Liberal Forum

Vegas » 05 Jun 2022, 1:14 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 1:14 pm

But I am not. 

Moron. 

1. More of the same responses. Your repetitiveness is due to your level 2+ deficiency. 
Pathetic scum.

I show you 5 examples and you kill yourself...

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 1:34 pm

I show you 5 examples and you kill yourself...

 

as I will debunk all 5 will you end your breathing forward? Rhetorical question, because everyone knows you won't ever be honest within yourself to even recognize how wrong you remain in plain sight as a reproduction limited to mutually evolving ancestrally here.

Vegas » 05 Jun 2022, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 1:17 pm

You fear every question that comes your way. 

Post an example where you gave a straight answer to a straight question the first time around...not the second time...not th700th time around, but the first. 

**** you coward.

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 12:38 pm

Yap...yap...gibberish....yap!

I accept your surrender.  
 

Huey » 05 Jun 2022, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 1:51 pm

I accept your surrender.

Dwarf,

You don't win with ishkabibble...

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 1:38 pm

 

 

 Same redundant response. I knew your predictable *** would post that. 

Here you go, coward: 

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:10 pm

Dwarf,

You don't win with ishkabibble...

You lost the “woman” discussion.

You the guns and gun law discussion. Even when I went strictly by your rules.

You lost the worst president evah discussion.

That is why you had to start a tribute thread the other day.

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 1:34 pm

I show you 5 examples and you kill yourself...

Is it those same responses that you always post to which I always easily rebut? 

Of course it is, you are repetitive. You can't come up with anything new. 


Here, let's just get it over with now: 

• Pic, which I easily cancel out.
• Media comment, which you can't refute. And **** your cop-out. 
• Potus 2008 , which I easily kicked your *** on. 
• That stupid horse and stupid fictitious character relating to Trump, which nobody **** cares, except you.
• I am sure I missing something, but **** all of your repetitive ****. predicatble people have low IQs.

Huey » 05 Jun 2022, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:13 pm

You lost the “woman” discussion.

You the guns and gun law discussion. Even when I went strictly by your rules.

You lost the worst president evah discussion.

That is why you had to start a tribute thread the other day.

1. No....you are in conflict with the citations.

2. No. See 1.

3. No. You are comparing apples and oranges.

4. Your case is debunked. 
 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:20 pm

1. No....you are in conflict with the citations.

2. No. See 1.

3. No. You are comparing apples and oranges.

4. Your case is debunked.

Lol!
 

Huey » 05 Jun 2022, 2:21 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:21 pm

Lol!

Point by point debunking.

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:32 pm

Point by point debunking.

LOL!

 

Vegas » 05 Jun 2022, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:16 pm

Is it those same responses that you always post to which I always easily rebut? 

Of course it is, you are repetitive. You can't come up with anything new. 

Here, let's just get it over with now: 

• Pic, which I easily cancel out.
• Media comment, which you can't refute. And **** your cop-out. 
• Potus 2008 , which I easily kicked your *** on. 
• That stupid horse and stupid fictitious character relating to Trump, which nobody **** cares, except you.
• I am sure I missing something, but **** all of your repetitive ****. predicatble people have low IQs.

No questions.

Potus 2008 , which I easily kicked your *** on

By not knowing who was POTUS in 2008.

That stupid horse and stupid fictitious character relating to Trump, which nobody **** cares, except you.

Because you're watching Depp v. Heard.

**** peasant.


 

Huey » 05 Jun 2022, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:33 pm

LOL!

I accept your Snivel of Abject and Unconditional surrender.

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:37 pm

I accept your Snivel of Abject and Unconditional surrender.

I have already accepted yours.  I have no need to surrender.

Huey » 05 Jun 2022, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:38 pm

I have already accepted yours.  I have no need to surrender.

It's just a formality.

Your humiliating defeats is a matter of record.
 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:10 pm

Dwarf,

You don't win with ishkabibble...

You always lose your sole point of displacement staying in character socially induced into your vernacular social narrative you rather die defending that protect your own time being you.

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:41 pm

It's just a formality.

Your humiliating defeats is a matter of record.

lol!  You’re a funny guy,  

Huey » 05 Jun 2022, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 2:51 pm

lol!  You’re a funny guy,

You're a slack jawed cretin.


At the recent U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. Marsha Blackburn triggered controversy when she asked Jackson to define the word “woman.” After Jackson declined, several Republican congresspeople chimed in with definitions for “woman” that ranged from dubious to shocking, including “the weaker sex,” “someone who has a uterus,” and “X chromosomes, no tallywhacker.”

 Such notions haven’t evolved much since 1871, when naturalist Charles Darwin told the world that “man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than women, and has more inventive genius.” Most 19th- and 20th-century evolutionary theories (and theorists) asserted that evolution created two kinds of creatures—male and female—and individuals’ behavior and nature reflected this biological binary.

 Today a chorus of scientific-sounding claims about “blue and pink” brains, testosterone, and male primate aggression are offered up as natural explanations for masculine and feminine behavior, along with gaps in pay, jobs, political and economic leadership, and sexuality. In the political and legal realms, the belief that biology creates two types of humans is invoked in a range of attempts to mandate and enforce how humans should behave.

 These assertions and beliefs are wrong.
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/biologi ... -humanity/
 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2022, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022, 3:04 pm

You're a slack jawed cretin.

At the recent U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. Marsha Blackburn triggered controversy when she asked Jackson to define the word “woman.” After Jackson declined, several Republican congresspeople chimed in with definitions for “woman” that ranged from dubious to shocking, including “the weaker sex,” “someone who has a uterus,” and “X chromosomes, no tallywhacker.”

 Such notions haven’t evolved much since 1871, when naturalist Charles Darwin told the world that “man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than women, and has more inventive genius.” Most 19th- and 20th-century evolutionary theories (and theorists) asserted that evolution created two kinds of creatures—male and female—and individuals’ behavior and nature reflected this biological binary.

 Today a chorus of scientific-sounding claims about “blue and pink” brains, testosterone, and male primate aggression are offered up as natural explanations for masculine and feminine behavior, along with gaps in pay, jobs, political and economic leadership, and sexuality. In the political and legal realms, the belief that biology creates two types of humans is invoked in a range of attempts to mandate and enforce how humans should behave.

 These assertions and beliefs are wrong.
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/biologi ... -humanity/

So?  Where is your definition?  I have seen that link.  What I haven’t seen is your definition.