GroveHillWanderer

I've just looked at your "answer." It doesn't hold any water. Your argument is that because on one of the many times he said that other NATO countries owed money to the US, he qualified if by saying, "as far as I'm concerned." That a) doesn't cover all the other times when he said it and didn't add that rider and b) it doesn't alter that fact that he was saying quite clearly, that he considers these other countries owe money to the US. For instance, in 2019 he said: Trump threatens to punish Germany over military spending And in 2017: Trump directly scolds NATO allies, says they owe 'massive' sums No mention of "as far as I'm concerned" there - nor on all the other times he said other NATO countries owed money to the US. You'll also notice that there are multiple articles about him making this claim repeatedly, and all of them point out that he is saying the countries owe money to the US. So it seems that pretty much everybody except you, that has read Trump's remarks on this subject, knows exactly what he was saying and it's only you holding on to this delusion that he wasn't saying that he actually said.

Yes he literally said that. Not once but repeatedly. Trump keeps saying NATO members owe money to the US — they don’t Here's just one example, from his remarks at the NATO summit in 2018. President Trump Says NATO Allies Owe the U.S. Money. He's Wrong

It doesn't matter how much or how little each NATO country spends on their defence budget, none of it is owed to the US. Trump never seems to have understood how NATO funding works.

Except that what he's talking about is not actually NATO spending, it's simply the money each country spends on their own defence budgets. NATO has very little collective budget spending (it comes to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending) and all NATO members contribute to the collective funding of NATO using an agreed cost-share formula derived from the Gross National Income of member countries.

And let's just remind ourselves that a fact-check of Comer's allegations found that: Dissecting GOP claims about Hunter Biden

Sacked from what exactly? She doesn't hold any government position that they can sack her from. She's just an MP, nothing else. Only her constituents can 'sack' her, by not voting for her at the next election. They could also try for a recall petition but again, that would be up to her constituents. The reason for this is that the MP is chosen by the people of their constituency, and so it is not up to their Party, or The Prime Minister or anyone else in Parliament to tell them they have to stop being an MP. The people chose them, the people are the ones to make them leave.

Explain to us the logistics of how and to whom the West would deliver anti-aircraft weapons that could be used to protect disparate groups of villagers scattered throughout the entire country of Myanmar.

That's not quite accurate. If the naming convention had just automatically followed the Greek alphabet in the correct order, the name for the variant should have been Nu. So the WHO was already not following Greek alphabetical order automatically by not calling it Nu and continued not automatically following it by not using Xi either. Nu was not used because it sounded too much like "new" and Xi was not used because it is a common family name and so violated the rule on not using personal names as designations for diseases.

That's not true as far as I can tell. According to the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS): Covid 19 compared to flu as cause of death And, as the same source also pointed out:

Are you sure ? The research is somewhat mixed but some medical experts say toilet paper is worse for spreading bacteria around the anal and perianal areas. In the article below, New York rectal surgeon Evan Goldstein argues for the use of water in preference to toilet paper. Bidets are healthier than toilet paper according to a rectal surgeon As he points out:

As various organisations and media outlets have pointed out, James Comer is the archetypal MAGA conspiracy theorist (including election denier), Trump apologist and a proven liar, to boot. Conspiracy Theorist, Trump Sycophant, & Proven Liar. Three things to know about James Comer

Did you even read that WaPo article that you linked to? It is a "fact checker" article that debunks virtually every claim that Comer is making. As it states:

From what I've read, there seems a good chance that it will. A number of researchers are working on ultra fast-charging battery technology. Here's one example. Electric car batteries with five-minute charging times produced As the article states: And here's another, even better-performing battery technology. Revolutionary New Electric Vehicle Battery Charges in 3 Minutes and Lasts 20 Years

I was using my Android phone. Try on an Android device (if you have one) and perhaps you'll have better luck.

Not with all makes of AC. We have Trane air conditioners and with them you can still regulate the temperature when using "Dry" mode.

Are you sure? I just checked Total AV and when I got to the payment page it offered an option for credit card payment.

I did more or less the same thing, but with a UK PayPal account.

The Democrats were in the minority and had no power to block their appointments.

The shop owner quotes him as swearing at her, and insulting the Thai people in English, which she evidently understood.

If you read the whole account in the linked Thaiger article, you'll see that's exactly what the shop owner says happened.

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, Harlan Crow was basically asked if he ever expected any kind of "quid pro quo" from his relationship with Clarence Thomas. His answer? Sounds rather like he's just "admitted the quiet part out loud." Harlan Crow: There’s nothing wrong with my friendship with Clarence Thomas

The more I read about Clarence Thomas the more it seems that he's just a serial scofflaw when it comes to financial disclosures. As mentioned in the article below he also failed to disclose his wife's income for several years in a row. The writer of the articles points out that this is actually criminal behavior (but that it is unlikely he will ever get into any trouble over it because of the massive double standards involved). Clarence Thomas' Criminal Behavior on Financial Disclosure Thomas claimed that his failure to report correctly was because he didn't understand the disclosure rules, but the strange thing is that he had been declaring her income up until 2003 but didn't from 2003 to 2007 (a period during which when she earned nearly $700,000) and then failed to do so again in 2009, another year in which she is known to have been employed in what was apparently an extremely lucrative position. So it seems that his lack of comprehension of these rules is a thing that comes and goes in what can only be described as a rather strange and mysterious way. It also seems odd that a Supreme court justice, who is supposed to understand, interpret and rule on the most serious and complex issues of law in the United States, is suddenly afflicted by ignorance or lack of understanding when it comes to the matter of simple financial disclosure rules applying to themselves.

Without looking back through all 14 pages, I seem to recall that the majority of vaccination experiences recounted on here have been just fine. For myself personally, I haven't had anything other than a little soreness and slight fatigue after any of my Covid shots (four of them so far). I've never had any significant problems with any of the other many, many vaccinations I've had in my life, either.

I guess everybody's different. I've driven my MG ZS on a number of long drives (typically, over 700 km at a time) and found it eminently comfortable. Much more so than the Isuzu SUV that I used to do the same kinds of trips in before. Never needed a cushion and nor did anyone else travelling with me (I usually have three other adults in the car).

@ozimoron posted a link earlier that pointed out Harlan Crow sits on the boards two organisations (CCI and AEI) that have filed at least 11 briefs before the Supreme Court, with Thomas involved. In every one of those cases, Thomas ruled in their favour. Which at a minimum, means that Thomas was being a tad disingenuous when he stated that Crow had never had any business before the court.