Winners only.

[ThxOne Premium Member]

“Arguing unfairly”? I argue using facts, empirical evidence, proofs.
What’s “unfair” about my methodology?

Which means you never have to actually use YOUR brain to argue, you can just google your responses that someone else made. Classy.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

HEY!!! I made Rob's sig!! I have finally made it!!

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Oh... yeah... well I am pretty sure he loves it actually. He deflects a lot calling me ********** and what not.

Calling you ********** when you use homosexuality as an insult is a fact, not a deflection.

And no, I am not homosexual nor bisexual. I am heterosexual. So what?

Unlike you, I am not afraid of homosexuals, I am not disgusted by homosexuals, I do not think that what they are is ammo to be used to insult someone.
You want an insult? Here’s one: “You’re too dumb to know that you are dumb”. THAT is is insult.
“You’re a diick eater”? Yeah, nothing there.
Except maybe if you’re 5 or a really dumb 47 y.o.

I paid UNDER $2 a gallon when Trump was in office. I didn't say the entire time he was in office. I looooovvvvvveeeeeeee how your gay assss like to respond in absolutes when it comes to arguing about shit.

I gave you proof on the energy independence. You ignored it because it proves you wrong.

When your gay asss admits the BLM/GF protest were in fact violent riots I will concede there may have been some unnecessary happenings on Jan 6th.

You still love the cock.

Dope, you said gas “had no problem staying under $2” during Trump. A far cry from “I paid less than $2 once when Trump was POTUS.

You whine like a teen girl that people misread your words. Maybe YOU should have a fvcking clue what your words mean before you post.

No, you gave no such proof other than repeating the mantra. That is NOT proof, no matter what Trump read in Mein Kampf and handed down to you. You fail.

Show me a time in the past 15 years when we were able to produce enough oil to meet our usage.
You can’t, so you won’t. Instead, you’ll wait 3-4 pages and claim “I already proved it”.
Fvcking liar.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Which means you never have to actually use YOUR brain to argue, you can just google your responses that someone else made. Classy.

Hmmm, so you do all of your own studies to gather all the data you use to argue?

Oh that’s right, you don’t t use data to argue, just feelings, beliefs, opinions (i.e. bullshlt that you just make up in your feeble mind).

Yeah, using available resources to support an argument-HORRIBLE. I probably used paper books at one time instead of digital copies.
CRIMINAL!

At least to someone who never read a book…

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Calling you ********** when you use homosexuality as an insult is a fact, not a deflection.

I meant it as a compliment.

And no, I am not homosexual nor bisexual. I am heterosexual. So what?

I knew it.... gay.

Unlike you, I am not afraid of homosexuals, I am not disgusted by homosexuals, I do not think that what they are is ammo to be used to insult someone.

I am not afraid of the gays. I try to beat 3 or 4 up a week if I have free time.


You want an insult? Here’s one: “You’re too dumb to know that you are dumb”. THAT is is insult.
“You’re a diick eater”? Yeah, nothing there.
Except maybe if you’re 5 or a really dumb 47 y.o.

Good one?



Dope, you said gas “had no problem staying under $2” during Trump. A far cry from “I paid less than $2 once when Trump was POTUS.

I didn't say once either.

You whine like a teen girl that people misread your words. Maybe YOU should have a fvcking clue what your words mean before you post.

More bigotry, this time against teen girls. Tisk Tisk.

No, you gave no such proof other than repeating the mantra. That is NOT proof, no matter what Trump read in Mein Kampf and handed down to you. You fail.

Oh I gave you proof, graphs and articles. You ignored it all. It's STILL in this thread, go read it. I even gave you a post number... again, ignored.

Show me a time in the past 15 years when we were able to produce enough oil to meet our usage.
You can’t, so you won’t. Instead, you’ll wait 3-4 pages and claim “I already proved it”.
Fvcking liar.

Hey, diick eater... OIL is not our only source of energy. Stop focusing on one thing so you can argue.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Hmmm, so you do all of your own studies to gather all the data you use to argue?

Oh that’s right, you don’t t use data to argue, just feelings, beliefs, opinions (i.e. bullshlt that you just make up in your feeble mind).

Yeah, using available resources to support an argument-HORRIBLE. I probably used paper books at one time instead of digital copies.
CRIMINAL!

At least to someone who never read a book…

Easy fella... you may hurt that lil brain of yours. So you can't actually argue, you have to regurgitate someone else's opinions and views. Wow... I thought you had a brain. Guess not.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Calling you ********** when you use homosexuality as an insult is a fact, not a deflection.

I meant it as a compliment.

And no, I am not homosexual nor bisexual. I am heterosexual. So what?

I knew it.... gay.

Unlike you, I am not afraid of homosexuals, I am not disgusted by homosexuals, I do not think that what they are is ammo to be used to insult someone.

I am not afraid of the gays. I try to beat 3 or 4 up a week if I have free time.


You want an insult? Here’s one: “You’re too dumb to know that you are dumb”. THAT is is insult.
“You’re a diick eater”? Yeah, nothing there.
Except maybe if you’re 5 or a really dumb 47 y.o.

Good one?



Dope, you said gas “had no problem staying under $2” during Trump. A far cry from “I paid less than $2 once when Trump was POTUS.

I didn't say once either.

You whine like a teen girl that people misread your words. Maybe YOU should have a fvcking clue what your words mean before you post.

More bigotry, this time against teen girls. Tisk Tisk.

No, you gave no such proof other than repeating the mantra. That is NOT proof, no matter what Trump read in Mein Kampf and handed down to you. You fail.

Oh I gave you proof, graphs and articles. You ignored it all. It's STILL in this thread, go read it. I even gave you a post number... again, ignored.

Show me a time in the past 15 years when we were able to produce enough oil to meet our usage.
You can’t, so you won’t. Instead, you’ll wait 3-4 pages and claim “I already proved it”.
Fvcking liar.

Hey, diick eater... OIL is not our only source of energy. Stop focusing on one thing so you can argue.

Hey dunce,
If we HAVE to buy something elsewhere, we are not “independent” by the very definition of the word. There is no way to spin that no matter what your opinion is.
independent
not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
Your “proof” was to try to say “We were energy independent, not CRUDE independent”. A pathetic backspin. Plus, your chart showed our dependence for crude.
Crude is a source of energy, and one that we HAD to buy elsewhere. NOT independent, no matter what Trump told you, no matter your opinion.

At no point under Trump did gas “have no problem staying under $2”. Another of his talking points you believe and repeat because you want to. Like a lemming going off a cliff, you ignore reality and believe the fantasy.

The rest of your post is you usual garbage.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Easy fella... you may hurt that lil brain of yours. So you can't actually argue, you have to regurgitate someone else's opinions and views. Wow... I thought you had a brain. Guess not.

The typical “An education doesn’t always mean someone knows things” argument.
Except it’s always argued by the ones with no education.

BTW- I don’t argue using other’s views and opinions. I argue using established fact and data.
A price history chart is not a “view” nor an “opinion”; it is factual history. Similar to definitions, similar to mathematics, etc.
YOU argue using others views and opinions, and they are usually verifiably incorrect.
Don’t be proud of your perceived uniqueness. It’s not a plus.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Hey dunce,
If we HAVE to buy something elsewhere, we are not “independent” by the very definition of the word. There is no way to spin that no matter what your opinion is.
independent
not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
Your “proof” was to try to say “We were energy independent, not CRUDE independent”. A pathetic backspin. Plus, your chart showed our dependence for crude.
Crude is a source of energy, and one that we HAD to buy elsewhere. NOT independent, no matter what Trump told you, no matter your opinion.

At no point under Trump did gas “have no problem staying under $2”. Another of his talking points you believe and repeat because you want to. Like a lemming going off a cliff, you ignore reality and believe the fantasy.

The rest of your post is you usual garbage.

That's fair I guess. I suppose everyone else who was saying we were energy independent was lying because you disagree with the statement even when proof was provided. Ok. Keep clinging to CRUDE. It's the only thing we use.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

The typical “An education doesn’t always mean someone knows things” argument.
Except it’s always argued by the ones with no education.

BTW- I don’t argue using other’s views and opinions. I argue using established fact and data.
A price history chart is not a “view” nor an “opinion”; it is factual history. Similar to definitions, similar to mathematics, etc.
YOU argue using others views and opinions, and they are usually verifiably incorrect.
Don’t be proud of your perceived uniqueness. It’s not a plus.

So all these things you quote so you can argue... you did the research, you did the studies... you put in the leg work to come to the conclusions? Didn't think so. You're a troll,



Who eats diick.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Here is the problem with what you do. You literally picks some "facts" that align with your views and accept them as facts then argue about it. You really think everything on the internet is fact if it aligns with your views? I ask because that is all I have seen you post... in fact, when have you said you were wrong on this forum at all?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So all these things you quote so you can argue... you did the research, you did the studies... you put in the leg work to come to the conclusions? Didn't think so. You're a troll,



Who eats diick.

So, you don't buy your cellphones, your car, your laptop, your earphones, your audio equipment?
You do all the research, design and development, and production yourself? You built the house that your brother lets you live in? You created the meds that you used with your multiple bouts of COVID? You don't use the monetary system of the US? You don't ascribe to Archimedes when counting?
You did all that legwork for all that stuff yourself?

Yeah, didn't think so, you fvcking idiot.
Next time, try an argument that makes sense.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Here is the problem with what you do. You literally picks some "facts" that align with your views and accept them as facts then argue about it. You really think everything on the internet is fact if it aligns with your views? I ask because that is all I have seen you post... in fact, when have you said you were wrong on this forum at all?

Here is the problem with you: You parrot "views" that are easily disproved with facts, then you fight to the death to defend those "views" in the face of fact/s. Sometimes you make up your own "views" and then do the same.

You're the guy who rides a stock all the way to the bottom because your "view" is it will recover, even after the CEO bails and the company goes t!ts-up.
Christ, you actually argued that a **** cannot have happened unless you witness it yourself. I bet you would take someone else's word if they told you it hurt to get hit in the head with a 90MPH pitch, though.
Or would you ask to be hit in order to believe?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Here is the problem with you: You parrot "views" that are easily disproved with facts, then you fight to the death to defend those "views" in the face of fact/s. Sometimes you make up your own "views" and then do the same.

You're the guy who rides a stock all the way to the bottom because your "view" is it will recover, even after the CEO bails and the company goes t!ts-up.
Christ, you actually argued that a **** cannot have happened unless you witness it yourself. I bet you would take someone else's word if they told you it hurt to get hit in the head with a 90MPH pitch, though.
Or would you ask to be hit in order to believe?

You're like the energizer bunny.

Not once did I say **** cannot have happened unless I witness it. I said unless you witness it, it is his or her word. Unless I see it with my own eyes I cannot say without a doubt that a **** occurred. That is where proof comes in to help a conviction. The science can show there was *** but cannot tell you if it was mutual ***.

Moron.