Liberal Forum

 
https://youtu.be/g6vI0uE9iqM?si=Fd4S0ExWCPbW1whK
 

Too cruel?

Blackvegetable » 36 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

36 minutes ago

 
https://youtu.be/g6vI0uE9iqM?si=Fd4S0ExWCPbW1whK

Nothing like a lonely chart and a soft rock ballad to signal yet another Veghead masterclass in passive-aggressive OPs. I see we’re skipping straight past analysis and going full emotional mixtape now.
 Quick question—not that I expect an answer, because your tradition of dodging is as reliable as your thesaurus addiction:

If manufacturing investment is slowing after a historic boom, what specific policy (besides your usual “Grifty = bad”) do you believe caused this downturn—and do you think it’s a short-term correction, a post-boom plateau, or actual structural decay?

 Of course, I fully expect the Veghead Evasion Cycle to kick in:

 Step 1: Deflect with a question.
Step 2: Demand a source.
Step 3: Accuse me of not understanding the OP.
Step 4: Declare victory via strike-through.
 So go ahead—dodge away. That’s dodge #66 warming up in the bullpen.
 

Vegas » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Nothing like a lonely chart and a soft rock ballad to signal yet another Veghead masterclass in passive-aggressive OPs. I see we’re skipping straight past analysis and going full emotional mixtape now.
 Quick question—not that I expect an answer, because your tradition of dodging is as reliable as your thesaurus addiction:

 Of course, I fully expect the Veghead Evasion Cycle to kick in:

 Step 1: Deflect with a question.
Step 2: Demand a source.
Step 3: Accuse me of not understanding the OP.
Step 4: Declare victory via strike-through.
 So go ahead—dodge away. That’s dodge #66 warming up in the bullpen.

First demonstrate that you understand the point of the OP...


 

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

First demonstrate that you understand the point of the OP...

And there is step 3. 100% accuracy.       The “prove you understand it first” move—the ultimate stall tactic for someone with no intention of defending their own point. If your OP needs a decoder ring just to be understood, maybe it’s not the readers who are confused, Professor Vaguehead. But go ahead—chalk this up as dodge #68. You're not answering questions, you're auditioning for the role of forum fog machine.

Step 4 is next. 

 Step 1: Deflect with a question.
Step 2: Demand a source.
Step 3: Accuse me of not understanding the OP.
Step 4: Declare victory via strike-through.

Blackvegetable » Today, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:50 am

 
https://youtu.be/g6vI0uE9iqM?si=Fd4S0ExWCPbW1whK

Unlike you....[who never built a lemon aid stand].....Zeets has a lifetime's worth  real world experience  operating his business under the leadership of more than a few Presidents.
I know you feel really special about this chart that you brought to class today...but if I want to know which Presidents were in power during the best of times and the worst of times for a mfg business owner...I will ask Zeets to render his first hand opinion.
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Unlike you....[who never built a lemon aid stand].....Zeets has a lifetime's worth  real world experience  operating his business under the leadership of more than a few Presidents.
I know you feel really special about this chart that you brought to class today...but if I want to know which Presidents were in power during the best of times and the worst of times for a mfg business owner...I will ask Zeets to render his first hand opinion.

I swear Veghead wakes up every morning and asks himself "how can I demonstrate my stupidity today?"

Vegas » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

And there is step 3. 100% accuracy.       The “prove you understand it first” move—the ultimate stall tactic for someone with no intention of defending their own point. If your OP needs a decoder ring just to be understood, maybe it’s not the readers who are confused, Professor Vaguehead. But go ahead—chalk this up as dodge #68. You're not answering questions, you're auditioning for the role of forum fog machine.

Step 4 is next.

No..

It is why your "questions", like your threads, die in utero.

You don't know anything. 
 

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

No..

It is why your "questions", like your threads, die in utero.

You don't know anything.

There it is—the dramatic monologue with zero content. “Your threads die in utero”—you say that like you’re delivering a eulogy instead of just dodging yet another question.

 You still haven’t answered the OP question, Veghead. Not because I don’t understand it, but because you never actually wrote one. You post headlines, throw in a snarky tagline, and then act like you’re defending a doctoral thesis.

 That brings us to dodge number 70. Congrats—you’ve officially outpaced most congressional hearings.
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

24 minutes ago

Unlike you....[who never built a lemon aid stand].....Zeets has a lifetime's worth  real world experience  operating his business under the leadership of more than a few Presidents.
I know you feel really special about this chart that you brought to class today...but if I want to know which Presidents were in power during the best of times and the worst of times for a mfg business owner...I will ask Zeets to render his first hand opinion.

Why not?

He and his friends caused the Great Recession of Novemberish 2008..
 

Vegas » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

There it is—the dramatic monologue with zero content. “Your threads die in utero”—you say that like you’re delivering a eulogy instead of just dodging yet another question.

 You still haven’t answered the OP question, Veghead. Not because I don’t understand it, but because you never actually wrote one. You post headlines, throw in a snarky tagline, and then act like you’re defending a doctoral thesis.

 That brings us to dodge number 70. Congrats—you’ve officially outpaced most congressional hearings.

That's "pithy" (and pitiless, of course)....it's different. 

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

That's "pithy" (and pitiless, of course)....it's different.

Pithy? Pitiless? Sure. Still more substance than anything you’ve managed to say in 61 dodges. At this point, your thesaurus is doing more heavy lifting than your arguments.

Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Why not?

He and his friends caused the Great Recession of Novemberish 2008..

All I hear from you is that GIANT SUCKING SOUND that Ross Perot tried to warn us about.     
 
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

All I hear from you is that GIANT SUCKING SOUND that Ross Perot tried to warn us about.   

why do you keep teeing yourself up?

Vegas » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Pithy? Pitiless? Sure. Still more substance than anything you’ve managed to say in 61 dodges. At this point, your thesaurus is doing more heavy lifting than your arguments.

I don't need a thesaurus.

I am very well read.

You are not, hence your resentment...

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

I don't need a thesaurus.

I am very well read.

You are not, hence your resentment...

The “I’m well read” defense—right on schedule. We’ve been over this, Veghead. It’s not about using big words—it’s about using them well. And based on your track record, your vocabulary is like IKEA furniture: sounds impressive, but no one knows what it’s supposed to do, least of all you.You don’t wield language like a scholar—you hurl it like a guy hoping syllables will distract from substance. That’s not well read, that’s just loud.

Blackvegetable » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

26 minutes ago

why do you keep teeing yourself up?

More incoherent jibber jabber  ^^^^^^^^