Liberal Forum

Vegas » 16 Apr 2025, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 9:29 am

Ah yes, the classic dodge: “Just read the citation.” Mary, if reading an article was all it took to form a position, we wouldn’t need forums—we’d just post links and grunt, like you. 

 You made the thread. That means it’s your job to explain your point—not mine, not WaPo’s. How many **** times....  Until then, you’re still dodging—#86, by the way. Keep climbing.

No...the "classic dodge" is

"Do it for me!"
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 9:31 am

No...the "classic dodge" is

"Do it for me!"

Your thread, your job. How many **** times.....

Meet the dream team with Wells Fargo Premier

Vegas » 16 Apr 2025, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 9:43 am

Your thread, your job. How many **** times.....

Meet the dream team with Wells Fargo Premier

Not my job to read it for you.

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 6:26 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 6:26 am

Martin did not disclose the appearances last month on a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which asks nominees to list all media interviews. Analysis of television archives suggests he went on RT and Sputnik more often than on any major cable network during that span.

ibid.

That SHOULD disqualify him...

mebbe he's an asset doing covert tv appearances...**** idiot...
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 16 Apr 2025, 6:52 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 6:52 am

At this point you could always write to Garcia to tell him that you love him with all your heart  and that you love the criminal organization he belongs to......

 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 11:05 am

Not my job to read it for you.

Clearly I read it. . Dodge 102. 

Dude, just **** answer. seriously. Your stalling is obvious. It's even embarrassing for you. 

Watch how predictable you are, no seriously, watch how easy this is:
1. Your next stalling act will be to demand that I prove that I read it.

Pathetic. 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 9:31 am

No...the "classic dodge" is

"Do it for me!"

that's your M.O.
 

Vegas » 16 Apr 2025, 9:26 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 9:26 am

Oh, it’s clear, Mary. Crystal. You posted a headline, screamed your conclusion in all caps, and—right on cue—dragged me into it like that magically makes it airtight.

Here is your question to dodge. LOL

 Of course, I won’t hold my breath. You’re already sitting pretty at dodge #85, and I expect “Post the OP” is warming up backstage as we speak.

If you’re so confident Martin is a tool, idiot, or asset, then how about laying out your reasoning beyond “he went on RT a lot”?

We can begin with the repeated appearances on Russian media spewing anti-American propaganda.

If these are not an issue, only someone as dumb as @*VegasVagina would believe he "forgot" about them.

We can move on to the fact that he is another Grifty flunky with ZERO relevant experience for the position.

All information available in the citation you claim to have read.

This confirms 2 observations

1) You're an unreliable source

2) You're too stupid to understand what you struggle to read.
 

ROG62 » 16 Apr 2025, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 11:15 am

mebbe he's an asset doing covert tv appearances...**** idiot...

So **** g'ddammned stupid 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 12:22 pm

We can begin with the repeated appearances on Russian media spewing anti-American propaganda.

If these are not an issue, only someone as dumb as @*VegasVagina would believe he "forgot" about them.

We can move on to the fact that he is another Grifty flunky with ZERO relevant experience for the position.

All information available in the citation you claim to have read.

This confirms 2 observations

1) You're an unreliable source

2) You're too stupid to understand what you struggle to read.

Oh look, he finally answered the question—after several dodges, a citation deflection, a shouty tantrum, and a tag insult. Took a while, Mary, but you got there. I’m proud of you. Baby steps.

 Of course, now that you've finally formed a thought, you're acting like you led with it. Spoiler: you didn’t. The “just read the citation” defense was dodge #102, and calling people stupid isn’t a rebuttal—it’s your auto-reply when you run out of content.

 But hey—small win for you. One actual answer in a sea of smoke. Let’s see if you can pull it off again before dodge #103 rolls in.
 

Vegas » 16 Apr 2025, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 12:37 pm

Oh look, he finally answered the question—after several dodges, a citation deflection, a shouty tantrum, and a tag insult. Took a while, Mary, but you got there. I’m proud of you. Baby steps.

 Of course, now that you've finally formed a thought, you're acting like you led with it. Spoiler: you didn’t. The “just read the citation” defense was dodge #102, and calling people stupid isn’t a rebuttal—it’s your auto-reply when you run out of content.

 But hey—small win for you. One actual answer in a sea of smoke. Let’s see if you can pull it off again before dodge #103 rolls in.

Everything I told you is reported in the article to which you were directed....and in the excerpts that followed the OP. 


This is a hallmark of ALL your questions 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 1:37 pm

Everything I told you is reported in the article to which you were directed....and in the excerpts that followed the OP. 

This is a hallmark of ALL your questions

So you admit that you had no thoughts about what was written in the article? Well done. 

There is nothing stopping you from providing level 2+ commentary about it. But as always, you hide behind the article instead. 

retard. loser. 

Vegas » 16 Apr 2025, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 2:01 pm

So you admit that you had no thoughts about what was written in the article? Well done. 

There is nothing stopping you from providing level 2+ commentary about it. But as always, you hide behind the article instead. 

retard. loser.

No...I demonstrated that you read neither the linked article, nor the thread.
.
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 12:22 pm

We can begin with the repeated appearances on Russian media spewing anti-American propaganda.

Furnish us with your list of Un-American propaganda you claim he was spewing..
 
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 2:04 pm

No...

Yes...

give a level 2+ NOW!

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 6:20 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 6:20 am

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... sattorney/

Trump’s D.C. U.S. attorney pick appeared on Russian state media over 150 times

Trump nominee Ed Martin’s 100-plus appearances on Russian state-directed media RT and Sputnik from 2016 to 2024 alarm some former national security officials.In early 2022, Martin told an interviewer on the same arm of RT’s global network that “there’s no evidence” of a Russian military buildup on Ukraine’s borders, criticizing U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia’s security concerns. Russia invaded nine days later, igniting a war that continues today.

 Martin is now interim U.S. attorney for D.C. and Trump’s pick to serve full time in the role.

So we KNOW he must be either a tool, an idiot, or an asset.

IS THIS POINT CLEAR?

IF NOT FIND A @*VEGASVAGINA THREAD.

You don't know **** you lying ***.
Worthless *** traitor bastard. Burn alive you piece of ****!
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 2:04 pm

No...I demonstrated that you read neither the linked article, nor the thread.
.

Let me break this down for you, Mary—real slow, so you can finally figure out why your reply still hasn’t crossed the sacred threshold of Level 2+ on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

1. Level 1 (Remembering): You copied facts from the article. Yes, Martin appeared on Russian media. Yes, he has little relevant experience. You remembered those details. Congrats. You and Google are tied.
2. Level 2 (Understanding): This is where you were supposed to explain what that means. You didn’t. No interpretation. No connecting dots. No weighing how his background affects national security, foreign perception, or institutional credibility. Just insults and repetition.
3. Level 3 (Applying) and above? Nowhere in sight. You didn’t apply the info to broader political patterns, make a case about appointment trends, or offer any comparative context. You certainly didn’t evaluate anything beyond “Grifty bad” and “VegasVagina dumb.”

You restated a source and called it thinking. That’s not analysis—it’s regurgitation with a thesaurus and a grudge. If you ever feel ready to operate above Level 1, I’ll be right here. Clipboard in hand. Still waiting.
 

Vegas » 16 Apr 2025, 2:30 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 2:30 pm

Let me break this down for you, Mary—real slow, so you can finally figure out why your reply still hasn’t crossed the sacred threshold of Level 2+ on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

1. Level 1 (Remembering): You copied facts from the article. Yes, Martin appeared on Russian media. Yes, he has little relevant experience. You remembered those details. Congrats. You and Google are tied.
2. Level 2 (Understanding): This is where you were supposed to explain what that means. You didn’t. No interpretation. No connecting dots. No weighing how his background affects national security, foreign perception, or institutional credibility. Just insults and repetition.
3. Level 3 (Applying) and above? Nowhere in sight. You didn’t apply the info to broader political patterns, make a case about appointment trends, or offer any comparative context. You certainly didn’t evaluate anything beyond “Grifty bad” and “VegasVagina dumb.”

You restated a source and called it thinking. That’s not analysis—it’s regurgitation with a thesaurus and a grudge. If you ever feel ready to operate above Level 1, I’ll be right here. Clipboard in hand. Still waiting.

Level 2.


It means that he's a tool.



 

Blackvegetable » 16 Apr 2025, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2025, 2:45 pm

Level 2.

It means that he's a tool.

Mary... that’s not Level 2. That’s a label. You didn’t interpret, analyze, or explain why he’s a tool, what function he serves, or how his role affects the system he’s in. You just pointed at a guy and said, “Tool.”
 

@Blackvegetable  Mary, at this point, calling this a debate is like calling a microwave a forge. You didn’t just lose—you got nuked from orbit with precision-guided sarcasm. What’s left of your argument is currently being studied by forensic linguists and swept into a rhetorical dustpan.

You brought “he’s a tool.”
I brought a Bloom’s Taxonomy airstrike.

And now we’re standing over the smoldering crater where your credibility used to be. Rest in pithy fragments.

I wrote you a poem. It's only one verse, but I think you will appreciate it: 

Mary dropped a “tool” and fled,
His last brain cell hanging by a thread.
We asked for thought, he gave a sneer
Still dodging truth, year after year.


I agree it needs a little work. I'll build on it later.