ChezGiven

Well you were always one to get wrapped up in 'personalities'

1. Look up the definition of non-sequitur. Drawing a comparison of the use of the word 'freedom' in its application to words and actions is perfectly reasonable argument. The key to the argument is in the bit you dropped off. Its a million miles from a non-sequitur. 2. I agree but the act is still wrong if you know it will lead to deaths. If murder can be morally right because of its consequences, then the opposite can be true; a morally right (or not wrong act in itself) can be wrong because of its consequences.

Any reason why?

I did it until the paramedic arrived, who defibbed him (a truly shocking sight, no pun intended) after which his breathing improved (he had been gasping every 20 seconds or so prior to that) and some rhythm returned to his heart. I don't know if he made it as I walked away once the medics had control, I was with my niece who is 5 and was freaking out a bit so I took her away to comfort her and sort my own head out too. He was breathing when they took him in the ambulance apparently. Fingers crossed he's okay. Top work mate, i'd have you in the trenches with me.

Well Congress voted against him, he faced a rebellion from his own party and his original proposal was blocked. That original proposal is not clear from sources i have looked at. Just like with other reforms he has tried to implement, the eventual legislation is watered down to get it through the Houses.

AC Grayling has written a secular bible. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/0...eism-philosophy

Did the bloke make it?

Some great points and i was only flagging it up for consideration as to be honest, you've nearly won me over on this one. My instinct however on this is that assuming an omnipotent president is about as daft as assuming an omnipotent god. If he doesnt get re-elected in 2012, then it will be soon enough for the Republican's to repeal the healthcare reforms, his greatest (if limited) achievement. Treading the fine line of public opinion is paramount now that his approval rating is only 47%. Some republicans are calling him out as favourite because of the weakness of their own candidates but Obama is weak politically and cant afford to lose support in NY as that wil decimate his constituency size in the House of Representatives. You anticipated my response correctly but when you say "Take these decisions to Congress and make senators vote for/against them so he can call them out as the people that went on record in opposition to the constitutionally protected rights of citizens" you are assuming that this message will resonate politcially, which we know it doesnt for the vast majority of the US. Its the right thing to do morally, not politically. I was under the impression that one of the first things he did was propose this and the opposition from the democrats forced him to write a watered down version which even didnt make it? Not sure it was the first draft that was taken to congress.

There will be on the 19th of this month. Nice! Whereabouts? In Coloccini's pocket hopefully. I got it straightaway.

The loss in revenues are simple. Relegation (TV money), Keegan debacle (ticket sales) and Recession (corporate boxes).

Re-election campiagn started yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/0...-military-trial Some interesting points for HF to consider.

Don't get outta the boat. [apocalypsenow/] There is a story behind me posting that link, i just dont know the full details yet. May have to wait until May 21st to find out.

No, it means your legal system is based around a more developed moral framework than the ones that predominated during the writing of the US constitution. I think they do curb such speech in the US too don't they? Don't they have libel and defamation/slander laws? Yes they do but you could argue that burning a Koran is neither since no factually incorrect statement with words is made. However, it does make Greenwald's point just about completely wrong.

No, it means your legal system is based around a more developed moral framework than the ones that predominated during the writing of the US constitution.

So if free speech should be unlimited as argued in the first part of that article, then freedom itself should be unlimited. This is patently bollocks as freedoms are not unlimited in terms of your actions, even when that action affects no one else. If freedom itself, which is just an idea, has limits in its abstract conception, then freedom of anything is potentially limited and coherent with the 'idea'. Rules always bang up against other rules, which is why our morality should be consequentialist, not dogmatic (thou shalt say what the fuck you want). If the consequences of you eating a bible are that your diet is a bit weird, then who gives a fuck. If people die because of it, it changes the morality of doing it. You would rightly argue that its the insanity of the reaction to a harmless act that is the moral idiocy, that still doesnt make saying 'go ahead burn the koran' knowing that it will lead to deaths somehow fundamentally right because it relates to an abstract idea of freedom which we have to uphold.

Thats one way of looking at it, the other is that its a narcissistic pursuit of body perfection It is true what you say though and i am actually planning on starting training soon, for a number of reasons but upper body strength being the main one.

I live in France and everyone here calls people from Pakistan 'pakis'. Should i come across my PC? I used chinkys all my life never knowing that it referred to a physical feature. I just thought it meant chinese and i bet most younger people do too. If people think thats racist then they're mugs.

Aye, if I was still living in Germany then kebab would be top of the list, but the version you get here - even the "proper" ones, in my experience - is too horrendous to contemplate. They have good kebab shops here, run by Turkish types, so I'll even have one for lunch. Whereas in my 20s kebab was the snack of choice when I was pissed out of my head. Having said that, I've had some top kebabs in London, even in Balham of all places ("Abra-Kebabra", a name which sticks in the memory). The trouble is I'm not sure how reliable my memory is as I'd eat my hand when I'm pissed if it had chilli sauce on it. Never tried one in the toon though, I've always had fish n chips or an Indian. Me and a old mate used to have kebab night once a fortnight on a tuesday after work. We would drive up to Golders Green, Stoke Newington, Wood Green all over north London in search of the perfect Kebab. Not a minging Donner but the proper ones, in small off the beaten track places recommended by his Turkish or Lebanese mates (he was jewish funnily enough but looked like an Arab and so do i a bit). The lebanese chains doing shawarmas on edgeware road are great but the Turkish version in this little place near the cemetry behind Stoke Newington station was considered by us as the best Kebab in the UK. Abra-kebabra was an Irish chain originally i think (or i saw them named that in Dublin years back). I have a Korean restaurant round the corner from me and it does the best take away ever. Its mix between Thai and Japanese food styles and is spicy, healthy and tasty as fuck. Its amazing what you can do with dog nowadays.

What health benefits come from doing weights? As opposed to another type of aerobic / a.n.other type of healthy exercise? Are you lot doing weights to look good or because you think it makes you look hard?

As someone said, its the cameraman's fault. Everyone swears at football apart from mum's and dad's with young kids. If the corporations want the broadcasts to be free from risk of picking it up, then they should switch sound away from the camera nearest to the players. Mind you, then we wouldnt have heard Suarez's girly scream

Is TN the new CT? Should we expect the new bete-noire of positivity to be hounded off the board in the coming months? Stoke's home atmosphere anyway, worth 9 points a season? Isnt that the point that TN is making?

We went bust last year! We didnt need to go into administration because MA put money in, just like Lerner, the mackem yanks etc. All of the clubs who are being funded by benefactors are technically 'bust'. They survive because its a football club not a business. Clubs dont cease to exist, thats nonsense as Leeds and Portsmouth (who actually truly went bust) prove. The concept of financially bust applies to clubs like Sheff weds, Notts Forest etc, clubs that were once competitive at the top and who no longer can be as they didnt grow their revenues, or whatever. As i say, we would not have gone bust, or ceased to exist but all lines of credit were gone. For those posters with a semblance of financial understanding, its clear that the club was in a perilous situation financially. Sorting the club out and dealing with that would have been very hard. However, in the short-term it was feasible if we remained a premiership club. The burden of debt in the medium term would have been very difficult to cope with unless a manager of Allardyce's methods was allowed to run us on a shoestring and maintain that status. His appointment by Shepherd was basically an admission of the financial difficulties. If the club had stayed under the old board's control and Allardyce had kept us up then the short term was just about manageable. If we had gone down, it was fucked. Its irrelevant though as the old board was planning to sell anyway, despite the media rhetoric. Otherwise why else were they buying and driving the price of the shares up between 2006 and 2007?

Also clubs go 'bust' all the time. They are the ones that get relegated because they can no longer afford good players and never come back. Official administration is rare, as you sell players who you can't afford or can't keep up with the quality of the league. Saving a football club from going to the creditors is straightforward because the customers are not signalled away to other suppliers like in normal business. When a company gets in trouble, customers no longer want to buy so the business collapses. Supporters keep a club from total devastation but can't keep them competing at the top if the money is not there to build the club or keep it at a certain level. Thats why finance is important.