Riedquat

Russia has been throwing vast resources at this one point for a long time. Concentrate enough on one and sure, they'll be able to gain there. The question is at just what cost to Russia - a bloody big one by all accounts. If they do gain control of it then the term "pyrrihic victory" springs to mind. Ukraine will have been quite willing to let Russia bleed itself on that thorn, even if it does eventually mean Russia gaining control of it. You're also making the mistake of arguing on the basis of "here's a metric, that gives you the answer without you having to engage your brain." They can be useful inputs to an assessment of what's happening, but only a fool treats them as a substitute for an assessment, for actually having to to think and reason. But it's a stupid mistake we see all the time these days, in all areas.

Don't think that "he's not mad" really adds up.

What's with this obsession with fire? Some types of car might be more likely to catch fire than others. None are likely enough to catch fire to be of sensible concern to anyone who's not a paranoid idiot. It's a non-issue either way around in the electric car discussion.

Pathetic, and utterly disgusting, how some people have no issue with being badged and branded with ID cards. Even more pathetic that they don't have an issue with this proposal, appearing to rely on "well I can't see any reason not to" rather than actually being able to produce any good reason for it.

I doubt the Soviet Union would've tolerated the levels of corruption that have made those elites so rich and Russia so ineffective.

I'm bloody glad that I'm old enough to have lived in a time when getting IDed like that was not commonplace. Making people accept that it's the norm to have to carry anything at all around that's not of their benefit, that they're only out and about on the sufferance of their betters if they can demonstrate it, is vile.

Couldn't agree more about fixing a non-existant issue. This voter ID requirement stinks to high heaven. The ever-increasing demand for ID is extremely odious in its own right even when you can come up with a degree of justification for it (quite why so many are so willing to be tagged, marked, and branded in this way I'll never sympathise with). This fails even that.

Clearly Trump's mistake was to try to pay her off to shut her up. A true leader would've had her fall off a balcony on to spiked railings, along with anyone else who pointed out that that's what happened. That's the sort of behaviour the likes of rollover and zugzwang admire.

Oh gawd, the usual tripe about "Britain's not criminally, horrendously overdeveloped" nonsense is being trotted out again. I sometimes wonder just what sense of their surroundings some people can possibly have. To say that we've made such a bloody mess of things that more building is currently an extremely unpleasant but necessary evil is reasonable (and sadly true). And it has to go hand in hand with trying to ensure that that's it, an no more. To argue on the basis that it's not even an issue is utterly unforgiveable, and I'm disgusted by anyone who takes that position. Development has already caused untold damage, and is a massive threat to the UK.

I'm not aware of any reason to think that Labour wouldn't be as bad or worse - they've certainly not said anything that makes me want them to be anywhere near power (the same's true for every party mind you). But I'm starting to wonder if putting up with the pain of it might be the lesser evil than giving up, in that if disappointment results in the party in power changing at every election there's a slim chance of it shaking the whole system out of the mess it's in.

And of course attacking a member of NATO is attacking NATO as a whole. Yeah, the state of our armed forces has been badly run down in recent years and needs to be rectified (I suppose we should thank Putin for supplying the motivation to do that), but you still don't attack just the UK.

It is quite amusing to see rollover continually humiliate himself by repeating such pathetic drivel. He must know we know he's just making a fool of himself but carries on regardless. I know it's mean to laugh at someone who can't have the slightest hint of self-respect, but I can't help myself.

Personally speaking I don't find not having a mobile phone to be a problem, although I've not yet encountered any car parks in my area with no other means of payment. I've a great deal of scorn for any attempts at making things unusable without one that worked perfectly well before them. And I find the idea of it being normal to carry around an expensive piece of complicated electronics all the time, and especially the desire to always be in touch, extremely weird.

You appear incapable of understanding any viewpoint other than a very over simplified black and white one.

No reason to think there's anything big happening, because this sort of paranoid drivel is par for the course. We're encouraged to live in such fear - with good intentions, I believe - that in this messed up, risk-intolerant world we're stuck with it probably honestly seems like a good idea in general to various people. Can't say I'd be comfortable with the idea of having a phone where it's even possible to over-ride it like this though.

Here's a mental exercise for you. It'll do you a lot of good if you're capable of it, but I have my doubts. It goes - work out why you're talking crap and making yourself look like a psycopath dick sucking idiot.

Indeed, such as your dogmatic opinion about the Tories, and Linekar's ignorant attempt at tarring with the same brush (which appeals to the simple-minded one side or the other, everything not 100% in line with my view is the equivalent of the worst drivel that's infest the modern world). The "treat them all as 100% illegal" line was wrong. The ridiculous opposite extreme is also wrong. I've nothing but contempt for the simple-minded who latch on to either to the exclusion of all actual thought.

Fairly hard line, but not absolute. But that's not the point, the point is that you've taken being anti-Tory (which is fair enough) to a state of dogma (which is not).

Too many people absolutely refusing to recognise the difference for some reason. Probably think people traffickers are heros.

I don't have a problem with electric cars although I can't stand the amount of ridiculous electronics in any modern car, which very strongly puts me off electric (hoping at some point decent conversions of older cars becomes practical and affordable). I wouldn't worry about some electricity being produced by coal though, it's an overall pretty small proportion. Too often people latch on to an idea and take it to the extreme - "We absolutely must get rid of every bit of coal! We must make all cars electric!" and so on, whereas getting a significant proportion changed instead achieves the same goals. The down side ot new people incomers is places keep growing, and although you've got some blind morons who refuse to accept that the level of overdevelopment in most of the UK is appalling the fact is more people is very damaging to most places here. It might've made London prosperous, it's also made it a bloated cesspit.

Density isn't necessarily a problem. The better Victorian terraces are pretty dense (I'm not talking about the back to backs here, ones with a bit more space than that) and work well enough. The ideal that people shouldn't often need to travel more than 15 minutes is fine. Trying to force it like this is pathetic. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That applies to a hell of a lot of modern ideas really.

I know it wasn't directed at me, but not considering asylum - zero (net), or at any rate pretty close to. Small enough to it's completely insignificant in terms of population growth (and anyone who doesn't recognise that population growth is massively damaging to the UK is too stupid to need reply). For asylum? Well there's little excuse to claim you're running for your life by the time you get as far as crossing to the UK so that's good reason alone to suggest people doing so are trying it on. Ideally there'd be some international agreements to properly distribute refugees. Those with no claim at all but who are trying to use it as a way of illegally sneaking in to the country are scum who are putting real refugees at risk of not being treated properly.

The problem is I expect you'd say the same about any issue the Tories raise. If it was drugs getting in to the country you'd be cheering on each load that did that.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the oligarchs would like to, they're losing out rather badly from all of this, but any hint of trying and they'll have a visit from an assassin pretty quickly.

The problem with that is that he spouts complete and utter drivel. That's not having your eyes open to a bias on one side, it's swallowing the far more controlled, biased narrative of a far more sinister side hook, line and sinker.