ChezGiven

I'm sorry but that is absolute nonsense. Answer me how Brown and Balls are responsible for the exact same problems in Portugal, Ireland, Greece? Answer me how Brown and Balls are responsible for the need for austerity measures being implemented across Europe and the US? The deficit is due to the recession, the debt is due to the bail-outs. Both are due to cheap credit being made available in the global markets via toxic assets.

There is something about the way Capello says 'Barry' that makes me laugh. Fucking shite player.

good summary To be honest I think I was a lot more diplomatic than I should've been, it's not my job to explain to a NUFC employee for 18 months, what is acceptable and what isn't in terms of what to say and what not to say. Shows how little these players embrace the culture of the club. MattM4 did to me till this episode. What about Hansdownerpantz - name says it all? His profile pic says it all

Purchaser Provider split was post 92, i did my undergraduate thesis on those reforms in 94/95.

Kaizero - Norwegian geek and possibly the ugliest man on the internet Fenham Mag - Fat and stupid which is unforgivable. Sewelly - Actually Brian Sewell's son, posher than an Oxfordshire dinner party. Matt M4 always came over as a good lad though.

Barton then Tiote. Surely we need a poll?

He genuinely thinks that Portgual has gone bust because of Blair's reckless decision-making in 2002.

The truth is that after Labour last fucked the country up good and proper, it was the Tories who came in and restored the nations finances and health. Although unpopular at first and whilst making mistakes like the poll tax, the good old british public new the score and kept them in power for 18 years. They left Labour an amazingly strong economy which they screwed up very quickly. The only way Labour could keep the tory good times going was to do everything in their power to encourage debt. People were encouraged to remortgage their houses to buy cars and holidays with the promise of ever increasing house prices. It will go down as a shameful period in british politics and YES THANK GOD THE TORIES ARE BACK. Its amazing how many people have been taken in by the lie. The UK's finances are in shit because of the financial crisis. Its sort of works tautologically, the current financial crisis was caused by the financial crisis. The governments of the world (you ignorant types tend to leave out the rest of the world from your analysis of 'british politics') were not encouraging people to remortgage houses. Banks were making credit available and people took advantage of that. Alan Greenspan is more to blame for our current situation than the entire set of decisions taken by Labour since 97.

They both operated under very different circumstances with revenue growth in the 90s in football being at its apex and stalling now. However, they both oversaw KK walking out because he couldnt align to their financial vision for the club. As much as i think Ashley is a tosser, his status as a cockney means he gets vilified for that but its hardly mentioned about the previous board.

Well said Stevie. Perhaps it would have been better to point that out to Simpson though, as he clearly pays attention to what you're saying.

Whoever they are, they seem to be having trouble understanding the flow of time. “In the last full financial year before Ashley's takeover on May 23, 2007, Newcastle's total liabilities stood at £146million. At December 31,2006, net liabilities had risen to £152million.”

That's opinion and wrong imo too. The article highlights the wages to turnover ratio in the championship of 90% without explaining that this will have dropped to around 50 or 69% this season.

So if liabilities are the same as in 2007, half the posts in this thread about how Ashley has made the debt worse were just bollocks. Source?

For that moronic statement to tail a pure polemical rant is beyond irony. What does he mean by empirical here, that there are observable examples? Observations of what? His own party voting against him is one empirical observation relevant to this view and neither you nor Greenwald have brought a single one. Those last examples all occur after Congress voted against him 4 months after his inauguration. What the article boils down to is that technically, with a lot of will and a few risk, they could try KSA on US soil. Good reason to vote for the tea party that.

"Zzzzz... Pipe down you fucking mug....zzzz" Seriously. It's not like all the time, but plenty lasses past and present, "who were you calling a cunt last night?", when I've shared rooms with lads on trips its even more frequent. Usually after a skinful I might add. I once woke up in a lass's room in a hotel after a work do to "you're horrible" with no recollection of how i got there.

I knew a lass with a rabbit habit. Biggest surprise of my day is finding out Dr G smokes, far less of a mug in my eyes now

"Zzzzz... Pipe down you fucking mug....zzzz"

Wasnt there a thread where some wankers were posting 1000s of smileys in one post as a 'joke'? And then someone quoted them with their own enormous amount of smileys?

The difference is the source of morality; religion points godwards, and this book/example/atheist view uses rational thought. The subsequent systems of morality are both as dogmatic as each other, its their source that differs and that is the critical issue.

I'm in, what's the prize?

because us progressive enlightened atheist have lost our "we don't have a dogma" or "we're not dogmatic" argument. Not sure i get you. I believe a cancer drug works on the basis of a clinical study. Its not 100% proof but the odds are good, however it remains a belief. As that belief works along the same fundamental scientific principles as more than likely used by 'progressive enlightened atheists', then i presume your calling that belief dogma? All scientific experimental discovery is belief in an assumption (hypothesis) that you try to falsify (controlled experiments). If your definition of dogma incorporates that and religious belief then its too broad to be meaningful, isnt it?

Forgot to add he sold at £1 a share and that he didnt have the £100m it would have taken for his stake to turn into ownership either.

Shepherd was slowly building his share holdings up from 2005/6, being careful not to hit 30% and invoking a mandatory bid for all the shares. Either he wanted to drive the price up to maximise his payout, or he was desperately trying to stop a takeover bid. The price he was buying at was 47.5p or less from 2005 and him buying up these shares would drive the price up further. I cant find the share price historical data on yahoo http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6783...4/ai_n28284892/ This upward trend was noted as 'soaring' the day before the club was sold in May 2007. http://www.newcastle.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=66550 Imo Shepherd's public reluctance was a bargaining tool. Does anyone remember him refusing an offer and Ashley coming back with a revised offer of +1 pence? Or did i imagine that?

We dont leave it to the pastor to decide, thats what the legal system is for. As the US legal system allows it, then he can go ahead and say what he wants. Debating whether its right or not is pretty fundamental though, otherwise legal systems would remain unchanged over the centuries. I believe verbally abusing a child is wrong, these lot believe verbally abusing their prophet/god is wrong. Offence is in the eye of the beholder. In the US, am i allowed to sit a 5 year old boy down and repeatedly call him a cunting faggot shit for brains? If not, why not? To answer your question, of course the violent acts are wrong. As my mam always said though, two wrongs dont make a right.

Its the journalist who describes his laugh as withering, not him. I know very little about him tbh.