Liberal Forum

ROG62 » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

we “know” you did…

:rofl:  

Then all that's left is demonstrating that you did...

Huey » 37 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

37 minutes ago

Blackvegetable » 50 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

50 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:26 am

The facts are the man is not being prosecuted as we speak.  

Stop right there.


Why is he "in negotiations" with the AG of NH?


 

 Oh, I am stopped.  My case was successful.  Negotiating is not being prosecuted.

What source, ******, gave you the Daily Beast story?  Remember what you said about not giving sources, ******.
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

20 minutes ago

Huey » 37 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

37 minutes ago

Oh, I am stopped.  My case was successful.  Negotiating is not being prosecuted.

What source, ******, gave you the Daily Beast story?  Remember what you said about not giving sources, ******
 

Again....this is not about "all you know"...

It is about the facts.

As a matter of fact, you've now dodged this question for a day...after demanding that I prove it was happening. 


The ball, somehow, is never in your court.

 

FIFY.  Try that again.

If in fact he really is, ******, Negotiating is not being prosecuted.

 

Huey » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

FIFY.  Try that again.

If in fact he really is, ******, Negotiating is not being prosecuted.

Answer the question. 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Huey » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

FIFY.  Try that again.

If in fact he really is, ******, Negotiating is not being prosecuted.

Answer the question. 

 

Will be answering questions today. If not, take your Hitler attitude elsewhere, ******,
 

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Will be answering questions today. If not, take your Hitler attitude elsewhere, ******,

That would be novel.


Then answer..

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Huey » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

Will be answering questions today. If not, take your Hitler attitude elsewhere, ******,

That would be novel.


Then answer..

 

Are you answering questions today?  Apparently not, ******, so you can **** off. Coward.

 

Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

Are you answering questions today?  Apparently not, ******, so you can **** off. Coward.

"Apparently" to whom?


viewtopic.php?p=2928125#p2928125


Now answer the question. 
 

Blackvegetable » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

Huey » 32 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

32 minutes ago

Are you answering questions today?  Apparently not, ******, so you can **** off. Coward.

"Apparently" to whom?


viewtopic.php?p=2928125#p2928125


Now answer the question. 
 

 

Are you answering questions today?  Apparently not, ******, so you can **** off. Coward.

Are you? Yes or no.  You will get no answers today unless you say you are.  I am not here to be answer demands by one who was raised as a privileged, spoiled, white boy who is use to getting whatever he wants.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:10 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:57 am

@Blackvegetable  

I think I will carry the Colt CT556 today.  What do you think?

I think that's incredibly gay..

 

 

Huey » Yesterday, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:14 pm

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:10 pm

I think that's incredibly gay..

it’s a ducking pocket knife *******.  Lmao

 

That is still **** hilarious.

I think I will carry the ec9s.  Handy little pistol.
 

Huey » 30 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

30 minutes ago

That is still **** hilarious.

I think I will carry the ec9s.  Handy little pistol.

What makes it "hilarious"?

Huey » 42 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

42 minutes ago

Are you? Yes or no.  You will get no answers today unless you say you are.  I am not here to be answer demands by one who was raised as a privileged, spoiled, white boy who is use to getting whatever he wants.

I showed you me answering your question...

Yesterday I answered ALL.

You answered NONE.

And you're failing to answer the same question today.
 

Blackvegetable » 44 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

44 minutes ago

Huey » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

55 minutes ago

That is still **** hilarious.

I think I will carry the ec9s.  Handy little pistol.

What makes it "hilarious"?

 

Because I trolled you with that post knowing you would think it was a pistol.  And I was correct.  
 

Blackvegetable » 48 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

48 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:55 am

Are you? Yes or no.  You will get no answers today unless you say you are.  I am not here to be answer demands by one who was raised as a privileged, spoiled, white boy who is use to getting whatever he wants.

I showed you me answering your question...

Yesterday I answered ALL.

You answered NONE.

And you're failing to answer the same question today.
 

 

I already won this argument.  And I just answered another.  Are you answering questions today, ******?

And what few questions I asked you yesterday it took hours for you to answer.

After you agree to answer questions, I will answer yours.  You will have to repost it and when you ask questions no **** edited posts.
 

Huey » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

28 minutes ago

I already won this argument.  

No....

 

Huey » 36 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

36 minutes ago

Because I trolled you with that post knowing you would think it was a pistol.  And I was correct.

Where do you "see" me "thinking" so?

Huey » 38 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

38 minutes ago

Blackvegetable » Today, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:19 am

Huey » Today, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:55 am

Are you? Yes or no.  You will get no answers today unless you say you are.  I am not here to be answer demands by one who was raised as a privileged, spoiled, white boy who is use to getting whatever he wants.

I showed you me answering your question...

Yesterday I answered ALL.

You answered NONE.

And you're failing to answer the same question today.
 


 

I already won this argument.  And I just answered another.  Are you answering questions today, ******?

And what few questions I asked you yesterday it took hours for you to answer.

After you agree to answer questions, I will answer yours.  You will have to repost it and when you ask questions no **** edited posts.
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Huey » 38 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

38 minutes ago

I already won this argument.  And I just answered another.  Are you answering questions today, ******?

And what few questions I asked you yesterday it took hours for you to answer.

After you agree to answer questions, I will answer yours.  You will have to repost it and when you ask questions no **** edited posts
 

No....

 

 

Try that again.  Oh, my stand was he was not being prosecuted as we speak.  I was correct,  You lost and you are not man enough admit that.

**** off.

Huey » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Try that again.  Oh, my stand was he was not being prosecuted as we speak.  I was correct,  You lost and you are not man enough admit that.

**** off.

When you explain why he is talking to the AG of NH.

Ignoring that fact does not make you "correct"..


 

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

When you explain why he is talking to the AG of NH.

Ignoring that fact does not make you "correct"..

I don't  know who that is or pertinence..
 

Blackvegetable » 31 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

31 minutes ago

Huey » 41 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

41 minutes ago

Try that again.  Oh, my stand was he was not being prosecuted as we speak.  I was correct,  You lost and you are not man enough admit that.

**** off.

When you explain why he is talking to the AG of NH.

Ignoring that fact does not make you "correct"..


 

 

1.  Acknowledge he is not being prosecuted right now or post the date the trial started.

2.  I have no clue why he is talking to the AG.  Let me know when you find out.

3.  **** you.  You have been ignoring facts since this thread started.  Right now you have created a diversion from the fact the daily beast **** you and your refuse to accept that fact.
 

JohnnyYou » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

I don't  know who that is or pertinence..

Mr. Rosen.

The perp referenced in the OP.

Upon reversal, the case was remanded back to Grafton.

Because this involves a series of duplicate votes in the name of Mr. Rosen, the State has very good reason to retry, as this evidence is dispositive.

Mr. Rosen faces a considerable "fat tail risk", not only due to the quality of the evidence against him, but as a consequence of the very piece of evidence which caused the Supreme Court to overturn the original verdict.