₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Are you asking me to explain the consequences of your ill-thinking? If so:

I dissected that offending comment of his earlier! I was surprised that could come from a supposedly black man all the bid to prostelyse conservatism. I wonder where some people get their education and orientation

Prideofkokobilo:
Strike 3. Go on nigger

firstly just curious, are you the robin to benalvino2's batman? Because you're totally a knock off's knock off, you go nigger this nigger that like you think this is a yo mama dissfest! I am engaging you just for a short while to remind you and remind you only of your inferiority! And also to make your day too as it is apparent that my attention defines your wretched existence.
And meanwhile, don't forget to hold a bucket for your compadre as he sheds his tears whilst in denial, you will need his help as your turn is nigh

Prideofkokobilo:
Some niggers do that shit like me because of censorship. Moniker change but we still the same. Prost... Like AmazonTopaz AKA Ladyhippolyta88 who fake her oozing personality and the nigger salford1. Now we got GalaticHorde faking different personality as Raalsalghul. Fake niggers go home.

strike2

One more time

Ibime:


The people I know with different monikers here are Trumpanzees like Ghostwhisperer who goes by the moniker Postmann or DissTroy who has changed moniker severally from KingsleyMark to Kramfonos to SonofMark. Only God knows why they switch monikers so much, probably after disgracing themselves severally all over the forum.

don't inform the twerp and his anti-icon who is my resident thread jester adorned with digital motely the clown was thinking I will engage it in a debate about how I'm me and not the other guy instead of enjoying his performance for what it is. The realisation that these jokers are one's intellectual inferiors and expecting much from them or even expecting standard intelligence from them is an exercise in futility helped me arrive at the decision that if i can not enjoy an intellectually stimulating discourse with them given their apparent deficiencies, I can as well enjoy laughs at their expense when they pretend at intelligence

Just view it from the angle of a pretence at intelligence and enjoy the jokes that continue to write themselves

Goodvibes007:
Macron admitted his country's role just 5 days ago which is in itself surprising. France is notorious for not admiting to stuffs like that.

Africa alone can crash France's economy, given the post colonial conditions their former colonies were given literarily enslaving those economies to France and since France wouldn't want those former colonies to challenge the absurdity of those conditions they are literarily invested in who gets to rule those nations, deposing and assassinating anyone they see as a threat

Timiofak:
Just last week France apologised for irreparable damages (which I believe it's not up to 25% of what happened) it did to Namibia after almost a century.

The Rwanda genocide, if you think the west wasn't involved You don't know anything

I can continue,

let's go to South America and Central America

that was Germany and it was for carrying out a genocide, France is unlikely ever to apologise

GhostWisperer:
the red Indians had no sense of statehood/nationhood or boundaries or foreign policies. Like most aboriginal settlements, they existed as tribes and clans without the consciousness of statehood.

Aboriginal means native to, and tribes are states/nations of their own with their own local form of government so stop advertising your ignorance! Democracy has never been the historical form of government, democracy is relatively young chronologically speaking. There were tribal nations and empires in the Americas with well recognised boundaries and spheres of influence. Coming here to say because it wasn't specified formally on a map means there were no boundaries marks you a victim of exclusive western educational programming.
Even our African ancestors knew which piece of land belonged to each village and fought over disputes without needing maps or didn't we have nations and governments too?

We wonder why Dems coin America a nation of immigrants when same could apply to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and in some regard, South Africa.

It applies to those other countries too (to a faar lesser extent in South Africa) and democrats (At least not modern day democrats) didn't coin it, I don't claim to know who did but it is a saying as old as the declaration of independence and as such nonpartisan so get your facts right. And even though those other countries are nations of immigrants, by volume and diversity America is ''the'' nation of immigrants! Fight with me but don't fight with facts, besides Australia was more of a penal than a migrant colony.

Every superior race and people want to keep their values and culture and one of the ways to do this is controlled immigration. This if course is alien to Dems/lefties.

Dude! Wash your mouth! you really are a victim of western miseducation! If you think white Europeans who were unwashed cave and forest dwellers while the Nile, Indus and Mesopotamian valleys were awash with civilisations are a master race then you need proper reeducation. Yes modern times and the suppression of other people's histories may make it seem that way but the truth is their greatest impressions on history is waging of wars, in that they've always excelled! And their biggest contribution to science is the patent office so they could steal the inventions of others and stake their names to it. So no, there is no master race! All races have equal potential

This is one area all lefties, like homeless culterless dogs, fall face down. They are swept away like women and children by reigning fads and new cultures.

While America is losing its value and strength via large influx of third world uncontrolled migration, same is happening to many western European blocks.

What the fuuk ever was America's values you're talking about here? Individual freedom? That originated from the British magna Carta, freedom of worship and association? Canada their neighbour up north has that too. The so called Christian values? Tell that to the Irish and Italian Catholics that were being oppressed socially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, or is it racism and slavery? Oga sit down abeg!

It's no secret Dems favour large migration majority of who will vote them in exchange for resident status and GOP wants more controlled migration to keep Thier values, culture and ideals.

is it just the dems? How then do you define the Cuban Americans that have been giving Florida to the republicans repeatedly? Maybe Cuban immigration should be banned right?

Black America has been voting Dems for decades like most third world base and are still the poorest, most uneducated demographic with the poorest health care and weatlh divide.

And of course you conveniently forget how your republicoon party opposes every progressive policy, how they like saying no just for the sake of it irrespective of the benefits to everyone like how Mitch McConnell did with Obama.
And your miseducation continues showing, blacks aren't the least educated or poorest, Latinas as a block are. And it is interesting how you expect the democratic party to bridge a wealth divide between blacks and whites that is a product of multigenerational policies and laws with active republicoon party opposition! For example, will you support slavery reparations?

It's akin to century long brainwashing.

And no, America isn't a country of immigrants. From after the first 13 colonies were formed by the British, people from Northern Europe especially flocked into the vast unmanned land in vast migration.

America has since been defined, framed with boundaries and nationhood and is no longer a country of migrants more than any other country today.

When you want to lie, make sure the person you're lying to is ignorant of the truth first! Vast unmanned? Are you high? Those were the lands of many native American nations and were even originally part of Mexico. Even Texas was stolen by white farmers who were invited by the Mexican government to come there and farm, they brought slaves which were outlawed by Mexico and rebelled against their host government. After being defeated they cried to their own government who then invaded a weaker sovereign nation and stole their land at the behest of their thieving American citizens! So why shouldn't Mexicans be allowed into Texas, California e.t.c? Weren't they Mexico before? As if Texas wasn't enough, another American president had his eyes on the territories of Mexico from Texas to the west coast of California and as such he started an illegal war against Mexico for the sole purpose of land grabbing! After defeating the Mexican army, the U.S could have absorbed the entirety of Mexico but chose not to because they didn't want Mexican people in the union, just the sparsely settled north of Mexico and after the civil war they went on to exterminate the Indian nations in these territories along with even the bison they hunted for food.
Unnamed vast land my foot!
Maybe since you're so fond of boundaries, the U.S should respect Mexico's original boundaries!

I ask you again, how far back are you willing to go with your logic?

Large, uncontrolled Dems-styled migration don't get absorbed into their host country, they overwhelm the system culturally, socially and change the values.

But Dems never have a history of culture or tradition .They are like cultural whores taking the shape of any sociocultural dimension.

America is the answer that your claim is a lie, many have been absorbed, many more will be absorbed. And call it cultural whorism, we call it cultural melting pot and there is room for more so white apologists can go cry in their closets, they lost and will continue losing!
And what positive culture and traditions do Europeans have to recommend them in the first place? For every one you mention I will mention two for non Europeans

benalvino2:
Oya cry on.
Don't just break your phone in frustration.

bwahahahahaha

benalvino2:
Good for you. Now you asking if I set a test like this is the first time you are hearing me say this.
Anything goes for you. Just let this one go. I use IPOB beg you. Next time I won't test if you again. Sorry. YOU WIN

oh sorry! you seem to be confused there, I wasn't asking a question, I was just admiring the interpretation you and your dictionary came up with, suffice to say I find it hilarious and I'm encouraging you to produce more hare-brained interpretations one can not have too many laughs you know so I'd take as many as you're generous enough to give me while this lasts as I have figured the best use for you is as a clown pity.....................medieval times woulda seen me decking you up in multihued motley as befits a court fool
Well, I'll make do with you as you are

benalvino2:
All this because I posted your own argument presented and you instinctively think I am arguing with you. Then someone liked the post. It sounds like you are frustrated to me.

What's more important is that you confirmed you don't know the argument was from your own literature, you confirmed you don't know if I was for or against your assertion, but you want to argue so your Instinct kicked in.

Like somebody said, using 50 emoticons does not mean you are happy or having fun. You seem pained.

The image below is a depiction of your emotions.

So, try give it a rest. You won, take the cookie and enjoy it with a coke.
If you have something interesting we can debate, I will or might debate it with you. But as it is, Just quit, Leave it. Like I said you won. Make you allow people see better things from this thread. I said I am not ready for child's play, you persist and you still trying to drag me into one. For the sake of others. Let it go. So your friends and my friends if we have one here may see real debate whether good or bad. So let it go oga. I said you won a cookie. Enjoy it.

Next time I won't set a test for you. So that you don't cry when someone like the post. I apologize.

you set a test? good one, I see you're putting your customised dictionary to good use, what next? Remember, anything goes

wirinet:
What he does not understand is that voter turnout is highest when people are dissatisfied with the current administration, and lowest when people are not bothered enough to come out and vote out the administration.

The unusual high turn out in the last elections was due to the democrats being fired up by their hatred of Trump and an equally riled up Republican base of Trump. Even within the Republican base you had riled up groups like the Lincoln Project that energized Republicans against Trump.

I would have thought that observation was the simplest to make but the purveyors of lies will deny the existence of the sun if it suits their narrative

GhostWisperer:
you seem to be at variance with your fellow partner of incalculable visa debt who argues that migrants vote the GOP.

Na God go heal una from reality angst when dey plague una like covid 2nd wave.

Republicans should tighten the borders and protect the country like every reasonable country should, especially from folks like you who believe the only way to show gratitude for passage is to socio-politically grieve more than your hosts who see you more as a charity statement of hypocritical political manifestos.

lols, maybe if the red Indians had had stringent visa requirements and tightened their borders those European outcasts will not have their descendants lording over them after genocidally exterminating them for land! Oga the question is how far you are willing to go with this particular logic! bottom line is America is a nation of immigrants and will always be and these legal immigrants aren't charity cases, they're more economically productive by working and paying taxes especially when compared to the bulk of trumps base of rural white America so asides skin color they are more American than most trump supporters.
Having established that, as long as their immigration is legal/legalised, why shouldn't they vote the party of their choice? Don't tell me it's because they're not white enough for the ideal America of trump and the republicoon party

SangoOlukosoOba:
I dont have a response for you yet. Give me few minutes, I have a lots of your type I am whipping at the moment. I placed you on number 32.

Be patient with me.

FAIL this is already a response, a response without substance

budaatum:
Imagine them complaining about immigrants when buda is raising the dead to vote Democrat.

Guess they seen nothing yet till I import dead immigrants from India.

oh I almost forgot the army of inferi that voted out trumpletskin no wonder they're still counting after victory has been declared

GhostWisperer:


Yeah, you did on two of your posts and twice on one.
But you can live with denial....that's an essential requirement for being a migrant lefty.

You owe them that visa which you thought is a brand new life.

Do the bidding. Small debt to pay by African migrant standard

bla bla bla is it all legal? That is immigrating legally then voting? If yes then you have no arguments! Maybe republicans should make themselves more appealing to immigrants, don't blame the immigrants for voting for the only party that tried to woo them. So give us a better point

Ibime:
I was in the process of adding a line and did not see you had responded. Here's your cookie trigger fingers.

I'm still waiting for your evidence of Democrats legalising bestiality many shalayes later.

As suspected, it's just an anecdote you read on imanidiot.com, you foolish Umudiekean.

don't wait too long, doesn't look like you're ever gonna get it, their standards if proof are same as trumps as in none. Just throw in as many wild accusations repeatedly to see which will stick, unfortunately for trump there weren't enough coonservatives lapping up his fictions to vote him back in

budaatum:
Oh I engage them too, at least the one's who poo don't flow out when they open their mouths, and the one's who use the brain in their heads. What I refrain from doing is jump in the mud with them and hurl insults, as I'd lose respect of those I also engage with in the real world.

I get your point man, I'm just not as disciplined and thick skinned as you I am typically Nigerian so my response to aggression against me is usually disproportionately savage. I will try and be better though, God help me

basilico:
Which other candidate ever got 75m votes . Increase by more than 12m first term
Obama got 68m in 08 and 65m in 2012. Hillary got 66? In 2016.
Joe Biden got 81m.

or maybe more people were eligible so more people voted, and also given trumpy's 4 years of misrule many who previously couldn't be bothered to vote previously were motivated to kick him out. Simple answers without any need for complications. Yes many liked trump but many more disliked him

Prideofkokobilo:
But ya know, a dude can tell you are in grief. You seem pained like the nigger edi287. You mirror his character. I mean the nigger in grief was using the emojis to make him appear happy, the nigger won't let go. He tryna get back at me. Dude, Bleep you, Bleep benalvino2 but take a break nigger, let it go. You won now go to sleep. That nigger right yo. You frustrated. Nigger, literal is a thing a nigger can't understand. I bet this Nigger can't take a joke, typical lefty. Every nigger be damned if they don't know crying can be used when a nigger complain. Give it a rest yo. I am sick of seeing your crap.

strike 1

budaatum:
To be honest, I have found that if I refrain from insulting and shading, sane beings will refrain from insulting or shading me. It's a rule I read somewhere that kind of claims that 'as I do unto others so will they do unto me'. It takes a while to kick in I find, sometimes not until after turning the other cheek 70 times 7 times, and it only applies to sane beings, but thankfully there's also a rule for the insane beings that goes something like "say peace and dust off their mud from your being and refrain from engaging them". It basically means ignore them, for as my father taught me, engaging with pigs will get you so muddy that observers will see two pigs.

Do let me know the results if you ever try any of it.

on my honor budaa I promise not to throw the first shade and count at least two strikes before I unload and I generally ignore the riff raff gutter mouthed rapper wannabes here as their lack of style wouldn't hold my interests for long but my current puppet is an interesting case I am obliged to indulge and I swear there is no animosity involved just some low key macabre fun at his expense

benalvino2:
Frustration is mounting. Lol
Perhaps all this would have been avoided if you are a Little open minded.

Lmao, what did you own? I can't even see how are still talking when you admit here that you have this Instinct to argue no matter what. That's the test I made for you, you fell for it and admitted to it. Mission accomplished

you know what? we shall allow you use of the benalvino2 non standard English dictionary with alternative definitions for choice words of yours like fell, frustration, crying amongst others so you can sell any narrative of yours you like and actually believe it and feel good about it! what say you eh? This way your terrible comprehension wouldn't matter as words will mean whatever you decide they mean .
Scratch all your jibber jabber about open mindedness as man doesn't give a diving fuuk! not with you
So now that you are allowed to use your customised dictionary, are there new definitions we should know dolapo! things which by the aid of your wonderless dictionary only interpret into whatever you say they do? I wanna know so humor me with some interesting reading please

benalvino2:
Don't we all have comprehension problem? As long as I don't agree with you there has to be comprehension problem. But I decided not to go back and forth because you already prove my test to be a success. No matter what I said you are programmed to disagree with it.

Mission accomplished. If you wanna get infantile that's your business. You can play alone.

true we all have comprehension problems from time to time as nobody is perfect but you are the one here who denies his lack of comprehension, doubles down, triples down! attempts to convolute basic logic and flips simple issues on their head just so that you can claim you were not owned as true to your infantile disposition that seems to be a very big deal to you, owning and being owned! Not like i really cared you made a mistake in comprehension until you doubled down on your error and declared yourself savvy!

So Mr dolapo we must play this game together and you must go back to school until you learn to stick to issues if interested in a conversation or indicate your lack of interest if not, not spamming the thread with your useless, convoluted reasoning.

basilico:
Oh I miss Budatuum.
One among the sane people whose views diverge from mine but we get along.

we can get along too as long as you refrain from insults or shading as I don't take kindly to those

benalvino2:
Continue studying your critical race theory so everything will be racist for you.

I want to be infantile with you so let's play your game together, benalvino2 your English comprehension is absofuckinglutely shitty it makes the sphinx at giza cringe and meowl like a baby pussy

basilico:
Benghazi. There was nothing to see?
Pro Benghazi sentiments the Obama see nothing no crime here.
Lets stick to Benghazi. What is in the public domain and what you know/heard or read about .
What really happened in Benghazi according to you?Id prefer a time based timeline incremental by the hour

this is not about benghazi so no I won't indulge you on that, this is about double standards, my point is simple, by the republican playbook multiple congressional inquiries are allowed into any matter of import but here they are raging against a single enquiry

benalvino2:
Continue crying, if you are lucky someone will give you a lollipop.

Define crying manchild you obviously are the one crying because of a nothing burger I said no biggie, you insist it's a big deal continue hyperventilating! Okay so I'll say this stop disliking my curiosity about your like! see? I just did it again, now go cook up a sermon about how I am crying about your discomfiture I don't care besides if you say I have no cause to wonder about a like then what gives you cause to complain about my curiosity? Because all you've been doing since has been whinning and whinging shamelessly! who's worse? The curious or the complainer?

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.

Now this is just daft, dumb non correlated reasoning but can anyone expect better from you? I talk about predicting your individual opinion as an individual based on the political ideology you espouse and by some convoluted reasoning of yours you call it a stereotype and equate to racism which is discrimination against a group based on skin colour, stereotype of you and who else oga? Abi your version of stereotype is now against a singular individual? discrimination like racism is always negative so what is the negativity in my assuming you will take the conservative stand point? It is just a difference in opinions so where is the discrimination against you? I take my previous assessment of you back, you're no different from all the other wacko conservatives here, you're just more verbose! Imagine correlating predicting your response with racism? so how do you label my discrimination against you then? Political philosophism? political ideologism? Or is it political partyism? you take your pick or take all picks so I can fine tune my discrimination accordingly!

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.

Oh kip kwayet! You can never wriggle out of this one amateur artful dodger! Lemme splice things up a little, ''your excerpt'', ''our excerpt'', ''their excerpt'', ''the devil's excerpt'', ''buhari's excerpt'' as long as excerpt is there it means I know it's origin chikena! You claimed with so much confidence I didn't know ''your snippet'' was from the article so I was arguing against it! Go back to school and relearn your English as you're not really as sound as you thought you were! now go cook up some other inane rationalisation about how I didn't know that was from the article! First you don't read but you come back claiming that was me not you next you claim on account of that I didn't know where you extracted the nonsense comment from despite my calling it an excerpt. Lols

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

Oga your parents need a refund on your school fees wallahi! excerpt is self explanatory, it must come from a body of text, there was only one body of text involved so yes I knew from the very damn beginning dolapo! My choice of word in excerpt says so! And yes I most definitely got you! No mistake about that that claim would have been irrelevant on a normal day in a normal discussion but you were the first to come out and boldly jump the gun with a totally clueless claim that I didn't know the excerpt was from the article and as such you set a trap and caught your shadow so benalvino2 I know there is no price attached but you never got me, I totally owned you cry me a lagoon I don't care, who got who seems to be a very big deal to you so I will overemphasise this I GOT YOU HANDS DOWN! next time stick to issues not infantile games

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.

At this stage I don't give a flying fuuk if you wrote a dissertation on it, that ship has sailed and we are down to infantile arguments about how absofuckinglutely shitty your English comprehension is and that is exactly what we are currently about

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.



I can quote anything I want.

oh but I asked what the point was, I did that using a different combination of English words which true to character you didn't comprehend which brings us back to your shitty English comprehension!

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

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

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

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?

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

benalvino2:
Lol, you got angry, someone liked it. I am not arguing with you. I just wanted to see if you read your own citation so I posted something from it and you wrote a book for me. You replied with the longest post as a reply I have ever seen.

Angry? Nope more like surprised that some people will support rubbish even if it makes absolutely no sense just so they can own the libs which means logic and reason aren't their motives, emotions are. And I quoted one page from the article highlighting key facts to ease the reading for you, obviously that was an effort in futility as you still didn't read, funny thing is you were still projecting that failure of yours on me

The excerpt I quote does not support anything because I didn't not indicate if i agree or disagree with you. You have been wired to think that by default I would disagree with anything you Say. So I just posted the same argument you are presenting to someone that is not arguing with you and you wrote me a book.

Weldone.

I wrote you a book you say, I asked how your quote supports any Alernate Argument? You interpret it opposition to you by default, OK I agree, does that now mean you support the null argument? pick a side and end our confusion mbok

Even after I replied, I still was not arguing you. My point was clear that you did not read or understand what you sent me. Else you would have recognized that was the argument you presented.

I never made any arguments. Don't tell me about what my argument is. I can do the same.

Your argument now is that pigs fly. How about that?

obviously you did not read neither did you understand or you wouldn't have made an argument that smirks of ignorance claiming immigrants were not captured in the study as if they should ve been, Hispanics weren't also in as much detail as if the reason for that was not elaborated.
Oga you goofed big time and you were trying to project your ignorance of the details on me and no amount of artful dodging change can that!

The last time we discuss about race, you and budaatum ignore factual data and import false equivalence with biafra to explain your nonsense premises.

no you had no data of significance, all you had were postulations, when I said you divorced cause from effect you didn't disprove the proffered causes, I tagged you earlier to a post concerning why black people were refusing vaccination not only due to poverty but also due to historical antecedents concerning racial discrimination against blacks in the health industry you conveniently pretended to have been blind and not seen it as it goes against your claims that our earlier arguments that negative cross generational experiences have a negative effect on the black psyche one dunce who doesn't know his right from his left tried to use that to open a different thread to ridicule me and budaa until we shut the dunce down. Oga face the topic and tell me with a straight face how my arguments have been wrong so far