ChezGiven

Obama is guilty of naivety, nowt else. Cant believe people still dont get it after watching healthcare reform.

I understand that the legal case does not stand up and there is precedent to dismiss it.

Nice to see the humility of early season has completely disappeared.

The same reason they get involved with healthcare. There are social issues at play not just private ones.

Ha! Was thinking exactly the same when watching it Dr G.

I'm not sure the situation would have got any better if we had stayed up, just would have delayed the inevitable.

Just listening to his latest. Black Noise Nice The electronica heads out there will enjoy. Stick to My Side is quality.

Every cloud has a silver lining or something like that.

In response to Harper's comments: I really wish i had had more time to look at the financial figures because from a pure business point of view, what has been happening to the cost base at Newcastle (obviously revenue is a bit of an unknown) mirrors exactly what other business's have been trying to do during this recession. They have also lost revenues and like us have been drastically cutting costs and changing their mix of labour. Its sort of an analogy for whats happened to us, so everytime i read this i think there may be something in it but dont have access to the right data. There is so much bullshit in the media and on the forums, its hard to know whats true and whats not. Just back of fag packet style, if we had stayed up, we would have been forced to offer contracts around parity with existing contracts for new players, old 'shit labour/workers' that had put us in 17th would have stayed on. There would have been no scope for changing the strategy, direction, labour mix (age, price, experience, goals) etc. Once the business is back in the black, then you have the freedom to start again. With us apparently losing 500k a month, the 40m upswing in revenue may do that next season. If we arent losing that (i smell bullshit everywhere), then the upswing will definitely see us in the black. A steadying of the financial ship is a must for the long term health of the club. Thats an unavoidable fact of life for us. The question is whether this is true, i dont buy HF's analysis as i think what he has really been saying is 'the implication of your financial lies is that we are now more in debt than ever before'. However, my problem with that is nufcfinances.org was written by a man who told me company debt was just like having a mortgage. I never looked at that site again after that. He could have over or under estimated the debt by a long way, a fact confirmed by an accountant. There is a case that relegation for only one season, which allows (gives a good excuse to) the business to drastically reduce costs, is exactly like the recession with many companies still making profit or at least being 'going concerns' but shedding labour to allow more flexibility for the future. My business instincts always said that if we only went down for a season, perhaps it would do us some good. Something along these lines. We have revenue of 100m and costs of 107m in the year 200X Then we have revenue of 50m and costs of 60m in the year 200X + 1 Then we have revenue of 100m and costs of 60m + investment in +2 Then we have improved the long term financial stability of the club. The question has to be what cost base would we have had this year if we had stayed up? Could we have re-jigged the squad in such a way to reduce costs and keep us moving in the right direction without risking investments in prem players who turn out to be shit and just more burden on the cost base? I could be wrong like.

Brrrap.

Laura Marling's new album Dan le Sac & Scroobius Pip's new album Guru - Jazzmatazz Vol 1. Bomb The Bass - Into the Dragon Easy Star All Stars - Dub Side of the Moon.

With a nice pair of tits for an avatar?

You tried that mephadrone yet Parky? Its a bit shit, good for keeping you going when you've run out of anything decent.

Ah but the real reason the catholic church is so anti-homosexual sex isn't because of a moral reason - its practical - it means less chance of new recruits. This is the same reason they are against heterosexual non-reproductive sex even in marriage. As George Carlin said its all about the numbers. Of course it should go without saying that over-population is infinitely more of a threat to the planet than a few gays. That's the same with most all religion though. Catholic, Anglican (everywhere but the West, anyway) & Islam certainly. Disturbing lack of smilies from you fop, you feeling alright mate? Hmm, i wonder why that was?

Happy Birthday!

On that note, Krugman in the NYT.

There was a bigger point being made which was if you compare the midfield we often had on the pitch last season, the one we have now is arguably better. We've seen Routledge quite a few times in the PL already too, i remember him having a very good game against us at Palace a few years back.

They did what in 93? Insurance companies were the big spenders against reform back then, as were conservatives. There were no pharma company run ads against reform in 93. Drug re-importation doesnt benefit anyone but the wholesalers, even the EU backed away from diverting profits from those who research and develop new health technologies, to parallel wholesalers who merely leech resources away from healthcare. The discount to the patient / consumer is eroded by the transport costs and the margins taken by the traders. These are just logistics firms who trade across borders, not healthcare investors or partners. Aye, insurance were the most vocally opposed. I see it as a necessary evil to get business to go along....Obama promised he'd do that in the open with full transparency. He did it in back room deals the White House denied as long as they could. Also That's the same excuse they are still using against the current bill. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25594.html As if the most important thing about passing legislation to protect tens of millions of people is that it should fit in a pamphlet no bigger than a Newcastle program. EDIT: and again, there's been no success whatsoever in bipartisan cooperation. 100% of repblicans voted no despite all the concessions. Certainly 'no abortions' and that would have convinced lots of democrats to vote in favour though. From your link "It may go too far to say that Americans are too dumb to understand concepts like “bending the cost curve.” Or too preoccupied by “America’s Got Talent” to decide whether “evidence-based medicine” is a euphemism for rationing." Made me laugh

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=721893 I prefer to read what you think, not some mouthpiece from the US with little understanding of economics or healthcare. I think it's a fine thing what happened last night. I think a whole lot more could have gone in at the same time had Obama not already dealt it away last year. I think the entire bipartisan approach was a complete waste of time and energy, as the republican vote shows. The Reps' know that Oh banana will be most vulernable in his first term and they are just trying to fhu. If they can limit him to one term they can get back to business as usual....IMO he has come over too far in their direction in an effort for damage limitation. Also Americans are too dumb, you can't really tell them the truth behind these issues....I mean they started calling OB a communist didn't they?/! It's like the black dude that's shagging Leazes's daughter pretending to like Dire Straits. He's still a black dude, he'll never win him over. Best just stick some Jay-Z on and touch her up right in front of the old goat. I had dinner with 20 prostate cancer specialist a few weeks back when i was on the west coast of the US. This one Dr i sat next to was an amazing bloke. He was from North Carolina so i was treading carefully on the issue of reform and politics. Anyway, this geezer was about 65-70 yo, had prostate cancer himself and when i asked him about health reform what he said was remarkable. He told the story of 3 young men in his care with an aggressive form of the cancer and without insurance. He explained that he, along with his colleagues, had provided care free of charge for these 3 men, giving them surgery (radical prostatectomies) and had negotiated to get free courses of chemotherapy from a deal done with their health centre and our company. I asked him how prevalent that sort of behaviour was in his profession and if that sort of will existed, why was there not a will for stronger reform? He said 'not everybody wants to get paid less but the real problem is one of race, the problem is that he is black'. He apologised for it and was clearly quite moved by the discussion. He was also a massive history buff and gave me loads of recommendations on British history, one of his specialist subjects. I have to admit i was in complete awe of him. What you sayin like? I was only young at the time, so someone correct me if i'm wrong but when Clinton the white man was pushing for reform, there wasn't any support from big business, more complete opposition with millions spent on negative ad campaigns. There was also hardly any opposition whatsoever amongst the people, certainly not the passionate resistance we see with organised protests calling the president a commie. This time the health industry have spent millions in support of the bill, and it's the people Fox news have whipped into a frenzy with irrational fear of the black man that oppose. Either way, the will of the people seems irrelevant. As long as Obama did what Clinton failed to do and made it palatable to the health industry peeps, they wouldn't stand in it's way. Don't think they wanted to stand in the way of OB's first sortie into the unknown, anyway the medicine is modified enough so as 'special interests' haven't had to go to defcon 5. Big Pharma sees America as a big dumb market and is self-aware enough not to rock the boat too much. I was personally shocked at the whole 'illegal immigrants' will suck our money if there is reform bollocks...Anyway the financial crisis is just about to take another turn for the worst...so this will pale into the background... Obama made agreements with big Pharma (no drug re-importation and bulk price negotiations) and Insurance (no public option) so as they wouldn't kick up a fuss against his plan. In '93 they rocked the boat like mutha fucka's without those kind of assurances. It wasn't a case of sitting this one out, they aggressively pursued their interests so that if change was going to happen they'd be ok. Once they were secure of that that, they left the politicians they'd contributed just under £178m to to have a political slanging match over how best to deliver their profits. They did what in 93? Insurance companies were the big spenders against reform back then, as were conservatives. There were no pharma company run ads against reform in 93. Drug re-importation doesnt benefit anyone but the wholesalers, even the EU backed away from diverting profits from those who research and develop new health technologies, to parallel wholesalers who merely leech resources away from healthcare. The discount to the patient / consumer is eroded by the transport costs and the margins taken by the traders. These are just logistics firms who trade across borders, not healthcare investors or partners. Also, back then the bill was madly complex... Also

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=721893 I prefer to read what you think, not some mouthpiece from the US with little understanding of economics or healthcare. I think it's a fine thing what happened last night. I think a whole lot more could have gone in at the same time had Obama not already dealt it away last year. I think the entire bipartisan approach was a complete waste of time and energy, as the republican vote shows. The Reps' know that Oh banana will be most vulernable in his first term and they are just trying to fhu. If they can limit him to one term they can get back to business as usual....IMO he has come over too far in their direction in an effort for damage limitation. Also Americans are too dumb, you can't really tell them the truth behind these issues....I mean they started calling OB a communist didn't they?/! It's like the black dude that's shagging Leazes's daughter pretending to like Dire Straits. He's still a black dude, he'll never win him over. Best just stick some Jay-Z on and touch her up right in front of the old goat. I had dinner with 20 prostate cancer specialist a few weeks back when i was on the west coast of the US. This one Dr i sat next to was an amazing bloke. He was from North Carolina so i was treading carefully on the issue of reform and politics. Anyway, this geezer was about 65-70 yo, had prostate cancer himself and when i asked him about health reform what he said was remarkable. He told the story of 3 young men in his care with an aggressive form of the cancer and without insurance. He explained that he, along with his colleagues, had provided care free of charge for these 3 men, giving them surgery (radical prostatectomies) and had negotiated to get free courses of chemotherapy from a deal done with their health centre and our company. I asked him how prevalent that sort of behaviour was in his profession and if that sort of will existed, why was there not a will for stronger reform? He said 'not everybody wants to get paid less but the real problem is one of race, the problem is that he is black'. He apologised for it and was clearly quite moved by the discussion. He was also a massive history buff and gave me loads of recommendations on British history, one of his specialist subjects. I have to admit i was in complete awe of him. What you sayin like? That race is holding him back and that the American people are more inclined not to trust him because of his colour, making bipartisan reform his only option.

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=721893 I prefer to read what you think, not some mouthpiece from the US with little understanding of economics or healthcare. I think it's a fine thing what happened last night. I think a whole lot more could have gone in at the same time had Obama not already dealt it away last year. I think the entire bipartisan approach was a complete waste of time and energy, as the republican vote shows. The Reps' know that Oh banana will be most vulernable in his first term and they are just trying to fhu. If they can limit him to one term they can get back to business as usual....IMO he has come over too far in their direction in an effort for damage limitation. Also Americans are too dumb, you can't really tell them the truth behind these issues....I mean they started calling OB a communist didn't they?/! It's like the black dude that's shagging Leazes's daughter pretending to like Dire Straits. He's still a black dude, he'll never win him over. Best just stick some Jay-Z on and touch her up right in front of the old goat. I had dinner with 20 prostate cancer specialist a few weeks back when i was on the west coast of the US. This one Dr i sat next to was an amazing bloke. He was from North Carolina so i was treading carefully on the issue of reform and politics. Anyway, this geezer was about 65-70 yo, had prostate cancer himself and when i asked him about health reform what he said was remarkable. He told the story of 3 young men in his care with an aggressive form of the cancer and without insurance. He explained that he, along with his colleagues, had provided care free of charge for these 3 men, giving them surgery (radical prostatectomies) and had negotiated to get free courses of chemotherapy from a deal done with their health centre and our company. I asked him how prevalent that sort of behaviour was in his profession and if that sort of will existed, why was there not a will for stronger reform? He said 'not everybody wants to get paid less but the real problem is one of race, the problem is that he is black'. He apologised for it and was clearly quite moved by the discussion. He was also a massive history buff and gave me loads of recommendations on British history, one of his specialist subjects. I have to admit i was in complete awe of him.

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=721893 I prefer to read what you think, not some mouthpiece from the US with little understanding of economics or healthcare.

Its a rarity when its only Parky making any sense in replying to me. Just remember that in the US, you pay minimal tax. If you lived in the EU you would pay a lot more in the same income bracket. The difference? Greater than a healthcare premium. Funny that.

Oh and Routledge isnt a stupid little cunt either and is without a 'mauvaise influence' on those around him.

Better way to look at it, has Routledge performed as good as (and added enough value to the starting team overall) as N'Zogbia did when he played for us? Compare how N'Zogbia played on average for us. Head down, running into players, giving possession away was his trademark. I'd argue we've seen more from Routledge at times, we're not comparing potential or ability but contributions.