placeholder

I am so tired of giving remedial reading lessons. If that's your takeaway from what I wrote then the case is hopeles. Unless you can offer an explanation of how you come to that construal.

You mean it only counts he says he wants to restore Soviet era borders anything less than that doesn't matter? It doesn't count that he has troops stationed in the foreign countries against the will of that government? You're the one who claimed that the blowing up of those gas pipes was done by the United States. I asked you to provide evidence for that. Please stop trying to deflect from the issue that you raised.

Why not ask Jonnyf? He introduced this fellow into the conversation. Take it up with him.

If your objecting to the mention of Trump, the party you introduced that gentleman to the conversation was none other than Jonnyf. But I guess as a fellow right winger, you decided to give him a hypocritical pass.

That depends on what one means to people. To drop some Trump supporters here it clearly means that Trump won a majority. Just today I had an exchange with one ardent Trump supporter who claimed that everyone was happy with what Trump was planning.

You got proof that the US blew up the pipeline? And by the time the pipeline was blown up, it was already not being used. As for what Putin wants, he has made it very clear that he thinks certain portions of the old Russian empire like the Baltics and Poland, should be restored to Russia. He actually has troops in Moldova. And you may think it is inconsequential that Finland, a country that had always tried to remain neutral between Russia and NATO, joined NATO after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That goes for Sweden too. And Finnish intelligence has always kept a very close eye on what Russia is up to.

It you take away one avenue of speaking freely, particularly about what actions the government is taking, how is that not undercutting free speech? How many means of discourse can be eliminated before it amounts to undercutting free speech? The fact is that private citizens had an avenue to make their objections or suggestions heard and now they don't. And this is coming from someone who claims to be acting on behalf of private citizens and against corporate self-interest. Such a hypocrite.

Why don't you start a topic on that issue?

And that settles it. You can't offer a relevant reply so you come up with this kind of generalization instead.

Just another empty insult. You've got nothing.

Even 100 years ago, coal, oil, and iron were the only essentials? It was only with the so called new world order, that Britain became dependent on foreign goods? Do you have a clue about British history?

You keep repeating your nonsense and I'll keep on shooting it down. Although I have to admit it's probably impossible to engage rationally with a comment like "Yap yap yap." And as evidence that you've got nothing relevant to offer, there's this: "I bet you think Trump mis a Russian asset too."

So, tell me, where's the UK going to get its gadolinium from? Or a lot of the other metals and minerals necessary to the modern economy? Or are you thinking it would be feasible for the UK to revert to the economy of a 100 years ago? Although I doubt that even then it produced everything it needed.

All you've got left are taunts. Apart from that, you've got nothing.

Well, the only evidence I have of your understanding is what you write. And what you wrote clearly got it wrong. And the fact that you don't specifically address the points I've raised with some sort of rational refutation or acknowledge that your comments were in error, doesn't demonstrate that you "know exactly" what I wrote.