Liberal Forum

Huey » Yesterday, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:05 am

Because you got the context wrong in that discussion 

A) That’s ****. You can't remember having said it.
B) The my context would have been "wrong", not "irrelevant".



Such a **** idiot.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:50 am

Then you go ask google.

You like the eagle don't ya?

check this out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0S0_9R ... rt_radio=1

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:08 am

Huey » Yesterday, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:05 am

Because you got the context wrong in that discussion 

A) That’s ****. You can't remember having said it.
B) The my context would have been "wrong", not "irrelevant".



Such a **** idiot.

 

No twat.  Since what you claimed was the context was wrong, it was irrelevant to the discussion.  

Next, bitch.

Oh, you have a question about "long rifles" to answer.

Huey » Yesterday, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:13 am

No twat.  Since what you claimed was the context was wrong, it was irrelevant to the discussion.  

Next, bitch.

Oh, you have a question about "long rifles" to answer.

No twat.  Since what you claimed was the context was wrong, it was irrelevant to the discussion.  

 What the ****????!!!!!???? 

Next, bitch.

I think that's plenty...

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:23 am

Huey » Yesterday, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:13 am

No twat.  Since what you claimed was the context was wrong, it was irrelevant to the discussion.  

Next, bitch.

Oh, you have a question about "long rifles" to answer.

No twat.  Since what you claimed was the context was wrong, it was irrelevant to the discussion.  

 What the ****????!!!!!???? 

Next, bitch.

I think that's plenty...

 

 

Huey » Yesterday, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:25 am

I can't lose to a narrative...

You appear unclear on the hierarchy. 
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:27 am

Huey » Yesterday, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:25 am

I can't lose to a narrative...

You appear unclear on the hierarchy. 
 

 

I can't lose to unlinked portion of quotes with no context.  ;)

You have a question about "long rifles" to answer.  Stop running.  I bumped t and pinned it for you.

Twat, you are a POS liar.

Huey » Yesterday, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:36 am

I can't lose to unlinked portion of quotes with no context.  


 

You lose to your own.words, quoted verbatim.


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:41 am

Huey » Yesterday, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:36 am

I can't lose to unlinked portion of quotes with no context.  



 

You lose to your own.words, quoted verbatim.


 

 

You haven't posted anything to lose to.  You post some partial quotes, with no links or context, and no narrative, and you declare some victory.

LMAO!

RebelGator » Yesterday, 5:50 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 5:50 am

The 2 ***, whose posts appear above, are really excited about something.

Since neither one of them can define a woman, one wonders about their mental capabilities to differentiate between the genders of human beings.

They seem confused about a man's ***, most likely it stems from looking into a mirror when brushing their teeth every morning.

.

Lol... The leftist *** on this board are absolutely desperate to remove the gay image from their party and put it on someone else. 

Here's the reality: The Democrat party literally writes, introduces, and passes legislation that is in favor of (or helps) cocksuckers, trannies, etc...

The Republican party does the total opposite.

Democrats have literally put the *** movement on a steamrolling train. They allowed them to marry. They said yes to homosexuals in the military. They said yes to trannies coming into schools and performing weird skits in front of kids. They said yes to taxpayers turning more people into trannies. They said yes to trannies competing against biological girls in their sporting events. Their politicians literally march in *** parades alongside them. I could do this all day long...... 

These leftoids on this board can talk **** all they want. The entire world knows Democrats favor and like ***. That's reality. 
 

SouthernFried » Yesterday, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:44 am

Lol... The leftist *** on this board are absolutely desperate to remove the gay image from their party and put it on someone else. 

Here's the reality: The Democrat party literally writes, introduces, and passes legislation that is in favor of (or helps) cocksuckers, trannies, etc...

The Republican party does the total opposite.

Democrats have literally put the *** movement on a steamrolling train. They allowed them to marry. They said yes to homosexuals in the military. They said yes to trannies coming into schools and performing weird skits in front of kids. They said yes to taxpayers turning more people into trannies. They said yes to trannies competing against biological girls in their sporting events. Their politicians literally march in *** parades alongside them. I could do this all day long...... 

These leftoids on this board can talk **** all they want. The entire world knows Democrats favor and like ***. That's reality.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:31 pm

Biographers and historical accounts note that Roy Cohn was a self-admitted bottom in his private life and a Registered Democrat.
How old were you in the picture?

RebelGator » Yesterday, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:38 pm

Biographers and historical accounts note that Roy Cohn was a self-admitted bottom in his private life and a Registered Democrat.
How old were you in the picture?

Read on, Moron.


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:44 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:44 pm

RebelGator » Yesterday, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:38 pm

Biographers and historical accounts note that Roy Cohn was a self-admitted bottom in his private life and a Registered Democrat.
How old were you in the picture?

 

 

Bv, what is a long rifle in reference to the Oregon School shooter, who was not a child and would have been tried as an adult if he lived?

Don't whine about this.

Huey » Yesterday, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:31 pm

Bv, what is a long rifle in reference to the Oregon School shooter, who was not a child and would have been tried as an adult if he lived?

Don't whine about this.

Given that the words "family" and "design" in the following passage 

This article describes the many variations of the Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle family of weapons produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company. Weapons patterned on the original ArmaLite AR-15 design

are, and forever will remain, in the singular - standing as lasting and indelible monuments to your lack of literacy, dubious numeracy, ignorance in matters firearm and zerointegrity - why do you believe you can be redeemed by pursuing this line of inquiry?
 

Beekeeper » Yesterday, 6:21 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:21 am

And now for the FACTS- aka, THE REST OF THE STORY!!

Nugent has denied elements of these claims, and no criminal charges have been filed in relation to these controversies. He remains an active public figure and performer

And what about that "cover up" **** claim??

The FILES were RELEASED and have been for months. What Sullvan is ordering is UNREDACTED FILES that eliminated the NAMES of this LYING ****!!

Nothing more. NOTHING NEW and nothing that would lead ANYONE with a modicum of common sense to believe ANY "coverup" was happening.

Key Details of the Ruling & Lawsuit

• The Judge's Order: Judge Sullivan directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide unredacted handwritten notes from four FBI interviews conducted with the woman between July and October 2019.
• In-Camera Review: The order requires the DOJ to submit the materials to the court for private review to determine whether redactions to protect victim identities or investigations are justified; it does not yet require public release.
• Potential Penalties: The judge warned that failing to comply could result in contempt charges against Attorney General Blanche.
• The Lawsuit: The ruling stems from an ongoing lawsuit brought by journalist Katie Phang accusing the DOJ of violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act by withholding unclassified records linked to the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell investigation.

THEN we find out Phang is on some TDS witch-hunt and NOT EVEN WORKING FOR ANYONE AS A JOURNALIST!! And why is that?? Because she's just another LWNJ, TDS riddled MORON that likes to file lawsuits to get her little tantrums handled. 

....previously hosted The Katie Phang Show on MSNBC and Peacock.

Bitch slapping you is SOOOOOO **** EASY, cupcake!! I bring the receipts. YOU bring the agitprop that is totally LIES AND INNUENDO!!

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:36 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:36 am

Don't waste my time.

#bindssprintshoes…

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:37 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:37 am

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 4:29 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:29 pm

Given that the words "family" and "design" in the following passage 

This article describes the many variations of the Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle family of weapons produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company. Weapons patterned on the original ArmaLite AR-15 design

are, and forever will remain, in the singular - standing as lasting and indelible monuments to your lack of literacy, dubious numeracy, ignorance in matters firearm and zerointegrity - why do you believe you can be redeemed by pursuing this line of inquiry?

 

ROG62 » Yesterday, 7:47 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:47 pm

https://i.postimg.cc/x1tbcbgd/IMG-0203.gif