placeholder

Well, unless you made that suggestion in bad faith, why wouldn't you follow it when the time comes? Anyone who claims to suspend judgement on such lunatic policies as Truss is pursuing must be at least secret admirer.

I dictated this early in the morning without checking it for errors. Here's the revised version: They "stormed" Mar a Lago? You must have lived a very sheltered life if you believe a knock on the door and presentation of a warrant constitute storming. And you know for a fact that none of the documents Trump absconded with pose a threat to national security were the information contained within to fall into the wrong hands? You've read the documents?

Not even if he had told these hedge fund people what his plans were? Would it be illegal for his audience to profit from their advance knowledge?

Yet you suggested it for someone else. I guess you're saving for the future when there's a PM you don't admire.

That's undoubtedlly true. What of it?

Actually, thinking that one could contact the PM directly or suggesting to someone that they try would be a mark of delusional thinking or su. So tell us, have you thought of contacting the Prime Minister?

Superstitious behavior often springs from the logical fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. So it's not surprising that you would seriously invoke this since so many of Trump's admirers think he's magic.

SO you have a problem with my post but not the post that it was in response to. I think we know why that is. In the bag for Trump much? Here's that bizarre over-the-top post again:

But services are produced. And people are willing to pay for them.

Will you doubt his conclusions if he's not British?

It may come as a surprsie to youo to learn that not all winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics are British.

Explosions aren't proof? What kind of accident could make methane explode with no oxygen present?

Really? Simultaneously in 2 different pipelines that differ a lot by age? And the Scandinavians are saying there was an explosion. As Rabas pointed out, methane won't explode underwater because there's no oxygen. I think the case for sabotage is proven. Who is responsible is a different matter.

And it's farther away than Mars. Good thinking..

This failure to recover fully and exceed previous GDP can be explained by the decline in UK exports to the EU: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=United_Kingdom-EU_-_international_trade_in_goods_statistics#:~:text=Imports reached a minimum of,recovered to € 24.8 billion.

Actually, sound bites, angry videos, and memes based on falsehoods are the hallmark of shills. That characterizes who exactly.?...Hmmm...

Mars?

Maybe not so interesting Hundreds of pounds of TNT were used to damage the Nord Stream pipelines, Sweden and Denmark tell the UN Leaks that have badly damaged the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines were caused by hundreds of pounds of TNT, Denmark and Sweden said in a joint report to the United Nations. The countries cited the latest development in a joint report to the UN Security Council on Friday, adding the explosions were a deliberate act, Denmark's TV2 first reported. The pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe began leaking on Monday, with the Swedish coast guard saying there were two leaks in the Swedish economic zone, and another two in the Danish zone. https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/hundreds-of-pounds-of-tnt-were-used-to-damage-the-nord-stream-pipelines-sweden-and-denmark-tell-the-un/ar-AA12t9D5

Paul Krugman, the economist who was the pioneer in studying currency crises and has condemned the Truss economic policy, actually believes that the pound isn't in danger of collapsing. And he wrote this before the pound's recovery. Here is a link to his tweets on the subject

Good thing that the Tories so admantly opposed the War in Iraq...oh wait a minute. In fact, wasn't it the case the Labour was less supportive? The Labour and Conservative parties were both committed to approving the invasion, but a quarter[6] of Labour MPs voted against the invasion. The Liberal Democrats, who had one in twelve of the MPs in parliament, also opposed the invasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq There was also an amendment proposed that said that the case for war had not yet been established. Conservates vote was 138 nay 15 aye. Labour was 245 to 138. Lib Dems 0 to 53 . And despite the fact that the Conservatives were the most supportive of the invasion, the Iraq war convinced you to switch to them? Based on the vote, it seems the Lib Dems would have been the natural home for you and the conservatives the most unnatural. Something about this decision of yours strikes me as being a bit odd.

Did you actually read the article? The authors of that same 2013 study found a substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. The authors attribute that increase to global heating of the climate: “We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Cat 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.” https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/how-climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-more-dangerous/ And if course it would be bizarre if it weren't true. Hurricanes draw their power from the heat in the oceans. The oceans are getting warmer. Therefore.... The troposphere is getting warmer. Therefore the air can hold more water vapor. Water vapor is the precursor to rain. Therefore...

Someday, you're going to surprise me and actually offer some evidence to back up your assertions. But today is not that day. How climate change is making hurricanes more dangerous Stronger wind speeds, more rain, and worsened storm surge add up to more potential destruction https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/how-climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-more-dangerous/

Why am I not shocked that you dismiss one of the world's leading news media sources? Your characterizations are laughable. 'Russia still invaded anyway'? Yes they did but because the Biden administration, against much of the world's "expert" consensus, repeatedly warned that it wasn't a question of if Russia was going to invade but when. Remember how Russia kept on denying that an invasion was planned and lots of people in important places kept on believing them? The Biden's administration's stance cemented its status as the leader in understanding what Russia was up to. And since you reflexively won't accept the NY Times report, what about those lefties at The Telegraph? US and Germany 'absolutely united' as Joe Biden promises to scrap Nord Stream 2 if Russia invades Olaf Scholz 'we will act together' after White House meeting with Joe Biden https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/07/us-working-prevent-europeans-dying-fears-grow-putin-could-cut/ Biden got Germany to agree to scrap Nordstream 2 in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not only that, but Biden and Zelensky actually disagreed on the likelihood of a Russian invasion. You think Biden's correct take didn't cement his authority? Friendly arguments: Biden’s and Zelensky’s disagreement on the threat from Russia https://ecfr.eu/article/friendly-arguments-bidens-and-zelenskys-disagreement-on-the-threat-from-russia/

Thank you, visitor from the future.

Happy to help you cope with the Internet. In Standoff With Putin, Biden Makes Sure European Allies Are With Him In what amounts to a much-needed diplomatic reset, the U.S. is orchestrating the response to Russia’s threatening moves and making sure to include his European allies. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/world/europe/biden-putin-ukraine-europe.html