Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 8:50 am

Spot the Homophobe...

Who cares what I do?....you're always proclaiming you're woke....but it appears you're guilty of what's called "convenient morality"....that's a dickhead maneuver...you just told on yourself

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 1:12 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:12 pm

I never asked him in the first place.

That was your job.

LOL

 

I never asked him in the first place.

Of course you didn't...you had demands to make.

And besides, why would you be anxious to confirm that you're the rube of yet another moron.

That was your job.

No, it wasn't.
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:13 pm

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.

Oh my God...he is being  a self appointed judge again. This loser never learns.          @rippy 38  

Look moron. There will never be a time where you being a judge of your own deal will ever be appropriate. Ever. At all. You narcissistic piece of dog ****. 

R.Suave » Yesterday, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:15 pm

Sure...

But I will determine if I've satisfied the standard of evidence..

Shouldn't be an issue if you can be the judge of what defines "Survivorship bias".

My judgement is final.

Let's begin.

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:16 pm

Oh my God...he is being  a self appointed judge again. This loser never learns.          @rippy 38  

Look moron. There will never be a time where you being a judge of your own deal will ever be appropriate. Ever. At all. You narcissistic piece of dog ****.

Great.

Post your definition of Survivorship bias and we'll find a judge to determine who is right...
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:04 pm

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

You're the one that said they were "significantly" different... not me.

It's my opinion that the two phrases effectively say the same thing so... it's up to you to prove your point, not me.

Be sure to show your work pumpkin.

LOL
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 12:57 pm

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

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

Huey-17 minutes ago

Conceding the Truthiness.

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

18 Apr 2024, 1:18 pm

Conceding the Truthiness.

You get so emotional when you get a reddie.  Do you need a tissue?

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:17 pm

Great.

Post your definition of Survivorship bias and we'll find a judge to determine who is right...

Ok. But you have to keep the one that you already wrote. 

I say @Cannonpointer  ​​​@GeorgeWashington  to judge. 

I know you are going to pick a lefty. I know you are...and no you dumb piece of ****. I am not going to agree to your lefty choice.. God man. It's pathetic that I even have to say that. 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:10 pm

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 ?"

The Democrats had NO CHOICE and could not stop the impeachment process since Republicans controlled the House, you fool!
What were their options?  To leave the room and refuse to vote?  To vote "present" instead of voting no to the impeachment question?

And what in the world did Putin have to do with a congressional vote to impeach a member of Biden's cabinet?
If anything, Putin would have sided with Democrats in order to inflict more harm on the US by flooding us with illegal drugs, gang members, assorted criminals, all while cheering as Biden the idiot continued to throw tens of billions of dollars at illegals that would cause our inflation to rise.

One can easily see that you're just as dumb as your Democrats in Congress!

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:17 pm

You're the one that said they were "significantly" different... not me.

It's my opinion that the two phrases effectively say the same thing so... it's up to you to prove your point, not me.

Be sure to show your work pumpkin.

LOL

They are manifestly different, as the different words used indicate.

it's up to you to prove your point, not me.

You really are this stupid.

It's my opinion that they effectively at odds.

Now what?

**** simpleton.

Zeets2 » 18 Apr 2024, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:24 pm

The Democrats had NO CHOICE and could not stop the impeachment process since Republicans controlled the House, you fool!
What were their options?  To leave the room and refuse to vote?  To vote "present" instead of voting no to the impeachment question?

And what in the world did Putin have to do with a congressional vote to impeach a member of Biden's cabinet?
If anything, Putin would have sided with Democrats in order to inflict more harm on the US by flooding us with illegal drugs, gang members, assorted criminals, all while cheering as Biden the idiot continued to throw tens of billions of dollars at illegals that would cause our inflation to rise.

One can easily see that you're just as dumb as your Democrats in Congress!

But, Zeet...

It was all theater, because even you understood it would go nowhere in the Senate..

There's no reason to waste time with it.

This border hysteria is meant to distract from GOP dysfunction. Immigration, legal or illegal, is a net positive.
 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:22 pm

Ok. But you have to keep the one that you already wrote. 

I say @Cannonpointer  ​​​@GeorgeWashington  to judge. 

I know you are going to pick a lefty. I know you are...and no you dumb piece of ****. I am not going to agree to your lefty choice.. God man. It's pathetic that I even have to say that.

Post it and we'll worry about a judge when you're done making an *** of yourself.

Huey » 18 Apr 2024, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:21 pm

You get so emotional when you get a reddie.  Do you need a tissue?

What is a reddie of not an emotional outburst, ProjectoLass...

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:11 pm

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

Hence, the cherry picking. 

Hence, the cherry picking

Projection.

Explain how I would cherry pick in such a context, and how it would relate to Survivorship bias.

I advise you to admit that you're a moron.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:33 pm

Post it and we'll worry about a judge when you're done making an *** of yourself.

    No *******. That's not how it works. 

We find the judge first. I don't trust you. You are a sleazy scum. 



And I am not going to go round and round....your next post needs to answer or we are back to the rule again. **** your stalling and bluffing. 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:28 pm

They are manifestly different, as the different words used indicate.

You really are this stupid.

It's my opinion that they effectively at odds.

Now what?

**** simpleton.

Excerpt:

"The phrase 'Close, but No Cigar' is used to indicate that you have fallen just short of a successful outcome and have received no reward for your efforts."

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/ ... t-no-cigar

Anyone with any sense of reason can see that the phrases "close but not quite there" and "close but no cigar" both effectively relay the message that you have fallen just short of a successful outcome and have received no reward for your efforts.

You have yet to show otherwise other than saying  -nuh uh!-

Try again.

Go.

 

​​​​​​
 
 
 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:37 pm

    No *******. That's not how it works. 

We find the judge first. I don't trust you. You are a sleazy scum. 

And I am not going to go round and round....your next post needs to answer or we are back to the rule again. **** your stalling and bluffing.

That is exactly how it works, as I have already posted mine.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:36 pm

Explain how I would cherry pick in such a context, and how it would relate to Survivorship bias.

I advise you to admit that you're a moron.

Do you know what cherry picking even is? Clearly not or you wouldn't have even asked that. 

Well...Einstein. You see, there were presidents that were ranked....and you chose only a sample and tried to just use those (I believe it was just the presidents that you hated and liked)...hence, cherry picked.

I cannot dumb that down further. 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:37 pm

That is exactly how it works, as I have already posted mine.

Nope. Ok, you had your chance. I told you that your next post needs to have picked a judge, you failed. 

Back to the rule again. You stalled and bluffed, as always. 


What is survivorship bias in your words. **** your incorrect definition. 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:31 pm

But, Zeet...

It was all theater, because even you understood it would go nowhere in the Senate..

There's no reason to waste time with it.

This border hysteria is meant to distract from GOP dysfunction. Immigration, legal or illegal, is a net positive.

You didn't answer my question, did you?
WHAT COULD HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE TO STOP THE IMPEACHMENT VOTE?