Liberal Forum

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:50 pm

I've explained to you twice now why I felt it was "close but not quite there"...

LOL

In your opinion, which is demonstrably uninformed.

Your point?

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:51 pm

Your definition from Google. 

Not stop asking the same **** questions.

1. You will ask the same questions

Show me where it says so.

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

18 Apr 2024, 2:01 pm

Another headshot....here comes Issue.

 

LMAO!  

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 6:32 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 6:32 am

Republicans say the quick dismissal of charges against Alejandro Mayorkas sets a dangerous precedent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/p ... edent.html

I don't remember you pole smokers celebrating the last impeachment dismissed by the Senate with quite the same giddy excitement, Neuter Nuts.

Huey » 18 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm

LMAO!

They weren't rented.

But, since you seem to want to discuss it - you've acknowledged getting the bulk of your variety in exchange for cash.

Roughly what percentage?
 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:41 pm

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.

I've already posted mine.

Now you have to post yours.

That's a "rule", because it applies to both, equally.

Unless you have a different "rule".....that you can post.
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 2:05 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:05 pm

They weren't rented.

But, since you seem to want to discuss it - you've acknowledged getting the bulk of your variety in exchange for cash.

Roughly what percentage?
 

 

No, I never said that, 5x.  When we get the search function back you can link to it and make your case!    

Huey » 18 Apr 2024, 2:09 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:09 pm

No, I never said that, 5x.  When we get the search function back you can link to it and make your case!  

Tell me what percentage and then I will explain the math to you.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:10 pm

Tell me what percentage and then I will explain the math to you.

 

No, I will wait for you to link to it.  This is gonna be great.  
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm

In your opinion, which is demonstrably uninformed.

Your point?

I just said I've already made my point twice...

If you are too stupid to comprehend it the first two times, and third time isn't going help any.

 


 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:08 pm

I've already posted mine.

 

Which was incorrect...how many times...

Now you have to post yours.

That's a "rule", because it applies to both, equally.

Unless you have a different "rule".....that you can post.

No ****, that wasn't the rule. The rule was that you have to first acknowledge that you never knew what it was and that you still don't. Then I will post whatever the hell you want. 

How many times....


1. More redundancy

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 1:45 pm

I don't see where you're going.

EVERYONE knew it would die in the Senate.

Even a **** brick like you.

So why can't you answer it?  
How did Democrats "indulge" the impeachment effort as you claim, when they couldn't do anything to stop it?
 

Zeets2 » 18 Apr 2024, 2:21 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:21 pm

So why can't you answer it?  
How did Democrats "indulge" the impeachment effort as you claim, when they couldn't do anything to stop it?

Is it ongoing?

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:14 pm

Which was incorrect...how many times...

No ****, that wasn't the rule. The rule was that you have to first acknowledge that you never knew what it was and that you still don't. Then I will post whatever the hell you want. 

How many times....

1. More redundancy

The rule was that you have to first acknowledge that you never knew what it was

That is not a rule...

**** idiot.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:46 pm

That is not a rule...

**** idiot.

Yes, it is. It is enforceable and it applies to both of us. 

You dumb piece of ****. 

And **** all your upcoming questions/demands. Everybody is sick of you hiding. 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:54 pm

Yes, it is. It is enforceable and it applies to both of us. 

You dumb piece of ****. 

And **** all your upcoming questions/demands. Everybody is sick of you hiding.

So go ahead and acknowledge that you have no idea what it means and I'll explain it to you...

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 2:57 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 2:57 pm

So go ahead and acknowledge that you have no idea what it means and I'll explain it to you...

I never broke the rule; you have. Thus, it's on you. 

 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 3:34 pm

I never broke the rule; you have. Thus, it's on you.

it's obviously not a rule then.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 4:13 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 4:13 pm

it's obviously not a rule then.

You've still not posted the "rule" that you claimed I made yesterday.

WTF man?
 

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 4:25 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 4:25 pm

You've still not posted the "rule" that you claimed I made yesterday.

WTF man?

We were working on it, but you became hysterical at the sight of your own words....got the whole coop worked up..