Liberal Forum

Huey » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

You have already posted it.  I simply stated that Lobster tail ain't that expensive.  Tell us the problem you have with that.

No...post your stand then and your stand now.

Then we can compare them.

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

No...post your stand then and your stand now.

Then we can compare them.

Yo upost it..  You are making more assertions you can’t support, Marker Basket.  Remember, the price of food was not issue for you under Biden.  So either post these many stands, or **** off, Puss.
 

Huey » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

Yo upost it..  You are making more assertions you can’t support, Marker Basket.  Remember, the price of food was not issue for you under Biden.  So either post these many stands, or **** off, Puss.

I already have...

They're in conflict..

Why can't you post your own stand(s)?
 
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 5:40 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:40 am

You're both lying cowards.

Where is the text?

1. Continue to stall with:  "define this...define that..." 
↓https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yS7oPmFcfM

Vegas » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Where is the text?


 

Right here


https://archive.liberalforum.net/p/563277
 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Right here

https://archive.liberalforum.net/p/563277

You can't be trusted. You know that. 

And define it yourself...**** your demands. 

Where is the text?

1. Continue to stall with:  "define this...define that..." 


↓https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yS7oPmFcfM

Vegas » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

You can't be trusted. You know that. 

And define it yourself...**** your demands. 

Where is the text?


 

You can have complete faith in anything I tell you. 


 

Vegas » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

                                               

@Huey  This is about as good as him claiming that he answers questions after being asked the first time.

Do either of you do so?

Vegas » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Hides again. 

I am going to do 

More cowardice....

Never ends...

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

More cowardice....

Never ends...

Copies me. More evidence he has no thoughts of his own.

Blackvegetable » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

I am a disgusting coward.

Where is the text?

1. Continue to stall with:  "define this...define that..." 
↓https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yS7oPmFcfM

Vegas » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Where is the text?

"I know there are very literal minded people out there, so to eliminate any issues - I am NOT talking about "the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system." though I won't cavil with a figurative comparison (for reasons soon to become apparent).

I am talking about a "Tom of Finlandization" of MAGA iconography. Need I labor the obvious inspiration here? Here's Tom..

Here is a COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED MAGA icon.

Now I don't think it requires a great deal of insight into the human psyche to discern the arc joining these two. (I'll forgo drawing the risible contrast twixt image and subject in the spirit of Christian charity) 

So if you are an agonizingly closeted male, probably driving a large vehicle festooned with the symbols of your faux heterosexuality, how do you reconcile your irrational passion for a Florida Man in a fake tan with your carefully manicured public persona?   Like the object of your affections you compensate with an equally irrational, but readily stoked and quite public, alarm over "grooming" and "furries xitting in litterboxes"... 

Did I miss anything?" So Level 27     …   
 

Huey » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

You haven't 

Post your stand(s)..

Huey » less than a minute ago » wrote: ↑

less than a minute ago

Yup.  YOU are the one who's questions we don't answer because you don't answer ours.  Take the pledge, Puss.  Prove to your daughter you really are a man, not some puss that instigates a fight in his own driveway and ends up getting pepper sprayed.  Then calls the cops.

You're a lying imbecile.

Huey » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Sorry, we are done.  

Post your stand(s), Puss..

Huey » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

I told you .  

Don't. 

Just post your stand(s).

Vegas » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Wait. You really think that if I put all of this into AI 

Get it done.

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Get it done.

Ok. Here we go. To prove that you could have prompted AI to say what you claimed it said, I will prompt it to say that it is at a 5th grade writing/reading level. 

Hang on. 

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Just post your stand(s).

     

You first. 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Get it done.

Here it is. QED. So **** easy. Give me a challenge for once, bitch. 

If you post your prompt, then I will post mine. 

This reads at about a fifth- or sixth-grade level in terms of the actual argument.The passage mostly says: “These two pictures look alike, and I think that means something embarrassing about the people who like one of them.”

 That is a very simple comparison. It does not require much analysis. The writing uses big phrases like “literal minded people,” “figurative comparison,” “human psyche,” and “carefully manicured public persona,” but those mostly decorate the point rather than deepen it.

 At its core, this is not advanced reasoning. It is basically a playground-level “these two things look the same, so I am going to make fun of you” argument dressed up with college vocabulary.