Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:38 pm

You gotta stop burying that dumb ****.

This came up because @Vegas  claimed that the APSA survey suffered from "Survivor bias", an advanced statistical concept he asserted was too difficult for his readers to grasp.

A)  It's Survivorship bias
B) It has nothing to do with the APSA survey.

And now this same dumb **** insists he's qualified to judge my definition.

Ask him for his.

And they always make any negativity aimed at them, about someone else...

I forgot that one.

 
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:49 pm

All you had to do was type "Yes"....instead you're whining, again.

All you had to do was look about five posts back so... why ask?
​​​​​​

Zeets2 » 18 Apr 2024, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:52 pm

All you want, as long as you'll do the same.
Fire away, dickhead!

If, as you admit, this was all about PR, why should the Indolent Dross in the House be indulged?

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:54 pm

All you had to do was look about five posts back so... why ask?
​​​​​​

It's about you stipulating to them, before you eat them.

You and @Huey  really seem to struggle with that concept.....as well.
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 12:53 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:53 pm

No, you don't, and no I wasn't...
 

Yes you do, and yes you did. 

i can't cherry pick the order of the rankings, **** idiot.

You deviated off the rankings and discussed your own presidents. No surprise. 

But to demonstrate to everyone that you're a moron, explain how Survivorship bias applies.

Rule, idiot. **** your ignorance or 3k greenies. 
Slowest learner ever ^^^

Prediction: melting down in lies...

Ummmm...nope. 0% accuracy

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:54 pm

And they always make any negativity aimed at them about someone else...

I forgot that one.

I was there.

You weren't.

I haven't seen his definition.....perhaps you should ask him again.
 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:57 pm

Yes you do, and yes you did. 

You deviated off the rankings and discussed your own presidents. No surprise. 

Rule, idiot. **** your ignorance or 3k greenies. 
Slowest learner ever ^^^

Ummmm...nope. 0% accuracy

You're lying about something you've admitted you don't remember.

and discussed your own presidents.

Specifically?


You're so **** stupid, you should be euthanized.

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:51 pm

Are you claiming that I never posted it?

I prove I did then you are banned for a month. If I can't, then I am banned for a month. 

Deal? 

Watch this...

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

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm

You're lying about something you've admitted you don't remember.

 

Nope. I can't recall which presidents you cherry picked. Why would I? 

Specifically?

Lost in the great purge, but you already knew that which is why you are asking. Another disgusting dishonest tactic of yours. Coward. 

You're so **** stupid, you should be euthanized.

     Hello Mary.   @Huey  

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 11:10 am

Please make your case in the different meanings conveyed between saying "close but not quite there" and "close but no cigar"

I believe the word you used was that there was a "significant" difference in the phrases.

Now is your chance to explain that "significant" difference.

Go.

LOL

I think it would be better if you explained

A) why you would change it after meeting with vegas behind closed doors

B) Why you believe they are the same

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:02 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:02 pm

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

This again. More narcissists amnesia. So, tell me, what part of "yes" the rule applies to me don't you understand? How many times...How many **** times...

It's one syllable, 3 letters. I can't simplify it anymore. 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:03 pm

Nope. I can't recall which presidents you cherry picked. Why would I? 

Lost in the great purge, but you already knew that which is why you are asking. Another disgusting dishonest tactic of yours. Coward. 

     Hello Mary.   @Huey

Snave is really **** defensive today. Play nice.




 
 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:03 pm

Nope. I can't recall which presidents you cherry picked. Why would I? 

Lost in the great purge, but you already knew that which is why you are asking. Another disgusting dishonest tactic of yours. Coward. 

     Hello Mary.   @Huey

Why would I? 

If it happened, but it didn't. Accordingly, you don't.

Lost in the great purge

There are no "your presidents".

There's only one roster.

You're a **** idiot.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:54 pm

If, as you admit, this was all about PR, why should the Indolent Dross in the House be indulged?

Very simple, and the explanation can be found in my response from just a short time ago, which you claimed wasn't worth your time to read.

The House wanted to get the votes of Democrats on record SUPPORTING Biden and Mayokas' desire and intention to keep the border open at all costs, in direct defiance of what the overwhelming majority of American voters said they wanted.  Now it's going to be up to every House Democrat to defend that vote against the very powerful Republican campaigns showing how each of those Democrats had the opportunity to vote to close the border and refused to do so, against the votes of any House incumbents who DID vote to get rid of Mayorkas.  And since the Republicans held the majority in the House, Democrats had no choice but to have that vote put before them, and every one voted AGAINST impeachment.

So did you think it was going to be easy for Democrats to defend that decision when faced with the obvious question in the upcoming campaign?:
"Tell us, Congressman Liberal.  Why did you vote against impeaching Mayokas when he clearly was violating US immigration laws instead of voting for impeachment to send a message to Biden to appoint a new Homeland Secretary who would have closed the border to illegals as the country is demanding?"

Your turn.

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:04 pm

This again. More narcissists amnesia. So, tell me, what part of "yes" the rule applies to me don't you understand? How many times...How many **** times...

It's one syllable, 3 letters. I can't simplify it anymore.

Just post this "rule", and your stipulation.


 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:08 pm

Just post this "rule", and your stipulation.

Do we have a deal? 

If I have to repost **** over and over , then there needs to be something in it for me. 

If I can prove that I posted the rule before, then you are banned for a month.
If I can't, then I am banned for a month. 

1. You will continue to run and evade. 100% accuracy

Zeets2 » 18 Apr 2024, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:07 pm

Very simple, and the explanation can be found in my response from just a short time ago, which you claimed wasn't worth your time to read.

The House wanted to get the votes of Democrats on record SUPPORTING Biden and Mayokas' desire and intention to keep the border open at all costs, in direct defiance of what the overwhelming majority of American voters said they wanted.  Now it's going to be up to every House Democrat to defend that vote against the very powerful Republican campaigns showing how each of those Democrats had the opportunity to vote to close the border and refused to do so, against the votes of any House incumbents who DID vote to get rid of Mayorkas.  And since the Republicans held the majority in the House, Democrats had no choice but to have that vote put before them, and every one voted AGAINST impeachment.

So did you think it was going to be easy for Democrats to defend that decision when faced with the obvious question in the upcoming campaign?:
"Tell us, Congressman Liberal.  Why did you vote against impeaching Mayokas when he clearly was violating US immigration laws instead of voting for impeachment to send a message to Biden to appoint a new Homeland Secretary who would have closed the border to illegals as the country is demanding?"

Your turn.

That doesn't tell me WHY they should be indulged, only why they want to be.

But they are useless, and should be made to answer substantive questions on policy, like
"Why are you being Putin's buttboy ?"

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:07 pm

If it happened, but it didn't. Accordingly, you don't.

 

Liar ^^^ It happened. And don't act surprised that you cherry pi9cked something. You do that **** incessantly. Liar.

There are no "your presidents".

Hence, the cherry picking. 

There's only one roster.

Hence, the cherry picking

You're a **** idiot.

Projection.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 12:58 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:58 pm

I was there.

You weren't.

I haven't seen his definition.....perhaps you should ask him again.

I never asked him in the first place.

That was your job.

LOL
 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:09 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:09 pm

Do we have a deal? 

If I have to repost **** over and over , then there needs to be something in it for me. 

If I can prove that I posted the rule before, then you are banned for a month.
If I can't, then I am banned for a month. 

1. You will continue to run and evade. 100% accuracy

No...here's the deal..

You post it, and if I can find you in violation of it once, even in spirit, you leave for a year.