Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Stop Me If Master Vegetable Made This Point Months Ago....
Stop Me If Master Vegetable Made This Point Months Ago....
By Blackvegetable
5 Jan 2026 9:06 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
6 Jan 2026 8:39 am
6 Jan 2026 8:48 am
No ****, SHERLOCK!!
We've been trying to tell you THAT for over a decade now.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
6 Jan 2026 9:39 am
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:00 am
Geniune historical document.
Savor the flavor...let it rest on your **** stained tongue.
6 Jan 2026 11:00 am
Here is the deal:Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑ Geniune historical document.
Savor the flavor...let it rest on your **** stained tongue.
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. 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. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
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.
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
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:04 am
I think we've seen enough.
Not only are you ENCOURAGED to violate the only rule in here, you're protected from yourself.
6 Jan 2026 11:06 am
Shut the **** up. Take your cowardice to another forum.Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑ I think we've seen enough.
Not only are you ENCOURAGED to violate the only rule in here, you're protected from yourself.
Here is the deal:
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. 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. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
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.
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
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:08 am
6 Jan 2026 11:09 am
Mary ^^^
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:14 am
Vegas » 06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑ Shut the **** up. Take your cowardice to another forum.
Here is the deal:
Deal:
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
lol
6 Jan 2026 11:23 am
6 Jan 2026 11:25 am
Here is the deal:
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. 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. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
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.
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
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:28 am
You know what would be funny? If you copied/pasted the question to him regularly also.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:32 am
So **** stupid.Blackvegetable » 05 Jan 2026, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑MAGAts, who dutifully averted their eyes from the Jan 6th Hearings, will confidently assert that one of the witnesses - whose testimony MAGAts refuse to watch - has been contradicted under oath and therefore "impeached".
To "prove" this, the will refer to a snippet from a Press Release of the House's Revisionist Version of Events (a THIRD derivative of The Record), as follows:
During the Select Committee’s sensationalized prime-time hearings, Hutchinson was their surprise, "star witness". Hutchinson testified under oath that she heard that Trump had lunged at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV and engaged in a physical altercation with his lead Secret Service agent after being told they were not going to the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Our Subcommittee's "Initial Findings Report" released in March shows that other White House employees did not corroborate Hutchinson’s dramatic account, and instead directly refuted it. The Select Committee was in possession of these accounts but chose to hide them, and instead promoted Hutchinson’s scandalous narrative.
https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/new-texts ... -unethical
Note the COMPLETE absence of particulars.
Because ****, like @ROG62 , take what is fed to them by their **** sources as gospel.
But given the actual facts of the matter, how does the subcommittee get there?
https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/d/9/ ... report.pdf
Watch how stupid people manipulate Scrapie ravaged sheep...
I told you I know how to bypass the ban. You are too **** stupid to figure it out.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:34 am
Explain why you begged Coozie to purge several of your threads...Vegas » 05 Jan 2026, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑ Lol. Of course not. He is too scared. What he doesn't understand, due to his stupidity, is that him evading this many times makes no difference to me. I genuinely don't care if he answers or not. I know it frightens him every time I ask. That is why I continue.
6 Jan 2026 11:34 am
I don't see your posts there.Vegas » 06 Jan 2026, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑ So **** stupid.
I told you I know how to bypass the ban. You are too **** stupid to figure it out.
6 Jan 2026 11:35 am
**** your demands. I owe you nothing.Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑ Explain why you begged Coozie to purge several of your threads...
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:35 am
You don't see anything. You never do.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
6 Jan 2026 11:37 am
It is why you are owed nothing.
When I humiliate you, you just run to Mommy Coozie to hide it for you.
Where's my motivation?
6 Jan 2026 11:38 am
Show me.
Who is online
In total there are 5498 users online :: 3 registered, 17 bots, and 5478 guests
Bots: Bolt, BuiltWith, proximic, Not, NING, okhttp, DuckDuckBot, CriteoBot, ADmantX, YandexBot, facebookexternalhit, Applebot, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, Baiduspider, curl/7, bingbot