Liberal Forum

they are okay with the senile pedo allowing millions of illegals, some of which are sex traffickers after their own 12 yr old daughters/granddaughters, to come across just so dims can remain in power? 

It baffles me that they put the dimocrats over the safety of their own kids. 

Morally bankrupt. 

Progressives, Libs and Dems have 0 morals.

PhiloBeddo » 13 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm

Progressives, Libs and Dems have 0 morals.

They literally believe that any violent illegal would never hurt them. Only the righties are in danger or something. These people are stupid as hell. 

Vegas » 13 Apr 2024, 12:58 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 12:58 pm

they are okay with the senile pedo allowing millions of illegals, some of which are sex traffickers after their own 12 yr old daughters/granddaughters, to come across just so dims can remain in power? 

It baffles me that they put the dimocrats over the safety of their own kids. 

Morally bankrupt.

Yes, they are.

Morals take a backseat to pushing the mandated narratives handed down by their owners.

How else can they argue in favor of **** like mutilating the genitals of an 11 year old boy like @R. Suave  was doing on here the other day?
 

*rippy38 » 13 Apr 2024, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:33 pm

Yes, they are.

Morals take a backseat to pushing the mandated narratives handed down by their owners.

How else can they argue in favor of **** like mutilating the genitals of an 11 year old boy like @R. Suave  was doing on here the other day?

No surprise. I bet he belted you with 600 questions/demands while never answering any of yours. 

*rippy38 » 13 Apr 2024, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:33 pm

Yes, they are.

Morals take a backseat to pushing the mandated narratives handed down by their owners.

How else can they argue in favor of **** like mutilating the genitals of an 11 year old boy like @R. Suave  was doing on here the other day?

 “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

 He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
 

Vegas » 13 Apr 2024, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:34 pm

No surprise. I bet he belted you with 600 questions/demands while never answering any of yours.

I'm still waiting for this example of Survivorship bias...

R.Suave » 13 Apr 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:37 pm

I'm still waiting for this example of Survivorship bias...

I am still waiting for you to abide by the rule.

But you already know that. **** narcissists are all the same.

Vegas » 13 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm

I am still waiting for you to abide by the rule.

But you already know that. **** narcissists are all the same.

Unless it applies to you, it's not a rule.

R.Suave » 13 Apr 2024, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:40 pm

Unless it applies to you, it's not a rule.

             I see you still won't accept "yes, it applies to me" as an answer. 

 

Vegas » 13 Apr 2024, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:34 pm

No surprise. I bet he belted you with 600 questions/demands while never answering any of yours.

As soon as he starts in with the "answer the question NOW!" ****, I just move straight to the ridicule stage of the conversation... which is usually about three replies in.

 


 

Vegas » 13 Apr 2024, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:42 pm

             I see you still won't accept "yes, it applies to me" as an answer.

****...

 
 

Vegas » 13 Apr 2024, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:42 pm

             I see you still won't accept "yes, it applies to me" as an answer.

Prove it.

R.Suave » 13 Apr 2024, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:36 pm

 “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

 He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

She is a lying ****... marked
 

R.Suave » 13 Apr 2024, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:36 pm

 “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

 He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

My pointing out the fact that the jury never said "rape" in the E.J. Carroll debacle is nothing like you advocating for mutilating the genitals of an 11 year old boy... no matter how you try to spin it.



 
 

*rippy38 » 13 Apr 2024, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 2:46 pm

My pointing out the fact that the jury never said "rape" in the E.J. Carroll debacle is nothing like you advocating for mutilating the genitals of an 11 year old boy... no matter how you try to spin it.

Rippie,

We have you.....and the presiding judge.
 

R.Suave » 13 Apr 2024, 4:46 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 4:46 pm

Rippie,

We have you.....and the presiding judge.

You forgot the jury...
​​​​​​
 
 

R.Suave » 13 Apr 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:37 pm

I'm still waiting for this example of Survivorship bias...

I'm still waiting for even ONE example of you answering a question directly.

You called me a liar but never followed through.
Even ONE example would have deflated my trolling accusation. Just one.
Apparently I was right: You have NEVER answered a question directly.
     

Example:
   Are you a total piece of ****? Yes.
   Surely someone has asked "Are you stupid?" to which a direct reply could be expected.
C'mon, man. Be competent and professional.

DeezerShoove » 13 Apr 2024, 4:54 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 4:54 pm

I'm still waiting for even ONE example of you answering a question directly.

You called me a liar but never followed through.
Even ONE example would have deflated my trolling accusation. Just one.
Apparently I was right: You have NEVER answered a question directly.
     

Example:
   Are you a total piece of ****? Yes.
   Surely someone has asked "Are you stupid?" to which a direct reply could be expected.
C'mon, man. Be competent and professional.

You said 20..

I asked "What's in it for me?"

You.....get this....failed to answer.
 

*rippy38 » 13 Apr 2024, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 4:52 pm

You forgot the jury...
​​​​​​

And the judge clarified, for the impenetrably stupid, what the jury decision meant.