Liberal Forum

Huey » 16 Feb 2026, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 1:38 pm

@Blackvegetable  

I am not running from the abovethree posts.

They now support and vote for the opposite then what they voted for in the 80s and 90s

Entirely unsupported assertion.

Please show what the Five has said about it.

Demand for evidence supporting unimpeachable deduction.

There was a time democrats that illigal migrant labor was a threat to the labor market.

Gibberish.


Another day in TinyWorld.

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 2:03 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:03 pm

Entirely unsupported assertion.



Demand for evidence supporting unimpeachable deduction.



Gibberish.


Another day in TinyWorld.


 

Entirely unsupported assertion.

You lie.  What you deleted:    

AI OverviewHistorically, from the 1980s through the early 2000s, many Democrats, particularly within the labor movement, held restrictionist views on immigration, fearing that immigrant labor lowered wages and displaced American workers. Key figures like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama oversaw high rates of deportations, and in 2006, prominent Democrats viewed unauthorized immigration as a challenge to labor standards. 

Ooops, here is more:

From jobs to civil rights

Throughout the '80s and '90s, key constituencies in the Democratic Party worried about a growing immigration population.

"In particular, the labor movement, was on the more restrictionist, more anti-immigrant side of the debate, out of the fear that immigrants were competing with American workers" said Cecilia Muñoz, who handled immigration policy in the Obama administration. But around the year 2000, things began to change. The NAACP saw immigration as a civil rights issue rather than as a direct threat to black workers, and the AFL-CIO reversed its positions.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69480491 ... 0positions.

From jobs to civil rights

Throughout the '80s and '90s, key constituencies in the Democratic Party worried about a growing immigration population.

"In particular, the labor movement, was on the more restrictionist, more anti-immigrant side of the debate, out of the fear that immigrants were competing with American workers" said Cecilia Muñoz, who handled immigration policy in the Obama administration. But around the year 2000, things began to change. The NAACP saw immigration as a civil rights issue rather than as a direct threat to black workers, and the AFL-CIO reversed its positions.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69480491 ... 0positions.

Your reading skills really suck, liar. 
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 1:53 pm

You need a counterparty as credulous as you.

You be sure to let me know when you find one that's successful, because YOUR party is made up of nothing but failures like you!
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 9:22 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 9:22 am

I don't run.

brown, sidestepping is on par with running...run...

ROG62 » 16 Feb 2026, 2:26 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:26 pm

brown, sidestepping is on par with running...run...

I don't do that either..

Wanna see yourself run like a bitch?
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 11:01 am

it's not about your interpretation of my words...

apparently it is, master vague guy...
 

Huey » 16 Feb 2026, 2:18 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:18 pm

You lie.  What you deleted:    

Ooops, here is more:

From jobs to civil rights

Throughout the '80s and '90s, key constituencies in the Democratic Party worried about a growing immigration population.

"In particular, the labor movement, was on the more restrictionist, more anti-immigrant side of the debate, out of the fear that immigrants were competing with American workers" said Cecilia Muñoz, who handled immigration policy in the Obama administration. But around the year 2000, things began to change. The NAACP saw immigration as a civil rights issue rather than as a direct threat to black workers, and the AFL-CIO reversed its positions.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69480491 ... 0positions.

Your reading skills really suck, liar.

Who is "they"?

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 11:06 am

Who would that be?

Why is it relevant?

Other than the fact that The Five is laboring it to take the heat off Grafty's nazi stuff...

how would you know, "I never watch FOX" guy?
 

ROG62 » 16 Feb 2026, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:28 pm

how would you know, "I never watch FOX" guy?

Don't. 

 
 

ROG62 » 16 Feb 2026, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:27 pm

apparently it is, master vague guy...

it isn't 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:28 pm

Who is "they"?


 

Dum Dum, the answer is in the post you replied to.  
 

Zeets2 » 16 Feb 2026, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 1:29 pm

So is it your idiotic claim that Trump HAS NOT reduced the number of federal bureaucrats by tens of thousands, or that over 150,000 more have taken a buyout and left government employee?

You just can't get it through your thick liberal head that Trump and his policies are kicking your dumb *** at every turn, can you?
Must be tough watching your socialist world fall apart right before your eyes, huh?

12% or north of 300,000 body count...
 

Huey » 16 Feb 2026, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:36 pm

Dum Dum, the answer is in the post you replied to.

I think we both know why you won't answer.
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:27 pm

I don't...


 

Just stop...you do, YSFC...
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:29 pm

Don't.

then how do you, and only you, know everything that's being stated on FNC?
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:43 pm

I think we both know why you won't answer.
 

 

Dum Dum, the answer is right **** here:

Huey » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
26 minutes ago
You lie.  What you deleted:    

Ooops, here is more:

From jobs to civil rights

Throughout the '80s and '90s, key constituencies in the Democratic Party worried about a growing immigration population.

"In particular, the labor movement, was on the more restrictionist, more anti-immigrant side of the debate, out of the fear that immigrants were competing with American workers" said Cecilia Muñoz, who handled immigration policy in the Obama administration. But around the year 2000, things began to change. The NAACP saw immigration as a civil rights issue rather than as a direct threat to black workers, and the AFL-CIO reversed its positions.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69480491 ... 0positions.

Your reading skills really suck, liar.

Look at the bold and Italicized portion. 

Dum Dum, this is the 4th time the below has been posted.  

AI Overview Historically, from the 1980s through the early 2000s, many Democrats, particularly within the labor movement, held restrictionist views on immigration, fearing that immigrant labor lowered wages and displaced American workers. Key figures like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama oversaw high rates of deportations, and in 2006, prominent Democrats viewed unauthorized immigration as a challenge to labor standards. 

Again, look at the bold and Italicized portion. 
 

ROG62 » 16 Feb 2026, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:47 pm

then how do 

Just run now.

 

Huey » 16 Feb 2026, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:48 pm

Dum Dum, the answer is right **** here:


 

They now support and vote for the opposite then what they voted for in the 80s and 90s.

Are these your words?

Blackvegetable » 16 Feb 2026, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2026, 2:51 pm

Are these your words?

 

I am done.  I have backed up my assertion from the get go.  You ain't done ****, lil one.  

Go argue with NPR.  

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2026, 7:50 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2026, 7:50 am

Immigration Raids in South Texas Are Starting to Hit the Economy
Trade groups are raising alarms about aggressive immigration enforcement hurting businesses in the region

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tex ... y-87e23e2e

Here's an idea, Texas.....stop voting for idiots.

Cry to Deezer.
Ok BV. Let's compare our definitions of Survivorship Bias and why yours is as useless as you. - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room

Deal:

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors