Ketsbaia

Doesn't really say much wrong IMO. Just look at the amount of sackings throughout football nowadays. Until we show a marked improvement he's going to be able to come out and say these things.

Naaarwich to come up and Rodders to sign him.

Agree with this. It's not Keegan's fault we went from putting in a fairly solid performance for the first 45 against Villa then fell to bits in the second half.

Great idea. I'd go further and have a Rugby type rule where only the captain can talk to the referee.

My fuse has shortened quite a bit, like. I'm almost constantly on the verge of a pagger when out now because some arsehole gets right on my tits. I used to be able to just shake the fuckers off but now I find myself giving the verbals back. It's massively out of character. What makes it worse is that i'm soft as shite. I'd go down like a sack of shit if anyone brushed passed me, let alone thumped me.

Anyone mentioned M.I.A? She's fantastic

What's your point? Saudi Arabia is a country with an awful human rights record, that's been known for a while.

A card with some lovely words inside.

The Beatles - Eleanor Rigby

I'd buy music if it was all done in the same way as Radiohead's last album. Most people bought it at a fraction of the cost of a normal CD and yet it made them a bucket load of cash. IIRC it was their most profitable album ever. Until then and until this is brought in i'll continue to download albums and then actually buy the ones I like.

Why be suspicious? What's he going to get out of it? A slight knowledge about the rivalry. Howay man. Well, i'm from a town in between the two cities called Washington, which you may or may not have been told about at school due to it's strong links with America. With it being in between the two there is a fair mix of both Newcastle and Sunderland supporters. Many of my best friends support Sunderland and any football conversation is just simple banter and nothing too serious. Over all, i'd say I just dislike the club rather than the city and the people. There isn't much difference if any at all between Newcastle and Sunderland supporters so any hatred based on football club is just petty. However, I do get the feeling that if you asked this question on a Sunderland website you'd get a lot of people saying they hate everything about us. There does seem to be a general disdain towards us from some sections of Sunderland due to the fact Newcastle's city has had much more money pumped into it over the years, they believe the media is biased towards us and our 'success' as a football club since the advent of the Premiership. If Stevie answers you questions, just ignore him ;-)

They sing Staring at the Rude Bois? Meh, they're poor bordering on average.

Fuck right off Just when I thought Leazes was the biggest twat in the thread by a country mile, you've came along and usurped him.

Also do you really think "we deserved" 7/7? (which has nothing to do with my point of political capital from the event BTW), how and in what way did "we deserve it"? If so that just goes to PROVE what I had said about the Wests current fanatical culture of self-loathing. Are you on glue? You said we "deserved it", not me. Even sniffing glue wouldn't excuse you from such utter delusion...... it would seem to explain the utter lack of scope of your "argument" and paltry "come backs" though. Is this you? Only a head-mental would actually look at my post and take it so out of context that he could legitimately believe I was advocating the London bombings and not using 'we deserved it' in a hypothetical way

Notes for Underground - Dostoyevsky How pretentious am I?

Can I also point out if Mr. Taylor is reading that passing the ball back to Given whenever an opposition attacker gets within about three miles of you isn't the best course of action, especially as Shay has taken to kicking like Forrest Gump with the calipers still on.

Also do you really think "we deserved" 7/7? (which has nothing to do with my point of political capital from the event BTW), how and in what way did "we deserve it"? If so that just goes to PROVE what I had said about the Wests current fanatical culture of self-loathing. Are you on glue?

Tell him to get behind Shola in the queue.

He's poor, very poor. He did have the potential to be an England centre back but the lack of someone next to him such as Woodgate has hindered, if not stopped his progress altogether. Whether we can get a world class CB in next summer or not will depend on whether he reaches his potential. It pisses me off massively that some people wont have a word said against him. There are some elements to his game that are clearly lacking but some fans wont acknowledge this and paint him as this class act.

Really don't understand how it would be Allardyce's fault if we were relegated. We were mid-table when Keegan took over, if we go down it's squarely on his head. Hard to disagree with that. I don't believe Allardyce fucked up the club, I think he had the right idea in what he was trying to create. Personally, I still reckon we should've stuck with him until the end of the season but that's a moot point now. Keegan is obviously trying to play a certain style of football but the lack of a few key players (Good CB, Creative mid and a world class striker to name a few) is clearly hindering us quite badly. We are in a relegation battle here, make no bones about it.

Changes being made to the constitution are about as rare as rocking horse shit. In principle they can be altered, but the fact it's such a difficult thing to do pretty much negates the whole thing. Certain people take both literally, if I had my way i'd throw both on the fire and they'd not be an issue. But that's just me.

The point is that it's the English Premier League. Surely the English Premier League should be played with in the English FA's boundaries?

The problem is, like with ANY belief system (religious or otherwise), you don't just get the "good" bits. Islam itself has a lot of good aspects, and is actually quite nice, if you squint, close one eye and ignore all the downsides........... the problem is divorcing those nice aspects from: 1: religious laws at least 600 years out of date (it's insane to think someone's belief system could allow the exact interpretation and penalties from say English law in 1400 to be used in today's society, yet that is exactly what is being proposed [and indeed already done in the case of benefit payments to "bigamists" in the UK - it's ok on religious grounds, or rather they dare not close the loop hole that allows it]). There's lots of islamic debate about modifying Sharia for the modern world, but unfortunately as it is derived from the Koran which DOES NOT change it often remains utterly intractable and un-modified - much like the fanatics that still try to believe the world is 6000 years old and Evolution doesn't exist, and base it on literal translations from the Bible). 2. politics, islam is as much a political force today as it is a belief system, in fact in many direct ways probably more a political force than a religion (Iran for example, uses Islam as a means to a political end, rather than really taking its politics from the religion per se) . Islamofascism is rampant across the world today in a way that mirrors colonial power of 150+ years ago, and again I can't see this getting better any time soon, either in Islamic countries (look at the way Turkeys secular state is coming under subtle attack), or by pressure groups in non-islamic countries (when you look at the political gain that was made out of the aftermath 7/7, parts of the UK the islamic lobby gained as much as any Labour spin doctor made out of it). If you could divorce those to things there wouldn't be a problem, but you cannot divorce human nature from humanity. I concur whole heartedly with your first point, but then the most powerful, Christian nation in the world bases it's beliefs on a constitution that was written a well over a two hundred years ago. Both need a major fucking revamp. Anyway, in Leazes case he's pretty much decided that murders, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists deserve the punishment we'd dish out in the 15th century. As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point. I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years. don't they make ammendments to the constitution though? I've not heard of any such ammendment to the Koran. I wouldn't call them amendments in the literal sense. They can add stuff to the already existing constitution but not alter anything already there. IIRC the last real amendment to the constitution was made in the early 70's. It's not a living, breathing being and nor is the Qu'ran.

The problem is, like with ANY belief system (religious or otherwise), you don't just get the "good" bits. Islam itself has a lot of good aspects, and is actually quite nice, if you squint, close one eye and ignore all the downsides........... the problem is divorcing those nice aspects from: 1: religious laws at least 600 years out of date (it's insane to think someone's belief system could allow the exact interpretation and penalties from say English law in 1400 to be used in today's society, yet that is exactly what is being proposed [and indeed already done in the case of benefit payments to "bigamists" in the UK - it's ok on religious grounds, or rather they dare not close the loop hole that allows it]). There's lots of islamic debate about modifying Sharia for the modern world, but unfortunately as it is derived from the Koran which DOES NOT change it often remains utterly intractable and un-modified - much like the fanatics that still try to believe the world is 6000 years old and Evolution doesn't exist, and base it on literal translations from the Bible). 2. politics, islam is as much a political force today as it is a belief system, in fact in many direct ways probably more a political force than a religion (Iran for example, uses Islam as a means to a political end, rather than really taking its politics from the religion per se) . Islamofascism is rampant across the world today in a way that mirrors colonial power of 150+ years ago, and again I can't see this getting better any time soon, either in Islamic countries (look at the way Turkeys secular state is coming under subtle attack), or by pressure groups in non-islamic countries (when you look at the political gain that was made out of the aftermath 7/7, parts of the UK the islamic lobby gained as much as any Labour spin doctor made out of it). If you could divorce those to things there wouldn't be a problem, but you cannot divorce human nature from humanity. I concur whole heartedly with your first point, but then the most powerful, Christian nation in the world bases it's beliefs on a constitution that was written a well over a two hundred years ago. Both need a major fucking revamp. Anyway, in Leazes case he's pretty much decided that murders, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists deserve the punishment we'd dish out in the 15th century. As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point. I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

As much as I don't agree with Sharia Law as a whole (far too squeamish to be dealing with beheadings, and the whole Queer = wrong lark isn't my cup of tea) in principle it's not that bad. Anyone who has even done the briefest of research into the subject can telling you that it's much more a moral set of laws and in practice only the worst possible cases get arms, cocks, legs etc. cut off. There is so much leeway too. For example if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their family the general idea of Sharia Law in the Western world is that this person will be stoned to death, where as it's quite the opposite. Even if you are guilty of a crime, barring a serious one, you have so many chances to repent and pretty much get yourself off it makes our legal system look totalitarian. Of course, this whole system has been abused to fuck by the likes of Saudi Arabia and thusly seen as some form of scourge that must be stopped. On the Muslim issue as a whole I take every story I read about in the paper with a pinch of salt because a) the story usually originates from some ridiculous, bespectacled, middle aged, right on fucking arsehole who has a lowly position in the local council and wants to ban Christmas and b ) I've met a fair mix of all the religions and by far the most accepting and tolerable when it comes to religious beliefs are usually Muslims or Sikhs. I've met more than a few Christian's who have pretty much declared themselves offended by my atheism and made an issue out of it. Probably wouldn't do Leazes any harm if he watched the Power of Nightmares or a few John Pilger documentaries.