Alteredbhoy

Of course you believe it. William Barr as AG under Trump undertook an investigation and found no evidence. Trump took it to the Courts, which determined there was no evidence. Fox had to pay out the best part of a billion dollars because despite having no evidence they reported the fraud and pointed fingers. You have no evidence, but you believe it happened. It's idiots like you who are leading the US towards a Civil War. The only way you can defend your support for a proven rapist and fraudster is to portray him as the victim.

It's just proof of his haste to post a counter argument that he doesn't consider the stupidity of what he is saying before posting it.

I think the fact that you don't answer the question proves my point. You don't even consider the subject matter before rejecting it out of hand, even though you don't know or understand what has happened. It is a sign of a totally prejudiced and narrow mind. I suppose it is you you came to agree with Trump in his meeting with Putin at Helsinki when he gave to contradictory statements. Everything he says is right in your mind, even when it contradicts something he's already said and you've agreed with. It shows the shallowness of your opinions and that you are happy for them to be made by others.

Is that your admission that you have no knowledge of the content of this discussion, despite your already having offered a view on it? Your ability to talk at length on subjects about which your have zero knowledge is quite astounding.

rowlf playbook rule number 13 Feel free to discuss subjects about which you know nothing, but in general terms. What Fox and Wooton said was personal, unpleasant and unedifying. It was said as a form of political commentary, though it was little more than abuse of a respected journalist. It isn't being "woke" to claim it was disrespectful and totally unacceptable. Especially as I doubt you have the faintest idea who either of them are, or what they said.

Don't be obtuse. Trump is running for POTUS. You will doubtless vote for him to become POTUS. That is despite US Judges adjudicating him to be a rapist and a fraudster. And you claim to want to defend the rights of women. But only when it suits you.

I can't believe they've suspended Laurence Fox and Dan Wooton for discussing the sexual attractiveness of women with whom they disagree. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Do GB News not realise that we all want to know how a person's political views affect their sexual appeal in the eyes of nutty right wing misogynists?

The world I want to leave for my grandchildren and children is not one that is led by a rapist and fraudster. Is that the world you want?

So a judge has found that Donald Trump's business empire was founded upon fraudulent over valuation of his assets. But clearly this doesn't mean he's unfit for office. After all he defrauded the banks, so where are the real victims? And doesn't every billionaire businessman do it? It's not like he's been adjudged to have raped anyone. Oh hang on. No, but nobody is saying he acted against the State are they. It's not like he's being tried for offences under the espionage act, or for seeking to over turn an election result that he didn't like. Oh hang on.

Looks plausible to me

The OP probably missed the explanation to this forum that explains that sightings are only valid if they are of women whom you personally find sufficiently attractive. Exactly how many sightings have you posted? And what is that figure as a proportion of the posts that you have made which are critical of other posters' sightings?

Yes, lady in the sheer nylons flashes her tops as she changes seat and adjusts her seating position at the very beginning.

But one of your arguments was that cars at 20 mph are more polluting than at 30 mph. That clearly was not an argument concerning EVs. I argue with you because you are invariably wrong and offer illogical arguments.

You are wasting your breath Cubes, if you want rowlf to read this. Most certainly he won't, and in the rare scenario that he does, he will either not understand or refuse to accept it. Tucker Carlson is a much more reliable source of genetic science in his view.

So because people break the speed limit there is no point having a speed limit? If the speed limit in urban areas is reduced to 20 mph, then the vast majority of drivers will obey the limit. Those who choose to speed will probably continue to do so when they are able. But during the day when most drivers and pedestrians are about, they won't be able to do so because of the volume of traffic moving at 20 mph. All you do ruby is look for reasons why limitations on car drivers won't work. You never look for a solution to the problem the internal combustion engine causes.