Liberal Forum

House Republicans form new subcommittee to probe Jan. 6

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the controversial subcommittee.

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the subcommittee, which is likely to be headed by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia). Republicans have complained that the original probe, which was led by Democrats, was biased against President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denied he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-johnson/

This places MAGAts in an interesting position.

Since they did as ordered (being **** scrapie ravaged sheep) and averted their eyes from the original, they will have no context to make any comparisons about the integrity of the process. 

The other problem will be finding people to testify....there is no chance in hell either Grifty or Meadows will take an oath and answer questions. 

Even Gym Jordan won't. 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:25 pm

House Republicans form new subcommittee to probe Jan. 6

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the controversial subcommittee.

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the subcommittee, which is likely to be headed by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia). Republicans have complained that the original probe, which was led by Democrats, was biased against President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denied he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-johnson/

This places MAGAts in an interesting position.

Since they did as ordered (being **** scrapie ravaged sheep) and averted their eyes from the original, they will have no context to make any comparisons about the integrity of the process. 

The other problem will be finding people to testify....there is no chance in hell either Grifty or Meadows will take an oath and answer questions. 

Even Gym Jordan won't.

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

1. 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...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.
 
 

Vegas » 04 Sep 2025, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:33 pm

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

1. 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...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.

@Deezer Shoove  

You know you want in on this...

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:34 pm

You know you want in on this...

    Still begging for Deezer's help. The extremes you will go to evade a question.

Vegas » 04 Sep 2025, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:41 pm

    Still begging for Deezer's help. The extremes you will go to evade a question.

I already answered it.

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:48 pm

I already answered it.

See both predictions Mr Redundant. 

1. 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...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.
 

Vegas » 04 Sep 2025, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:49 pm

See both predictions Mr Redundant. 

1. 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...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.

That doesn't change the fact.

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:50 pm

That doesn't change the fact.

It changes your lie.

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:25 pm

House Republicans form new subcommittee to probe Jan. 6

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the controversial subcommittee.

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the subcommittee, which is likely to be headed by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia). Republicans have complained that the original probe, which was led by Democrats, was biased against President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denied he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-johnson/

This places MAGAts in an interesting position.

Since they did as ordered (being **** scrapie ravaged sheep) and averted their eyes from the original, they will have no context to make any comparisons about the integrity of the process. 

The other problem will be finding people to testify....there is no chance in hell either Grifty or Meadows will take an oath and answer questions. 

Even Gym Jordan won't.

Thread Fail due to whiny bitch who has no plan for our country.     






 

Vegas » 04 Sep 2025, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:53 pm

It changes your lie.

I haven't lied.

You've admitted it.

MAGAts,

Will you insist that Grifty take the oath and answer questions from the Democrats on this committee?

DA TROOF, MAGAts!

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 1:56 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:56 pm

I haven't lied.

You've admitted it.

I tell you what. Since you narcissists don't know how to stop lying, let's make a deal. 


@Cannonpointer  I don't expect the forum coward to accept this deal, but I am going to try anyway. If he wins, then you can ban me for life. If I win, then he gets banned for a month. 

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 » 04 Sep 2025, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 2:04 pm

I tell you what. Since you narcissists don't know how to stop lying, let's make a deal. 

@Cannonpointer  I don't expect the forum coward to accept this deal, but I am going to try anyway. If he wins, then you can ban me for life. If I win, then he gets banned for a month. 

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.

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,

Were he free to speak, @RicoSuave could show you your own words to the contrary.

But, sadly. there will never be anything as petty and small as a syphilitic cumbucket serially humiliated at the gloved hands of a gentleman. 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 2:11 pm

Were he free to speak, @RicoSuave could show you your own words to the contrary.


 

    Now you are hiding behind your alter ego. You dumb ****.               

Look...I never expected you to take the deal. You are too much of a coward. However, I enjoy exposing your cowardice, so I made the deal. 

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 2:00 pm

MAGAts,

Will you insist that Grifty take the oath and answer questions from the Democrats on this committee?

who gets to pick the democrats? 

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 2:11 pm

Vegas » 04 Sep 2025, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 2:04 pm

I tell you what. Since you narcissists don't know how to stop lying, let's make a deal. 

Cannonpointer  I don't expect the forum coward to accept this deal, but I am going to try anyway. If he wins, then you can ban me for life. If I win, then he gets banned for a month. 

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.

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,

Were he free to speak, @RicoSuave could show you your own words to the contrary.

But, sadly. there will never be anything as petty and small as a syphilitic cumbucket serially humiliated at the gloved hands of a gentleman. 

 

 

There is no reason why you can't reply to the R.Suave post you are referring.  You are just afraid.

*Huey » 04 Sep 2025, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 2:28 pm

There is no reason why you can't reply to the R.Suave post you are referring.  You are just afraid.

I didn't even ask this question when Rico was here. It was long after. He is desperately hiding. Desperate. 

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:25 pm

House Republicans form new subcommittee to probe Jan. 6

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the controversial subcommittee.

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the subcommittee, which is likely to be headed by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia). Republicans have complained that the original probe, which was led by Democrats, was biased against President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denied he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-johnson/

This places MAGAts in an interesting position.

Since they did as ordered (being **** scrapie ravaged sheep) and averted their eyes from the original, they will have no context to make any comparisons about the integrity of the process. 

The other problem will be finding people to testify....there is no chance in hell either Grifty or Meadows will take an oath and answer questions. 

Even Gym Jordan won't.

Almost 5 years
No one cares
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2025, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2025, 1:25 pm

House Republicans form new subcommittee to probe Jan. 6

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the controversial subcommittee.

Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the subcommittee, which is likely to be headed by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia). Republicans have complained that the original probe, which was led by Democrats, was biased against President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denied he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-johnson/

This places MAGAts in an interesting position.

Since they did as ordered (being **** scrapie ravaged sheep) and averted their eyes from the original, they will have no context to make any comparisons about the integrity of the process. 

The other problem will be finding people to testify....there is no chance in hell either Grifty or Meadows will take an oath and answer questions. 

Even Gym Jordan won't.

Holy TDS Fake News Dickhead....TDS Fake News Dickhead

Now you are wearing your mental issues on your sleeve

TDS will not make it any easier to get your first real live girlfriend....