Liberal Forum

Vegas » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Ah, right on schedule. Another day, another Veghead interrogation session, where he demands everyone answer his questions while guarding his own OP like it’s a state secret. You’d think after years of this routine he’d at least try to disguise the dodge, but nope—just the same script with a new timestamp.

Veghead’s Law: Always demand answers, never give them the first time asked. He treats his OPs like sacred scrolls—off-limits, never to be questioned—while interrogating everyone else like he’s hosting a courtroom drama in his own head.

Are these your words?

Projection. Hey Veghead, serious question
 

So **** g'ddammned stupid 

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Are these your words?

So **** g'ddammned stupid

The same MO. Hides behind copy/paste , so he doesn't have to come up with his own thoughts. 

So **** gad damn stupid.

Vegas » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

The same MO. Hides behind copy/paste , so he doesn't have to come up with his own thoughts. 

So **** gad damn stupid.

In the context of "**** stupid" my thoughts wouldn't apply.

Duh.
 

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

In the context of "**** stupid" my thoughts wouldn't apply.

Duh.

What a masterpiece of deflection. He just admitted his thoughts don't apply—finally, some honesty—even if it’s wrapped in middle school snark.


1. He will now ask whom I am addressing.       

Blackvegetable » Today, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:17 am

So, Rog....did you, or did you not, cast a 3rd proud vote for Grifty?

Jesus. This guy can't stop **** hiding. He refuses to defend his OP. 

Let me remind you of the rule. Also, I don't give a **** about your opinion of it.

Veghead: if you post an OP, you answer the damn questions about it. No evasions, no copy-paste, no playing debate referee while refusing to step in the ring. Simple enough, or should I draw it in crayon?

Vegas » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

Jesus. This guy can't stop **** hiding. He refuses to defend his OP. 

Let me remind you of the rule. Also, I don't give a **** about your opinion of it.

How can we be certain that it isn't a rule?

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

How can we be certain that it isn't a rule?

Well ****, because there is nothing in that rule that contradicts reason and logic. Not that you would understand those words , Mr Brown. 

Veghead: if you post an OP, you answer the damn questions about it. No evasions, no copy-paste, no playing debate referee while refusing to step in the ring. Simple enough, or should I draw it in crayon?

1. He will now demand I define "reason" and "Logic." 

**** you. Look it up. 
 

Vegas » Today, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:37 pm

Well ****, because there is nothing in that rule that contradicts reason and logic. Not that you would understand those words , Mr Brown. 

1. He will now demand I define "reason" and "Logic." 

**** you. Look it up.

A RULE does not include 2nd person personal pronouns.

That would be an EXCEPTION.

Nod.

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

A RULE does not include 2nd person personal pronouns.

That would be an EXCEPTION.

Nod.

Oh man, you really just tried to grammar-lawyer your way out of basic accountability. So now we’re pretending that the presence of a pronoun invalidates the entire concept of a rule? Incredible. I didn’t realize we were holding a grammar bee for cowards.

Keep nodding, Veghead—maybe if you shake your head hard enough, an actual point will fall out.

Vegas » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

24 minutes ago

Oh man, you really just tried to grammar-lawyer your way out of basic accountability. So now we’re pretending that the presence of a pronoun invalidates the entire concept of a rule? Incredible. I didn’t realize we were holding a grammar bee for cowards.

Keep nodding, Veghead—maybe if you shake your head hard enough, an actual point will fall out.

That is true regardless of your feelings about the words used.

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

That is true regardless of your feelings about the words used.

Oh look, it’s the strikethrough flex again—your go-to move when you want to look clever without actually saying anything. You keep acting like formatting is a substitute for substance. Newsflash: scratching out someone else’s post doesn’t make yours smarter. It just makes you look like a bored teenager editing their diary.

Vegas » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Oh look, it’s the strikethrough flex again—your go-to move when you want to look clever without actually saying anything. You keep acting like formatting is a substitute for substance. Newsflash: scratching out someone else’s post doesn’t make yours smarter. It just makes you look like a bored teenager editing their diary.

Like I give a **** about what you are satisfied with, narcissist boy. You are not worthy enough for me to care. 



Wi,b

Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Like I give a **** about what you are satisfied with, narcissist boy. You are not worthy enough for me to care. 

Wi,b

And again. He hides behind copy/paste. Thereby, providing more evidence that he has no thoughts of his own. 

Same ****, day after day after day after day...the same ****. 

Wi  (And again, the same ****...over and over.)  QED. 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:23 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:23 am

Judge Settle also called out the Trump administration for seemingly disregarding the service history of the transgender soldiers who brought the case, such as the Commander Emily Shilling, a naval aviator with 19 years of service who flew 60 combat missions before becoming a Navy test pilot.

"There is no claim and no evidence that she is now, or ever was, a detriment to her unit's cohesion, or to the military's lethality or readiness, or that she is mentally or physically unable to continue her service," Settle wrote.

"There is no claim and no evidence that Shilling herself is dishonest or selfish, or that she lacks humility or integrity. Yet absent an injunction, she will be promptly discharged solely because she is transgender," wrote the judge.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/unfair-exclus ... =120255260

Don't presume to tell this legionnaire about "unit cohesion"


 
https://youtu.be/P101y5A8xAk?si=5H5B462VHKjH9ezb

Dude, remember, you pussied out of serving.  Do not presume you are informed enough to discuss unit cohesion,

Bring your dumbbell, Capt Stuben.  It won’t end well for you, ******. 
 

*Huey » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

28 minutes ago

Dude, remember, you pussied out of serving.  Do not presume you are informed enough to discuss unit cohesion,

Bring your dumbbell, Capt Stuben.  It won’t end well for you, ******.

So what qualifies Grifty, ******? 

It won’t end well for you, ******.

How is it that a disabled badass such as yourself would punk out 43 miles short of the NH line?

Vegas » 32 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

32 minutes ago

And again. He hides behind copy/paste. Thereby, providing more evidence that he has no thoughts of his own. 

Same ****, day after day after day after day...the same ****. 

Wi  (And again, the same ****...over and over.)  QED.

Don't melt down at the sight of your own words...

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Don't melt down at the sight of your own words...

    You are so easy.

Classic Veghead—copy/paste, then pretend it’s some kind of intellectual checkmate. When you call him out for lacking original thought, he acts like he just revealed some ancient truth. 
Melt down? Please. Watching you hide behind my words like a toddler in a Halloween costume isn’t threatening—it’s just more proof that you’ve got nothing of your own to offer. Quoting me doesn’t make you right, it just confirms you’re out of ideas… again.

Blackvegetable » 35 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

35 minutes ago

So what qualifies Grifty, ******? 

How is it that a disabled badass such as yourself would punk out 43 miles short of the NH line?

I didn't, Mary.  NiceMeltdown.  After years of threats I was under 32 miles from you.  You pussied out.  As your dad, uncle and mother knew you would.

You want a peice of me, coward, you will have to come within 32 miles of me, north, south  or west.  Let me know when you are here, ******.

I'm out.  I leave you in your shanty with your handrceam and tissues.

*Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

I didn't, Mary.  NiceMeltdown.  After years of threats I was under 32 miles from you.  You pussied out.  As your dad, uncle and mother knew you would.

You want a peice of me, coward, you will have to come within 32 miles of me, north, south  or west.  Let me know when you are here, ******.

I'm out.  I leave you in your shanty with your handrceam and tissues.

You ran from the questions, Punkass..

After years of threats I was under 32 miles

you're the one constantly talking smack at a considerable distance.

Always yapping about "doing your own work"....

 

Vegas » 36 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

36 minutes ago

    You are so easy.

Classic Veghead—copy/paste, then pretend it’s some kind of intellectual checkmate. When you call him out for lacking original thought, he acts like he just revealed some ancient truth. 
Melt down? Please. Watching you hide behind my words like a toddler in a Halloween costume isn’t threatening—it’s just more proof that you’ve got nothing of your own to offer. Quoting me doesn’t make you right, it just confirms you’re out of ideas… again.

Whom are you addressing?