Liberal Forum

Huey » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Nice attempt to pivot away from your own total lack of evidence. 

Answer the question THEN explain how it doesn't support my argument.

**** idiot.

DO NOT ANSWER ANY OF BV'S QUESTIONS....

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:14 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:01 am

I don't think I will, ****.  You come here, ranting and raving like a madman, misusing the word ponce, and saying the numbers in the post are wrong.

With no proof.  You get the **** out of here with that whiny **** or YOU bring some numbers to refute it, Balless Wonder.

Just run away because you will not defend it.
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:26 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:16 am

Tell you what Balless Wonder, go back to the Supreme Court thread I started and post proof 

It's not that you will actually commit to defending this drivel, it is that you will sit idly by while I pose the necessary questions...which you will then demand I answer.

SC, DD

 

 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:21 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:37 am

I take ot you have nothing to prove the article wrong.  Got it.  Looks I have nothing to say on your thread.

you fail to understand that the question is not about signed decisions - where it is a matter of WHICH decisions...

It's about the use of the shadow docket.

 

 

Huey » Today, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:26 am

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 2:39 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 2:37 pm

You haven't disproven ****. Endlessly reframing the point just shows everyone you brought nothing to the table.

You're a **** idiot...


Were there more unsigned than signed cases in 2025?
 


 

Waiting on those numbers, not questions, Askholio.  If you don't have them, just say so, Asshole.
 

 

Cases clearly stated.


And stapled shut.
 

damn bv still running

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:14 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:01 am

I don't think I will, ****.  You come here, ranting and raving like a madman, misusing the word ponce, and saying the numbers in the post are wrong.

With no proof.  You get the **** out of here with that whiny **** or YOU bring some numbers to refute it, Balless Wonder.

Just run away because you will not defend it.
 


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:26 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:16 am

Tell you what Balless Wonder, go back to the Supreme Court thread I started and post proof 

It's not that you will actually commit to defending this drivel, it is that you will sit idly by while I pose the necessary questions...which you will then demand I answer.

SC, DD


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:21 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:37 am

I take ot you have nothing to prove the article wrong.  Got it.  Looks I have nothing to say on your thread.

you fail to understand that the question is not about signed decisions - where it is a matter of WHICH decisions...

It's about the use of the shadow docket.


 

Huey » Today, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:26 am

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 2:39 pm

You're a **** idiot...


Were there more unsigned than signed cases in 2025?
 



 

Waiting on those numbers, not questions, Askholio.  If you don't have them, just say so, Asshole.
 


 

Cases clearly stated.


And stapled shut.
 

 

Then stop whining and post your numbers, Internet Tough Guy. You claimed the data was wrong—present your case or shut your mouth and take the loss.
 

Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

Then stop whining and post your numbers, Internet Tough Guy. You claimed the data was wrong—present your case or shut your mouth and take the loss.

Already have.

Answer the question to confirm that you understand what my citation has told you.
 

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Then stop whining and post your numbers, Internet Tough Guy. You claimed the data was wrong—present your case or shut your mouth and take the loss.

Already have.

Answer the question to confirm that you understand what my citation has told you.
 

 

Show where you posted these numbers that show the article's numbers are wrong and I won't post until Tues.  If not, take your L and move the **** on.  And it will confirm you are a liar when you can't post it.