanders believe the push for control is driven by untapped natural resources, not just security.
• Fear of Losing Autonomy: There are fears that U.S. control would erode Greenland's autonomy and benefits from being part of Denmark (healthcare, education). 

Increased Military Activity 

• Joint Efforts: In response to geopolitical tensions, Denmark and Greenland are increasing their defense presence and military exercises in the Arctic in coordination with NATO, as highlighted in recent high-level meetings. 

In Summary: While the U.S. has existing rights for military bases and seeks more control for defense, Greenland and Denmark are resisting U.S. sovereignty, preferring increased NATO cooperation and their own enhanced Arctic defense capabilities. 

Research that     

 
 

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 2:48 pm

So you are claiming that those handful of people you showed represent all of the Venezuelan people? That massive crowd celebrating was AI I guess. The Venezuelan-Americans celebrating here in the US is also AI. 

**** idiot.

  deflecting from Greenland?

how unlike you to run   


Q . will greenland let us put up a defense system

AI Overview

+7Greenland, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, already hosts U.S. military bases under a 1951 defense agreement, allowing for U.S. military activities, but Greenlanders and Denmark oppose U.S. sovereignty or major control, with Denmark increasing its own Arctic defense while Greenlanders fear loss of autonomy and resources despite the U.S. push for a "Golden Dome" missile defense system on the island for strategic reasons
. 
Current Situation & Agreements

• 1951 Defense Agreement: This treaty grants the U.S. legal rights to operate military bases, like the Pituffik Space Base, in Greenland, which is governed by Denmark.
• U.S. Strategic Interest: The U.S. views Greenland as crucial for Arctic defense, missile interception (Golden Dome), and countering Russian/Chinese influence, as noted by President Trump's recent demands for U.S. control.
• Danish Position: Denmark, while acknowledging U.S. security needs and agreeing to expand cooperation, refuses to sell or cede control, viewing it as a sovereign part of the Kingdom. 

Greenland's Stance & Public Opinion

• Not For Sale: Greenland's leaders and people firmly state the island is not for sale, emphasizing self-determination.
• Resource Concerns: Some Greenlanders believe the push for control is driven by untapped natural resources, not just security.
• Fear of Losing Autonomy: There are fears that U.S. control would erode Greenland's autonomy and benefits from being part of Denmark (healthcare, education). 

Increased Military Activity 

• Joint Efforts: In response to geopolitical tensions, Denmark and Greenland are increasing their defense presence and military exercises in the Arctic in coordination with NATO, as highlighted in recent high-level meetings. 

In Summary: While the U.S. has existing rights for military bases and seeks more control for defense, Greenland and Denmark are resisting U.S. sovereignty, preferring increased NATO cooperation and their own enhanced Arctic defense capabilities. 

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 2:51 pm

  I see why BV eats your lunch on the regular 

you said “research”

I did and you didn’t like the question that I asked AI   

Remember my post that you ran from?

here it is again 

Q . will greenland let us put up a defense system

AI Overview

+7Greenland, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, already hosts U.S. military bases under a 1951 defense agreement, allowing for U.S. military activities, but Greenlanders and Denmark oppose U.S. sovereignty or major control, with Denmark increasing its own Arctic defense while Greenlanders fear loss of autonomy and resources despite the U.S. push for a "Golden Dome" missile defense system on the island for strategic reasons
. 
Current Situation & Agreements

• 1951 Defense Agreement: This treaty grants the U.S. legal rights to operate military bases, like the Pituffik Space Base, in Greenland, which is governed by Denmark.
• U.S. Strategic Interest: The U.S. views Greenland as crucial for Arctic defense, missile interception (Golden Dome), and countering Russian/Chinese influence, as noted by President Trump's recent demands for U.S. control.
• Danish Position: Denmark, while acknowledging U.S. security needs and agreeing to expand cooperation, refuses to sell or cede control, viewing it as a sovereign part of the Kingdom. 

Greenland's Stance & Public Opinion

• Not For Sale: Greenland's leaders and people firmly state the island is not for sale, emphasizing self-determination.
• Resource Concerns: Some Greenlanders believe the push for control is driven by untapped natural resources, not just security.
• Fear of Losing Autonomy: There are fears that U.S. control would erode Greenland's autonomy and benefits from being part of Denmark (healthcare, education). 

Increased Military Activity 

• Joint Efforts: In response to geopolitical tensions, Denmark and Greenland are increasing their defense presence and military exercises in the Arctic in coordination with NATO, as highlighted in recent high-level meetings. 

In Summary: While the U.S. has existing rights for military bases and seeks more control for defense, Greenland and Denmark are resisting U.S. sovereignty, preferring increased NATO cooperation and their own enhanced Arctic defense capabilities. 

Research that 

BV is my bitch.     

Dude, your question is stupid. Of course Greenland does not want us to put up a defense system, jack-hole. Why the **** would you even ask that?

This is not the same issue as Venezuela. It is a completely different issue. 

Do you even know what the issue is?

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 2:54 pm

BV is my bitch.     

Dude, your question is stupid. Of course Greenland does not want us to put up a defense system, jack-hole. Why the **** would you even ask that?

This is not the same issue as Venezuela. It is a completely different issue. 

Do you even know what the issue is?

  The AI answer said yes they would and do

deflection 

 
 

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 2:53 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 2:53 pm

  deflecting from Greenland?

how unlike you to run   


 

Show me my deflection. I addressed your lame *** comment about Venezuela..which is literally what the OP is about. 

 

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 2:56 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 2:56 pm

  The AI answer said yes they would and do

deflection

So, you are deflecting. Typical Mr. Kelly. 

You get backed into a corner, so you try to squirm out of it.     

Prediction. this will be easy:
1. You will continue with the same deflection.

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 3:01 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 3:01 pm

Show me my deflection. I addressed your lame *** comment about Venezuela..which is literally what the OP is about.

  right here floppy

I know you are not big on links, so here is what I said

”  “you just won’t quit

how is it a security risk if Greenland lets us put our new iron dome there?

Do we really have to take the country over?

even though we have their permission?”

to which you said

”Do your own research. I did. Then get back to me.

This time, do some real research.”

viewtopic.php?p=2840803#p2840803

so yes floppy … a deflection   

 

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 3:02 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 3:02 pm

So, you are deflecting. Typical Mr. Kelly. 

You get backed into a corner, so you try to squirm out of it.     

Prediction. this will be easy:
1. You will continue with the same deflection.

 

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 3:06 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 3:06 pm

  right here floppy

I know you are not big on links, so here is what I said

”  “you just won’t quit

how is it a security risk if Greenland lets us put our new iron dome there?

Do we really have to take the country over?

even though we have their permission?”

to which you said

”Do your own research. I did. Then get back to me.

This time, do some real research.”

viewtopic.php?p=2840803#p2840803

so yes floppy … a deflection 

This question: "how is it a security risk if Greenland lets us put our new iron dome there?"

is not the same question you put into AI. 
You put this: "will greenland let us put up a defense system"


Did you think I wouldn't have caught that?

BOOM! See ya!

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 3:08 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 3:08 pm

This question: "how is it a security risk if Greenland lets us put our new iron dome there?"

is not the same question you put into AI. 
You put this: "will greenland let us put up a defense system"

Did you think I wouldn't have caught that?

BOOM! See ya!

  I can see why BV enjoys kicking you around so much

you argue like a child   
 

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 3:10 pm

  I can see why BV enjoys kicking you around so much

you argue like a child 

Translation: I caught you lying. So now you are going to project your loss onto me.        

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 3:10 pm

  I can see why BV enjoys kicking you around so much

you argue like a child 

Busted your ***. I bet you thought that I wouldn't catch it. 

AI Question: "will greenland let us put up a defense system"

Your new question...liar! AI question "how is it a security risk if Greenland lets us put our new iron dome there?"

 

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 12:44 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 12:44 pm

doing what the MIC says is his objective

---------------------------------------Greenland’s untapped mineral wealth has helped land the island at the top of President Donald Trump’s empire-building wish list.Trump officials view Greenland’s underground riches as a way to loosen China’s stranglehold over the rare-earth metals that are critical for everything from fighter jets and lasers to electric vehicles and MRI scanners.“We need Greenland … It’s so strategic right now,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One earlier this month.“We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not. If we don’t do it the easy way, we’ll do it the hard way,” Trump said Friday at a press conference with oil executives.Although Trump has recently downplayed Greenland’s natural resources, his former national security adviser Mike Waltz told Fox News in 2024 that the administration’s focus on Greenland was “about critical minerals” and “natural resources.” 

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/12/business ... ela-mining

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 3:17 pm

Busted your ***. I bet you thought that I wouldn't catch it.

  Who said that was the question that  I asked AI 

YOU    

 Face it floppy

you didn’t catch anything but a face plant   

no wonder you are BVs toy

you argue like a child   

Mrkelly » 14 Jan 2026, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 6:07 pm

  Who said that was the question that  I asked AI 

YOU    

 Face it floppy

you didn’t catch anything but a face plant   

no wonder you are BVs toy

you argue like a child 

Busted you hard. Boom!       

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 10:14 am

Come on. How dishonest is this? You pull a handful of people out of the millions that are celebrating. That's a pretty sleazy move. 


No, it's not. It's surface level thinking that is dangerous. Research.

Current global events are surface interpretations of life evolving by migrating ancestors changing generation gaps after birth staying same soles as their fertilized cell in history achieved corrupting homo sapiens with ideas humanity is more than time lived adapting since conceived inception of original 16 great great grandparent generation gap arrived 4 generations prior to current great great grandchildren born one at a time, so far.

I just gave you the reason absolute power of suggesting life isn't self evident has corrupted this species inside out for the last 350 generations. Self inflicted by honoring reasonable doubt led by hope, faith, charity, economic tomorrows 7 days a week is more than time given to each great great grandchild born tomorrow.

Vegas » 14 Jan 2026, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2026, 8:13 pm

Busted you hard. Boom!     

  Run floppy

[img]blob:9920ac75-35e8-476d-897e-c6163c50c676[/img]
https://media.tenor.com/RU_TJRWrqYIAAAAM/baby-run.gif