User

As opposed to your need to incessantly criticize Trump?

Most of them won't even try because they know they are pushing a lie to protect dudes pretending to be women, so they can steal women's places in sports. The few who do try end up having to contort themselves into a nonsensical position they won't defend any farther because they can't or they will just obfuscate and play dumb.

The stupidity of a bunch of leftists pretending to care about women in sports when they won't even define the word so that men pretending to be women can steal all their places in competition, ruin their scholarships, be forced into their locker rooms and private spaces....

OMG, answer the question!!! How do you know Unicorns do not exist? That is the stupidity of your question. That is your answer. Do you need me to really explain the illogical ignorance of what you are doing? Please tell me you are acting this way on purpose and are not really this dumb.

I know crap happens, but what is annoying is that there are no updates and no information given to us. It was like a year ago he said this was going to be fixed by an update and we have not heard anything since then.

LOL, thread title is literally about how you want your electricity produced. Me: You want yours produced by shipping coal to china while pretending you are saving the planet because they are burning it for you You: DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Grow up.

You’re still pretending I said something I didn’t say, then calling it a lie. That trick only works if people don’t read. 1. “Far-right vs neo-Nazi” Calling a neo-Nazi group far-right is not removing the Nazi label. It’s the broader category. This is basic classification: Far-right → includes ultranationalists → includes white supremacists → includes neo-Nazis So when you scream that saying “far-right” is a lie, what you’re really revealing is that you don’t understand how categories work. It’s like accusing someone of lying for calling a shark a fish because it’s specifically a great white shark. Both statements are true. 2. The thing you keep misrepresenting No one said extremist elements didn’t exist in early Azov. What you keep insisting on is this leap: • Some founders were neo-Nazis → therefore every member forever must be a Nazi That’s the part that doesn’t follow. And repeating it twenty times doesn’t suddenly make the logic work. 3. Your Freedom Convoy comparison That actually hurts your argument. You’re literally demonstrating the exact point about broad political labels being applied loosely. You complain that “far-right” was used too broadly in Canada, but then turn around and insist everyone connected to Azov must be Nazis. That’s the same sloppy thinking you’re criticizing. 4. Symbols No one denied that Nazis used those symbols. What you’re doing is pretending that: symbol used by Nazis = everyone wearing it must be a Nazi History is not that simple. Context, time, and membership matter. That’s why researchers describe the Azov Battalion as a unit that had extremist members, especially early on, rather than declaring every soldier a Nazi. 5. The “you’re lying” routine At this point you’ve basically replaced evidence with volume. Every time a claim doesn’t hold up you just shout: “LIAR!” That’s not debate. That’s a toddler discovering the caps lock key. The actual issue You want a simple slogan: “Azov = Nazis.” Reality is messier: • Early founders included neo-Nazis. • The unit later expanded and changed. • Not every member shared that ideology. You can dislike that complexity, but pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t honesty.

No, you can't. Just look at how you act on here.

This is not Uno Reverse. I swear you are a child. YOU were the one who called me a liar, making a big deal out of the fact that I used the upper classification of far right instead of specifically saying neo-Nazi. Now that I called you out for your own stupidity, you try to flip it around as if I was the one making a big deal out of you doing that. I swear, your level of stupidity knows no bounds. I am not even clinging to just saying far right, either, as I then went on to clearly agree with the Nazi term. You just keep saying this over and over again. That doesn't make it true. Again: The pattern in your argument You keep doing the same thing: • Some extremists were involved early. • Therefore the entire unit must be Nazis. That leap is where your argument breaks. And repeating it louder every post doesn’t fix the logic. It just advertises that you’re stuck on the same step. You’re still doing the same trick: take one real detail and then stretch it until it says something completely different. 1. “If you join a Nazi group you’re a Nazi.” That might feel satisfying as a slogan, but it’s not how reality works. Real analogy: If a company is founded by three conspiracy nuts in a garage and ten years later has 3,000 employees, it doesn’t magically mean every accountant, mechanic, and janitor believes the founders’ ideology. Organizations grow. Membership changes. Motives differ. Your version freezes time in May 2014 and pretends nothing changed afterward. History doesn’t work that way. 2. The cannibal analogy you tried That analogy fails for a simple reason. People didn’t join Azov because they were looking for a Nazi social club. They joined because there was a war and it was one of the units recruiting volunteers. A closer analogy would be: A rough street gang helps form the first version of a volunteer fire brigade. Later hundreds of normal firefighters join when the city formalizes it. Saying every firefighter decades later must be in the gang is… not serious thinking. 3. “Ukraine brought a Nazi battalion into the military.” What actually happened is documented: • Ukraine integrated multiple volunteer battalions during the 2014 war. • The Azov Battalion was one of them. • The unit expanded far beyond the original activist core. You keep pretending the roster stayed identical to the founding members because your argument collapses if it didn’t. 4. War crimes point No one said war crimes are okay. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses by many groups on all sides in that conflict. That’s what actual reports say, not the simplified version you’re repeating. 5. The “you’re lying about everything” routine That’s not an argument. It’s what people fall back on when the evidence stops cooperating. Right now your entire position is basically: Assume everyone shared the founders’ ideology Assume anyone who stayed must secretly agree Declare disagreement “lying” That’s not historical analysis. That’s just stubbornness with a keyboard. And honestly, the fact that you keep inventing numbers, motives, and secret beliefs while accusing everyone else of dishonesty is a bit rich. If irony generated electricity, your last few posts could power a small city.

What experts?

You have no evidence of this and even then, was Biden in on this too?

You are such a child. You must be bored looking for attention today.

Circular reasoning! They are a cult because I say they are a cult because they follow their cult leader, so they are a cult!

Wow, so lazy you can't even provide a link to what you are talking about now.

You don't have anything. You have yet to even put forth an actual argument or substance here.

Like your own?

Lazy spambot with no source...

I take it back, maybe you are going to be lazy too. Interesting. You would have been a great racist and segregationist back in the civil rights era, arguing that a state can do stuff to make it harder for black people to vote.

Robo has you beat. He is also a lazy spambot too.

Great, another troll.

You really need to learn what a Venn Diagram is and the basics of logic. You’re calling things lies because you’re missing some really basic logic. 1. “Patriot of Ukraine wasn’t far-right, it was neo-Nazi.” This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. Neo-Nazis are part of the far right. That’s how political classification works. Simple version: Far-right → includes ultranationalists → includes white supremacists → includes neo-Nazis So saying a group is far-right does not exclude it from also being neo-Nazi. It’s the broader category. Arguing otherwise is like saying calling a tiger a mammal is false because it’s actually a tiger. 2. Founders vs the entire unit Yes, activists from groups like Patriot of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly were involved early. What you keep ignoring is that the Azov Battalion didn’t stay a tiny activist club. It expanded rapidly and was later incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard with thousands of members. Freezing the roster at the founding moment and pretending it never changed isn’t history. 3. Your numbers contradict your own claim You keep citing the estimate that 10–20% identified as Nazis. That does not magically turn into: • half • most • all • secretly all That’s escalation, not evidence. 4. Symbols Yes, some early imagery used symbols strongly associated with neo-Nazis. That’s exactly why it was controversial and widely reported. But jumping from “controversial symbols existed” to “every member must therefore be a Nazi” is your interpretation, not the conclusion historians draw. 5. War crimes allegations The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses during the Donbas war by multiple armed groups. Some allegations involved Azov fighters. That still isn’t the same as declaring the entire unit a Nazi formation. The pattern in your argument You keep doing the same thing: • Some extremists were involved early. • Therefore the entire unit must be Nazis. That leap is where your argument breaks. And repeating it louder every post doesn’t fix the logic. It just advertises that you’re stuck on the same step.

Ah yes, I forgot this is your usual schtick. You come on here, try to make some "normal" type posts that are mostly baseless assertions or left wing talking points, you get called out, you spend some time obfuscating and playing dumb, then eventually you resort to the petty childish crap like this, and finally you run away.

More of your usual dishonesty and repeating the same garbage before, here you go again. 1. “Patriot of Ukraine = therefore the whole battalion was Nazi.” Patriot of Ukraine was a far-right organization. Correct. But the Azov Battalion did not remain a small activist group. Within months it expanded with volunteers, police units, and later National Guard recruits. So your argument is basically: “Some founders were extremists → therefore thousands of later members must be too.” That’s not analysis. That’s lazy logic. 2. “Social-National Assembly = Nazis because the words sound similar.” This is where your argument falls apart. “Social-National Assembly” is not the same thing as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Matching two words and declaring victory isn’t history. It’s word association. By that standard, North Korea would be democratic because it has ‘Democratic’ in the name. 3. “Two Nazi groups joined.” No serious researcher describes it that way. What historians actually say: • The battalion drew from ultranationalist and far-right activists, especially early on. • It then rapidly expanded beyond those networks during the war. You keep pretending the roster froze on day one. It didn’t. 4. “Everyone wore Nazi insignias.” Again, not supported by evidence. The unit had a single emblem used on uniforms. Some early imagery had symbols associated with neo-Nazis. That’s why it was controversial and widely reported. But “everyone wore Nazi insignias” is something you’re repeating, not something documented. 5. “They committed war crimes so they’re Nazis.” War crimes unfortunately happen in many wars. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses by multiple sides in the Donbas conflict. Some allegations involved Azov fighters. That does not magically redefine the entire unit’s ideology. The part you keep dodging Even the sources you quote say only a fraction identified as Nazis. You then inflate that into: • half • most • all • secretly all That isn’t evidence. It’s escalation. Reality in one sentence Early Azov had far-right founders and controversial symbolism. The unit later expanded into a much larger National Guard formation. Both of those things are true whether shouting about it online feels satisfying or not. And honestly, if your argument relies on guessing what thousands of people “secretly believed,” you’ve already left the evidence behind and wandered into fan fiction.

Why would I admit that? I have already told you otherwise in discussion. It is you who needs to admit that you have no care for facts, logic, reason, or common sense and just hate Trump and will say anything to that end.