Sing_Sling

What do you base your 'obviously senile' comment on? The snippets you watch on Fox or other right-wing fantasy channels?

I'm not very knowledgeable about this kind of thing but had anyone actually wanted to land at this precise point of the moon before? Excellent job, in terms of technology, and with massive monuments galore . . . possibly a tiny bit away from addressing disease and abject poverty at home. I believe the modern claculation of what 'you' stole from India is around $45 trillion . . . so, you shouldn't really complain as the Britain you grew up and enjoyed was based largely on that.

That's just what the Bilderbergs want you to think . . . at least that's what the Rothschilds told them.

Isn't China 'retaliating' about something real or imagined all the time?

Who is stopping him from running? Is this yet another example of playing the eternal victim? Creating another false narrative to 'fight'? Jaysus wept.

I think you'll be waiting a long time for an answer that doesn't simply resonate with the Trumpist bottom-dwellers . . . luckily not everyone is as gullible to believe the dross that accompanies the apologist dribble Uh-huh . . . why would that be? He has so many charges laid against him that he will be hoisted by his own petard . . . nothing to do with anyone else let alone anyone else here with zero influence. What is odd, conversely it is perverse that some here seem intent on him not being jailed due to their personal political view rather than whether he is guilt or not. Hint: He is guilty to anyone who has a shred of decency and knowledge of the laws he has broken. Can't wait to see him go to jail when he is found guilty . . . and he will be eventually for the crimes he commited

Still nothing . . . sigh . . . why is that not surprising.

???? where are these 'race baiters' on this thread?

4 a.m.? Sure, whatever time you wish - busy googling members of the 'senior positions' to substantiate your 'high percentage'? ???? Of course you would be, even if it is incorrectly applied . . . after all, communication is fluid, isn't it. Are you saying you can take things out of context and rhetorically asking me a question? Nah, try again. Re-read my post and take it frokm there.

He does have a point, though.

You do realise that he has given interviews on MSNBC, recently even. It pays to have a bit of proof behind the bluster. Or do you mean he won't sit down with someone of your choosing at any given time of your choosing to discuss a topic of your choosing . . . and as per the media of you choosing? That would seem to be a 'you' problem.

Yea . . . nah. If you didn't catch that then best not to comment. You did see the inveerted comams, didn't you? 'It's coming home'

Still waiting . . . The irony is wonderful

You need to look up the term and see how applicable - not - it is in this context. 'Famous' in Brit tabloids - well done. Also, if her time as Defense Minister wasn't brilliant (and you can surely tell me why without looking it up as you're clearly quite knowledgeable about her career) then why does that preclude her from other jobs?

Ah, England ????. Any 'It's coming home' tats?

To be fair this is a discussion forum, would you suggest that nothing is discussed until it is over?

'spoon-fed trust-fund babies' . . . ???? . . . occupying a high percentage etc... What a load of <deleted>, but you make for entertaining reading. Please do share with us who these 'high percentage' ate. Ah, Ursula. A woman from a wealthy family that goes back centuries but according to you a person who went to the LSE, graduated in Medicine and the went into politics is a 'trust fund baby'. Perhaps you should look up the term and see how applicable it is. Ok, the other 'high percentage', thanks. ????

Half the world would have issued warnings to their citizens about Thailand. What a mentality.

Sadly, very little of what you wrote has 'context, rather brushes with a very, very wide brush. However, the article: There is a difference between 'being terrified' and something being 'terrifying'.