Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
American Sharia? Don't Be Silly....
American Sharia? Don't Be Silly....
By Blackvegetable
8 Jan 2026 6:12 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
8 Jan 2026 6:12 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ge-births/
Heritage paper on families calls for ‘marriage bootcamp,’ more babies
The conservative think tank aims to boost U.S. marriage and birth rates through recommendations to discourage online dating, restrict pornography, create tax credits for bigger families and more.
https://youtu.be/0E4GnMcSycU?si=dFJyZqDv034s7UMk
Heritage paper on families calls for ‘marriage bootcamp,’ more babies
The conservative think tank aims to boost U.S. marriage and birth rates through recommendations to discourage online dating, restrict pornography, create tax credits for bigger families and more.
https://youtu.be/0E4GnMcSycU?si=dFJyZqDv034s7UMk
8 Jan 2026 6:14 am
Maybe MAGA can fall in love with rocks in Greenland.
And they can cover Steven Miller's grave with them.
And they can cover Steven Miller's grave with them.
DUMP THE TRUMP SLUMP 2026!
Bump Caps Recommended..
Bump Caps Recommended..
8 Jan 2026 6:26 am
8 Jan 2026 6:33 am
Only for you, maybe you're remembering Biden's first hundred days of ineptness.....can't blame you for the despair.
8 Jan 2026 7:14 am
8 Jan 2026 7:25 am
Are you arguing that porn and online dating are beneficial to society?Blackvegetable » 08 Jan 2026, 7:12 am » wrote: ↑ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ge-births/
Heritage paper on families calls for ‘marriage bootcamp,’ more babies
The conservative think tank aims to boost U.S. marriage and birth rates through recommendations to discourage online dating, restrict pornography, create tax credits for bigger families and more.
https://youtu.be/0E4GnMcSycU?si=dFJyZqDv034s7UMk
You're just mad because someone might take the *** porn you watch away. That worries you, doesn't it?
Johnny You: "Flying the pride flag is honorable".
8 Jan 2026 7:30 am
I'm not here to explain the obvious.
8 Jan 2026 7:51 am
SouthernFried » 08 Jan 2026, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑ Are you arguing that porn and online dating are beneficial to society?
You're just mad because someone might take the *** porn you watch away. That worries you, doesn't it?
Bv's special isn't he.
8 Jan 2026 8:11 am
This ain't about BV, either.
8 Jan 2026 8:13 am
8 Jan 2026 8:43 am
FIFY...RebelGator » 08 Jan 2026, 7:33 am » wrote: ↑ Only for you, maybe you're remembering Biden's first 1461 days of ineptness.....can't blame you for the despair.
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..."
8 Jan 2026 8:43 am
^^^ mental midget braying in the empty forest...
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..."
8 Jan 2026 8:44 am
SouthernFried » 08 Jan 2026, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑ Are you arguing that porn and online dating are beneficial to society?
You're just mad because someone might take the *** porn you watch away. That worries you, doesn't it?
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..."
8 Jan 2026 8:45 am
Shouldn't you go pick up your limb?
8 Jan 2026 9:13 am
Blackvegetable » 08 Jan 2026, 7:12 am » wrote: ↑ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ge-births/
Heritage paper on families calls for ‘marriage bootcamp,’ more babies
The conservative think tank aims to boost U.S. marriage and birth rates through recommendations to discourage online dating, restrict pornography, create tax credits for bigger families and more.
https://youtu.be/0E4GnMcSycU?si=dFJyZqDv034s7UMk
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...
8 Jan 2026 9:16 am
8 Jan 2026 9:23 am
1
1. Veghead:
“Are these your words” or posting my threads
My reply:
Didn't click it
I will not entertain your stalking by agreeing to approve of you creeping around in my profile to dig up posts.
2. Veghead:
For your “The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."
My reply:
My prompt: Is it accurate for an AI to state that a photograph’s attribution ‘correctly identifies the subject and photographer, making it a reliable source,’ without external verification? here is the claim that AI had said: "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."AI's reply:AI cannot confirm the identity of a real person in a photograph.It can only:What it cannot do:
- describe visible features (appearance, clothing, setting),
- note resemblance if asked in a general sense,
- or restate what sources claim without verifying them.
“It cannot confirm identity.” That’s not an opinion, a rhetorical move, or a grammar issue — it’s a capability limit. And Busted you good and busted you hard. Boom!Prompt: Attribute this photograph to Donald Trump.Reply: I can’t confirm or verify the identity of a real person in a photograph.I can describe what’s visible: the image shows an older man with light skin and swept-back blond hair, wearing a dark suit jacket, white dress shirt, and a red tie, with a small U.S. flag pin on the lapel. He has a serious expression and is photographed indoors with a softly blurred background. At most, someone might say the person resembles Donald Trump, but confirming or attributing the photograph to him as an identity claim isn’t something I can do.
- verify who the person actually is,
- confirm that an attribution is correct,
- declare an image or its attribution “reliable” on its own.
3. For your demands/question
Reply:
**** your questions. You don't answer my questions, so I owe you nothing. ↓
↓
↓
↓Is your toothbrush REALLY clean?
4. For your usual lies about answering the survivorship Bias question
Reply:
The question is not asking for definitions.
The question is not asking what the answer is not: it is asking what it is.
5. For you accusing me of what you are guilty of.
My reply:
projecting again
6. For your incessant copying of me:
My reply:
Copies me again. pile up that evidence.
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...
8 Jan 2026 9:24 am
8 Jan 2026 9:25 am
1
1. Veghead:
“Are these your words” or posting my threads
My reply:
Didn't click it
I will not entertain your stalking by agreeing to approve of you creeping around in my profile to dig up posts.
2. Veghead:
For your “The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."
My reply:
My prompt: Is it accurate for an AI to state that a photograph’s attribution ‘correctly identifies the subject and photographer, making it a reliable source,’ without external verification? here is the claim that AI had said: "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."AI's reply:AI cannot confirm the identity of a real person in a photograph.It can only:What it cannot do:
- describe visible features (appearance, clothing, setting),
- note resemblance if asked in a general sense,
- or restate what sources claim without verifying them.
“It cannot confirm identity.” That’s not an opinion, a rhetorical move, or a grammar issue — it’s a capability limit. And Busted you good and busted you hard. Boom!Prompt: Attribute this photograph to Donald Trump.Reply: I can’t confirm or verify the identity of a real person in a photograph.I can describe what’s visible: the image shows an older man with light skin and swept-back blond hair, wearing a dark suit jacket, white dress shirt, and a red tie, with a small U.S. flag pin on the lapel. He has a serious expression and is photographed indoors with a softly blurred background. At most, someone might say the person resembles Donald Trump, but confirming or attributing the photograph to him as an identity claim isn’t something I can do.
- verify who the person actually is,
- confirm that an attribution is correct,
- declare an image or its attribution “reliable” on its own.
3. For your demands/question
Reply:
**** your questions. You don't answer my questions, so I owe you nothing. ↓
↓
↓
↓
↓Is your toothbrush REALLY clean?
4. For your usual lies about answering the survivorship Bias question
Reply:
The question is not asking for definitions.
The question is not asking what the answer is not: it is asking what it is.
5. For you accusing me of what you are guilty of.
My reply:
projecting again
6. For your incessant copying of me:
My reply:
Copies me again. pile up that evidence.
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...
8 Jan 2026 9:26 am
Who is online
In total there are 5904 users online :: 11 registered, 17 bots, and 5876 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, ROG62, RebelGator, Beekeeper, jerra b, SouthernFried, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101, Huey
Bots: SuperBot, Bolt, TTD-Content, okhttp, DuckDuckBot, aiohttp, YandexBot, proximic, ADmantX, Googlebot, Applebot, Mediapartners-Google, bingbot, CriteoBot, curl/7, Baiduspider, facebookexternalhit