Liberal Forum

ROG62 » 07 Mar 2025, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 2:36 pm

Oh, I know...I saw it... I believe one of his questions was "what makes you shoulder height triangulation experts."   

now he falls on "it's attributed" to an unverifiable single source....

The level of stupid. Seriously, have you ever come across that level of mindless drivel knowing that the person wasn't even joking? 

Vegas » 07 Mar 2025, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 2:39 pm

The level of stupid. Seriously, have you ever come across that level of mindless drivel knowing that the person wasn't even joking?

and I hope I never do...
 

Where's my 60k?

Vegas » 07 Mar 2025, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 2:39 pm

The level of stupid. Seriously, have you ever come across that level of mindless drivel knowing that the person wasn't even joking?

Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period


******* to the max.

Blackvegetable » 08 Mar 2025, 7:09 am » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 7:09 am

Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period

******* to the max.

    Damn. You really can't refute this, can you? 

Challenge. Cannon judges. Nobody cares that you think he has syphilis.

Vegas » 08 Mar 2025, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 10:43 am

    Damn. You really can't refute this, can you? 

Challenge. Cannon judges. Nobody cares that you think he has syphilis.

As thoroughly debunked as your media comment.

Blackvegetable » 08 Mar 2025, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 3:37 pm

As thoroughly debunked as your media comment.

Neither has been debunked. 

You proved my example...unintentionally. 

As you would say: So goddamn **** stupid. 

Vegas » 09 Mar 2025, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2025, 12:18 pm

Neither has been debunked. 

You proved my example...unintentionally. 

As you would say: So goddamn **** stupid.

Completely and utterly, for all time.

Blackvegetable » 09 Mar 2025, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2025, 1:25 pm

Completely and utterly, for all time.

What is survivorship bias? Your words only without my help. 

Now that you proved my first example, let's see you skin yourself on the second one.

Vegas » 09 Mar 2025, 5:45 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2025, 5:45 pm

What is survivorship bias? Your words only without my help. 

Now that you proved my first example, let's see you skin yourself on the second one.

Already done.

Entirely without your assistance.

I've demonstrated that your first example isn't. 

I can, of course, humiliate you further.

Blackvegetable » 09 Mar 2025, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2025, 6:52 pm

Already done.

Entirely without your assistance.

 

Lie

I've demonstrated that your first example isn't. 

Nope. You demonstrated that I was right...unintentionally. Because you are a moron.

I can, of course, humiliate you further.

I would love for you to humiliate yourself further. Do it.

Vegas » 09 Mar 2025, 8:09 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2025, 8:09 pm

Lie

Nope. You demonstrated that I was right...unintentionally. Because you are a moron.

I would love for you to humiliate yourself further. Do it.

 

Nope. You demonstrated that I was right...unintentionally. Because you are a moron.

Lie.

I would love for you to humiliate yourself further. Do it.

Does this drivel refer to the Household, or Establishment, survey?
 

Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period

Blackvegetable » 09 Mar 2025, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2025, 8:23 pm

Lie.

Does this drivel refer to the Household, or Establishment, survey?

Already answered in the whole example that you didn't read.   Once again, you make an *** out of yourself for not reading. 

Do you want a hint? It has to do with the formula. Biden sampling was as dishonest as you. Hence, the survivorship bias...that you proved