Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 8:49 am

Don't add to your recall issues...

Thanks for admitting it is not a lie.



 

*Huey » 08 Apr 2025, 8:53 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 8:53 am

Thanks for admitting it is not a lie.

Thanks for acknowledging that your retellings are unreliable.

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 7:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 7:04 am

Grifty has plans to eliminate the federal income tax (which, though he didn't pay it, was a disincentive to losing more of other people's momey), and raise 700 billion through tariffs.

Apparently the EU called his bluff, and proposed some zero-tariff regime.

“We have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods as we have successfully done with many other trading partners. Because Europe is always ready for a good deal. So we keep it on the table,” she told a press conference alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. 

The U.S. and EU came close to scrapping industrial tariffs a decade ago in their discussions of the TTIP — the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — that was ultimately scuppered by Trump in his first term.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-offe ... l-tariffs/

With tariffs at 0, there would be no revenue to finance a tax cut.

So how would Grifty finance his tax cuts?

With a tax cut, of course.

Duh.

Ah, another Veghead thread where the sarcasm is rich, the substance is missing, and the punchline is… “Duh.” Powerful stuff. I’m sure the economic community is trembling in awe.

So here’s a fair question—one that, of course, you won’t answer, but I’ll ask it anyway because unlike you, I don’t fear actual engagement:If the EU offered a zero-tariff deal, and Trump were to accept it (which would eliminate tariff-based revenue), what alternative revenue mechanisms would you expect his administration to realistically pursue—and do you think they’d actually succeed in passing them through Congress?

 Now, I fully expect you to go through your patented 4-step evasion cycle:

Step 1: I ask you a direct question
Step 2: You deflect with a smug question of your own
Step 3: I remind you of the original question
Step 4: You accuse me of evading while continuing to dodge

 Rinse, repeat, and somewhere along the line, pretend you’ve won the argument without ever making one.
 So let’s save time: every time you dodge, I’ll dodge right back in your threads. That’s the deal.

1. Based on your track record, I expect to see Step 4 deployed before lunch.
 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 9:15 am

Ah, another Veghead thread where the sarcasm is rich, the substance is missing, and the punchline is… “Duh.” Powerful stuff. I’m sure the economic community is trembling in awe.

 Now, I fully expect you to go through your patented 4-step evasion cycle:

Step 1: I ask you a direct question
Step 2: You deflect with a smug question of your own
Step 3: I remind you of the original question
Step 4: You accuse me of evading while continuing to dodge

 Rinse, repeat, and somewhere along the line, pretend you’ve won the argument without ever making one.
 So let’s save time: every time you dodge, I’ll dodge right back in your threads. That’s the deal.

1. Based on your track record, I expect to see Step 4 deployed before lunch.

 

So here’s a fair question

If

"Post the date of the citation."

is not an entirely reasonable request, then there is no such thing as a "fair question".
 
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 9:20 am

If

"Post the date of the citation."

is not an entirely reasonable request, then there is no such thing as a "fair question".

LOL—textbook Step 4, right on cue. Demands a citation for a hypothetical scenario you posted on your own OP, then acts like I am the unreasonable one. It's like asking you to explain your menu, and you respond by demanding my grocery receipt.

As predicted—Step 4, deployed flawlessly. You dodge the question, toss out a demand like you're grading term papers, and pretend my question isn’t fair because you don’t want to answer it.

 You wrote the OP. You framed the scenario. You brought up the EU, the zero tariffs, and the “duh.” And now you’re asking me to provide a citation for a quote you literally included in your own thread?

 It’s like watching a guy set a house on fire and then ask the firefighters to prove it’s burning. But hey, fair’s fair. That’s one more dodge on your tally—and one less answer you’ll be getting in mine.
 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 9:25 am

LOL—textbook Step 4, right on cue. Demands a citation for a hypothetical scenario you posted on your own OP, then acts like I am the unreasonable one. It's like asking you to explain your menu, and you respond by demanding my grocery receipt.

As predicted—Step 4, deployed flawlessly. You dodge the question, toss out a demand like you're grading term papers, and pretend my question isn’t fair because you don’t want to answer it.

 You wrote the OP. You framed the scenario. You brought up the EU, the zero tariffs, and the “duh.” And now you’re asking me to provide a citation for a quote you literally included in your own thread?

 It’s like watching a guy set a house on fire and then ask the firefighters to prove it’s burning. But hey, fair’s fair. That’s one more dodge on your tally—and one less answer you’ll be getting in mine.

@Blackvegetable  Are these my words?

1. Based on your track record, I expect to see Step 4 deployed before lunch.

QED. 
 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 9:15 am

Ah, another Veghead thread where the sarcasm is rich, the substance is missing, and the punchline is… “Duh.” Powerful stuff. I’m sure the economic community is trembling in awe.

 Now, I fully expect you to go through your patented 4-step evasion cycle:

Step 1: I ask you a direct question
Step 2: You deflect with a smug question of your own
Step 3: I remind you of the original question
Step 4: You accuse me of evading while continuing to dodge

 Rinse, repeat, and somewhere along the line, pretend you’ve won the argument without ever making one.
 So let’s save time: every time you dodge, I’ll dodge right back in your threads. That’s the deal.

1. Based on your track record, I expect to see Step 4 deployed before lunch.

Look at @Blackvegetable  evade  He already dodged. This coward. 

So here’s a fair question—one that, of course, you won’t answer, but I’ll ask it anyway because unlike you, I don’t fear actual engagement:If the EU offered a zero-tariff deal, and Trump were to accept it (which would eliminate tariff-based revenue), what alternative revenue mechanisms would you expect his administration to realistically pursue—and do you think they’d actually succeed in passing them through Congress?

1. He will hide behind some excuse like his last reply. 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 10:02 am

Look at @Blackvegetable  evade  He already dodged. This coward. 

1. He will hide behind some excuse like his last reply.

Tell me what it has to do with the point of the OP....


Assuming you understand it.

It's not my job to figure a way out of Grifty's jam.

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 10:07 am

Tell me what it has to do with the point of the OP....

Assuming you understand it.

It's not my job to figure a way out of Grifty's jam.

Ah, there it is: the “Not my job” shuffle. You spin up an OP, toss in a sarcastic scenario, mock the logic of the plan, and then when asked what you think about the outcome of your own setup, you pull the emergency chute and declare, “Not my job.”

 You literally crafted the “jam” in the OP, but now it’s somehow everyone else’s responsibility to explain it to you? That’s like throwing a pie and then demanding someone else clean the wall.Also, thanks for confirming Step 4 again:

• Question? Dodged.
• Demand? Check.
• Deflection? Naturally.
• Accusation of ignorance? Nailed it.

And right on schedule, you’ve earned yourself another matching dodge from me. Keep racking them up—you’re building quite the legacy.

1. Continue to prove my predictions. 100% accuracy. 
2. Continue to dodge. 
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 7:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 7:04 am

Grifty has plans to eliminate the federal income tax (which, though he didn't pay it, was a disincentive to losing more of other people's momey), and raise 700 billion through tariffs.

Apparently the EU called his bluff, and proposed some zero-tariff regime.

“We have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods as we have successfully done with many other trading partners. Because Europe is always ready for a good deal. So we keep it on the table,” she told a press conference alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. 

The U.S. and EU came close to scrapping industrial tariffs a decade ago in their discussions of the TTIP — the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — that was ultimately scuppered by Trump in his first term.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-offe ... l-tariffs/

With tariffs at 0, there would be no revenue to finance a tax cut.

So how would Grifty finance his tax cuts?

With a tax cut, of course.

Duh.

The great narcissist paradox: rules apply to everyone else, just never to him. Veghead can post 400 questions a day, demand instant answers, quote timestamps, ask for sources, blood types, and shoe sizes—but the moment you ask a question about his own OP, he vanishes behind a wall of smug one-liners and demands you answer his questions instead. So, let’s count:

• Number of times Veghead has asked questions and demanded responses from others- Easily over 200.
• Number of times he’s directly answered a serious question about one of his own threads without deflecting, insulting, or stalling- Somewhere between zero and “hold on while I quote your post out of context again.”

The man treats every question like it’s beneath him—unless he’s asking it. Classic narcissism: constant need for control, no accountability, and allergic to playing by the same rules he screams at everyone else to follow. But hey—keep dodging, Veghead. I’ll keep counting.
 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 10:27 am

The great narcissist paradox: rules apply to everyone else, just never to him. Veghead can post 400 questions a day, demand instant answers, quote timestamps, ask for sources, blood types, and shoe sizes—but the moment you ask a question about his own OP, he vanishes behind a wall of smug one-liners and demands you answer his questions instead. So, let’s count:

• Number of times Veghead has asked questions and demanded responses from others- Easily over 200.
• Number of times he’s directly answered a serious question about one of his own threads without deflecting, insulting, or stalling- Somewhere between zero and “hold on while I quote your post out of context again.”

The man treats every question like it’s beneath him—unless he’s asking it. Classic narcissism: constant need for control, no accountability, and allergic to playing by the same rules he screams at everyone else to follow. But hey—keep dodging, Veghead. I’ll keep counting.

Post the rules.

Your stipulation.

Then we can proceed on those terms.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 11:06 am

Post the rules.

Your stipulation.

Then we can proceed on those terms.

Post them yourself. I am simply letting you know that the number of times you dodge my questions will be the same number of times I dodge yours. 

Period. 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 9:15 am

Ah, another Veghead thread where the sarcasm is rich, the substance is missing, and the punchline is… “Duh.” Powerful stuff. I’m sure the economic community is trembling in awe.

 Now, I fully expect you to go through your patented 4-step evasion cycle:

Step 1: I ask you a direct question
Step 2: You deflect with a smug question of your own
Step 3: I remind you of the original question
Step 4: You accuse me of evading while continuing to dodge

So here’s a fair question—one that, of course, you won’t answer, but I’ll ask it anyway because unlike you, I don’t fear actual engagement:If the EU offered a zero-tariff deal, and Trump were to accept it (which would eliminate tariff-based revenue), what alternative revenue mechanisms would you expect his administration to realistically pursue—and do you think they’d actually succeed in passing them through Congress?

 Rinse, repeat, and somewhere along the line, pretend you’ve won the argument without ever making one.
 So let’s save time: every time you dodge, I’ll dodge right back in your threads. That’s the deal.

1. Based on your track record, I expect to see Step 4 deployed before lunch.

@Blackvegetable  x 4
 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 9:15 am

Ah, another Veghead thread where the sarcasm is rich, the substance is missing, and the punchline is… “Duh.” Powerful stuff. I’m sure the economic community is trembling in awe.

 Now, I fully expect you to go through your patented 4-step evasion cycle:

Step 1: I ask you a direct question
Step 2: You deflect with a smug question of your own
Step 3: I remind you of the original question
Step 4: You accuse me of evading while continuing to dodge

 Rinse, repeat, and somewhere along the line, pretend you’ve won the argument without ever making one.
 So let’s save time: every time you dodge, I’ll dodge right back in your threads. That’s the deal.

1. Based on your track record, I expect to see Step 4 deployed before lunch.

   
 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 10:17 am

Ah, there it is: the “Not my job” shuffle. You spin up an OP, toss in a sarcastic scenario, mock the logic of the plan, and then when asked what you think about the outcome of your own setup, you pull the emergency chute and declare, “Not my job.”

 You literally crafted the “jam” in the OP, but now it’s somehow everyone else’s responsibility to explain it to you? That’s like throwing a pie and then demanding someone else clean the wall.Also, thanks for confirming Step 4 again:

• Question? Dodged.
• Demand? Check.
• Deflection? Naturally.
• Accusation of ignorance? Nailed it.

And right on schedule, you’ve earned yourself another matching dodge from me. Keep racking them up—you’re building quite the legacy.

1. Continue to prove my predictions. 100% accuracy. 
2. Continue to dodge.

So it doesn't have anything to do with the OP..


Why are you here?

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 12:40 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 12:40 pm

So it doesn't have anything to do with the OP..

Why are you here?

Classic Veghead: dodges the question, gets called out with receipts, and then responds with "Why are you here?"—like he just discovered confusion is a valid defense. When all else fails, pretend the topic changed and hope no one notices the skid marks from your pivot.  (Whom am I addressing?)  

Why am I here? To witness the magic of you building a thread, ducking every question about it, and then acting shocked when someone calls you out for refusing to answer. Let’s not pretend this wasn’t your scenario. You built the “Grifty jam,” tossed in the sarcasm, wrapped it in a smug headline, and then bailed when asked to actually explain it. And now you’re acting like I showed up uninvited to your intellectual garage sale?

It does have to do with your OP—you just don’t want to defend it. But no worries, I’ll keep following your formula: for every one of your dodges, I’ll send one back. You’re up to 50+. At this point, I’m just keeping score for the hall of fame.
 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 12:49 pm

Classic Veghead: dodges the question, gets called out with receipts, and then responds with "Why are you here?"—like he just discovered confusion is a valid defense. When all else fails, pretend the topic changed and hope no one notices the skid marks from your pivot.  (Whom am I addressing?)  

Why am I here? To witness the magic of you building a thread, ducking every question about it, and then acting shocked when someone calls you out for refusing to answer. Let’s not pretend this wasn’t your scenario. You built the “Grifty jam,” tossed in the sarcasm, wrapped it in a smug headline, and then bailed when asked to actually explain it. And now you’re acting like I showed up uninvited to your intellectual garage sale?

It does have to do with your OP—you just don’t want to defend it. But no worries, I’ll keep following your formula: for every one of your dodges, I’ll send one back. You’re up to 50+. At this point, I’m just keeping score for the hall of fame.

You don't know what the OP is about, and won't justify your presence.

You're owed nothing.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 12:54 pm

You don't know what the OP is about, and won't justify your presence.

You're owed nothing.

Ah, there it is: “You don’t know what my OP is about”—the final stage of Veghead Evasion Syndrome. When deflection, demands, and projection all fail, just deny the other person’s comprehension entirely. It’s basically the “I meant something else” defense wrapped in a superiority complex.

 Newsflash: if your OP is so vague, smug, or poorly constructed that you yourself can’t explain it without a tantrum, that’s not on me—that’s on you. I showed up, asked a fair question, and you ducked behind the usual fog machine.

 And no worries—I’m still keeping count. You’re now at dodge #51. Let me know when you're ready to break the all-time forum record. You're getting close.
 

Vegas » 08 Apr 2025, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 1:00 pm

Ah, there it is: “You don’t know what my OP is about”—the final stage of Veghead Evasion Syndrome. When deflection, demands, and projection all fail, just deny the other person’s comprehension entirely. It’s basically the “I meant something else” defense wrapped in a superiority complex.

 Newsflash: if your OP is so vague, smug, or poorly constructed that you yourself can’t explain it without a tantrum, that’s not on me—that’s on you. I showed up, asked a fair question, and you ducked behind the usual fog machine.

 And no worries—I’m still keeping count. You’re now at dodge #51. Let me know when you're ready to break the all-time forum record. You're getting close.

****, or get off the pot....but stop sharting.

No one reads the crap.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Apr 2025, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2025, 1:03 pm

****, or get off the pot....but stop sharting.

No one reads the crap.

The strike-through tantrum again? At this point it’s less a rhetorical device and more of a cry for formatting help. It’s adorable how you think a crossed-out reply somehow deletes the original point—or your 51 unanswered questions.