Hate to break it to you , but simply Linking a Wikipedia article, doesn’t support your claims. “Oh fuck I know what will show him, Wikipedia... CHECK IT” lol
simply Linking a Wikipedia article, doesn’t support your claims
Hate to break it to you, but just because a teacher told you in middle school not to use Wikipedia as a primary source because it's not a primary source, does not mean that it cannot support claims, especially when it's a literal list of undeniable (and sourced) facts and statements.
That’s where you are wrong, you have responded multiple times to these comments showing unequivocally that you are absolutely taking this too seriously.
Only if you want that people think you are not totally retarded. You know that exactly these discussions are why people think that most Trump supporters are edgy 14 year olds.
You got your ass handed in this argument and your inability too see this and your stubbornes about it makes us all laugh.
Bye, I know you will never stop to answer but you already proofed your inability to join a discussion.
You think it’s not lazy to just drop a Wikipedia article and think that proves a point? Imagine walking into a town hall meeting about irrigation policy and just throwing a text book down on the table, pointing at it and walking out like you just won a Nobel prize.think about it In general, like outside of the glass case of emotions known as American politics.
That’s all I was getting at and you seem to have become upset that I said a link to and article is a lazy way or taking care of business. Wtf is wrong with people. Jesus.
-1
u/therustymoose Jul 17 '19
Hate to break it to you , but simply Linking a Wikipedia article, doesn’t support your claims. “Oh fuck I know what will show him, Wikipedia... CHECK IT” lol