ROG62 » 03 Oct 2025, 5:31 am » wrote: ↑ libtardos are really good at that ****...when their argument wanes, they obfuscate and deflect...
The data notwithstanding, of course.
I voted for the black lady..
Gee what is opposite "notwithstanding"?
Doctor Doctor, Give ROG the News, He's gotta bad case of Trumpocalyse Blues....ROG62 » 03 Oct 2025, 5:28 am » wrote: ↑ double down on what, strokes, sudden death, clotting and spontaneous abortion? knock yourself out...
Blackvegetable » 03 Oct 2025, 6:02 am » wrote: ↑I never said "Hang Mike Pence!"JohnnyYou » 03 Oct 2025, 1:51 am » wrote: ↑ Remember? Trump's Lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that a POTUS could assassinate political enemies?
You are callng a majority of the country "The Enemy With In". I am not sure what you expect as a result.
like I said, knock yourself out...oh, and >>>NEWSFLASH<<< , the jab in no way >>>PREVENTS<<< you from getting it...IOW, you won't protect your BIL...JohnnyYou » 03 Oct 2025, 6:17 am » wrote: ↑ Doctor Doctor, Give ROG the News, He's gotta bad case of Trumpocalyse Blues....
No cure's gonna blow through his head, he's just the shyt on Golden Sneaker Shoes...
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom right, brown... *sighs* who just c/p pretending to present an argument that once gets called out on, posts questions, demands, deflects resulting in unadulterated obfuscation...but damn the memes...got it...Blackvegetable » 03 Oct 2025, 6:05 am » wrote: ↑ Unlikely, Rog..
That would require an argument to evade.
You idiots can't do argument. You are only capable of rebleating slogans and reposting ******* memes.
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom Blackvegetable » 03 Oct 2025, 6:05 am » wrote: ↑ Unlikely, Rog..
That would require an argument to evade.
You idiots can't do argument. You are only capable of rebleating slogans and reposting ******* memes.
The one where your mother illegally absorbs donkey dicks by the ton.Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2021, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑ How many of your own rules are you violating in just ONE post?
That's correct.
Girl,ROG62 » 03 Oct 2025, 7:44 am » wrote: ↑ right, brown... *sighs* who just c/p pretending to present an argument that once gets called out on, posts questions, demands, deflects resulting in unadulterated obfuscation...but damn the memes...got it...
Speaking of you not knowing anything, check this out:Blackvegetable » 03 Oct 2025, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑ Girl,
You can't "call out" ****.
You don't know anything.
Deal:Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:
1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense.
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat
2. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah..
3. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers.
Moron.
Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. 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.
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.
Then answer your own question.Vegas » 03 Oct 2025, 1:52 pm » wrote: ↑ Speaking of you not knowing anything, check this out:
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
Predictions:
Deal:
I already know it. You don't.
I already answered it.
Deal?
Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. 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.
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.
how many times do we have to multiple choice your choices and now you want to get into a detailed debate about your stupid **** quiz?
Blackvegetable » 30 Jul 2021, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑ The unvaccinated..
Anyone enabling the gaslighting, whether or not vaxxed.
Acknowledge that you were answered, Askholio.
I'd rush right out and buy that .50 caliber.