DiscoGary wrote:
uk person wrote:
...
Because attacking the typos really gets to the substance of any argument.
A few things:
1. You’re assuming an awful lot about how I would react in this hypothetical situation.
2. You’re assuming I’m a monarchist.
3. The Queen is the head of state, not our leader. That would be the PM.
4. Your entirely response is simply an attempt to move the argument away from your deliberate misrepresentation of the funding for the balloon protest. Which you refuse to acknowledge or apologize for.
5. Trying to guilt me with spurious statements such as “You would’t do any of that and you know it.” and “you would’t give a damn . . . admit it” won’t work. You owe me an apology.
BS. You know what I meant by "state sponsored", as in "someone in a position of authority giving it the OK". Quit using weasel words to play political gotcha games. Don't be an ugly Brit.
Hey ahole Gary - the initiative was crowd funded, as in the people spoke. By refusing to grant permission to fly the balloon politicians would be restricting people’s freedoms and right to protest peacefully. What part of that is confusing or wrong to you????