placeholder

He should have had you there as his coach. Maybe because he was terrified of turning his back on an armed lunatic?

You conspiracy theorists have an enormous appetite for disappointments.

Was the point of the story that Depape was wearing underpants? That was the big takeaway from it for obvious reasons. It sparked a whole foul outpouring from the loony right about Depape being a gay prostitute and Pelosi being his customer. Not that any members of this forum would have subscribed to such nonsense.

In support of that, corporate profits as a percentage of the economy have been steadily rising over the last few decades. This is probably due to their increasing monopolistic power. Antitrust enforcement needs to be made a lot stronger. Under the previous administration in the USA, antitrust actions dropped by 2/3.

I believe that the NBC reporter said that Depape was wearing underpants. Shorts are not the same thing as underpants.

Hmmmm. Do you think statistical records are a natural phenomenon? For such statistics to be compiled, there has to be a government agency to do it. I can't find any evidence so far back for the existence of such records via sources that draw from government agencies. Maybe you have an idea where to find them?

He got a lot more done before including a hefty tax increase on the wealthy.

The problem is, your definition says that a country with a weakening economy will suffer a decline in currency value. But the decline is only relative. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, the standard of living of the average UK citizen has grown markedly while the pound has declined. This despite what the moaners claim. Also, if you look at the relationship between GDP per capita growth between the USA and the UK, you'll see that the decline in value of the pound has far exceeded the discrepancy between the USA and the UK's gdp growth. So there is also the issue of money supply which your definition fails to address.

In a free market system, the way to know if a price is too high is if the company can make a profit on their product. So anybody who thinks Tesla is charging too much must be some kind of Marxist.

Did Hakeem Jeffries vote to reject Trump's election victory in 2016? Unlike the 147 Republican House members who voted to reject Biden's victory in the 2020 election? Clearly, whatever Jeffries meant by "legitimate" it's not about the validity of Trump's election victory in 2016. Your repeated attempts to equate Democrats and Republicans in respect to this issue is comical.

Actually McCarthy most likely will be herding 220 or 221 cats.

And yet somehow Trump's legal team couldn't find any of them. Or maybe what you have is not shreds of evidence but evidence that's been shredded.

Here's the yearly per capita GDP of the UK from 1992. I used PPP (purchasing power parity) rather than pounds in order to forestall any objections that the decline in the pound's value negated the rise in GDP https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-ppp Here is the same statistic for the United States: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita-ppp Here's the value of the British pound in respect to the dollar: https://tradingeconomics.com/gbpusd:cur It may that in relation to the US economy, that the UK economy hasn't grown quite as quickly, but clearly a decline in value of the pound does not signal an absolute decline in the value of the UK's economy.

yes

Well, nobody gets asked. But they certainly had the opportunity. And Putin certainly rejected it.

Lord Robertson, who was head of NATO said this: “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

Send it to Rudolph Giuliani. He couldn't find any.

Well, he rejected the opportunity to join NATO.

What's particularly damning about this is that the Trump company is continuing to pay someone who blatantly violated the law and landed the company in a whole lot of trouble. Obviously, the Trump organization doesn't want to anger this guy. Trump has had nothing but nice things to say about him. This is similar to Trump's hinting at, and ultlimately giving pardons to the various lowlifes in his administration who could be in a position to incriminate him.

I watched Ritter a few times and had a good a laugh when he painted the collapse of Russian troops in the east as a kind of victory. He still maintains that the Russian armed forces are first rate. Or at least he did the last time I watched him

Well, politics is about the art of the possible. And before the Supremes decided to stomp on Roe v Wade, most people took it for granted that the right to abortion was protected even though the Supreme Court had pretty much vitiated it. So, it's only now that Americans have gotten a wake-up call, that it's possible to do something about it. I think as more horror stories come in about the fatal results of strict anti-abortion laws, that will help the Democrats get the law passed. But not so likely in this Congress thanks to the Republican majority in the House. I would enjoy watching the Republicans get twisted around on this.

Maybe khaowong1 should ask Giuliani if he's found any yet.

Well, you start saying it's too late and wind up by saying that maybe it's politically expedient. Make up your mind.

You sure about that? When Putin Loved NATO Former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, who had a cordial relationship with the Russian leader, recalls an era when Moscow wanted closer ties with the West. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/putin-russia-ukraine-nato-george-robertson/

And like Dugin, Putin believes that the Russians should rule over their little brothers and sisters.