Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 13 Oct 2025, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2025, 9:45 am

Let's all equate apples to oranges. 

No need foronly one of us tolook like a gay cry baby.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

PlumHollow » 13 Oct 2025, 7:29 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2025, 7:29 pm

Your friend Blackv... liked it. He sure posts a lot for somebody that never says much. Is he stupid?

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

*Beekeeper » 14 Oct 2025, 7:18 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 7:18 am

When you get a BRAIN capable of understanding math, I might.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2025, 9:03 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 9:03 am

 

Remember last year?

Before you idiots learned about "Exogenous" events......when the Inflation was the fault of Biduhn...and "policies"?

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

ROG62 » 14 Oct 2025, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 9:15 am

Democrats DUMPED $4 trillion into the economy during Covid which led to the highest inflation since jimmy...

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2025, 9:03 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 9:03 am

 

Remember last year?

Before you idiots learned about "Exogenous" events......when the Inflation was the fault of Biduhn...and "policies"?

So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.

BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........

Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.

ROG62 » 14 Oct 2025, 9:04 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 9:04 am

MR-7 » 14 Oct 2025, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 9:33 am

No. Maybe a link?

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2025, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 9:36 am

viewtopic.php?p=2805963#p2805963

you girls work that out between you...

• Federal spending directly boosted demand, which outpaced supply.
• Supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and energy price spikes (especially post-Ukraine invasion) also played major roles.

• MIT researchers found that federal spending was the “overwhelming driver” of the 2022 inflation spike.
• Others argue it was “a factor, but far from the whole story”, pointing to global disruptions and pandemic aftershocks.

So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.

BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........

Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.

MR-7 » 14 Oct 2025, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 9:52 am

Nothing to work out....

💸 COVID Stimulus SpendingDuring the pandemic, the U.S. government injected over $4 trillion into the economy through multiple stimulus packages. While both parties supported early relief efforts, the American Rescue Plan, passed in 2021 under President Biden and congressional Democrats, added $1.9 trillion more in spending.

📈 Inflation SurgeInflation peaked at 8.5% in March 2022, the highest since the early 1980s—when Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan were grappling with stagflation. Economists widely agree that stimulus spending was a significant factor, but not the only one:

• Federal spending directly boosted demand, which outpaced supply.
• Supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and energy price spikes (especially post-Ukraine invasion) also played major roles.

🧠 What the Experts Say

• MIT researchers found that federal spending was the “overwhelming driver” of the 2022 inflation spike.
• Others argue it was “a factor, but far from the whole story”, pointing to global disruptions and pandemic aftershocks.

So yes, the spending surge—especially under Democratic leadership—contributed to inflation. 

💸 COVID Stimulus SpendingDuring the pandemic,

MIT researchers found that federal spending was the “overwhelming driver” of the 2022 inflation spike.

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2025, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 10:31 am

what about the remaining 2.1 trillion?

I know that study....and why you won't link it.

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: 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.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2025, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 10:31 am

what about the remaining 2.1 trillion?

I know that study....and why you won't link it.

So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.

BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........

Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.

MR-7 » 14 Oct 2025, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 10:34 am

You post it and defend it. It's really that simple.

*Beekeeper » 14 Oct 2025, 5:48 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 5:48 am

My Colombian coffee is the same prices it was 1-2 years ago

Bidenflation did more to raise coffee prices that ANY tariffs have. Seems you didn't learn that one.

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2025, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 10:44 am

It's your citation.

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: 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.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2025, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 10:44 am

It's your citation.

So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.

BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........

Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.

MR-7 » 14 Oct 2025, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 11:06 am

That's not how it works. 
viewtopic.php?p=2805990#p2805990

You said you know the study. So, post the study.

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2025, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 11:37 am

Either ask AI, or admit that you have no idea and I’ll tell you.

So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.

BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........

Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.

MR-7 » 14 Oct 2025, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 11:45 am

Go ahead, hold your breath. I dare you.

chase me

fried
I live rent free in your mind

Roshambo » 14 Oct 2025, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2025, 11:46 am

Good morning MR-7

So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.

BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........

Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.