egg

To what extent are those acts of violence are borne of frustration and anger at the treatment of their people as against a pursuit of their take on their religion. I'd hazard a guess it's not all about the latter.

Indeed, but I'm still not understanding why LD feels that we need to repeal well established statute. We need a plan and action on the ground to address immigration and infrastructure, that we agree on, but if someone feels that statute needs to repealing to achieve that, they need to be able to explain why. All he's so far is that it's a bit old.

I'll ask again, what parts of the existing legislation should go? I'm with you that immigration, legal and illegal, is too high, and needs looking at, but you're not clear what you say is wrong with various well established acts.

Keith Kellog had a bit to say in Munich, but was equally vague, pointing to financial concessions: "So what does (Russian President Vladimir Putin) have to give up? Well maybe he'll give up his oil revenue and we'll force him to do it, because what you do is start employing sanctions that break the economic back," Kellogg said. "These are the things you can do." Earlier in the discussion, Kellogg said that both Ukraine and Russia would have to make concessions to end the war. "When you say concessions, of course they're concessions that both sides are going to have to give," Kellogg said, without specifying what concessions the countries would have to make. The US will get what's in it's interests in this, leaving Ukraine out to dry, and Europe either accepting it or fronting up to Russia. This is a pretty significant moment.

What parts of all of that legislation do you say should go? Assuming you feel that most should remain, why repeal rather than amend?

His remarks were racist. Undeniably. If he really wants to alter the law to tighten up immigration then he would have said that - it's pretty obvious that you don't need to repeal the Act to put controls on immigration. You repeal the Act because you want to remove all the good that it stands for.

Barmaids

There won't be any people wearing scarves there Weston as well you know.

Pretty much it, yep. Dubai plus a drinking/gambling/club culture will do well. Sadly.

The sad thing is that people will happily do so without batting an eyelid. I'm imagining something Vegas esque, but with marinas, promenades and a predominately Jewish population.

An Aussie news website opinion piece questions whether he's planning a coup. Seems a stretch. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-15/elon-musks-doge-agency-explained/104929704

I think that's right. For me, loans in and out are vital, and I have no issue with us using another clubs player for a brief period. Edwards arguably should have gone on loan earlier, but half a season playing regularly for a team at the right end of the championship is superb for him and us. Ditto Charles, and Diaz will have regained some confidence from his loan too.

It's conceivable that one of them could pass us on the way down. Pleased for those lads as their moves to us hadn't gone well. Credit to the club though for sorting decent loans that benefits all concerned, not least us next season.

That was a cracking run and finish.

I'm not sure about that. They're still a superpower, the issue is who's with them. NATO will soon be gone, but that probably exposes Europe more than the US. They've softened up India who'll arguably be a more relevant anti China ally than Europe, and I'm interested to see what Australia do. I'm not sure where exactly he's going with Russia, but I think there'll be a warming of relations and they'll use tariffs to their advantage. Canada will be left a tad exposed in my view. He's an absolute loon.

Good post, and I'm with you on all of that. I also think there's also a wish to divide and conquer the wider Brics+ nations, politically and financially speaking. China he can only really hurt with tariffs, but Russia he can help by easing tariffs, he's softened up India, and had a pop at South Africa in his first week. Europe are a drain to him, and in reality do the US need NATO? It's shaping up to be a very interesting year.

Christ. Congress may be daft enough to pass that.

I get that, but would he care if he can't run again? He's about getting deals done that save or make America money, and in his eyes, make him look good. Neither Ukraine nor Gaza should be stitched up, but both will be sadly.

This either ends on the battle field or around the negotiation table. It'll be the latter. Do you say it'll be the former?

Frankly, you have to be rather naive to have ever doubted that this will end in any other way than an exchange of land for an end to fighting. Whether it's fair or what you'd like to see happen is another matter.

A settlement agreement is exactly that. Whether Russia behave themselves thereafter is a separate issue.

It was a yes or no question. The answer is that there will be a negotiated settlement. Whether Ukraine likes it or not, and whether it's done fairly, does not alter the fact that there will be a negotiated end to the conflict which results in Ukraine keeping some Ukrainian land.

The identity of the perpetrator is a fact. I'm not responding to the rest as I have no interest in a discussion with you.

The issue previously has been people making predictions before knowing the ethnicity of the perpetrator. Once known, reasonable assumptions can be made.

Do you still believe that this will not result in a negotiated settlement?