Liberal Forum

Huey » 01 Jan 2024, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:40 am

R.Suave » 01 Jan 2024, 10:30 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:30 am

No, Tiny....it makes ZERO sense..

Economists call it Utility.

I'LL give you this.  The dems will be in such a meltdown they will have congress clogged up with investigation after investigation.  A new record for clown show impeachment hearings will be set.  NOTHING will get done.

All because of TDD.  

 

Acknowledge you were answered.

Huey » 01 Jan 2024, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:40 am

I'LL give you this.  The dems will be in such a meltdown they will have congress clogged up with investigation after investigation.  A new record for clown show impeachment hearings will be set.  NOTHING will get done.

All because of TDD.

This is the resolution of the 2ndBesty Conundrum?

 


 

R.Suave » 01 Jan 2024, 2:15 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 2:15 pm

This is the resolution of the 2ndBesty Conundrum?

Acknowledge you were answered so you never have to ask again.  A question is not an acknowledgement.  You have another one to acknowledge as well.

 

Huey » 01 Jan 2024, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 2:16 pm

Acknowledge you were answered so you never have to ask again.  A question is not an acknowledgement.  You have another one to acknowledge as well.

You didn't answer.
 

R.Suave » 01 Jan 2024, 2:18 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 2:18 pm

You didn't answer.

I did.

1.  You never gave a concise explanation of what this alleged conundrum is.

2.  You were answered on why I am not voting for trump.

3.  You never were man enough to post you acknowledged the answer.

Since it is quite apparent that you are not man enough to acknowledge my answer I will accept your replies to be the acknowledgement that is requested.


 

Huey » 01 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm

I did.

1.  You never gave a concise explanation of what this alleged conundrum is.

2.  You were answered on why I am not voting for trump.

3.  You never were man enough to post you acknowledged the answer.

Since it is quite apparent that you are not man enough to acknowledge my answer I will accept your replies to be the acknowledgement that is requested.

I not only gave one, and repeated it, I gave you a 2nd dumbed down version.

Acknowledge the facts.

R.Suave » 01 Jan 2024, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 2:27 pm

I not only gave one, and repeated it, I gave you a 2nd dumbed down version.

Acknowledge the facts.

Nope.  We are done.  Never ask again.  


I have to run off to the store.  I accept my victories to day and will move on.  

Huey » 01 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm

I did.

1.  You never gave a concise explanation of what this alleged conundrum is.

2.  You were answered on why I am not voting for trump.

3.  You never were man enough to post you acknowledged the answer.

Since it is quite apparent that you are not man enough to acknowledge my answer I will accept your replies to be the acknowledgement that is requested.

1. You asserted that the dumbed down version made perfect sense.

2. "Because libruls....."   
I'd say the problem is 91 counts, and counting.

3. You keep insisting that the incoherent **** you post must be acknowledged. But you've offered several "answers".
 

Huey » 01 Jan 2024, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 2:16 pm

Acknowledge you were answered so you never have to ask again.  A question is not an acknowledgement.  You have another one to acknowledge as well.

It's been a Tour de Force....