ChezGiven

Loved the little man. Deserves a top job after what he managed to achieve here in the circumstances.

I think he wants to be a writer.

A Talksport presenter? Being contrary? You're shitting me!? Someone should phone up and put him right.

FAO The Banner makers : http://dictionary.reference.com/

Cant believe this is happening. I thought we were slowly becoming a normal club again. If he appoints Pardew i want NUST to **** the fat cunt.

Mark Jensen wrote 'A mag for all seasons' as Billy Furious, didnt he? Good book that.

Sorry i used the term 'rabble rousers' as a joke. I just meant, was there a particular point of view that is being suppressed? It all sounds quite general (not listening to any views) but i was interested to know if there were points of view being raised which were specifically uncomfortable to the leadership and hence were being deliberately controlled. Basically i want to know if the leadership are militant activists wanting to lynch Ashley and some moderate views were being shouted down, or the even the opposite, the leadership are trying to moderate their stance and membership want more direct action. Or none of the above?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/0...-foreign-policy

Or did you just read my post which made that same point? I think it could be a real factor, if it is, then its Hughton's job to not allow complacency to creep in. He has, so for the first time in a long time, i'm inclined to point the finger at him. That fingers turns to Ashley when you realise that the team's spirit has been much less consistent or obvious since Calderwood left.

One thing that hasnt come out in this thead is what point of view(s) is (are) being suppressed by the NUST board? Who are the rabble rousers and what do they want?

Strange, i thought Guthrie improved in the second half last week as he got some good challenges in, added a bit more steel to his play.

Its called hospitality and i dont think we should extend any to them. Bit silly to compare it to bribery.

You'd have taken this position if offered it in August. If getting beaten away from home by another team in mid-table at the beginning of December is so disappointing that it prompts a relegation thread, your expectations must have been raised from the gloom at the start of the season. No one predicted us to play as well as we have in some games so there is no logic in using one game's performance to predicting the outcome next May. I am worried when i look at the table/fixtures though. 5 players out and 2 regulars (Shola and Jonas) acting like total bell-ends. Seems to me that at the start of the season, the players (and Hughton) wanted to prove a few people wrong. 3 outstanding results against against a top 4 club, a club with pretensions of being one and our local rivals have obviously quenched their desire to do this.

Aye. Think we've cancelled a trip Trinidad & Tobago for a training camp or something as well. We're just as bad as the rest of them if this be the case... I dont think we are. Its just a question of not wanting to further support the organisation. Fuck playing things with a straight bat, spend money if it gets us votes, dont bother if it doesnt. Quite right imo.

All 3 tbh.

That'll do though. Nice.

The french love him. Draw from that what you will. Am currently compiling a 'pop' playlist HF, got any recommends for it from this year (or last). Broken Bells, Robyn, that sort of thing.

He didnt want to leave.

That's a bit of a strech. Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong. But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour. Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies. Its clear as day to me. Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation. Well you're now making my point for me by characterising it as 'might is right'. This is the amorality i am talking about, a value system based on self-interest that derives its mandate for action from strength goes against every form of justice known to man. If 'might is right' then the terrorist who wants a force out of his country (there based on nothing other than this 'might is right' principle) has every right to blow American's up any which way he can, wherever he can because he is following the same moral framework. In fact, he doesnt need the excuse of them being in his country, he can choose to blow whoever he wants up, whenever he wants. Principles of justice, law, equity etc, are the building blocks of civilisation. My point is actually cloaked in simplicity. 'Self interest' is modulated by the ability to pursue it. I know exactly what your point is and I broadly agree with it, but you're missing an adjunct. Of course self-interest is limited by power, thats why you need international law and actions based on principles of justice so that super-powers dont abuse those with less power. The question i guess is whether any of this actually reveals this amorality in US foreign policy. Some people would argue that their principles came first and then the morality of their actions abroad were compromised by circumstances. This is fair enough tbh but history tells us otherwise imo.

That's a bit of a strech. Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong. But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour. Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies. Its clear as day to me. Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation. Well you're now making my point for me by characterising it as 'might is right'. This is the amorality i am talking about, a value system based on self-interest that derives its mandate for action from strength goes against every form of justice known to man. If 'might is right' then the terrorist who wants a force out of his country (there based on nothing other than this 'might is right' principle) has every right to blow American's up any which way he can, wherever he can because he is following the same moral framework. In fact, he doesnt need the excuse of them being in his country, he can choose to blow whoever he wants up, whenever he wants. Principles of justice, law, equity etc, are the building blocks of civilisation.

That's a bit of a strech. Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong. But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour. Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies. Its clear as day to me.

That's a bit of a strech. Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong.

Leazes has the sort of old school respect for authority that led lads in the first world war to willingly turn themselves into cannon fodder. The biggest naivety is considering the US a force for anything other than themselves, their own wealth and their own ideals. The wikileaks cables arent that shocking they just show a country relentlessly pursuing self-interest at every turn. Thats fair enough tbh but it makes them no different to a Palestinian trying to get his land back off the jews.

Mrs Patel having one of her turns is magic. There is the top of the pops performance on youtube too. Special.

Happy Birthday mate.