Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How can Britain ever restore its defences, reform its bloated welfare budget and become a credible power again ? " collective prayer to the trump christ  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK and EU need to choose between Defence and Benefits. Sadly they will continue to choose Benefits." As we talked about in a previous thread, there are now so many voters on benefits that it's a very hard pattern to break. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated." The word you're looking for is sensationalism.. it sells click bait to doomscrollers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated." Uk army is the smallest in 200 years despite the population quadrupled over that period | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK and EU need to choose between Defence and Benefits. Sadly they will continue to choose Benefits. As we talked about in a previous thread, there are now so many voters on benefits that it's a very hard pattern to break." Yep. Those damn pensioners eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Uk army is the smallest in 200 years despite the population quadrupled over that period " Right, but what about Europe combined? That’s the crux for me. An EU army has been touted in the past. It needs to happen imo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Uk army is the smallest in 200 years despite the population quadrupled over that period Right, but what about Europe combined? That’s the crux for me. An EU army has been touted in the past. It needs to happen imo " The EU is always “touting” things. Meetings, communiques, reports, commissions, conferences, private jets, lunches, limousines, photo ops, Zoom calls. Good luck with the EU army. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Uk army is the smallest in 200 years despite the population quadrupled over that period Right, but what about Europe combined? That’s the crux for me. An EU army has been touted in the past. It needs to happen imo " Integration of weapons systems, a move away from the over reliance in some areas of the might of the American military industrial complex especially given the direction they seem to looking towards.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Uk army is the smallest in 200 years despite the population quadrupled over that period Right, but what about Europe combined? That’s the crux for me. An EU army has been touted in the past. It needs to happen imo The EU is always “touting” things. Meetings, communiques, reports, commissions, conferences, private jets, lunches, limousines, photo ops, Zoom calls. Good luck with the EU army. " Yes there is a prevailing feeling around the EU that you need 25 people to decide on EU rules on how to turn a toaster on, I get that. However, crises tend to concentrate minds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated." Personally I'd rather listen to a former Head of Nato but no doubt Fabs defence correspondents know better ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Uk army is the smallest in 200 years despite the population quadrupled over that period Right, but what about Europe combined? That’s the crux for me. An EU army has been touted in the past. It needs to happen imo The EU is always “touting” things. Meetings, communiques, reports, commissions, conferences, private jets, lunches, limousines, photo ops, Zoom calls. Good luck with the EU army. " I hear Prada are doing the uniforms so at least they'll be well turned out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Integration of weapons systems, a move away from the over reliance in some areas of the might of the American military industrial complex especially given the direction they seem to looking towards.. " this is already happening. the government has shrewdly noticed the change in warfare. huge navies confined to port yet still regularly being destroyed etc. the government is working closely with UK defence tech start ups along with ukraine. several uk ai drone companies are operating at Brave 1 test site in ukraine testing the latest UDA Loop drones also know as 'Martians'. these are autonomusly navigating drones, cheap to build, don't use GPS, cannot be jammed, some can select their own targets, can take off and land autonmously. this means that one operator can oversee a swarm of drones rather than one drone one operator. the cost of this tech is minimal. the problem is that the there will still be those that will spread fear about being defenseless if governments aren't spending billions on huge projects that are outdated before they roll off the production line, such as ships, ajax apc's, airplanes etc. this country has skinted itself on useless defense projects like trident and now the free money from the tories selling our infrastructure to foreign companies has run out we need to think outside the box. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Decades of Tory and Labour cuts and austerity. Same as schools, hospitals, nhs, police, prisons, social housing etc etc Half the country on benefits, a third of it overweight, two thirds of it incapable of passing bft, and government spunking money on net zero and migrants. " 🎯 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Personally I'd rather listen to a former Head of Nato but no doubt Fabs defence correspondents know better ! " Like the Head of NATO who said the Iran war is illegal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Personally I'd rather listen to a former Head of Nato but no doubt Fabs defence correspondents know better ! Like the Head of NATO who said the Iran war is illegal? " Checkmate ♚ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Personally I'd rather listen to a former Head of Nato but no doubt Fabs defence correspondents know better ! Like the Head of NATO who said the Iran war is illegal? Checkmate ♚" 'Rutte also rejected the notion that NATO members considered the war on Iran “illegal”, arguing that there was widespread support in Europe for degrading Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. He also said that prolonged diplomacy risked a “North Korean moment” – where talks drag on until a country acquires nuclear capacity and it becomes too late to act. " Source, Al Jazeera. Oops 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Cherry picking out of context. Standard social media discourse. It never ceases to amaze me how many people confuse a political party for a football team." Nope, accurate quotes provided verbatim.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oops 🤣" apology accepted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oops 🤣 apology accepted ""Asked if the world was safer now than it was before the war, Rutte said "absolutely" and credited that to Trump's "leadership" in degrading Iran's nuclear threats. He added Nato members do not see the war in Iran as illegal, and most agreed it was important to degrade Iran's nuclear capabilities." Source BBC Oops 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oops 🤣 Oops 🤣 " apology accepted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oops 🤣 Oops 🤣 apology accepted "I'll send the rubber cushion over later. 😊 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oops 🤣 Oops 🤣 apology accepted
I'll send the rubber cushion over later. 😊"keep it ... your piles seem to be bothering you 🍇 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Integration of weapons systems, a move away from the over reliance in some areas of the might of the American military industrial complex especially given the direction they seem to looking towards.. this is already happening. the government has shrewdly noticed the change in warfare. huge navies confined to port yet still regularly being destroyed etc. the government is working closely with UK defence tech start ups along with ukraine. several uk ai drone companies are operating at Brave 1 test site in ukraine testing the latest UDA Loop drones also know as 'Martians'. these are autonomusly navigating drones, cheap to build, don't use GPS, cannot be jammed, some can select their own targets, can take off and land autonmously. this means that one operator can oversee a swarm of drones rather than one drone one operator. the cost of this tech is minimal. the problem is that the there will still be those that will spread fear about being defenseless if governments aren't spending billions on huge projects that are outdated before they roll off the production line, such as ships, ajax apc's, airplanes etc. this country has skinted itself on useless defense projects like trident and now the free money from the tories selling our infrastructure to foreign companies has run out we need to think outside the box."
Twenty year developments are so so yesterday.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 had to defend the army against Tory defence cuts. And now Starmer has opened the doors to prosecuting veterans.
The military’s reduced abilities start and end at Westminster.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oops 🤣 apology accepted
"Asked if the world was safer now than it was before the war, Rutte said "absolutely" and credited that to Trump's "leadership" in degrading Iran's nuclear threats.
He added Nato members do not see the war in Iran as illegal, and most agreed it was important to degrade Iran's nuclear capabilities."
Source BBC
Oops 🤣
"Did he mention if the people of Iran are better off under the new regime ooops I forgot trump is surrendering to the old one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's Mark Rutte of course, NATO Secretary General. 🫡" Rutte, often nicknamed the "Trump whisperer" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK and EU need to choose between Defence and Benefits. Sadly they will continue to choose Benefits." Oh!! I see, interesting, the UK and EU.... it's as if our futures are intertwined. Shame no one came up with some sort of bloc we could belong to | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Cherry picking out of context. Standard social media discourse. It never ceases to amaze me how many people confuse a political party for a football team. Nope, accurate quotes provided verbatim. "And out of context....🤷🏼♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Putin has got ideas of invading Britain he looks at it as Americas Cuba. The left should be careful for what they wish for. The middle east and Putin and possibly China all want their hands on this country." They’ve got no chance, we have a sea border UK has 13 frigates and destroyers waiting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK and EU need to choose between Defence and Benefits. Sadly they will continue to choose Benefits." Most people recieving benefits are in work. Have you tried asking employers to pay more? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces?" Lol, Ukraine taught you nothing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putin can’t even overrun Ukraine. I wouldn’t have thought a collective European effort would require that much of a spending increase per country tbh to counter the Russian ‘threat’. Russia are currently spending around $160 billion, which is arguably unsustainable for them in the long term. EU states combined spent 381 billion euro in 2025. I think the ‘problem’ is overstated. Personally I'd rather listen to a former Head of Nato but no doubt Fabs defence correspondents know better ! " Who funds him? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Lol, Ukraine taught you nothing " We can’t use our nukes without informing the US President. We rely on the US for the maintenance of our nukes. If we are attacked by Russia (as an example) their Nuclear arsenal vastly outnumbers ours, so any retaliation by us will be futile. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Lol, Ukraine taught you nothing " because ukraine has been nuked  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Putin has got ideas of invading Britain he looks at it as Americas Cuba. The left should be careful for what they wish for. The middle east and Putin and possibly China all want their hands on this country. They’ve got no chance, we have a sea border UK has 13 frigates and destroyers waiting. " And two blokes in a rowing boat with catapults, so they better not try anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/IX_d_vMKswE?si=tQq9LfzS4rdh8Bpa " Most excellent | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Lol, Ukraine taught you nothing We can’t use our nukes without informing the US President. We rely on the US for the maintenance of our nukes. If we are attacked by Russia (as an example) their Nuclear arsenal vastly outnumbers ours, so any retaliation by us will be futile." The orange man wouldn't allow nukes on his boss in Russia | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces?" Might as well have all our pants down and let Putin have a go at us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Might as well have all our pants down and let Putin have a go at us." Would it? Most countries don't have it. Why are we.....sorry Britain so special? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Might as well have all our pants down and let Putin have a go at us." We wouldn’t stand a chance v Russia’s arsenal of Nukes. We have 200-250ish (depending on what sources you check). They have 2000 (if not more). Not sure how we’d survive?🤔 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Might as well have all our pants down and let Putin have a go at us. We wouldn’t stand a chance v Russia’s arsenal of Nukes. We have 200-250ish (depending on what sources you check). They have 2000 (if not more). Not sure how we’d survive?🤔" Is that true? Britain and France are considered the best in the world, and Ukraine have managed to hold Russia. Granted Ukraine have had to become one of the best but were they at the time of invasion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Might as well have all our pants down and let Putin have a go at us. We wouldn’t stand a chance v Russia’s arsenal of Nukes. We have 200-250ish (depending on what sources you check). They have 2000 (if not more). Not sure how we’d survive?🤔" We both know that it's not the numbers that matter. The threat of a bomb like that is good enough. How much money are we really going to save if we get rid of all the nukes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Might as well have all our pants down and let Putin have a go at us. We wouldn’t stand a chance v Russia’s arsenal of Nukes. We have 200-250ish (depending on what sources you check). They have 2000 (if not more). Not sure how we’d survive?🤔 We both know that it's not the numbers that matter. The threat of a bomb like that is good enough. How much money are we really going to save if we get rid of all the nukes?" Various sources have various sums, that it costs. Whatever the the true figure is, it comes out of the MOD budget. Money that could be spent on conventional weapons, personnel etc. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8166/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Might as well have all our pants down and let Putin have a go at us. We wouldn’t stand a chance v Russia’s arsenal of Nukes. We have 200-250ish (depending on what sources you check). They have 2000 (if not more). Not sure how we’d survive?🤔 We both know that it's not the numbers that matter. The threat of a bomb like that is good enough. How much money are we really going to save if we get rid of all the nukes? Various sources have various sums, that it costs. Whatever the the true figure is, it comes out of the MOD budget. Money that could be spent on conventional weapons, personnel etc. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8166/ " For 6% of defense budget we receive a great deterrent against attacks on us. Not sure what's the point on getting rid of them for the other "conventional weapons" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All this talk of nuclear supremacy Couldn’t stop 602 illegal invaders in small boats yesterday " You going to nuke the most desperate people in society? You seem....... It's actually way down year on year ....you don't comment about that do you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get rid of nukes and divert that money to the rest of the armed forces? Might as well have all our pants down and let Putin have a go at us. We wouldn’t stand a chance v Russia’s arsenal of Nukes. We have 200-250ish (depending on what sources you check). They have 2000 (if not more). Not sure how we’d survive?🤔 We both know that it's not the numbers that matter. The threat of a bomb like that is good enough. How much money are we really going to save if we get rid of all the nukes? Various sources have various sums, that it costs. Whatever the the true figure is, it comes out of the MOD budget. Money that could be spent on conventional weapons, personnel etc. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8166/ For 6% of defense budget we receive a great deterrent against attacks on us. Not sure what's the point on getting rid of them for the other "conventional weapons"" Do we? Evidence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's going to say we haven't been attacked, fairs, but then, neither has Barbados, Jamaica or Panama and they don't hold nuclear power " And Ukraine has been attacked. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if they had nuclear weapons? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's going to say we haven't been attacked, fairs, but then, neither has Barbados, Jamaica or Panama and they don't hold nuclear power And Ukraine has been attacked. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if they had nuclear weapons?" They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR. I even think we made them give them to Russia, but I stand to be corrected on that point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's going to say we haven't been attacked, fairs, but then, neither has Barbados, Jamaica or Panama and they don't hold nuclear power And Ukraine has been attacked. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if they had nuclear weapons? They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR. I even think we made them give them to Russia, but I stand to be corrected on that point." So you agree that giving up nuclear weapons puts makes you open to attacks? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's going to say we haven't been attacked, fairs, but then, neither has Barbados, Jamaica or Panama and they don't hold nuclear power And Ukraine has been attacked. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if they had nuclear weapons? They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR. I even think we made them give them to Russia, but I stand to be corrected on that point. So you agree that giving up nuclear weapons puts makes you open to attacks?" * giving up nuclear weapons makes you vulnerable to attacks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's going to say we haven't been attacked, fairs, but then, neither has Barbados, Jamaica or Panama and they don't hold nuclear power And Ukraine has been attacked. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if they had nuclear weapons? They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR. I even think we made them give them to Russia, but I stand to be corrected on that point. So you agree that giving up nuclear weapons puts makes you open to attacks?" I never said I agree. I think Putin would still have invaded anyway, as he feels Russia needs to claim back territory it feels is theirs. He wasn’t bothered that the UK was ‘nearby’, and that the Uk (along with the US) provided security guarantees to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's going to say we haven't been attacked, fairs, but then, neither has Barbados, Jamaica or Panama and they don't hold nuclear power And Ukraine has been attacked. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if they had nuclear weapons? They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR. I even think we made them give them to Russia, but I stand to be corrected on that point. So you agree that giving up nuclear weapons puts makes you open to attacks? I never said I agree. I think Putin would still have invaded anyway, as he feels Russia needs to claim back territory it feels is theirs. He wasn’t bothered that the UK was ‘nearby’, and that the Uk (along with the US) provided security guarantees to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes." You just said "They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR." And now suddenly, nuclear deterrent wouldn't have stopped Putin? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's going to say we haven't been attacked, fairs, but then, neither has Barbados, Jamaica or Panama and they don't hold nuclear power And Ukraine has been attacked. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if they had nuclear weapons? They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR. I even think we made them give them to Russia, but I stand to be corrected on that point. So you agree that giving up nuclear weapons puts makes you open to attacks? I never said I agree. I think Putin would still have invaded anyway, as he feels Russia needs to claim back territory it feels is theirs. He wasn’t bothered that the UK was ‘nearby’, and that the Uk (along with the US) provided security guarantees to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes. You just said "They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR." And now suddenly, nuclear deterrent wouldn't have stopped Putin? " Correct. Putin knew that 2 nuclear armed countries had guaranteed Ukraine’s security. And yet he still invaded. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Correct. Putin knew that 2 nuclear armed countries had guaranteed Ukraine’s security. And yet he still invaded." Nuclear armed countries aren't going to use nuclear weapons on a third country without a full and formal alliance, and even then they wouldn't unless it's existential. By contrast, a nuclear armed state certainly would use nuclear weapons if they deemed an invasion to be probably existential, and might just use it with a lower threshold. Which makes regime change by force impossible, which deters invasion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"India and Pakistan both have nukes, and they still have skirmishes, so both of them don’t seem to be deterred from attacking each other. Same for India and China." Invasion at the same level of Russia's against Ukraine? That massive convoy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same for India and China." In their most contested areas, they are not even armed with firearms. They beat each other with sticks and clubs. So that things don't escalate too much. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same for India and China. In their most contested areas, they are not even armed with firearms. They beat each other with sticks and clubs. So that things don't escalate too much." Things never escalate, until they do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same for India and China. In their most contested areas, they are not even armed with firearms. They beat each other with sticks and clubs. So that things don't escalate too much. Things never escalate, until they do" What do you think will happen if one country has nukes but the other country doesn't? That's the problem with clowns like Zack Polanski saying that we must give up the nukes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same for India and China. In their most contested areas, they are not even armed with firearms. They beat each other with sticks and clubs. So that things don't escalate too much. Things never escalate, until they do What do you think will happen if one country has nukes but the other country doesn't? That's the problem with clowns like Zack Polanski saying that we must give up the nukes." As some other posters have mentioned, it doesn’t seem to be a problem for other countries, not to have nukes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same for India and China. In their most contested areas, they are not even armed with firearms. They beat each other with sticks and clubs. So that things don't escalate too much. Things never escalate, until they do What do you think will happen if one country has nukes but the other country doesn't? That's the problem with clowns like Zack Polanski saying that we must give up the nukes. As some other posters have mentioned, it doesn’t seem to be a problem for other countries, not to have nukes? " So why did India and Pakistan try to outdo each other in building nuclear weapons? Are they idiots? Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same for India and China. In their most contested areas, they are not even armed with firearms. They beat each other with sticks and clubs. So that things don't escalate too much. Things never escalate, until they do What do you think will happen if one country has nukes but the other country doesn't? That's the problem with clowns like Zack Polanski saying that we must give up the nukes. As some other posters have mentioned, it doesn’t seem to be a problem for other countries, not to have nukes? So why did India and Pakistan try to outdo each other in building nuclear weapons? Are they idiots? Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has?" Yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has?" "Yes." Why? What's better about a world where the UK doesn't have nukes, but the other players still do? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has? Yes. Why? What's better about a world where the UK doesn't have nukes, but the other players still do?" You assume we’re still a ‘player’? I don’t think Russia, China, USA and other nations regard us as ‘player’ anymore. Perhaps we could a leader on the world stage, by giving them up? The majority of the world seems to cope ok without them? And I go back to the financial cost of them, whilst the rest of our Armed Forces are struggling to be funded adequately. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has? Yes. Why? What's better about a world where the UK doesn't have nukes, but the other players still do? You assume we’re still a ‘player’? I don’t think Russia, China, USA and other nations regard us as ‘player’ anymore. Perhaps we could a leader on the world stage, by giving them up? The majority of the world seems to cope ok without them? And I go back to the financial cost of them, whilst the rest of our Armed Forces are struggling to be funded adequately. " If we are not even a "Player" anymore, why do you care about the armed forces anyway? We can just give up all the armed forces too, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has? Yes. Why? What's better about a world where the UK doesn't have nukes, but the other players still do? You assume we’re still a ‘player’? I don’t think Russia, China, USA and other nations regard us as ‘player’ anymore. Perhaps we could a leader on the world stage, by giving them up? The majority of the world seems to cope ok without them? And I go back to the financial cost of them, whilst the rest of our Armed Forces are struggling to be funded adequately. If we are not even a "Player" anymore, why do you care about the armed forces anyway? We can just give up all the armed forces too, right?" I care about having a regular military, which is used in the correct way, by using modern techniques/tactics/technology. This can only be achieved by proper funding. The money spent on nukes can help achieve this. Nukes cause immediate mass casualties, mass damage to infrastructure and long term health problems to any survivors. And that’s before you get to environmental impacts. A nuclear strike by one country, would probably lead to a retaliatory strike by another Nuclear power. That will lead to a world that none of us can comprehend. All at the cost of billions, just based on a ‘maybe’. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK and EU need to choose between Defence and Benefits. Sadly they will continue to choose Benefits." Sad for you, mot me. Only the stupid keep raging war while kids starve. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has? Yes. Why? What's better about a world where the UK doesn't have nukes, but the other players still do? You assume we’re still a ‘player’? I don’t think Russia, China, USA and other nations regard us as ‘player’ anymore. Perhaps we could a leader on the world stage, by giving them up? The majority of the world seems to cope ok without them? And I go back to the financial cost of them, whilst the rest of our Armed Forces are struggling to be funded adequately. If we are not even a "Player" anymore, why do you care about the armed forces anyway? We can just give up all the armed forces too, right? I care about having a regular military, which is used in the correct way, by using modern techniques/tactics/technology. This can only be achieved by proper funding. The money spent on nukes can help achieve this. " Your posts have a lot of contradictions. You say that UK is not a "player" anymore and that somehow justifies giving up nuclear weapons. And yet, you are saying that the money could be somehow used to improve the military. Why do you care about the military if UK is not a "player" anymore? " Nukes cause immediate mass casualties, mass damage to infrastructure and long term health problems to any survivors. And that’s before you get to environmental impacts. " Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Do you think Iran should avoid getting nuclear weapons? " A nuclear strike by one country, would probably lead to a retaliatory strike by another Nuclear power. That will lead to a world that none of us can comprehend. All at the cost of billions, just based on a ‘maybe’. " Are you fine if Russia or some other country nukes UK but we can't retaliate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has? Yes. Why? What's better about a world where the UK doesn't have nukes, but the other players still do? You assume we’re still a ‘player’? I don’t think Russia, China, USA and other nations regard us as ‘player’ anymore. Perhaps we could a leader on the world stage, by giving them up? The majority of the world seems to cope ok without them? And I go back to the financial cost of them, whilst the rest of our Armed Forces are struggling to be funded adequately. If we are not even a "Player" anymore, why do you care about the armed forces anyway? We can just give up all the armed forces too, right? I care about having a regular military, which is used in the correct way, by using modern techniques/tactics/technology. This can only be achieved by proper funding. The money spent on nukes can help achieve this. Your posts have a lot of contradictions. You say that UK is not a "player" anymore and that somehow justifies giving up nuclear weapons. And yet, you are saying that the money could be somehow used to improve the military. Why do you care about the military if UK is not a "player" anymore? Nukes cause immediate mass casualties, mass damage to infrastructure and long term health problems to any survivors. And that’s before you get to environmental impacts. Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Do you think Iran should avoid getting nuclear weapons? A nuclear strike by one country, would probably lead to a retaliatory strike by another Nuclear power. That will lead to a world that none of us can comprehend. All at the cost of billions, just based on a ‘maybe’. Are you fine if Russia or some other country nukes UK but we can't retaliate?" Retaliate? We will be annihilated. As I’ve previously stated, we have a few hundred nukes. Russia has thousands. In simple terms, it wouldn’t be a fair fight. Going back to Iran, all available evidence says Iran wasn’t building a bomb. Yes, they’d enriched Uranium more than needed for civilian purposes, but not enough for weapons grade material. It was official Iranian policy (via a Fatwa) that Iran wouldn’t seek a bomb. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Retaliate? We will be annihilated. As I’ve previously stated, we have a few hundred nukes. Russia has thousands. In simple terms, it wouldn’t be a fair fight. " And I have previously stated that the numbers don't matter. The point is that if they try to hit us, they will be destroyed. If we take your advice, they will annihilate us without any worries because they know that we don't have any way to respond to their attacks. Ukraine is a clear example for why a nuclear deterrent is important. " Going back to Iran, all available evidence says Iran wasn’t building a bomb. Yes, they’d enriched Uranium more than needed for civilian purposes, but not enough for weapons grade material. " So, what else was it for? Scientific experiments? Yeah, next joke please. Anyway, this doesn't answer my question. Do you think, it's ok for Iran to build a nuclear arsenal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anyway, this doesn't answer my question. Do you think, it's ok for Iran to build a nuclear arsenal? " It certainly isn’t desirable for Iran to have a nuclear arsenal, but why logically should they not have the right to do so? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anyway, this doesn't answer my question. Do you think, it's ok for Iran to build a nuclear arsenal? It certainly isn’t desirable for Iran to have a nuclear arsenal, but why logically should they not have the right to do so? " That's a fair question. People don't trust Iran to use it only for defense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anyway, this doesn't answer my question. Do you think, it's ok for Iran to build a nuclear arsenal? It certainly isn’t desirable for Iran to have a nuclear arsenal, but why logically should they not have the right to do so? That's a fair question. People don't trust Iran to use it only for defense. " Trust isn’t logical though, it’s emotional. So it’s not a logical reason for Iran not to have the right to a nuclear programme. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Retaliate? We will be annihilated. As I’ve previously stated, we have a few hundred nukes. Russia has thousands. In simple terms, it wouldn’t be a fair fight. And I have previously stated that the numbers don't matter. The point is that if they try to hit us, they will be destroyed. If we take your advice, they will annihilate us without any worries because they know that we don't have any way to respond to their attacks. Ukraine is a clear example for why a nuclear deterrent is important. Going back to Iran, all available evidence says Iran wasn’t building a bomb. Yes, they’d enriched Uranium more than needed for civilian purposes, but not enough for weapons grade material. So, what else was it for? Scientific experiments? Yeah, next joke please. Anyway, this doesn't answer my question. Do you think, it's ok for Iran to build a nuclear arsenal? " Is it desirable for any country to have a nuclear arsenal? I would say not. The Iranians (or other countries in the region) can easily ask why can Israel have one, but not them? Easier for everyone not to have one, and save each nation billions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is brave enough to be the first to give them up. Welcome to the real world. " Ukraine did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is brave enough to be the first to give them up. Welcome to the real world. Ukraine did. " Working out pretty well for Ukraine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it desirable for any country to have a nuclear arsenal? I would say not. The Iranians (or other countries in the region) can easily ask why can Israel have one, but not them? Easier for everyone not to have one, and save each nation billions." Exactly! You can't convince UK to give up nuclear weapons when all the other countries have them. Convince all the other countries to give up their weapons and then we can have this conversation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is brave enough to be the first to give them up. Welcome to the real world. Ukraine did. Working out pretty well for Ukraine." Ukraine was told to give them up, in exchange for security guarantees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it desirable for any country to have a nuclear arsenal? I would say not. The Iranians (or other countries in the region) can easily ask why can Israel have one, but not them? Easier for everyone not to have one, and save each nation billions. Exactly! You can't convince UK to give up nuclear weapons when all the other countries have them. Convince all the other countries to give up their weapons and then we can have this conversation." The UK needs to weigh up whether we can afford them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it desirable for any country to have a nuclear arsenal? I would say not. The Iranians (or other countries in the region) can easily ask why can Israel have one, but not them? Easier for everyone not to have one, and save each nation billions. Exactly! You can't convince UK to give up nuclear weapons when all the other countries have them. Convince all the other countries to give up their weapons and then we can have this conversation. The UK needs to weigh up whether we can afford them?" It is worth the money we are spending. It's a deterrent. The best way to spend less on wars is to prevent them from happening in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it desirable for any country to have a nuclear arsenal? I would say not. The Iranians (or other countries in the region) can easily ask why can Israel have one, but not them? Easier for everyone not to have one, and save each nation billions. Exactly! You can't convince UK to give up nuclear weapons when all the other countries have them. Convince all the other countries to give up their weapons and then we can have this conversation." “I’ll do it when they do” is no basis for such an important discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has? Yes. Why? What's better about a world where the UK doesn't have nukes, but the other players still do? You assume we’re still a ‘player’? I don’t think Russia, China, USA and other nations regard us as ‘player’ anymore. Perhaps we could a leader on the world stage, by giving them up? The majority of the world seems to cope ok without them? And I go back to the financial cost of them, whilst the rest of our Armed Forces are struggling to be funded adequately. If we are not even a "Player" anymore, why do you care about the armed forces anyway? We can just give up all the armed forces too, right? I care about having a regular military, which is used in the correct way, by using modern techniques/tactics/technology. This can only be achieved by proper funding. The money spent on nukes can help achieve this. Your posts have a lot of contradictions. You say that UK is not a "player" anymore and that somehow justifies giving up nuclear weapons. And yet, you are saying that the money could be somehow used to improve the military. Why do you care about the military if UK is not a "player" anymore? Nukes cause immediate mass casualties, mass damage to infrastructure and long term health problems to any survivors. And that’s before you get to environmental impacts. Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Do you think Iran should avoid getting nuclear weapons? A nuclear strike by one country, would probably lead to a retaliatory strike by another Nuclear power. That will lead to a world that none of us can comprehend. All at the cost of billions, just based on a ‘maybe’. Are you fine if Russia or some other country nukes UK but we can't retaliate? Retaliate? We will be annihilated. As I’ve previously stated, we have a few hundred nukes. Russia has thousands. In simple terms, it wouldn’t be a fair fight. Going back to Iran, all available evidence says Iran wasn’t building a bomb. Yes, they’d enriched Uranium more than needed for civilian purposes, but not enough for weapons grade material. It was official Iranian policy (via a Fatwa) that Iran wouldn’t seek a bomb." The numbers of nukes becomes irrelevant after a small amount. Russia does have the capacity to wipe out Britain several times over. However once totally destroyed everything after is meaningless. Dropping nukes on a totally destroyed country makes no difference to anyone. British nukes maybe far fewer but it's more than enough to easily destroy ever city in Russia and there is the deterrent factor for the leaders of Russia to consider before launching any attack | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it desirable for any country to have a nuclear arsenal? I would say not. The Iranians (or other countries in the region) can easily ask why can Israel have one, but not them? Easier for everyone not to have one, and save each nation billions. Exactly! You can't convince UK to give up nuclear weapons when all the other countries have them. Convince all the other countries to give up their weapons and then we can have this conversation. “I’ll do it when they do” is no basis for such an important discussion. " It is the basis for nuclear deterrence - Mutually Assured Destruction. Russia funds movements in the Western countries to promote nuclear disarmament and even against nuclear energy. The last thing we want to do is fall for this nonsense and leave ourselves under Putin's mercy. It's the reason why I would never vote for the Green Party. There is a good chance that they are funded by Russia too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to get this straight, do you prefer a world where UK doesn't have nuclear weapons but Russia has? Yes. Why? What's better about a world where the UK doesn't have nukes, but the other players still do? You assume we’re still a ‘player’? I don’t think Russia, China, USA and other nations regard us as ‘player’ anymore. Perhaps we could a leader on the world stage, by giving them up? The majority of the world seems to cope ok without them? And I go back to the financial cost of them, whilst the rest of our Armed Forces are struggling to be funded adequately. If we are not even a "Player" anymore, why do you care about the armed forces anyway? We can just give up all the armed forces too, right? I care about having a regular military, which is used in the correct way, by using modern techniques/tactics/technology. This can only be achieved by proper funding. The money spent on nukes can help achieve this. Your posts have a lot of contradictions. You say that UK is not a "player" anymore and that somehow justifies giving up nuclear weapons. And yet, you are saying that the money could be somehow used to improve the military. Why do you care about the military if UK is not a "player" anymore? Nukes cause immediate mass casualties, mass damage to infrastructure and long term health problems to any survivors. And that’s before you get to environmental impacts. Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Do you think Iran should avoid getting nuclear weapons? A nuclear strike by one country, would probably lead to a retaliatory strike by another Nuclear power. That will lead to a world that none of us can comprehend. All at the cost of billions, just based on a ‘maybe’. Are you fine if Russia or some other country nukes UK but we can't retaliate? Retaliate? We will be annihilated. As I’ve previously stated, we have a few hundred nukes. Russia has thousands. In simple terms, it wouldn’t be a fair fight. Going back to Iran, all available evidence says Iran wasn’t building a The numbers of nukes becomes irrelevant after a small amount. Russia does have the capacity to wipe out Britain several times over. However once totally destroyed everything after is meaningless. Dropping nukes on a totally destroyed country makes no difference to anyone. British nukes maybe far fewer but it's more than enough to easily destroy ever city in Russia and there is the deterrent factor for the leaders of Russia to consider before launching any attack " Russia has too many enemies from their perspective and hence they need many nuclear weapons. From UK's perspective what we have is good enough if we are only fighting Russia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's the reason why I would never vote for the Green Party. There is a good chance that they are funded by Russia too." You spelt ‘reform party’ wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's the reason why I would never vote for the Green Party. There is a good chance that they are funded by Russia too. You spelt ‘reform party’ wrong. " I don't think I will vote Reform either. Farage did say things which can show that he has a soft spot for Putin. With the Green party, they have policies which are clearly in favour if Russia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's the reason why I would never vote for the Green Party. There is a good chance that they are funded by Russia too. You spelt ‘reform party’ wrong. I don't think I will vote Reform either. Farage did say things which can show that he has a soft spot for Putin. With the Green party, they have policies which are clearly in favour if Russia. " Reform’s leader in wales was jailed for taking bribes to support pro-kremlin views. Has anyone in the Green Party been found doing similar? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's the reason why I would never vote for the Green Party. There is a good chance that they are funded by Russia too. You spelt ‘reform party’ wrong. I don't think I will vote Reform either. Farage did say things which can show that he has a soft spot for Putin. With the Green party, they have policies which are clearly in favour if Russia. Reform’s leader in wales was jailed for taking bribes to support pro-kremlin views. Has anyone in the Green Party been found doing similar? " If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. End of the day, they are trying to sabotage and weaken this country. And it's well known that many Green NGOs in Europe have received funding from Russia. That's the reason why they are generally against Nuclear power. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. " I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement." If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. " But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. " Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power." Another firmly held belief backed up without evidence? Say it ain't so . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power." Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Another firmly held belief backed up without evidence? Say it ain't so ." Just like your belief that you mentioned in the other thread? Tell me why dismantling nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons we possess is good for this country and then we can talk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference?" I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them." You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? " You pretend like they are the only parties available. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available." In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? " Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? " It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. " If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration." Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty." What a nonsensical interpretation?  Remember that you also chose Reform. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty. What a nonsensical interpretation? Remember that you also chose Reform."I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty. What a nonsensical interpretation? Remember that you also chose Reform.
I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have.
"And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty. What a nonsensical interpretation? Remember that you also chose Reform.
I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have.
And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia."But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty. What a nonsensical interpretation? Remember that you also chose Reform.
I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have.
And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia.
But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion?"And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty. What a nonsensical interpretation? Remember that you also chose Reform.
I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have.
And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia.
But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion?
And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia."But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty. What a nonsensical interpretation? Remember that you also chose Reform.
I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have.
And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia.
But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion?
And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia.
But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially
libellous, is it not? "Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? If a party has policies that are clearly Pro-Russia, that itself is reasonable evidence. I’m not sure you know what the word ‘evidence’ actually means, based upon that statement. If you are calling yourself a "green" party and are hell bent on going against nuclear energy, it's fair to say that they have other motives behind it. But you’ve not vaguely suggested the broad notion of other motives, you’ve outright claimed Green Party Russian collusion. Yes, what else is the motive for a party that wants to take down the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy? Sure we don't have 100% direct evidence. But there have been enough cases of green NGOs being backed by Russian money for me to be wary of this. And even if they aren't Russia backed, their policies are Pro-Russia. They will sabotage the country and make it weaker. Hence I don't want them holding any sort of power. Out of the two, would you prefer reform of whom we have actual evidence of Russian interference? I find both equally bad. As I said, Green's policies are bad enough for me to stay away from them. You didn’t answer though. Some seats will likely be decided between the two. Which would you prefer to win? You pretend like they are the only parties available. In some seats it’s highly likely they will be essentially the only feasible winners. Why so reticent to answer? Is it because your politics are more aligned with the one who has actual evidence of Russian collusion than the one who you claim to be Russian backed? Because your question is stupid? Why must I choose between two parties who I don't like equally? You tell me, who do you prefer between Reform and Restore party? It’s not stupid to ask at all. Between the two horrendous options you offered me, reform would IMO be marginally better than Restore, mainly since Farage said that Lowe’s deportation plan was ridiculous. Your lack of answer is telling indeed. If we are talking about other policies than just the Russian interference, then between Greens and Reform, I would prefer Reform because they seem to be listening to people on immigration. Thank you. So Russian collusion isn’t so important to you after all. That’s fine, appreciate the honesty. What a nonsensical interpretation? Remember that you also chose Reform.
I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have.
And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia.
But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion?
And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia.
But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially
libellous, is it not?
Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia."So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) " I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too "People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
"Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi? "No, but I didn’t call him one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one. "And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one.
And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel?"Potentially, or slander, yes. Unless they have more evidence that actually reveals him to be such. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one.
And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel?
Potentially, or slander, yes. Unless they have more evidence that actually reveals him to be such. "If people are going to be punished for making statements online about political figures, the courts won't have time to do anything worthy at all. I still stand by what I said. You may have to try a different method to make me take back my words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one.
And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel?
Potentially, or slander, yes. Unless they have more evidence that actually reveals him to be such.
If people are going to be punished for making statements online about political figures, the courts won't have time to do anything worthy at all. I still stand by what I said. You may have to try a different method to make me take back my words."Oh I couldn’t care less if you do or don’t, you’ve admitted that Russian collusion is less important to you than other policies | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one.
And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel?
Potentially, or slander, yes. Unless they have more evidence that actually reveals him to be such.
If people are going to be punished for making statements online about political figures, the courts won't have time to do anything worthy at all. I still stand by what I said. You may have to try a different method to make me take back my words.
Oh I couldn’t care less if you do or don’t, you’ve admitted that Russian collusion is less important to you than other policies "I didn't. But if telling that lie to yourself gives you a good night's, sleep, go for it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one.
And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel?
Potentially, or slander, yes. Unless they have more evidence that actually reveals him to be such.
If people are going to be punished for making statements online about political figures, the courts won't have time to do anything worthy at all. I still stand by what I said. You may have to try a different method to make me take back my words.
Oh I couldn’t care less if you do or don’t, you’ve admitted that Russian collusion is less important to you than other policies
I didn't. But if telling that lie to yourself gives you a good night's, sleep, go for it "You said you’d choose reform over green, despite them having evidence of Russian collusion - you said it was based on policies. I know you’re not fond of evidence, but it’s right here in this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one.
And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel?
Potentially, or slander, yes. Unless they have more evidence that actually reveals him to be such.
If people are going to be punished for making statements online about political figures, the courts won't have time to do anything worthy at all. I still stand by what I said. You may have to try a different method to make me take back my words.
Oh I couldn’t care less if you do or don’t, you’ve admitted that Russian collusion is less important to you than other policies
I didn't. But if telling that lie to yourself gives you a good night's, sleep, go for it
You said you’d choose reform over green, despite them having evidence of Russian collusion - you said it was based on policies.
I know you’re not fond of evidence, but it’s right here in this thread. "And you said you would choose Reform too. So you are ok with their immigration policies right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one.
And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel?
Potentially, or slander, yes. Unless they have more evidence that actually reveals him to be such.
If people are going to be punished for making statements online about political figures, the courts won't have time to do anything worthy at all. I still stand by what I said. You may have to try a different method to make me take back my words.
Oh I couldn’t care less if you do or don’t, you’ve admitted that Russian collusion is less important to you than other policies
I didn't. But if telling that lie to yourself gives you a good night's, sleep, go for it
You said you’d choose reform over green, despite them having evidence of Russian collusion - you said it was based on policies.
I know you’re not fond of evidence, but it’s right here in this thread.
And you said you would choose Reform too. So you are ok with their immigration policies right? "I said their immigration policies were better than restore Britain - which was the choice you gave me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"? I chose reform over restore. Not over the green party. And I gave you a justifiable reason for it. But also, I’ve not been rallying against Russian collusion in this thread like you have. And I chose Reform over Green. Both parties have shown enough evidence that they will make the country weaker against Russia. But we’re agreed that only one actually has current evidence of Russian collusion? And the other has policies which are Pro-Russia. I explained you already that, even if we don't have evidence that they are colluding with Russia, their brain dead policies will make us weaker against Russia. But in your very first post about the greens and nuclear you mentioned ‘a very good chance’ of them being funded by Russia. Are you prepared to row back on that statement? It’s potentially libellous, is it not? Why should I row back on the statement? I qualified it with "potentially" for that reason. Their policies are clearly Pro-Russia, which makes me believe that it's quite possible that they are colluding with Russia. There is a chance that they are not really colluding with Russia and are just a bunch of brain-dead clowns. Either way, their policies are still Pro-Russia. So if I said “(insert celebrity name here) is potentially a nonce” with no evidence to back it up, that’s acceptable? I’d be interested to see you argue that in law. (Spoiler alert, you’d lose) I have enough evidence to use the word "potentially". I have seen many people like you use the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" all the time about politicians they don't like, without any evidence. If they are all safe from the long arm of law, I am pretty sure that I will be safe too
People like me? Interesting generalisation. I’ve not called anyone a Nazi that I’m aware of (except for actual Nazis). I do recall correctly stating that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute on camera (he did) - but that doesn’t meet your criteria since there was actual evidence of it.
Is he doing that salute good enough to call him Nazi?
No, but I didn’t call him one.
And yet thousands of people did. Are they all guilty of libel?
Potentially, or slander, yes. Unless they have more evidence that actually reveals him to be such.
If people are going to be punished for making statements online about political figures, the courts won't have time to do anything worthy at all. I still stand by what I said. You may have to try a different method to make me take back my words.
Oh I couldn’t care less if you do or don’t, you’ve admitted that Russian collusion is less important to you than other policies
I didn't. But if telling that lie to yourself gives you a good night's, sleep, go for it
You said you’d choose reform over green, despite them having evidence of Russian collusion - you said it was based on policies.
I know you’re not fond of evidence, but it’s right here in this thread.
And you said you would choose Reform too. So you are ok with their immigration policies right?
I said their immigration policies were better than restore Britain - which was the choice you gave me. "And I said immigration policies were better with Reform too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile lots of SAS have been handing in their notices to not renew their contracts. If media is to be believ3d, you honestly don't know who to trust these days." Yep, not just SAS, it's across the SF family. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's going to say we haven't been attacked, fairs, but then, neither has Barbados, Jamaica or Panama and they don't hold nuclear power And Ukraine has been attacked. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if they had nuclear weapons? They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR. I even think we made them give them to Russia, but I stand to be corrected on that point. So you agree that giving up nuclear weapons puts makes you open to attacks? I never said I agree. I think Putin would still have invaded anyway, as he feels Russia needs to claim back territory it feels is theirs. He wasn’t bothered that the UK was ‘nearby’, and that the Uk (along with the US) provided security guarantees to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes. You just said "They were attacked because the US, Russia and us made them give up their Nukes after the dissolution of the USSR." And now suddenly, nuclear deterrent wouldn't have stopped Putin? " What your arguing for is a world where every country has nuclear power. You know incase....... It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house." Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too." Cool cool. How about you have a word with your boy Trump? We commoners are sufferin' good sir! Doff cap tug forelock Your 'massa' seems to think he can patrol who can and can't have nuclear power..... currently looks anyone but Muslims | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too. Cool cool. How about you have a word with your boy Trump? We commoners are sufferin' good sir! Doff cap tug forelock Your 'massa' seems to think he can patrol who can and can't have nuclear power..... currently looks anyone but Muslims " Who said I liked Trump? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too. Cool cool. How about you have a word with your boy Trump? We commoners are sufferin' good sir! Doff cap tug forelock Your 'massa' seems to think he can patrol who can and can't have nuclear power..... currently looks anyone but Muslims Who said I liked Trump?" Deflection. Always a good way to eat up posts. So, like him or don't.....I thought the wests position was no weapons of mass destruction for anyone but 'us', especially not those pesky Muslims. I mean you have written down that there isn't a supreme force that polices the world for nuclear power!? And yet the past 40 years of British and American foreign policy has been exactly that in the middle East. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too. Cool cool. How about you have a word with your boy Trump? We commoners are sufferin' good sir! Doff cap tug forelock Your 'massa' seems to think he can patrol who can and can't have nuclear power..... currently looks anyone but Muslims Who said I liked Trump? Deflection. Always a good way to eat up posts. So, like him or don't.....I thought the wests position was no weapons of mass destruction for anyone but 'us', especially not those pesky Muslims. I mean you have written down that there isn't a supreme force that polices the world for nuclear power!? And yet the past 40 years of British and American foreign policy has been exactly that in the middle East." You made a wrong assumption about me, just like you did in another thread. When I question your assumption, you call it "deflection"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too. Cool cool. How about you have a word with your boy Trump? We commoners are sufferin' good sir! Doff cap tug forelock Your 'massa' seems to think he can patrol who can and can't have nuclear power..... currently looks anyone but Muslims Who said I liked Trump? Deflection. Always a good way to eat up posts. So, like him or don't.....I thought the wests position was no weapons of mass destruction for anyone but 'us', especially not those pesky Muslims. I mean you have written down that there isn't a supreme force that polices the world for nuclear power!? And yet the past 40 years of British and American foreign policy has been exactly that in the middle East. You made a wrong assumption about me, just like you did in another thread. When I question your assumption, you call it "deflection"? "I haven't made a wrong assumption. I created a post with a narrative. Your personal belief is irrelevant. Play the ball not the player. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too. Cool cool. How about you have a word with your boy Trump? We commoners are sufferin' good sir! Doff cap tug forelock Your 'massa' seems to think he can patrol who can and can't have nuclear power..... currently looks anyone but Muslims Who said I liked Trump? Deflection. Always a good way to eat up posts. So, like him or don't.....I thought the wests position was no weapons of mass destruction for anyone but 'us', especially not those pesky Muslims. I mean you have written down that there isn't a supreme force that polices the world for nuclear power!? And yet the past 40 years of British and American foreign policy has been exactly that in the middle East. You made a wrong assumption about me, just like you did in another thread. When I question your assumption, you call it "deflection"?
I haven't made a wrong assumption.
I created a post with a narrative.
Your personal belief is irrelevant.
Play the ball not the player."'your boy Trump' 'Your 'massa' seems to think' Why don't you agree that you screwed up yet again, especially when these posts are right here for anyone to read | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too. Cool cool. How about you have a word with your boy Trump? We commoners are sufferin' good sir! Doff cap tug forelock Your 'massa' seems to think he can patrol who can and can't have nuclear power..... currently looks anyone but Muslims Who said I liked Trump? Deflection. Always a good way to eat up posts. So, like him or don't.....I thought the wests position was no weapons of mass destruction for anyone but 'us', especially not those pesky Muslims. I mean you have written down that there isn't a supreme force that polices the world for nuclear power!? And yet the past 40 years of British and American foreign policy has been exactly that in the middle East. You made a wrong assumption about me, just like you did in another thread. When I question your assumption, you call it "deflection"?
I haven't made a wrong assumption.
I created a post with a narrative.
Your personal belief is irrelevant.
Play the ball not the player.
'your boy Trump'
'Your 'massa' seems to think'
Why don't you agree that you screwed up yet again, especially when these posts are right here for anyone to read "I'm hoping other people will a decent IQ be able to see what I did and created a narrative from a character that dofs their cap tugs their forelock to the what the 'massa's' say!! Now I couldn't say why you've had more of a problem with the narrative than the fact we're moving away from you soiling your self about the western world policing nuclear proliferation despite you claiming the opposite | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's exactly the same argument young men use to feel safe and carry knives. The problem is the more people that carry knives the more likely they are to use it. Escalate it to nuclear power. All Trump has done is show the world we need to be nuclear powers then the mad bully won't bomb us! So we all sit at home wanking behind our nuclear power because were terrified of leaving the house. Apples to orange comparison. With knives, you have the government or a police force who can enforce methods to punish the ones who carry it anywhere that it's against the law. With nuclear weapons, you don't have a supreme authority that has the power to enforce rules on all countries. Do you have any ideas for how you will get Putin to give up nuclear weapons? If not, other countries will try the get their hands on them too. Cool cool. How about you have a word with your boy Trump? We commoners are sufferin' good sir! Doff cap tug forelock Your 'massa' seems to think he can patrol who can and can't have nuclear power..... currently looks anyone but Muslims Who said I liked Trump? Deflection. Always a good way to eat up posts. So, like him or don't.....I thought the wests position was no weapons of mass destruction for anyone but 'us', especially not those pesky Muslims. I mean you have written down that there isn't a supreme force that polices the world for nuclear power!? And yet the past 40 years of British and American foreign policy has been exactly that in the middle East. You made a wrong assumption about me, just like you did in another thread. When I question your assumption, you call it "deflection"?
I haven't made a wrong assumption.
I created a post with a narrative.
Your personal belief is irrelevant.
Play the ball not the player.
'your boy Trump'
'Your 'massa' seems to think'
Why don't you agree that you screwed up yet again, especially when these posts are right here for anyone to read
I'm hoping other people will a decent IQ be able to see what I did and created a narrative from a character that dofs their cap tugs their forelock to the what the 'massa's' say!!
Now I couldn't say why you've had more of a problem with the narrative than the fact we're moving away from you soiling your self about the western world policing nuclear proliferation despite you claiming the opposite "🤣🤣🤣 The verbal gymnastics you do to somehow pretend like you didn't screw up, after making such idiotic assumptions every time you reply to me, is quite an entertaining watch. Please go on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok, so the wars in Iraq and Iran have been about American might and control of nuclear. Can we at least find common ground here " Yes, I never denied that. Geopolitics has nothing to do with morality and it's always about self interest. Russia has nuclear weapons. Many Asian countries have nuclear weapons too. Western countries too have them because they need to defend themselves with nuclear deterrent. As far Iran and Iraq, the threat of nuclear weapons is bigger because these countries have powerful terror groups who wouldn't think twice before using it on the other countries even it means they will face retaliation that would kill themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok, so the wars in Iraq and Iran have been about American might and control of nuclear. Can we at least find common ground here Yes, I never denied that. Geopolitics has nothing to do with morality and it's always about self interest. Russia has nuclear weapons. Many Asian countries have nuclear weapons too. Western countries too have them because they need to defend themselves with nuclear deterrent. As far Iran and Iraq, the threat of nuclear weapons is bigger because these countries have powerful terror groups who wouldn't think twice before using it on the other countries even it means they will face retaliation that would kill themselves." That's not what you originally said but we move. So it's a two tier world? We can have nuclear powers but others can't, or they can until we disapprove? Makes no sense. Can the population carry knives or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok, so the wars in Iraq and Iran have been about American might and control of nuclear. Can we at least find common ground here Yes, I never denied that. Geopolitics has nothing to do with morality and it's always about self interest. Russia has nuclear weapons. Many Asian countries have nuclear weapons too. Western countries too have them because they need to defend themselves with nuclear deterrent. As far Iran and Iraq, the threat of nuclear weapons is bigger because these countries have powerful terror groups who wouldn't think twice before using it on the other countries even it means they will face retaliation that would kill themselves. That's not what you originally said but we move. " Where did I not say that? You are the one who says something silly and pretends like you never said it. " So it's a two tier world? We can have nuclear powers but others can't, or they can until we disapprove? " India, Pakistan, China and North Korea, all have nuclear weapons. West didn't try to stop them. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and Iraq are a huge threat to the other countries. " Can the population carry knives or not?" As I explained before, the two are totally different problems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok, so the wars in Iraq and Iran have been about American might and control of nuclear. Can we at least find common ground here Yes, I never denied that. Geopolitics has nothing to do with morality and it's always about self interest. Russia has nuclear weapons. Many Asian countries have nuclear weapons too. Western countries too have them because they need to defend themselves with nuclear deterrent. As far Iran and Iraq, the threat of nuclear weapons is bigger because these countries have powerful terror groups who wouldn't think twice before using it on the other countries even it means they will face retaliation that would kill themselves. That's not what you originally said but we move. Where did I not say that? You are the one who says something silly and pretends like you never said it. So it's a two tier world? We can have nuclear powers but others can't, or they can until we disapprove? India, Pakistan, China and North Korea, all have nuclear weapons. West didn't try to stop them. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and Iraq are a huge threat to the other countries. Can the population carry knives or not? As I explained before, the two are totally different problems. " The two are the same when you look at it from the angle if an instrument of harm is in the possession of an individual. Having more of that instrument doesn't make people or the world safer. They are mainly allied with the west and yeah until Trump the west has had a problem with north Korea, might want to read about the 38th parallel. And China isn't exactly easy!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The two are the same when you look at it from the angle if an instrument of harm is in the possession of an individual. " Not the same. We have a powerful authority in the form of government that expects everyone to lose weapons. There is no authority capable of telling Russia or China to give up their weapons. If you can talk nicely to Putin and make him give up his weapons, let me know. " Having more of that instrument doesn't make people or the world safer. " Would you be ok if people who hate you are allowed to roam around with knives and guns, but you aren't? " They are mainly allied with the west and yeah until Trump the west has had a problem with north Korea, might want to read about the 38th parallel. And China isn't exactly easy!!" Who is allied with west? India has been on USSR's side when it existed. After that, the country has predominantly taken a neutral stance in everything. China is considered an enemy of the West too. If the west believed that China would use it for offense rather than defense, it would have been a war long back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The two are the same when you look at it from the angle if an instrument of harm is in the possession of an individual. Not the same. We have a powerful authority in the form of government that expects everyone to lose weapons. There is no authority capable of telling Russia or China to give up their weapons. If you can talk nicely to Putin and make him give up his weapons, let me know. Having more of that instrument doesn't make people or the world safer. Would you be ok if people who hate you are allowed to roam around with knives and guns, but you aren't? They are mainly allied with the west and yeah until Trump the west has had a problem with north Korea, might want to read about the 38th parallel. And China isn't exactly easy!! Who is allied with west? India has been on USSR's side when it existed. After that, the country has predominantly taken a neutral stance in everything. China is considered an enemy of the West too. If the west believed that China would use it for offense rather than defense, it would have been a war long back. " 1. Why do you split it? 2. Who's got the time? 3. America is telling everyone, bar those who it's negotiated with. 4. Your making my point for me!! If you increase the salience of nukes or knives the more likely they'll be used. 5. Forgot Pakistan in your retelling? true India will butter it's parsnip which ever way the wind will go, it's then also true to say that until recently it's been allied with the west. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The two are the same when you look at it from the angle if an instrument of harm is in the possession of an individual. Not the same. We have a powerful authority in the form of government that expects everyone to lose weapons. There is no authority capable of telling Russia or China to give up their weapons. If you can talk nicely to Putin and make him give up his weapons, let me know. Having more of that instrument doesn't make people or the world safer. Would you be ok if people who hate you are allowed to roam around with knives and guns, but you aren't? They are mainly allied with the west and yeah until Trump the west has had a problem with north Korea, might want to read about the 38th parallel. And China isn't exactly easy!! Who is allied with west? India has been on USSR's side when it existed. After that, the country has predominantly taken a neutral stance in everything. China is considered an enemy of the West too. If the west believed that China would use it for offense rather than defense, it would have been a war long back. " Forgot "we"? Who's we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1. Why do you split it? " I just explained it in my post. Not sure how many times I have to repeat. " 2. Who's got the time? " For what? " 3. America is telling everyone, bar those who it's negotiated with. " Telling everyone to do what? " 4. Your making my point for me!! If you increase the salience of nukes or knives the more likely they'll be used. " I never disagreed with the idea that increasing number of weapons is dangerous. But if there is no way for you to stop Russia and China from having nuclear weapons, it's better for you to have one too. If you have ideas to convince Putin to throw away his nuclear weapons, let us know. If not, explain why it's a good thing for Russia to have nuclear weapons but the West to not have it. " 5. Forgot Pakistan in your retelling? true India will butter it's parsnip which ever way the wind will go, " You said "They are mainly allied with the west". I gave you India as an example. " it's then also true to say that until recently it's been allied with the west. " During which period was India allied with the west? When India did its first nuclear tests, it was definitely not allied with the west. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1. Why do you split it? I just explained it in my post. Not sure how many times I have to repeat. 2. Who's got the time? For what? 3. America is telling everyone, bar those who it's negotiated with. Telling everyone to do what? 4. Your making my point for me!! If you increase the salience of nukes or knives the more likely they'll be used. I never disagreed with the idea that increasing number of weapons is dangerous. But if there is no way for you to stop Russia and China from having nuclear weapons, it's better for you to have one too. If you have ideas to convince Putin to throw away his nuclear weapons, let us know. If not, explain why it's a good thing for Russia to have nuclear weapons but the West to not have it. 5. Forgot Pakistan in your retelling? true India will butter it's parsnip which ever way the wind will go, You said "They are mainly allied with the west". I gave you India as an example. it's then also true to say that until recently it's been allied with the west. During which period was India allied with the west? When India did its first nuclear tests, it was definitely not allied with the west." 1. Are you a robot? 2. Splitting this shit 3. Stop producing nuclear power, almost as if it's started a war thrice in the middle east and it's what we're debating. But you go on..... 4. There's no way to instantly stop them. No. But again, we could enter negotiations...... 5. Hate to play the colonialist card... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The two are the same when you look at it from the angle if an instrument of harm is in the possession of an individual. Not the same. We have a powerful authority in the form of government that expects everyone to lose weapons. There is no authority capable of telling Russia or China to give up their weapons. If you can talk nicely to Putin and make him give up his weapons, let me know. Having more of that instrument doesn't make people or the world safer. Would you be ok if people who hate you are allowed to roam around with knives and guns, but you aren't? They are mainly allied with the west and yeah until Trump the west has had a problem with north Korea, might want to read about the 38th parallel. And China isn't exactly easy!! Who is allied with west? India has been on USSR's side when it existed. After that, the country has predominantly taken a neutral stance in everything. China is considered an enemy of the West too. If the west believed that China would use it for offense rather than defense, it would have been a war long back. Forgot "we"? Who's we?" Won't someone think of 'we' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1. Are you a robot? " Most of your incoherent responses here will fail the Turing test " 2. Splitting this shit " Point proven " 3. Stop producing nuclear power, almost as if it's started a war thrice in the middle east and it's what we're debating. But you go on..... " I don't think they negotiated with India, China or North Korea. They are fighting the nuclear threat from countries which they believe will use it for offensive purposes rather than defense. " 4. There's no way to instantly stop them. No. But again, we could enter negotiations...... " Of course, just talk to Putin, read him some poetry and his heart will melt. He will just give up his nuclear weapons. You must give this idea to Zack Polanski. " 5. Hate to play the colonialist card..." What does colonialism have to do with India developing nuclear weapons? It looks like you have zero knowledge about Indian politics or history and yet you want to pretend like you know it all and that shows. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1. Are you a robot? Most of your incoherent responses here will fail the Turing test 2. Splitting this shit Point proven 3. Stop producing nuclear power, almost as if it's started a war thrice in the middle east and it's what we're debating. But you go on..... I don't think they negotiated with India, China or North Korea. They are fighting the nuclear threat from countries which they believe will use it for offensive purposes rather than defense. 4. There's no way to instantly stop them. No. But again, we could enter negotiations...... Of course, just talk to Putin, read him some poetry and his heart will melt. He will just give up his nuclear weapons. You must give this idea to Zack Polanski. 5. Hate to play the colonialist card... What does colonialism have to do with India developing nuclear weapons? It looks like you have zero knowledge about Indian politics or history and yet you want to pretend like you know it all and that shows." 1. Hopefully, that's a test for machines. 3. India they have. China and North Korea they don't directly but internationally they do. 4. Once again, we enter your 0 sum world. 5..... Sorry what pardon? Was India never under British colonialist power? Did the people of the colonies not travel to Britain as British citizens? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 3. India they have. China and North Korea they don't directly but internationally they do. " India and North Korea haven't signed the NPT. But either way, India is neither an ally nor an enemy for the US. " 4. Once again, we enter your 0 sum world. " At least it's not a fantasy world where you can just convince someone like Putin to give up his nuclear weapons. Maybe we could get him to take the spiritual path and give up his worldly comforts, like Buddha did 😉 " 5..... Sorry what pardon? Was India never under British colonialist power? Did the people of the colonies not travel to Britain as British citizens?" What relationship does that have with India's nuclear programme which started in the 1960s? In case you don't know, India was more aligned with the USSR at that time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 3. India they have. China and North Korea they don't directly but internationally they do. India and North Korea haven't signed the NPT. But either way, India is neither an ally nor an enemy for the US. 4. Once again, we enter your 0 sum world. At least it's not a fantasy world where you can just convince someone like Putin to give up his nuclear weapons. Maybe we could get him to take the spiritual path and give up his worldly comforts, like Buddha did 😉 5..... Sorry what pardon? Was India never under British colonialist power? Did the people of the colonies not travel to Britain as British citizens? What relationship does that have with India's nuclear programme which started in the 1960s? In case you don't know, India was more aligned with the USSR at that time." What fantasy world? I accept they exist! They are dangerous! We don't want any more. The aim of the game should be to dial it down. How do we go about that? You think India 1960's happened in a vacuum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
