what manner of coward would ban the subject of a thread calling him out by name?Vegas » 22 Jan 2026, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑![]()
I see you are still bitter and envious of my AI prowess.
Anyway, figure out how to bypass the PG ban, so you can provide your level 0 rebuttal.
Your rebuttal will probably say something like "This is ****." or "You are a **** idiot." That is some level 2+ stuff right there.![]()
Funny you reveal that.Blackvegetable » 22 Jan 2026, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Amateur, please....it's about pacing.
Advanced ****.
Tell me what you read and I'll tell you what you're qualified to edit.Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2026, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑ Funny you reveal that.
I had you pegged for a fellow who spends a good deal of time on the terlet.
Blackvegetable » 22 Jan 2026, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑ what manner of coward would ban the subject of a thread calling him out by name?
A **** coward.
That's a lie.Vegas » 22 Jan 2026, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑ You spent 5 months dodging my question and you expect me to just roll out the red carpet for you?
Figure it out. Earn it, bitch.
I knew you would say exactly this. Just stop. Stop with the same **** lie.Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ That's a lie.
I've answered your question..
You acknowledged it.
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!Blackvegetable » Today, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑ Tell me what you read and I'll tell you what you're qualified to edit.
Blackvegetable » Today, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ As his legions of Hatahs is painfully aware, Master Vegetable has been unstinting in his contempt for Bruen and Heller, two shibboleths supporting the straw temple of The Individual Right...
Since the author of the latter was found smothered under a fat kid, erect but forever breathless, the burden of generating the supportive pap for ammosexuals was placed on the intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders of Justice Free Ride Thomas....with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen.
It has become a sport since, within the junior circuits, to put SCOTUS on a spot obliging a defense of many of the absurd consequences of Free Ride's legacy, as in Rahimi. In that instance, his fellow conservatives hung him out to dry, leaving him alone to pen a churlish dissent.
Now Hawaii is back, and the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen are being highlighted.
https://www.vox.com/politics/475810/sup ... pez-hawaii
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority spent much of Tuesday morning trying to figure out how two mutually exclusive principles can both be true at the same time. One principle is that all Second Amendment cases must be judged using a bespoke legal rule that only applies to the Second Amendment. The other principle is that the right to bear arms must not be treated differently than other constitutional rights. Four years ago, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Republican justices struck down a century-old New York law that required anyone who wishes to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” before they could obtain a license allowing them to do so. On Tuesday, the Court heard Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii state law that appears to have been designed intentionally to sabotage Bruen.
Blackvegetable » 22 Jan 2026, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ As his legions of Hatahs is painfully aware, Master Vegetable has been unstinting in his contempt for Bruen and Heller, two shibboleths supporting the straw temple of The Individual Right...
Since the author of the latter was found smothered under a fat kid, erect but forever breathless, the burden of generating the supportive pap for ammosexuals was placed on the intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders of Justice Free Ride Thomas....with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen.
It has become a sport since, within the junior circuits, to put SCOTUS on a spot obliging a defense of many of the absurd consequences of Free Ride's legacy, as in Rahimi. In that instance, his fellow conservatives hung him out to dry, leaving him alone to pen a churlish dissent.
Now Hawaii is back, and the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen are being highlighted.
https://www.vox.com/politics/475810/sup ... pez-hawaii
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority spent much of Tuesday morning trying to figure out how two mutually exclusive principles can both be true at the same time. One principle is that all Second Amendment cases must be judged using a bespoke legal rule that only applies to the Second Amendment. The other principle is that the right to bear arms must not be treated differently than other constitutional rights. Four years ago, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Republican justices struck down a century-old New York law that required anyone who wishes to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” before they could obtain a license allowing them to do so. On Tuesday, the Court heard Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii state law that appears to have been designed intentionally to sabotage Bruen.
He meant firearm - not weed smoking device.
It's a feature in that game...

JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom FIFYBlackvegetable » Today, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑ Don't shimmy away, big daddy
The little bitch is home...
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom