Ukraine

She is the Duchess of Sussex - not Essex.- shows how observant you are. You reckon you're an expert.
Col
 
Also, I didn't hijack this thread.
I wasn't the one who used foul language on a public forum.
I wasn't the one who mentioned the Markel woman.
I wasn't the one calling another user 'kettle and pot.

Look in the mirror, you might catch the culprit.
Col
 
We are aware of your dislike of the Duchess of Essex. (You hardly ever let us forget.)
A bit like you reminding us virtually every day that you were in the navy doing secret missions blah blah yawn. What's the big deal?
Col
 
Biden did not visit Zelensky in the Ukraine when he had the chance. Actions demonstrate commitment and speak louder than virtue signalling word salads. Biden does not care about the Ukraine, he is appeasing Putin (Russia).
 
Col, for what it is worth, I apologize for confusing Essex and Sussex, two cities in England I have never visited and which I couldn't tell apart if you showed me an untitled picture of either.

Back to the issue of the thread, the problem with the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, as far as we can tell from news reports in the USA, is that Putin blew a gasket when Ukraine publicly considered joining NATO. It SEEMS that he sees a loss of power there and is concerned about his legacy. That is at least a part of what I see. I wonder if I have misunderstood the news or if the typical news writers have misunderstood the situation.
 
Col, for what it is worth, I apologize for confusing Essex and Sussex, two cities in England I have never visited and which I couldn't tell apart if you showed me an untitled picture of either.
Essex and Sussex are not cities or towns - they are English counties containing cities and towns, basically a smaller version of your states.
Col
 
Words are cheap, it is "easy" for Biden to sanctimoniously proclaim that Russia (Putin) will suffer "severe repercussions" for invading the Ukraine. As time passes, there is increasing incremental evidence that the Biden administration may be "slow walking" aid to the Ukraine for self-serving political reasons, essentially tossing the Ukraine under the proverbial "bus".
 
Another incident of Biden "walking back" on aid promises. Seems that Biden does not want the Ukraine to win.
The U.S. has refused to provide warplanes to Kyiv despite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s repeated requests for such aerial defenses.
The U.S. has voiced concern that providing warplanes could be aggressively interpreted by Russian President Vladimir Putin and spread the conflict beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Biden is "leading from behind" in the sense the Biden is letting Putin define what weapons would be "acceptable". Putin is evidently receiving material aid from China now. Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation that has a "right" to receive material aid since they were the one's attacked.
 
Putin to put man on the moon! Nothing like a big project to distract the population from the Special Military Operation. Desparate measures from a desparate man.

 
Americans! - Are you ready to part with the state of Texas?
They speak Spanish there - do you need it?
You got it backwards...the states everyone wants to part with is CA, unless someone can change their ways
 
НАУТИЛУС ПОМПИЛИУС — ЛУЧШИЕ ПЕСНИ
 
Last edited:
And, not understanding the language, your point is?
 
1651504783786.png
1651504897590.png


Nancy Pelosi and Anglenia Jolie strolling around the war zone in Ukraine, meanwhile they keep printing up more and more of our now worthless dollars.

I doubt either one has been to our southern border.

BTW, I like Zelensky designer sneakers, shouldn't he be wearing combat boots? I guess it wouldn't go with the hipster image.
 
I doubt the people of Ukraine would want their president actually in combat, so combat boots might be a tricky image.
 
I have to say that we do NOT need Trump back. He's a bit too abrasive for the rest of the world. But I'm not which conservative candidate would be a good president. I'm not sure if he's even available, but Trey Gowdy seemed to be a decent person when I saw him in various congressional hearings. Other than that, I don't know whom I would like.
 
I know Trump is highly polarising and can be abrasive, but you could also get someone in power who is not abrasive yet does not ruffle the feathers enough to disrupt the status quo. Trump was tackling multiple big issues at the same time, it almost seemed like chaos. Taking on NATO countries for not paying their agreed 2% of GDP into defence, the North Korea meetings, tariff wars with China, the border issue and threats of 20% tariffs with Mexico if they didn't sort it, Germany tariff negotiations, where the Germans were complaining that Trump would stick 20% tariffs on EU cars. This latter point I found a bit galling because the current tariffs for EU cars to the US were only 2.5%, yet the EU was charging 10%! Hypocrites! Obama was very smooth, but maybe when you are smooth, you are not ruffling any feathers and so the change is plus or minus a small amount deviating from the status quo.

Trump is to convention as Uber is to the taxi business. A disruptor.

Edit: Separate form from substance.
 
Last edited:
I have to say that we do NOT need Trump back. He's a bit too abrasive for the rest of the world. But I'm not which conservative candidate would be a good president. I'm not sure if he's even available, but Trey Gowdy seemed to be a decent person when I saw him in various congressional hearings. Other than that, I don't know whom I would like.
I like Trey. Comes across as a decent bloke with great argumentation skills.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom