placeholder

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.

In other words, you've got nothing. You accused modern day Germans of being murderers on account of a regime that was crushed 80 years ago. And yet you have no defense of the fact that both Vance and Musk praised this group that includes so many Nazi apologists.

American, for one, doesn't have the engineering talent to do that. But if it had a lot more engineers, would it possess all the natural resources that it needs? Maybe you support American aggression to acquire new territory?

Your point about Must was quite correct. Then you ruined it all by apparently claiming that George Soros is not a citizen.

Since you use the plural, I'm assuming that you are referring to German people. . Given that The Third Reich fell about 80 years ago, the number of Germans complicit in war crimes must be vanishingly few by now. Or is it the case that you believe in inherited guilt? That ridiculous notion has been used to heinous effect against the Jews for about 2000 years. Now, if you mean German fans of the Third Reich are somehow culpable, that would be the AfD. You know, the group praised by J.D. Vance and Elon Musk.

Whether or not I hate Trump voters, by "us" do you include the majority of Americans who didn't vote for Trump?

You continue to demonstrate your need for remedial reading. Here's the relevant part of my quote salient to your latest instance of miscomprehension., Given that it occurred in a Federal prison while Trump was President, it seems likely that if there was foul play there's a good chance Trump was behind it. Do "likely" and "a good chance" signify an assertion of fact? I really don't have the time have to explain to you the difference between probability and certainty? I will offer you an explanation from AI but the problem is that, given your past form, there's a good chance you'll misconstrue this as well. Still, I live in hope: "Probability is the likelihood of an event happening, while certainty is the state of being absolutely sure about something" https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+vs+certainty&oq=probability+vs+certainty&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgkIABBFGDkYgAQyCQgAEEUYORiABDIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIKCAQQABiABBiiBDIHCAUQABjvBdIBCDg3MThqMGoxqAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So stupid. If the FBI wanted to subvert Trump's 2016 campaign, all a member would have to have done is leak about the ongoing investigation of his campaign. In fact, Peter Strzok was part of that investigation. Yet somehow no leak occurred.

What notorious killers would those be?

This will be the third time this morning I've had to correct a right winger on what "if" signifies. Here's that sentence again. "If it did, it clearly didn't influence them enough" If introduces an hypothesis or a speculation. A sentence with a conditional clause is not a statement of fact or an assertion. It doesn't speak well of your command of English, that you don't understand the significance of a two-letter word like "if". And you still have no answer for the fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big pharma over drug prices. And still no answer for the fact that the Republicans were unanimously opposed to the change.

More empty deflection. You have no more proof that I'm not an American then you have proof that you are one. For all we know you could be an Australian fan of Trump's.

A remark worthy of Stalin.

Or maybe the point that rough diamond was making is that it's Russia that traditionally has posed a threat to Canada. Or that maybe now the threat comes from a nation south of its border. From a loon who is currently the chief executive of that nation and is talking of annexing Canada.

So that makes it okay for the Trump administration to undercut the right free speech?

If it did, it clearly didn't influence them enough. On the other hand, if it did influence the Republicans, then it was a spectacular success. You really can't face the fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big pharma. And that Republicans and unanimously opposed too The same people who proclaim that they want to reduce government spending somehow are too squeamish to apply the ax where it would really count.

When the facts are against you, you resort to personal attacks. You've got nothing.

Are you seriously suggesting that Big Pharma is happy with Medicare being authorized to negotiate with Big Pharma? Your question demands speculative answers. But if you've got actual evidence to show that Big Pharma bought its way into some sort of mitigation, prove it. But it still won't change the fact the Trump reneged on his promise. And the Republicans were unanimously opposed to giving Medicare authorization. When it comes to cutting back on those huge expenses, somehow Trump and Republicans aren't so eager to accomplish that.

It's a fact that "everyone is standing to applaud everything Trump says" Was it even true a month ago? Everyone?

Deflecting much? I see you're still avoiding that fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big Pharma. And you also are avoiding the fact the Republicans unanimously opposed this measure. Keep wriggling. It won't change the fact that you're hooked.