placeholder

Good point. Now if there were a major political party that mostly subscribed to the editorial stances of the Telegraph, your observation wouldn't make much sense. But the governance of the UK could never sink that low, could it? Just a rhetorical question. Of course it couldn't.

I don't know how they voted in the past but it's obvious why they oppose it now: It's coming from Russia, the same country that used the bizarre and blatantly false excuse of fighting Nazism to justify its invasion of Ukraine. Anyway, you're the one who noted that "Obviously it is a problem. That's why few days ago was a discussion about that in UN GA. What was the result of the voting of combating glorification of Nazism?" So, what was the result? Among other things, a passage that condemned Russia for falsely claiming its invasion of Ukraine was based on the false premise of fighting Nazism.

That's because you're not a member of the target audience of of the extreme right wing Telegraph.

Lots of finger pointing from the right accusing the Biden administration of slowing development of natural gas. What these accusers forget is the huge financial bath frackers took during the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations. U.S. Shale Has Lost $300 Billion In 15 Years In the 15 years since the first U.S. shale boom, the industry as a whole has failed to return a profit. Deloitte estimates that the coming wave of write-downs could amount to $300 billion. The next stage for U.S. shale is going to be consolidation, but over half of all shale companies may be superfluous https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Shale-Has-Lost-300-Billion-In-15-Years.html It's only in the past 2 years, that gas producers have been profitable.

So that's why Trump is paying teams of lawyers to delay the process and losing for as long as possible. Because he wants to spend more money than he would otherwise have to before he eventually defeats and humiliate them in the courts. That makes sense...in Opposite World.

Now it turns out you don't know the meaning of the world "literally".. Lightfoot did not write a "tweet that literally says she wants a call to arms and fight the supreme court judges". Nowhere in that tweet does the word "fight". It's true that she literally wrote "call to arms". But as has been pointed out to you, apparently to no avail, "call to arms" has 2 meanings. One literal and one figurative. The second meaning, the figurative one, even gives as an example a "political call to arms.." So nowhere does she call for violence and she is addressing a political issue. Context. Your comment is clueless. Here, once again, are how Merriam Webster describes the 2 usages of "call to arms". noun phrase: : a summons to engage in active hostilities 2 : a summons, invitation, or appeal to undertake a particular course of action a political call to arms https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/call to arms

This is a falsehood. As a member of Bellingcat, the same group that has exposed Russian involvement in assassinations, the car incident took place nowhere near Musk's plane. They used geolocation info in the video to prove that. Once again, Musk is lying. And once again, you fall for his lies.

First off, it was a general resolution against Nazism that named no specific country. Second, you failed note that this resolution has always been passed in previous years. So nothing new there. But what you failed to note is that there was a specific paragraph that did condemn one country: Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. "Before the vote, Australia managed to get an amendment to the draft resolution adopted (63 votes in favor, 23 against and 65 abstentions) inserting a new paragraph in which the General Assembly "notes with alarm that the Russian Federation has sought to justify its territorial aggression against Ukraine on the purported basis of eliminating neo-Nazism, and underlines that the pretextual use of neo-Nazism to justify territorial aggression seriously undermines genuine attempts to combat neo-Nazism." https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/11/09/why-france-and-51-other-countries-voted-against-the-un-resolution-condemning-nazism_6003471_8.html

Clearly you also don't understand the meaning of "context".

Ridiculous comparison. The EU is composed of a range of nations as far as economic development goes. You seriously think comparing the UK to less economically developed nations is valid?

Don't know where you come from but you might try to get a little better acquainted with the English language. Remember: context is everything call to arms noun phrase 1 : a summons to engage in active hostilities 2 : a summons, invitation, or appeal to undertake a particular course of action a political call to arms https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/call to arms

Yours is the kind of response one expects from one of those machines that feature a tiny fortune teller. You should submit your material to one of those little guys. Might pay well. Unless, of course, it's them you're getting it from.

Anyway the "Nazi Problem" isn't much of a problem in Ukraine. They performed disastrously in the most recent elections. Also Pew did a poll to measure anti-semitism levels in Central and Eastern European countries. Out of all these countries, Ukraine had the highest level of acceptance of Jews as citizens out of all the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Russia had nearly 3 times the level of bigotry as that of Ukraine. Maybe Russia should invade itself? Ukraine turns out to be the most friendly to Jews People in Romania, Lithuania, and Armenia are least willing to accept Jews as their fellow citizens Only 5% of Ukrainians would not like to have Jews as their fellow citizens. This is the lowest level observed in all the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, as revealed in a report released on 28 March 2018 on the results of a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center (US). https://ukrainianjewishencounter.org/en/news/antisemitism-in-europe-ukraine-turns-out-to-be-the-most-friendly-to-jews/ Unless you believe that there can be Nazism without anti-Semitism, I think that settles the question.

Do you understand that Twitter had and has the right to regulate speech on its service? That the 1st Amendment restricts only government from engaging in censorship?

You're the one who raised the issue about public interest as a criterion for whether or not an account should be banned from Twitter. How else could one rationally construe your motives for raising the issue?

They must have broken some rule because Musk is the soul of honor? Fanboy much? If you don't understand why this is a first amendment issue, it would be impossible to explain that to you? And now you support banning tweets if they aren't in the public interest? Well, that was the justification for banning Donald Trump. Good to see that you don't have a problem with that principle.

I do agree with you that Musk "is allowed to make his own rules on his own platform." He has just as much right to regulate speech on Twitter as did the previous management. So not a First Amendment issue, right?

What don't you understand about the fact that these journalists didn't disclose this information. That Musk is lying. That his tying the alleged stalking of his son has no connection to the location of his private jet. That when he was challenged as to the veracity of his claims in a live audio session, he simply hung up. And your comparison of the private jet situation to a private car is bonkers. Unless there's a public govt website where the location of privately owned vehicles is revealed. Is there such a site?

It's an option that's offered. The question is why didn't Musk avail himself of it if it's a genuine concern to him.

Also, Bellingcat noted that the geolocation data from the alleged stalking incident of his son, showed that the car was nowhere in the vicinity of where the jet was parked. https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/1603454821700452365

They were imaginary so he unimagined them.

The more I think about your claim, the more absurd it turns out to be. How could you tell that there hasn't been a surge? Can you infallibly tell who is an immigrant by looking at them? The percentage of immigrants as a share of the population does keep rising. If there was a surge, how would you know? Compared the number of previous arrivals, what would the percentage of surgers be? Maybe immigrants to the UK all wear placards that reveal the year that they immigrated? So you just take your clicker with you and patrol a statistically randomized collection of neighborhoods to gather your data?

More nonsense from you. Those claims were made by people who were calling asylum seekers immigrants. The definition of an immigrant is: a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country. https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrant&oq=immigrant&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61j69i65l3.1818j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 But even if one accepts the assertion that they got it wrong, how does their misuse of nomenclature derive from where they are physically located?

Well, your analogy about the football players and the spectators shows how you fundamentally misunderstand your position. The analagous players on the field aren't private citizens. They're the people who set policy. Who legislate. Unless you are one of those people, you are just as much a spectator as anyone else not involved in the decision making. no matter where they are physically located.

What is there in your comment about the visa situation that shows the importance of living in the UK to understand why it's come about? You've just given an example that shows why it doesn't matter at all.