Liberal Forum

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:14 am

 .....


 
 

Sumela » 18 Apr 2024, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:17 am

Pay attention to MEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Shouldn't you be on your anal fisting thread?

 
 

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:15 am

Sure...

I said you were "close but not quite there"

How's that?

LOL

That's different from what you said after going behind closed doors with @Vegas  yesterday...
 
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:25 am

That's different from what you said after gping behind closed doors with @Vegas  yesterday...

****. I read what he said. He said you were close...actually, I would say that you were on the right track , but derailed off a cliff and then crashed and burned into atoms. 

Followed by this gem: 

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.

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:20 am

Shouldn't you be on your anal fisting thread?

       Cuckies are glorious!



 
 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:29 am

****. I read what he said. He said you were close...actually, I would say that you were on the right track , but derailed off a cliff and then crashed and burned into atoms. 

Followed by this gem:

Post your definition so we can all see what you think you see.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:32 am

Post your definition so we can all see what you think you see.

Rule, idiot. **** your ignorance or 3k greenies. 

Slowest learner ever ^^^

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 7:01 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 7:01 am

What's the point of a sham trial?

So the majority leader can walk out and offer justifications for collective fecklessness?

Obviously, you're far too ignorant to understand the purpose, dickhead, so let me educate you.  

Republicans knew very well that they'd never be able to get 67 Senators to convict Mayorkas. Did you ever think otherwise?
Are you aware that almost every Republican Congressman in the House voted for impeachment while every Democrat voted against it?
And that every Republican Senator wished to continue with the trial while every Democrat Senator voted to dismiss it?

So tell me, genius.  With the vast majority of voters believing that our wide open border is the fault of Biden and Mayorkas, and with illegal immigration being the MOST or SECOND MOST important issue to voters, how detrimental do you think the ad campaigns in the upcoming election will affect those Democrat Congressmen when their Republican counterpart can point to their votes on the impeachment of Mayorkas as their attempt to take action in closing the border to illegals, while every Democrat including Biden fought strongly against his impeachment were calling it "baseless" and "unconstitutional"?

Let's see how "breathtaking" you think it will be when those very vulnerable 23 Democratic Senate seats up for re-election have to defend their vote to keep Mayokas in place as millions of additional illegals continue to flood into the country between now and November, just as crime caused by illegals is rising dramatically and Biden and Democrat states continue to throw tens billions of taxpayer dollars at them while doing nothing for the American people!  You're going to see inflation continuing to rise, gas and food prices continuing to rise, and further attacks of illegal gangs on police grow worse.  And how certain are you right now that any number of the terrorists we know have infiltrated the country will cause a major terrorist attack that could be as great or greater than 9/11?  You're clearly too dumb to even realize that if the trial had gone forward and forced Mayokas to resign, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST THING FOR DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES, because it would have convinced the country that Biden was serious about actually closing the border!

Your brainless Democrats have just sealed their fate in the upcoming election, while foolish morons like you cheer them on!
 

Zeets2 » 18 Apr 2024, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:35 am

Obviously, you're far too ignorant to understand the purpose, dickhead, so let me educate you.  

Republicans knew very well that they'd never be able to get 67 Senators to convict Mayorkas. Did you ever think otherwise?
Are you aware that almost every Republican Congressman in the House voted for impeachment while every Democrat voted against it?
And that every Republican Senator wished to continue with the trial while every Democrat Senator voted to dismiss it?

So tell me, genius.  With the vast majority of voters believing that our wide open border is the fault of Biden and Mayorkas, and with illegal immigration being the MOST or SECOND MOST important issue to voters, how detrimental do you think the ad campaigns in the upcoming election will affect those Democrat Congressmen when their Republican counterpart can point to their votes on the impeachment of Mayorkas as their attempt to take action in closing the border to illegals, while every Democrat including Biden fought strongly against his impeachment were calling it "baseless" and "unconstitutional"?

Let's see how "breathtaking" you think it will be when those very vulnerable 23 Democratic Senate seats up for re-election have to defend their vote to keep Mayokas in place as millions of additional illegals continue to flood into the country between now and November, just as crime caused by illegals is rising dramatically and Biden and Democrat states continue to throw tens billions of taxpayer dollars at them while doing nothing for the American people!  You're going to see inflation continuing to rise, gas and food prices continuing to rise, and further attacks of illegal gangs on police grow worse.  And how certain are you right now that any number of the terrorists we know have infiltrated the country will cause a major terrorist attack that could be as great or greater than 9/11?  You're clearly too dumb to even realize that if the trial had gone forward and forced Mayokas to resign, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST THING FOR DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES, because it would have convinced the country that Biden was serious about actually closing the border!

Your brainless Democrats have just sealed their fate in the upcoming election, while foolish morons like you cheer them on!

Too much Bullzeet, too little life.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:44 am

Too much Bullzeet, too little life.

Says the idiot that spends 12 hours a day on this site!    
 

nefarious101 » 18 Apr 2024, 8:40 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 8:40 am

One claims to have been.....but being a dickhead and his posting history makes that highly questionable

Totally....
 

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:33 am

Rule, idiot. **** your ignorance or 3k greenies. 

Slowest learner ever ^^^

Technically, The 5th is a plea..
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:56 am

Technically, The 5th is a plea..

Lame...then again, look who it came from. 


 

Zeets2 » 18 Apr 2024, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:48 am

Says the idiot that spends 12 hours a day on this site!  

Your **** isn't worth reading.

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:57 am

Lame...then again, look who it came from.

If you answered honestly, you'd indict yourself.

Because you're a moron.
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:25 am

That's different from what you said after going behind closed doors with @Vegas  yesterday...

No it's not.

I already conceded the fact that I misspoke and said "close but no cigar" when I actually said "close but not quite there" so... other than that minute faux pas, what are you referring to?

Or are you just lying again?

 




 

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 11:01 am

No it's not.

I already conceded the fact that I misspoke and said "close but no cigar" when I actually said "close but not quite there" so... other than that minute faux pas, what are you referring to?

Or are you just lying again?

A) yes
B) "Faux pas" does not describe it. Neither does "misspoke".


 

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 11:01 am

No it's not.

I already conceded the fact that I misspoke and said "close but no cigar" when I actually said "close but not quite there" so... other than that minute faux pas, what are you referring to?

Or are you just lying again?

Notice how you are your own "judge"...

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 11:03 am

A) yes
B) "Faux pas" does not describe it. Neither does "misspoke".

So you're lying again...

nod
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:59 am

If you answered honestly, you'd indict yourself.

Because you're a moron.

All you have to do is lower ego for once in your disgusting life and admit that you didn't know and still don't. That's it. Then you will get whatever you ask for. 

Narcissist.