turn on moderation 
45818 answers matching: top
new search
Well, stop touching stuff. But do touch your keyboard.

UNITED STATES / SEP 23, 2017 12:29 PM EST

in response to: NlGGER CUNTS DESTROY EVERYTHING THEY COME INTO CONTACT WITH
Am like a huge butterball... 😩 I have to stop eating in the middle of the night, but it's going to be so hard cause I've been doing it for so long. I literally wake up, pig out, then go back to bed. And every night, I go to bed looking forward to sleep, telling myself here's another chance to not eat in the middle of the nite... then I do ... you know, munch. I have got to do something about this. 😞

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 10:29 PM EST

in response to: Do you guys remember when I was thinner, like eons ago? Cause I do... 😞
Republiconned? You mean the trump defender on here kept trolling you non stop and you were too stupid to see it.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 9:10 PM EST

in response to: Trump defender has been REPUBLI-CONNED!πŸ˜‚
8:13, i was willing long ago to have a decent debate. Dutchie somehow wanted to leave talking about the topics we were on, due to differences in political opinions. Then you came along and defended him. All well and good at the moment but then the way you were debating, pointing fingers, acting quite surreal about the topics we were on, you lost me wanting to debate with the likes of you. Things were fine until you showed up.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 8:20 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
The original topic was on Trump. Then you both changed it just cause I laughed quite a lot at the Wikipedia link. All I was saying was that of all links you use, it's a website that everyone accesses and anybody can edit. It's not reliable. You could have sent a regular website but you sent Wikipedia. That's what got us on the other topic.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 7:45 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
But why are we talking about research? The topic is if Trump is the 19th Republican president or not. We don't need a scholarly article in order to get the answer to that question.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 7:40 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"I'm talking about statistics. I want statistics." I wasn't talking about statistics. In fact, the topic is whether Trump is a Republican president or not.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 7:34 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"You also seem to think that a neutral approach is impossible when an institution has to describe its own functioning. Let me tell you that that *is* possible" Again, nobody said it was impossible. Did I say anywhere in my messages that any of this was impossible? No I didn't. I said if you're going to read on something, you cannot rely on the source itself. You have to use a researched topic on the matter cause that researched version of the topic is reputable.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 7:10 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
So yeah, the take-home message for you is that you should stop merely relying on extensions.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 6:27 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
6:52, if you want a personal opinion, you go to a .com. cnn.com or fox.com. You'll find some information but they'll be opinionated. If you want no bias opinion, you go to an educational (.edu) or a government backed (.gov) or a non-profit educational (.org) website. So our topic at hand is, is Donald Trump a Republican or Conservative? If I don't want a personal opinion (.com, .net, etc.), I will go to a paid to make non bias article (.edu, .gov, .org).

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 12:39 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
But... we're not writing research papers, remember? So don't change the topic. Back to our topic. The topic is whether Donald Trump is a Republican president or not. No deep research needed. The facts are known. Now, do we need .gov sites to get the answer to this question or will any tertiary source do? Let me answer this one for you. No, we don't need a .gov site to answer questions of this nature.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 6:52 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
β€œWe're talking about politics. Stick to a topic.” The topic is whether Donald Trump is a Republican president or not, genius. Same low level as finding out the largest cities in Belgium. No deep research needed. The facts are known. Now, do we need .gov sites to get the answers to these two simple questions or will any tertiary do, genius? 🀣🀣🀣🀣🀣🀣

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 5:10 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
But… we weren’t writing academic papers, remember? So stay on topic for once. We just wanted to know if Donald Trump is a Republican president or not. No research needed. All the president’s names and affiliations are known. We need a simple list stating old, well-known facts. Yes, genius, in that case any tertiary source will do, especially the ones containing references.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 5:08 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"If I want to know the largest towns in Belgium, do you reallyt think I will have to go to a Belgian government site in order to get the correct answers? Don't you think that an encyclopedic source will do? Genius?" lmao look at how you flip flop from one extreme to another. We're talking about politics. Stick to a topic. If you're going to argue your point, you best use proper sources. If you just want information that could possibly be wrong, go to any website you want. That simple.

UNITED STATES / SEP 21, 2017 5:32 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
I feel like I'm being... rushed. I waited long to start study.. But now, I got the pkg. in the post! It's the book I ordered! Gonna open it now... I wonder .. I wonder what ha doin! What the hell do you do all day anyway!? Annnnd, I'm not allowed to stick thing in my ears anymore. Can study non stop if I want w walks in between if I want... hmmmm, I feel like I sound funny w me sinuses all full of snot. I can't stop blowing my nose..

UNITED STATES / SEP 20, 2017 7:12 PM EST

in response to: What ha doin!! ☺️ I can drink as much iced coffee as I want and stay up real late cauuussse there's no school tomorrow!! Got the roast, beef broth, shrooms, annnd barley. Gonna make the soup/stew thingy.. Yup! Gotta clean my room too! It's a mess. When things go wrong w in me, it totally shows... 😞
You've got a lot to learn lmao. Wikipedia is unacceptable because anybody can edit it. Lmao πŸ€£πŸ˜‚ anybody with a brain would know that. Go ahead and edit the sources section too. Anybody can edit it. It doesn't matter how much information is true or not. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source. You said that. You sent a link to Wikipedia. Then you changed the topic to use the sources section lmao. You're reaching now πŸ€£πŸ˜‚ you're trying so hard πŸ€£πŸ˜‚

UNITED STATES / SEP 19, 2017 12:38 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"You need .gov and .ray sites. Lmao πŸ€£πŸ˜‚" I quote my mistake and fix it. Thanks to autocorrect, it changed it to .ray. I meant .gov. I'm fixing my mistake before you decide to change the topic onto that one now. You love doing that.

UNITED STATES / SEP 18, 2017 7:32 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"You're still on that topic huh? Can't argue the present stuff so you dig deep into the archives to find old stuff huh?" No, genius, look at what you posted in the comment posted on SEP 17, 2017 4:06 PM EST. You brought this old crap up yourself. In this very thread. As I told you, I'm merely responding to your own crap. You apparently can't remember yourself that you keep on changing topics. Alzheimer's again?

UNITED STATES / SEP 18, 2017 6:30 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"Have you never heard of Search Engine Optimization?" I'm afraid you've heard of it without knowing what it means. Wikipedia pages will always be at the top, with or without search engine optimization. It's what users looking for encyclopedic information expect to find at the top page. Now, if you think this particular page about presidents contain inaccuracies or wrong references, simply point it out. You can't, though. 🀣🀣🀣

UNITED STATES / SEP 18, 2017 6:21 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"But let's not fool ourselves. The reason why Google puts the Wikipedia page on top is because their list is deemed the most informative/comprehensive, not because it contains lies, lies, lies." lmao that's not how search engines work buddy πŸ‘ Google puts it at the top because of many factors that are certainly not because they're credible lmfao. Have you never heard of Search Engine Optimization? Number 1 on Google is not always right. It's not always credible. Lmfao πŸ€£πŸ˜‚

UNITED STATES / SEP 18, 2017 5:39 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 🀣 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
« Previous | Next »