Liberal Forum

*Beekeeper » 08 Sep 2025, 6:40 am » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2025, 6:40 am

OH, this is rich. From the same The Hill article!!

President Trump announced in mid-July that he brokered a deal to send more weapons to Ukraine without placing a major burden on U.S. military supplies. As part of the agreement with NATO, the weapons would be sourced from NATO allies in Europe. 
 “We’re going to make top-of-the-line weapons, and they’ll be sent to NATO,” Trump said at the time. “NATO may choose to have certain of them sent to other countries where we can get a little additional speed, where the country will release something and be it’ll be mostly in the form of a replacement.”

You need help with that narcissism of yours. Seems what you THINK you are good at and what you actually are good at are to diametrically opposed things!!

       

      BuhBye now

Okay, stupid. You ate the TACO. How retar-ted.

Here ya go: https://www.axios.com/2025/10/17/trump- ... hite-house

Oct 17, 2025 -World Trump rejects Zelensky on Tomahawk missiles in "tough" meeting

Consider that you might be an idiot. There was never a deal to send ANYTHING to Coupkraine. They're done, you moron. They've BEEN done. Everyone knows it - except those who, like you, listen to the pro-tranny, lying western media.  

Trump wants one thing and one thing only: Money for the MIC. He will sell weapons - but nothing that is going to piss off the Russians enough that they send Oreshniks to Venezuela.

You don't have the brains to sneeze, boy. 

 
 

*Beekeeper » 08 Sep 2025, 6:01 am » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2025, 6:01 am

Your failure to keep up with current events is on YOU, not something I can be held responsible for!!!

     

TAAAAACO, fruitcake.

THREE U-turns fromTrump, fruitcake:

No tomahawks.
No new sanctions.
No U.S. objection to Russia's possession of territories taken from a bitch-slapped Coupkraine. 

       

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqG3gXxGBmg
 
 
 

*Beekeeper » 08 Sep 2025, 6:01 am » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2025, 6:01 am

Your failure to keep up with current events is on YOU, not something I can be held responsible for!!!

Did someone say current events, fruitcake?

Zelensky is now agreeing that everything Russia has taken shouldbelong to Russia, and agrees that his troops should stop fighting and go home.           

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paPDBrcm8ig
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2025, 5:16 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 5:16 am

Has FOX told you?

It makes no sense, right?

C'mon, Idiots....find the courage to admit it...

First a climate crisis...now it's a coffee crisis.



 

roadkill » 19 Oct 2025, 2:04 am » wrote: ↑

19 Oct 2025, 2:04 am

First a climate crisis...now it's a coffee crisis.

Damn, an actual response out of you about meaningful policy. I was expecting some dumb russian propoganda youtube.

We buy motors from WEG out of Brazil, big expensive ones.. 500 HP+

A 50% Tariff on them is crushing US Manufacturers who put them in their equipment.  The refrigeration alone to keep the cream cold  before putting it in your coffee is in crisis. We do not have the casting manufacturing to make housings for compressors and motors. We farmed it out long ago.

 Humanity burns 1.47 trillion gallons of liquid hydrocarbons a year. That's 181 gallons each for 8.1 Billion souls.  It sounds a reasonable number.

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.8 lbs. When combusted 20 lbs of CO2 is produced,

1.47 trillion gal/yr*20 lbs co2/gal = 29.4 trillion pounds of CO2/yr. -13.3 Gigatons

Volcanoes make 1 GT a year on an active year. Forest Fires make 2 GT a year.

Anyone who denies anthropogenic effects on climate is a fool. There would be no Oxygen in the air if photosynthesis by plant life hadn't  occured. Humans are changing the balance. We crossed 400 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere in 2010 after Mother Nature had it regulated to under that for 800,000 years. Today we are at 430 ppm and climbing, we increased 30ppm in 15 years. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, more of it in the air, more heat absorption. The industrial revolution coincided with the increased slope.

Drill Baby Drill Burn Baby Burn is going to fry this planet like an egg on drugs in a pan for our descendants.

I don't always stay cool. But when I do math helps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this an accurate argument... Humanity burns 1.47 trillion gallons of liquid hydrocarbons a year. That's 181 gallons each for 8.1 Billion souls. It sounds a reasonable number. A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.8 lbs. When combusted 20 lbs of CO2 is produced, 1.47 trillion gal/yr*20 lbs co2/gal = 29.4 trillion pounds of CO2/yr. -13.3 Gigatons Volcanoes make 1 GT a year on an active year. Forest Fires make 2 GT a year. Anyone who denies anthropogenic effects on climate is a fool. There would be no Oxygen in the air if photosynthesis by plant life hadn't occured. Humans are changing the balance. We crossed 400 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere in 2010 after Mother Nature had it regulated to under that for 800,000 years. Today we are at 430 ppm and climbing, we increased 30ppm in 15 years. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, more of it in the air, more heat absorption. The industrial revolution coincided with the increased slope.
Yes, this argument is broadly accurate and well-supported by current scientific understanding. Let’s break it down and assess each claim:

 

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2025, 12:59 am » wrote: ↑

19 Oct 2025, 12:59 am

Okay, stupid. You ate the TACO. How retar-ted.

Here ya go: https://www.axios.com/2025/10/17/trump- ... hite-house

Consider that you might be an idiot. There was never a deal to send ANYTHING to Coupkraine. They're done, you moron. They've BEEN done. Everyone knows it - except those who, like you, listen to the pro-tranny, lying western media.  

Trump wants one thing and one thing only: Money for the MIC. He will sell weapons - but nothing that is going to piss off the Russians enough that they send Oreshniks to Venezuela.

You don't have the brains to sneeze, boy.

Axios??

That STEAMING PILE OF LEFT-WING GARBAGE PROPAGANDA??

Please, try harder to get something FACTUAL, not completely LWNJ BIASED!!

Do you have ANY clue how using Tomahawks as a BARGAINING CHIP works?? Obviously NOT!!

*Beekeeper » 20 Oct 2025, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

20 Oct 2025, 8:33 am

Axios??

That STEAMING PILE OF LEFT-WING GARBAGE PROPAGANDA??

Please, try harder to get something FACTUAL, not completely LWNJ BIASED!!

Do you have ANY clue how using Tomahawks as a BARGAINING CHIP works?? Obviously NOT!!

Fox News man? My bad.     

It's over, fruitcake. It's BEEN over. Coupkraine was lost long ago.

You were simply too spoon-fed by the pro-tranny media to see it. 
 

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2025, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

20 Oct 2025, 9:12 am

Fox News man? My bad.     

It's over, fruitcake. It's BEEN over. Coupkraine was lost long ago.

You were simply too spoon-fed by the pro-tranny media to see it.

I would say I agree with you, but then we BOTH would be wrong.

*Beekeeper » 21 Oct 2025, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 7:11 am

I would say I agree with you, but then we BOTH would be wrong.

How's the effort to rationalize the Brazil tariffs coming?




 

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2025, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 8:16 am

How's the effort to rationalize the Brazil tariffs coming?

GREAT!! What's to rationalize??

If prices go up, demand could easily decline. Then, PRICES retreat due to surplus inventory.

That's how CAPITALIZM WORKS, ****. But what would you know about supply and demand and how it works in REAL LIFE??

Guess that "Ivy league" education isn't worth the paper it's printed on, huh, ****??

*Beekeeper » 21 Oct 2025, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 10:21 am

GREAT!! What's to rationalize??

If prices go up, demand could easily decline. Then, PRICES retreat due to surplus inventory.

That's how CAPITALIZM WORKS, ****. But what would you know about supply and demand and how it works in REAL LIFE??

Guess that "Ivy league" education isn't worth the paper it's printed on, huh, ****??

Where did you study Economics?

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2025, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 10:23 am

Where did you study Economics?

NO ONE has to study economics to understand the laws of SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!

Seems YOUR ivy league **** "degree" failed you in that regard.

*Beekeeper » 21 Oct 2025, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 10:26 am

NO ONE has to study economics to understand the laws of SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!

Seems YOUR ivy league **** "degree" failed you in that regard.

That's one of two tells to indicate that you're addressing someone who doesn't know **** about Econ.

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

That's one of two tells to indicate that you're addressing someone who doesn't know **** about Econ.

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

Predictions:

Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:

1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense. 
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat

2. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah..

3. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.

Deal:

Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. 

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

  
 

Vegas » 21 Oct 2025, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 10:34 am

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

Predictions:

Deal:

I don't address questions about Survivorship bias from people who understand nothing about Survivorship bias. 

Vegas » 21 Oct 2025, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 10:37 am

I forgot about adding "copout" and "projection" to the prediction list. I'll do that now.

Don't. 

Address your arrears of nearly 3 years ago, or live by your own conditions.
 

Blackvegetable » 1 minute ago » wrote: ↑

1 minute ago

Don't. 

Address your arrears of nearly 3 years ago, or live by your own conditions.

And there is the prediction again. The same **** one. Pathetic. puke. 

2. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah..

3. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.

Vegas » 21 Oct 2025, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 10:39 am

And there is the prediction again. The same **** one. Pathetic. puke.

It's not about your "predictions".

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2025, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 10:46 am

It's not about your "predictions".

It's about you not answering the question and me predicting why you won't. 100% accuracy.

You say the same **** lie over and over and over and over and over and over....and over and over....

Watch:
1. "What lie?"

Jesus. Just shut up. 

Vegas » 21 Oct 2025, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2025, 10:49 am

It's about you not answering the question and me predicting why you won't. 100% accuracy.

You say the same **** lie over and over and over and over and over and over....and over and over....

Watch:
1. "What lie?"

Jesus. Just shut up.

But I have answered the question,  as you've acknowledged..

So, at this point, it is all about your cowardice and lying.