ozimoron

Wrong. You didn't give a link to that claim. Why not? Rules don't apply to you?

No, they were after whoever instigated the insurrection. That just happens to be Trump. To your point, I posted a link showing that the threat was dismissed by those who should have taken it seriously.

The only thing that hits a nerve is failure to support assertions with links to evidence or rational arguments. Personal attacks don't faze me so save your fingers.

Again, a good faith attempt to convince anyone should include a cogent argument as opposed to a straight declaration of something contentious as fact. You didn't do that and just ignore your responsibility to do so.

I'll take that as a yes.

True. It left out the issue of Ginni Thomas emails with Meadows and any involvement Clarence might have had.

Watching Youtube that much rots the brain.

Is that sentence supposed to actually have some meaning?

That was limited to your first sentence only. Still, you gave no reasons for believing that. A good faith effort would entail that.

Fake picture ????

You claimed it as fact. You did not suggest it was your opinion only.

How do you know that? You claim to know what the EU attitude is but don't provide any evidence what is nothing more than supposition and speculation.

On ignore for repeated failure to debate in good faith.

I don't believe it has changed at all in the 42 years since I first went to one in CM.

Define terrible. Looks like fun to me.

It's your opinion that it's no use at all. You make no attempt to explain why. The weapons system can be simulated in a simulator just as can be the flying itself. That keeps the hardware and software away from the Chinese which is why the Thais offered to buy it without weapons. The weapon systems could be retrofitted in a heartbeat. You really should make an attempt to justify your opinions rather than just state them as if they were fact.

oh, ground level. teehee. Try maximum service altitude and see if the ground looks flat.

Wealthy is anyone who can afford to live outside their country without working.

You claim it's facts and as long as you do you need to substantiate it with a link. Even an opinion is worthless without a cogent argument. Claiming that an unsubstantiated opinion is fact without that is just insulting everyone's intelligence and wasting our time.

Not really. The wealthy have an off ramp. We see that in Thailand. Those being conscripted are the poor, prisoners, those from the east, mercenaries and Chechens. Not Muskovites. While that remains the status quo, everyone that matters is happy. If he started to conscript the wealthy all hell would break loose.

That's just your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Why don't you provide a considered, rational argument to support your opinions instead while we're on the subject of advice.

The dems would vote for that. That would kill any chance at all of the GOP getting the independents on side.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Until the GOP expunge the freedom party nutjobs and Trump, this is their fate.

I made no mention of the aircraft carrier. It's likely similar to the decision by Australia to purchase Collins class submarines. The objective was sound but the boat had serious flaws which made it useless. The F35 is not criticised for being useless so your comparison is not valid and of therefore of no value. The RTAF objective is based on sound reasoning as explained in earlier posts. A point basically established by detractors reliance on spurious claims of affordability.