Search results

Even the Financial Times is reporting on the Conservative Party's ongoing issue with Russian donations. How can anyone not be genuinely suspicious about this level of funding to the Tory party and the apparent slowness of our application of sanctions...

The main difference between Thatcher and Boris, of course, being that she wasn't ever considered a security risk by members of her own government. https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-access-to-state-secrets-was-restricted-when-he-was-foreign-secretary-2019-7

Yawn. Give it a rest now old chap. Do you remember when you PM'd me for help on something, and I offered to help. Then, you were respectful, now you're being a total prick. What do you get out of this? Actually, don't answer, because no one else cares and this needs to stop because it's...

I'm afraid I've got to disagree with you there, here's the dictionary definition of 'nuance': a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound. Maybe it's a bit too 'subtle' a word for you, but it definitely has meaning. 🙂

Try harder mate, you've not even read it. If you weren't such a ignorant arsehole you'd see that it's actually making some of the points you've been trying to make, but using coherent language. Again though, please fuck off, you're boring us all now.

I completely agree on the username issue. It's not like my autocorrect tries to change your name, it's, into anything else. 😁 Yours, Differ.

No, actually you didn't. Because you're too lazy and incompetent to use punctuation despite thinking you're the cleverest poster here. Anyway, you're just embarrassing yourself now, and you're boring me and everyone else with your incessant bullshit. So get thee hence, troll, I'd rather talk...

For anyone who's got a serious interest in how we got here, there's a really detailed and very prescient analysis of US/NATO foreign policy and how it led to this conflict, below. It's a long read, but imho well worth it if you've got the time. The only thing I'd say, is that no matter how...

For which I apologise. The long and short of it is that I'm tired of a certain poster's arrogant bullshit and unnecessary insults. I could live with it until he got all upset at being called out on it; hypocrisy triggers me I guess. I'll stick to the points and just ignore the stupid stuff...

Bless. Wrong again. Nuance isn't your strong suit. I don't think I've 'demanded' a no fly zone, though I've suggested it might be worth considering on the balance of risk if Putin starts firing at nuclear power stations. Basically you're just making stuff up in your usual, lazy, arrogant...

Mate, there would be no point playing bullshit bingo against you; you'd have the house before anyone else could get a line!

Usual tosh from Grendel. It's patently obvious that sanctions are having an impact on the Russian economy. Whether it's enough to alter Putin's behaviour in Ukraine is certainly debatable, but it's obviously hurting which is why Putin is calling them an 'act of war'. I can't understand why...

So literally do nothing? Just let Putin do what he wants. That sounds a lot like appeasement.

A diversionary one, as usual.

In your typically uninformed opinion, that might be true. US Intelligence meanwhile were very clear about attempted Russian interference. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56423536 Anyway, remind us again, should we do nothing about Ukraine? Or are you off down Waitrose again to dodge...

So we should do nothing?

Why not just put TLDR; You're incredibly rude and dismissive mate, so it's no use crying on here if you get the rough end of the stick sometimes - I'm afraid it looks like that's actually what you want.

Woo-hoo, a cheap insult. You see, you just can't help yourself. You're such a hypocrite. I'll have to do a bit of research if you're going to be that generic, which bit of policy are you talking about? Are you under the impression that I've been defending what happened to Russia after the cold war?

No, it's absolutely the opposite, and it's something you engage in endlessly. What about Corbyn , what about Mandelson etc. etc.. It's a way of dodging answering the actual question when you're uncomfortable with it.

And so we're back onto diversion? Which question was that, pray tell? Please God, don't let it be something about Corbyn again...