HAVANA (AP) — Four Russian warships, including a nuclear-powered submarine, will arrive in Havana next week, Cuban officials said Thursday, citing “historically friendly relations”…
Hi Correct I'm "There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments Were You Lie About The Sources You Vaguely Refer To Yet You Somehow Think It's Weird That You're Getting Met With Derision Despite This Shitty Behaviour Of Yours", nice to meet you.
There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't).
It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
you mean the conversation where you were wrong about robert paxton
Explains why you're the only one acting this way
I'm not though. You just disagree with me so others being smug pricks reads as just normal behavior to you.
I wasn't aware that people having clearly stated reasons and citations for the things they believe constituted smugness now
Call me when that happens
You're delusional
No, I'm "Correct".
Hi Correct I'm "There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments Were You Lie About The Sources You Vaguely Refer To Yet You Somehow Think It's Weird That You're Getting Met With Derision Despite This Shitty Behaviour Of Yours", nice to meet you.
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't). It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.
See this is were I refer you to my previous comment: You're delusional
Again, no, I'm just correct and you're mad about that.
No you're actually wrong and mad about that
No u
exactly
you mean the conversation where you were wrong about robert paxton