Search results

Go back to post 52, 53 and 54 Derf. You quoted me to begin with and claimed anna was arguing something she wasn't and that I, by taking her side also was by association. Flat out wrong. I've already told you that anna can address this directly to you but you decided to keep flogging a dead hose...

These answer The Berean easily enough as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55575260 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55572805 The MAGA lot really aren't too bright,...

There's an obesity problem in America full stop and I'm waiting for a cite that supports it being prevalent among the poor. Poor people and the homeless in any country do not have 'quite enough food' for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I do no such thing. You went wrong in your inference of something that simply wasn't there and worse, you've doubled down on it since. In no way, shape or form was Anna arguing as you suggest and if you even had a passing familiarity with her views you'd know she never has or would. The fault is...

Well, that's probably just as well as a party of skunks have more - and sorry to burst your little bubble Nick but you aren't anyone's judge or in any position to say what anyone's fate is either. Sorry bout that!

Well of course not. I know you're not the brightest crayon in the box Nick but c;mon...

Well that's easy. All of your silly little YT vids - along with any other conspiratorial talking heads on social media making out that the capital riots were something other than what they actually were - are total garbage. You seem to forget Nick, that the actual events on Jan 6th were...

I read her whole post, obviously and nowhere in it did she imply that it''s okay to kill the baby of a parent who isn't providing or unable to provide for their needs. You inferred something that simply wasn't there, leapt to a tangent of your own construing and that's nobody else's fault. I...

Anna's never argued that if a parent is unable to look after a child that it's okay to kill that child. I've no idea where you're even getting that from. She will no doubt address this to you directly when she has time.

Of course they aren't and I'm not arguing they are anyway.

"Evidence" does not come from social media sites - X, Facebook, TikTok etc don't count, if you want it to be taken seriously that is. I get all sorts of stuff in my own feeds and wouldn't think about presenting any of it as evidence for a position unless it contains a link to a credible source...

Oh, so if the Ukrainian citizens had been armed they could have fought against their own army as well as the actual tyrannical dictator - Putin? Good to know! *facepalms*...

So that's a no on the whole verifying and corroborating it then? That's the kinda thing that adults, especially those with critical thinking skills do. But hey...

It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference if Ukrainian citizens had arms or not where it came to Russia's invasion. Are you arguing that it would? Otherwise, there's few countries that have armed populations and nothing like the statistics of North America where it comes to gun crime.

Wouldn't have made a jot of difference against the barrage of artillery the Russians threw at Ukraine, or have you seen the pictures of Mariupol at all?

Have you verified and corroborated it? Else it's just like a talking head off TikTok. I hardly go there for news but if you're happy enough with your sources then crack on.

Do you think Ukrainian citizens being armed would have helped them ward off the Russian invasion?

It's actually Nick's.

Stick to your smileys, more substantive.

Oh, you mean the gigantic elephant in the White House room? That's as relevant now as it ever was and will continue to be until the files are released.