AmazonTopaz:


Why are you guys still debating MAGAts


Nawa ooo those people cannot be reasoned with it is a waste of time.


Anyway let me go back to basking in the euphoria of Chelsea's victory.

We won the champions league

I'm not surprised at the choice of club.

Big Toto likes it rough and classless and dirty.

Prideofcornpop:


She and PrideofLincoln2 have something in common

unsurprisingly so. They both are using digital representation to augment their pitiable real-life experiences.

obixcel:
I earn much more than that, u don't understand how the Civil service works, that amount is the minimum or lowest of wage that a Civil Servant can earn, I earn far higher than that. I usually ignore your gibberish figure because it's the kind of picture u have painted. There are State Civil Servants, There are also Federal Civil Servants. Federal earn higher than States. I'm a Federal Civil Servant. Let me just buttress it to you, and it's the last time I'm responding to your made-up figure. I'm working and I'm happy, You've never met me and I don't know you either - and practically I don't care. So chill.

Don't do this. Don't let the loonie goad you into revealing sensitive information about yourself.

If you've been on Nairaland and Twitter long enough, and engaged in heated exchanges, you'd know these hate-driven people always take it personal and next you might find a petition somewhere to make you lose your source of living just for a minute's gratification.

I can name examples on Nairaland, even one as recently as 2018. If you've been on Twitter, you'd know this happens everyday and the most recent one being a certain female (based in Australia) who disagreed with cancel culture, radical feminism and the suppressing of masculine men on Twitter NG had petitions against her written by one of the Leftist extremist (Akake(?) ) to her workplace (she works for a government parastatal too).

You might know where to draw the line and not take it pass Nairaland disses (I've stumbled on Nairalanders who had extremist opinions I disagreed with on other platforms and did my research enough to confirm their identities but would rather be shot dead than use it against them to score cheap points), but these hate-fueled folks know no boundary and are conscienceless. You should know what extreme cancel culture is.

You should already realize these guys have expressed extreme hate not only for the ideology you identify with but for everyone who opposes their socio-political stance and wouldn't mind ruining your life for 7 likes here.

I can take the heat because I know I can burn everything down when it comes to it - and I have the digital resources to - but I don't think you should expose yourself. They are the ones who need to prove they are living fine by revealing details about themselves, not you.

Always remember this.

benalvino2:


If likes and share mean so much to you I will like your post from now on. Don't worry. All this energy for likes. When PrideofLincoln1 starts his childish "I will feed your parents" and so on. People like salford and the other bunch will like it and I believe you like it too. I haven't seen you complain of those childish post getting likes. Don't worry I will help you with likes.

now you try to make this about like and shares, so as you please but afterwards tackle the topic itself.

I didn't read because I am not ready to engage you on that. I don't really care. I just put one of the point the article make to see how you will treat it and you proved my point. If I say the sky is blue you will find a way to disagree with me.

Of course you didn't but still boldly claimed I didn't read and understand what I posted when clearly you had little clue of its contents and went further to make bold erroneous claims on the basis of your assumptions that I didn't read it hence you goofed

I usually ask budaatum "what is your point" when he post something that has no point. I expected exactly that from you. Instead you wrote me a book because you think I am arguing with you.

You come here, make a claim for me then you attack the claim you make. PIGS Fly <= that is your claim and I won't attack it. I am not a troll.

At this stage it is safe to conclude that you're uniquely unqualified to determine the point or pointlessness of any topic as the point almost always sails by you

I am not picking a side, the only one confused here is your because you presented an argument for your point of view, I presented same argument and you had no clue it was your argument.

Of course you're not picking a side! How could you? When it is more convenient to perambulate round and round the issue while totally ignoring the issue, is there something I missed so far? Until now I would never had thought a liberal and a conservative will find common ground on a topic converging two touchy issue I.e race and social security but you're full of surprises aren't you? I hope I'm not wrong to assume that suddenly you are in support of the conclusion of this article?

Obviously I did not read? Of course I didn't. I gave you that on my last post that I was not arguing with you. Just to test if you understand your citation.

Oh what a shock! not really, the other time you posted a YouTube video of a tool whose views you were uncomfortable defending after he was revealed, not doing due diligence is a recurrent thing with you and yet you jump in with comments synonymous with someone who has done their research properly

I didn't make any argument that immigrants are not captured. Around where I quoted the other time. I saw where they talked about immigrants are at disadvantage. Again you are showing your lack of understanding. If I say humans breath in oxygen you will argue with it at this point. Instinct

''If you read this study you will find out he made it white vs blacks neglecting Hispanics, immigrants e.t.c'' your own words So tell us genius, is there any other magical way to interpret this?

Err, you goofed he said. Okay in ya head I always goof. That's your Instinct, a default for you. I understand.

Oga all these word salad is totally unnecessary, on this particular convo you tried to project your flaws on me. Colour it however you want, changes nothing

I didn't ignore anything. I can easily prove you wrong on this vaccination thing but I am not sure you tagged me on anything like that. If you did maybe I missed it. Most of my claims I have data to back it up. I have evidence to back it up.

I am sure your rebuttal will be interesting so have at it

Prideofcornpop:


Ibime has a desire to that smelly pussy. He is having some kind of friction with PrideofLincoln2. You know the Oldman likes it smelly, and it seems Ibeme wants a piece of it.

GalaticHorde:
now you try to make this about like and shares, so as you please but afterwards tackle the topic itself.

No you made it about like. People can like whatever they want. When you complain about like showing up on one's post you show you are very thin skinned.

Of course you didn't but still boldly claimed I didn't read and understand what I posted when clearly you had little clue of its contents and went further to make bold erroneous claims on the basis of your assumptions that I didn't read it hence you goofed

I didn't read it, I set a test for you to know if you read it and you failed the test. You didn't read it else you would know I just take something from your socalled argument and paste it for you and you wrote a book for me arguing against yourself

At this stage it is safe to conclude that you're uniquely unqualified to determine the point or pointlessness of any topic as the point almost always sails by you

Hmm. I am not the one who wrote a book arguing with himself. If you know what you read you would also know when I copy and paste a snippet of your argument or points. Since you don't recognize your own point you had to write a book arguing with yourself

Of course you're not picking a side! How could you? When it is more convenient to perambulate round and round the issue while totally ignoring the issue, is there something I missed so far? Until now I would never had thought a liberal and a conservative will find common ground on a topic converging to touchy issue I.e race and social security but you're full of surprises aren't you?

Is it by force to argue? I don't want to argue. I only direct your own argument towards you and you failed to recognize.

''If you read this study you will find out he made it white vs blacks neglecting Hispanics, immigrants e.t.c'' your own words So tell us genius, is there any other magical way to interpret this?

I saw a graph that has other race. You made it white vs blacks.

Oga all these word salad is totally unnecessary, on this particular convo you tried to project your flaws on me. Colour it however you want, changes nothing I hope I am not wrong to assume you support this argument?

What argument? In case you still haven't gotten the big picture, I am not following, I don't have time for this, I did not read it. I also said I don't care. We can argue some other time maybe?

I am sure your rebuttal will be interesting so have at it

I still don't have a clue of what you are on about. Don't know the particular tag you are talking about

basilico:


The commission is political
Designed to keep the spotlight on Trump and his followers. Subpoena everyone , leak to media, lead witnesses to perjure themselves.
Hundreds in jail some in solitary because they entered the capitol. Meanwhile Guantanamo terrorists are about to be freed.

were the thirty something republican benghazi inquiries political? Did the democrats stop them? Did Hillary Clinton refuse to testify again and again? Is benghazi worse than the invasion of the capitol? Are you a RINO? So much so you're unaware of the republican playbook? Or perhaps are you just a run of the mill regular good 'ol hypocrite who does not like being metted out what they met to others?

GalaticHorde:
exchange no 2.

Now this is your final exchange with me being your superior in all things positive you can go frame it, make a non fudgeable token of it or whatever
You presume that I care to understand what you imply? Bwahahahahaha you think I care to impress you or your ilk of loud mouthed, verbose and unwashed riff-raffs pretending to be rap poets, lyricists and the best things to happen after 2pac and biggie? there were better wordsmith like LordAdam before his expose here and even he couldn't hold a candle to moa because after all the sermonizing I ignore his verbose distractions and stick to the logic of the argument for which he lacked comebacks and the entirety of the rest of you combined couldn't hold a candle to him so you coming solo at me........FAIL!
Now, it will do you well to rationalise (If you're capable of rationality) that this is neither
1984 or George Orwell' s animal farm and you're not the top honcho porcine pretending to Lord it! Now toddle of my mentions ham boy, I have weighed you, I have measured you, and I find you unsurprisingly wanting.



Now I need soap, bleach and gallons of water to wash this stench completely of me!

Don't play with your mental state by talking too much with trump cultists. I even get more angry towards you than to those cultists who know and choose to be foolish.

trump cultists will be like Jesus is a Socialist and a Communist if he was with us in the flesh today. These people have lost it.

When you see most of these Trumpanzees antecedents on Nairaland you find that their predilection toward GQP is founded on misogyny or Islamophobia or both.

Misogyny seems to be the main driver for the younger ones. And if you check well, all of them are inexperienced with women, like the one always asking it it hurts when you press bobby or whether ãnal sex can make a woman orgasm.

I saw a Ghost whisperer in my mentions, I said lemme check his antecedents, and true to form na misogyny be him calling card. And vile racism against the Zulus.

Infact, the GQP only attracts those who are angry in life.

That's why I said this life is easy. Do your thing, let me do my thing.

But Trumpanzees have problem with letting other people do their thing whether it's women, other races or religions, other sexual orientation etc.

People are only usually this angry when they are frustrated in life. Na small prick dey worry all of them, combined with grinding poverty.

Ibime:
When you see most of these Trumpanzees antecedents on Nairaland you find that their predilection toward GQP is founded on misogyny or Islamophobia or both.

Misogyny seems to be the main driver for the younger ones. And if you check well, all of them are inexperienced with women, like the one always asking it it hurts when you press bobby or whether ãnal sex can make a woman orgasm.

I saw a Ghost whisperer in my mentions, I said lemme check his antecedents, and true to form na misogyny be him calling card. And vile racism against the Zulus.

Infact, the GQP only attracts those who are angry in life.

That's why I said this life is easy. Do your thing, let me do my thing.

But Trumpanzees have problem with letting other people do their thing whether it's women, other races or religions, other sexual orientation etc.

People are only usually this angry when they are frustrated in life. Na small prick dey worry all of them, combined with grinding poverty.

There is no truth more truther than this. You hit the nail in the head. And you just stated my principle in life, let every one be free, but don't turn your freedom to hate. Tolerance is an undeniable fact of human existence but why don't these cultists think like us? You said it all.

Obrigardo:


There is no truth more truther than this. You hit the nail in the head. And you just stated my principle in life, let every one be free, but don't turn your freedom to hate. Tolerance is an undeniable fact of human existence but why don't these cultists think like us? You said it all.

We all have our prejudices in life but live and let live is a foreign concept to Trumpanzees. They obsess about other people's differences to the point of visceral hatred.

They are children of hate, forgetting that they are also different to the core Trumpanzee base who if they had their way will hang them all on the nearest tree.

Ibime:


We all have our prejudices in life but live and let live is a foreign concept to Trumpanzees. They obsess about other people's differences to the point of visceral hatred.

They are children of hate, forgetting that they are also different to the core Trumpanzee base who if they had their way will hang them all on the nearest tree.

And that is the reason i will not trust a black azz nigerian who claims to be a trump cultist. The person must be a bad, shady and cruel human being and i'll try to keep them on a leash.

benalvino2:

No you made it about like. People can like whatever they want. When you complain about like showing up on one's post you show you are very thin skinned.

this was my initial statement ''And?
does this excerpt of yours suddenly support any contrary position you might take? I wonder who liked your post. I wonder, how does that excerpt interpret to you?''
Four things happened there
1. ''And?'' Obviously I was waiting for the continuation or for you to make it make sense
2. ''Does this excerpt of yours suddenly support any contrary position you might take?'' You might take points to the fact that I was unsure you had made any arguments for or against there but naturally, I was tilting towards against given our previous exchanges.
3. ''I wonder who liked your post'' this was it oh! ''i wonder'' that's all! The mountain you're building is out of this almost inconsequential molehill the post didn't make sense to me and yet somebody liked it! That was the whole point that is the issue you're hyperventilating on
4. ''I wonder, how does that excerpt interpret to you?'' This is the part where I asked you to clarify your interpretation so as to avoid ambiguity which unknown to me was your entire argument but yet you came back to claim this was your trap that caught me, that I somehow disagreed with my own quoted article! you're special I swear keep it up

I didn't read it, I set a test for you to know if you read it and you failed the test. You didn't read it else you would know I just take something from your socalled argument and paste it for you and you wrote a book for me arguing against yourself

I guess calling it an ■excerpt ■ from the article implies that I thought it fell from the sky
Everything you need to know about this fallacy of yours is already above as dissected by the very first paragraph of my notebook response , the very first paragraph oh! which makes you either wilfully blind or an outright liar

Hmm. I am not the one who wrote a book arguing with himself. If you know what you read you would also know when I copy and paste a snippet of your argument or points. Since you don't recognize your own point you had to write a book arguing with yourself

I didn't argue with my own point as explained above again from the very first paragraph I decided it wasn't my own point, I decided it was a no-point and that obvious difference was obviously too subtle for you in your failed attempt to make it about my understanding the topic and not the topic itself! Having decided you made no point, i wrote this, ''alternativey, these are a few notable highlights'' then went ahead with my long note with highlights that emphasised the argument in favour for your ease of reading, I mean, all these will be very obvious even to Stevie wonder unless....................................
.....

Is it by force to argue? I don't want to argue. I only direct your own argument towards you and you failed to recognize.

FAIL! I recognised it was an excerpt from the article by duely calling it such but I never recognised it as any argument for or against and as such asked you for clarification, naturally I assumed you were confused! the idea that it is my argument is an invention of yours to give yourself a bone you refuse to release

I saw a graph that has other race. You made it white vs blacks.

I didn't make it white vs blacks for the umpteenth time! the authors of the article themselves did! They collated data on all races and ascertained that all could be used in future projections hence the graphs but only blacks and whites have enough accumulated data from the past decades to merit a comparison

What argument? In case you still haven't gotten the big picture, I am not following, I don't have time for this, I did not read it. I also said I don't care. We can argue some other time maybe?

You could have started with this, given your defence of the other article I called racist, I thought this would tickle your interest in furtherance of our previous exchanges could have saved us both the bother

I still don't have a clue of what you are on about. Don't know the particular tag you are talking about

this

Black people not getting vaccinated at the same rates as white people due to poverty and lack of trust for the healthcare industry due to one of those things the all knowing benalvino2 dismissed as irrelevant which is ''historical antecedents''

https://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow/videos/746499119392569

Obrigardo:


Don't play with your mental state by talking too much with trump cultists. I even get more angry towards you than to those cultists who know and choose to be foolish.

my apologies boss! I have been ignoring the dunce repeatedly and I think he was misinterpreting it for docility, so I just did this one of to alert it amongst its ilk that even some of us who keep quiet towards them are more acerbic than them if push comes to shove

GalaticHorde:
this was my initial statement ''And?
does this excerpt of yours suddenly support any contrary position you might take? I wonder who liked your post. I wonder, how does that excerpt interpret to you?''
Four things happened there
1. ''And?'' Obviously I was waiting for the continuation or for you to make it make sense
2. ''Does this excerpt of yours suddenly support any contrary position you might take?'' You might take points to the fact that I was unsure you had made any arguments for or against there but naturally, I was tilting towards against given our previous exchanges.
3. ''I wonder who liked your post'' this was it oh! ''i wonder'' that's all! The mountain you're building is out of this almost inconsequential molehill the post didn't make sense to me and yet somebody liked it! That was the whole point that is the issue you're hyperventilating on
4. ''I wonder, how does that excerpt interpret to you?'' This is the part where I asked you to clarify your interpretation so as to avoid ambiguity which unknown to me was your entire argument but yet you came back to claim this was your trap that caught me, that I somehow disagreed with my own quoted article! you're special I swear keep it up


I guess calling it an ■excerpt ■ from the article implies that I thought it fell from the sky
Everything you need to know about this fallacy of yours is already above as dissected by the very first paragraph of my notebook response , the very first paragraph oh! which makes you either wilfully blind or an outright liar


I didn't argue with my own point as explained above again from the very first paragraph I decided it wasn't my own point, I decided it was a no-point and that obvious difference was obviously too subtle for you in your failed attempt to make it about my understanding the topic and not the topic itself! Having decided you made no point, i wrote this, ''alternativey, these are a few notable highlights'' then went ahead with my long note with highlights that emphasised the argument in favour for your ease of reading, I mean, all these will be very obvious even to Stevie wonder unless....................................
.....


FAIL! I recognised it was an excerpt from the article by duely calling it such but I never recognised it as any argument for or against and as such asked you for clarification, naturally I assumed you were confused! the idea that it is my argument is an invention of yours to give yourself a bone you refuse to release



I didn't make it white vs blacks for the umpteenth time! the authors of the article themselves did! They collated data on all races and ascertained that all could be used in future projections hence the graphs but only blacks and whites have enough accumulated data from the past decades to merit a comparison


You could have started with this, given your defence of the other article I called racist, I thought this would tickle your interest in furtherance of our previous exchanges could have saved us both the bother



this

Again, if it makes sense to anyone or not, they can like it. Do not cry about a like from a post ever. It does not mean anything. How many times will I tell you this before you understand? Must you argue?

Naturally you was tilting right? But that's not natural, that's just you looking to make a point no matter want. You want go argue. This is why when I say there is racism, you will later make claim for me I said there is no racism.
If we agree you can argue so u want to make sure I don't agree.

4. ''I wonder, how does that excerpt interpret to you?'' This is the part where I asked you to clarify your interpretation so as to avoid ambiguity which unknown to me was your entire argument but yet you came back to claim this was your trap that caught me, that I somehow disagreed with my own quoted article! you're special I swear keep it up

You did disagree with me from the image below you said alternatively, that means says everything.

I guess calling it an ■excerpt ■ from the article implies that I thought it fell from the sky
Everything you need to know about this fallacy of yours is already above as dissected by the very first paragraph of my notebook response , the very first paragraph oh! which makes you either wilfully blind or an outright liar

Liar, you said it's an excerpt of mine not the article. See the image below.

I didn't argue with my own point as explained above again from the very first paragraph I decided it wasn't my own point, I decided it was a no-point and that obvious difference was obviously too subtle for you in your failed attempt to make it about my understanding the topic and not the topic itself! Having decided you made no point, i wrote this, ''alternativey, these are a few notable highlights'' then went ahead with my long note with highlights that emphasised the argument in favour for your ease of reading, I mean, all these will be very obvious even to Stevie wonder unless....................................
.....

If it was your own point WHY DID YOU CALL IT AN EXCERPT OF MINE?

AND WHY DID YOU MAKE AND ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT writing a book for me?

FAIL! I recognised it was an excerpt from the article by duely calling it such but I never recognised it as any argument for or against and as such asked you for clarification, naturally I assumed you were confused! the idea that it is my argument is an invention of yours to give yourself a bone you refuse to release

Double down on your lies. You said it was my excerpt and you make alternative argument with a book

I didn't make it white vs blacks for the umpteenth time! the authors of the article themselves did! They collated data on all races and ascertained that all could be used in future projections hence the graphs but only blacks and whites have enough accumulated data from the past decades to merit a comparison

Which is why I did not read it. One of those leftist looking to find how they can divide the masses more. You can see that from the graph. Blacks get it better than other race but the focus is white vs blacks.

You could have started with this, given your defence of the other article I called racist, I thought this would tickle your interest in furtherance of our previous exchanges could have saved us both the bother

I don't know how this article helps. If you wanted to further you could have responded to the last thing I posted concerning that article then Segway into this.

benalvino2:


Again, if it makes sense to anyone or not, they can like it. Do not cry about a like from a post ever. It does not mean anything. How many times will I tell you this before you understand? Must you argue?

I don't take orders from you, I will do as I will do and wonder as I will wonder and you can hyperventilate about my wonder as you please in your much ado about nothing

Naturally you was tilting right? But that's not natural, that's just you looking to make a point no matter want. You want go argue. This is why when I say there is racism, you will later make claim for me I said there is no racism.
If we agree you can argue so u want to make sure I don't agree.

The tilting towards the belief that you will oppose is completely natural, the nature of the topic and your history here makes that a viable mathematical probability, hate it and rant if you will forecasting using collated data is a science, that you don't know that is your own cup of tea, as it is a viable probability that you'd take the conservative side of the discourse the reverse and liberal side is true for me, and when you don't and pretend not to chose a side I get shocked and express my surprise accordingly because that, is unexpected

You did disagree with me from the image below you said alternatively, that means says everything.

So folks, ''alternatively, these are notable highlights'' means I disagree with an excerpt I went out of my way to emphasize makes no point because it somehow secretly makes a point and my alternatives are the counter arguments to a non-point that somehow I believe secretly makes a point because of who the writer is?

Yeaaaah....................Right!
Deluded much?

Liar, you said it's an excerpt of mine not the article. See the image below.



If it was your own point WHY DID YOU CALL IT AN EXCERPT OF MINE?

AND WHY DID YOU MAKE AND ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT writing a book for me?



Double down on your lies. You said it was my excerpt and you make alternative argument with a book



Which is why I did not read it. One of those leftist looking to find how they can divide the masses more. You can see that from the graph. Blacks get it better than other race but the focus is white vs blacks.



I don't know how this article helps. If you wanted to further you could have responded to the last thing I posted concerning that article then Segway into this.

discussing with you is a total waste of effort you are not intelligible, clueless, and for you the whole basis of opposing especially on no ground is to fine pick grammar and ignore intent, you did it before and I let it slide still gauging you, now you're trying to do it again but you're just not smart enough because after having been caught you double down by nitpicking any line to misinterpret and latch to it like a drowning man out of desperation! Your go to trump card you think is flipping logic on it's head, you claim because I said ''this excerpt of yours'' therefore it implies that I meant you own the excerpt and by extension the argument please revert to your dictionary ASAP and check the meaning of excerpt seeing as you're embarrassing yourself, because how can I call what you wrote ''excerpt'' of yours without knowing the origin? Excerpt literally means extract! Were you extracting it from some fudged recesses of your brain I had no access to? Gosh! This is really embarrassing! so according to you the ''yours'' implies that I thought you wrote it and therefore didn't know it's source hence the arguments? Then riddle me this, why the hell did I ever call it an excerpt since it is so obviously yours? also, in the same paragraph I asked, ''how does that excerpt interpret to you?'' I guess I should have asked how your excerpt should be interpreted for emphasis seeing as ownership whch is vey important has been firmly established so as to avoid you mistaking it for another excerpt!
You should have stuck with the didn't read, not interested, hell! I was cool with indifference and disinterest, I was obviously mistaking you for a pseudo-academic! My mistake.
Also, I would have thought responding to a non-point with an alternative highlighting as many points was completely logical? Except for those who argue against logic, well who cares?

And one more thing stop quoting the graphs as you obviously said you didn't read the article because you obviously understand not a damn thing you're quoting! Yes inference can be drawn from graphs but the ''why?'' it is so can not, so without reading and understanding the why please refrain from jumping to conclusions

GalaticHorde:

I don't take orders from you, I will do as I will do and wonder as I will wonder and you can hyperventilate about my wonder as you please in your much ado about nothing

Continue crying, if you are lucky someone will give you a lollipop.

The tilting towards the belief that you will oppose is completely natural, the nature of the topic and your history here makes that a viable mathematical probability, hate it and rant if you will forecasting using collated data is a science, that you don't know that is your own cup of tea, as it is a viable probability that you'd take the conservative side of the discourse the reverse and liberal side is true for me, and when you don't and pretend not to chose a side I get shocked and express my surprise accordingly because that, is unexpected

Ah, I see... A stereo type is good except its coming from a white man.
That's for admitting for the second time that you are wired to think i will argue with you no matter what and even if I didn't argue with you: I argue with you. No matter what the argument is. In other words, what I say does not matter, you will argue anyway. I usually say this about budaatum that if I say the sky is blue he will say the sky is black at night but it seems you are even worse. Sometimes I say I agree with the other side.
All your science is okay and data till it is a white man applying the same science and data then it becomes racism.

So folks, ''alternatively, these are notable highlights'' means I disagree with an excerpt I went out of my way to emphasize makes no point because it somehow secretly makes a point and my alternatives are the counter arguments to a non-point that somehow I believe secretly makes a point because of who the writer is? Yeaaaah....................Right!
Deluded much?

You don't get it don't you? I brought out a snippet from literature you presented, you said it was my excerpt and bring alternative argument to an argument that is already in the literature from the literature. Hmmm. Seems like you are arguing with yourself there.

discussing with you is a total waste of effort you are not intelligible, clueless, the whole basis of opposing especially on no ground is to fine pick grammar and ignore intent, you did it before and I let it slide still checking you out, you're trying to do it again you're just not smart enough because after having been caught you double down by nitpicking any line to misinterpret and latch to it like a drowning man out of desperation! Your go to trump card you think is flipping logic on it's head, you claim because I said ''this excerpt of yours'' therefore it implies that I meant you own the excerpt and by extension the argument please revert to your dictionary ASAP and check the meaning of excerpt seeing as you're embarrassing yourself, because how can I call what you wrote ''excerpt'' of yours without knowing the origin? Excerpt literally means extract! Were you extracting it from some fudged recesses of your brain I had no access to? Gosh! This is really embarrassing! so according to you the ''yours'' implies that I thought you wrote it and therefore didn't know it's source hence the arguments? Then riddle me this, why the hell did I ever call it an excerpt since it is so obviously yours? also, in the same paragraph I asked, ''how does that excerpt interpret to you?'' I guess I should have asked how your excerpt should be interpreted for emphasis seeing as ownership whch is vey important has been firmly established so as to avoid you mistaking it for another excerpt!

Blablabla. Cry if you may. I called you out because you keep saying excerpt from me and excerpt from the article after you realise its from the article. You are acting like you knew all along. You keep trying to deceive when you could just leave it. It is what it is. He got me, let's move on. All this exchange would have stopped and you don't need to say "he got me" but trying to act like you knew all along when you don't is what is dragging this.

You should have stuck with the didn't read, not interested, hell! I was cool with indifference and disinterest, I was obviously mistaking you for a pseudo-academic! My mistake.

But I still didn't read it and not interested. You still gonna argue about that? For the 3rd or 4th time I am saying I didn't read it but the Instinct is kicking in. You want to argue.

Also, I would have thought responding to a non-point with an alternative highlighting as many points was completely logical? Except for those who argue against logic, well who cares?

Or you could have asked what is the point. Don't argue with someone if you don't know the point they are making. First understand their point, determine whether it is correct or wrong then counter argue.

And one more thing stop quoting the graphs as you obviously said you didn't read the article because you obviously understand not a damn thing you're quoting! Yes inference can be drawn from graphs but the ''why?'' it is so can not, so without reading and understanding the why please refrain from jumping to conclusions

I can quote anything I want.

AmazonTopaz:
Netanyahu will soon be ousted

He might soon start bombing Palestine to get support

sanpipita:


He might soon start bombing Palestine to get support

So he should be drinking tea and watching Netflix while Palestinians bomb his country?

The fact that you and the OP think that if he is out the region will magically be peaceful just goes to show how ignorant you people are to reality.

You folks are now apologetics for a terrorists group.

sanpipita:


He might soon start bombing Palestine to get support

I won't be surprised.
Good thing his efforts the last time went to waste and backfired on him since his political future is still uncertain.


But Bennett is no different from Netanyahu when it comes to Palestine so there will be no different approach to Palestine but the tweet below is the only difference between them because of Lapid.

benalvino2:


So he should be drinking tea and watching Netflix while Palestinians bomb his country?

The fact that you and the OP think that if he is out the region will magically be peaceful just goes to show how ignorant you people are to reality.

You folks are now apologetics for a terrorists group.

You can condemn Hamas and also find Israeli actions wrong, two wrongs can exist, and this isn't just about last conflict, Netanyahu usually shores up his base by how much he attacks Palestine

AmazonTopaz:
I won't be surprised.
Good thing his efforts the last time went to waste and backfired on him since his political future is still uncertain.


But Bennett is no different from Netanyahu when it comes to Palestine so there will be no different approach to Palestine but the tweet below is the only difference between them because of Lapid.

Netanyahu's problems been more domestic, only Palestine conflict seems to give him some edge but that doesn't to work this time, I will be glad to see him good and even prosecuted

sanpipita:


You can condemn Hamas and also find Israeli actions wrong, two wrongs can exist, and this isn't just about last conflict, Netanyahu usually shores up his base by how much he attacks Palestine

He does not attack Palestine, he defend Israel from them.
Yes you are right, two wrongs can exist, but you are making it look as if Israel just go about attacking Palestine for no reason.

So what has Israel done you say is wrong? Most times you people will say they stole land from Palestinians.

Livelystone01:

Dont misquote me by picking part of my sentence bro.
I am responsible for my comments, you are responsible for your understanding.

I said, "by the look of things..."

The GOP Arizona's members are mute, I believe if the opposite is the case as at today, they'd be shouting on top of their voices already.

And why push the answer to findings to Nov Dec if they can get what were parroting for 6months now?

Politicians will always get away with their schemes. Crooks propounded the theory of ballot harvesting and Chinese bamboo materials, but the foolishness of some of the GOP members never made them think through such lies.

Well, I am still waiting to get the answer from the audit of the century lol.

What do you base they will find nothing in the audit?
Any evidence that the election in Maricopa was above board? From the protagonists.
They are only using the courts to derail the start, continuation and conclusion of the ordered audit.
The antagonists have laid some grounds , which a judge deemed reasonable to warrant a full audit.

The Dems will bring HR1 to the floor of the senate next month.

Also I don't believe that Schumer doesn't have a plan to have this bill pass in the senate.

Schumer and Klobuchar are serious with this bill I will like to see how it passes without republiQan support,Schumer can change the rules to pass this bill it is crucial if this bill passes it will neutralise these GQP voter suppression laws across all states