Search results

Given that the Albion are a club that are having to let players go before we sign anyone (see Noone to Cardiff), obviously paying them exactly what they want isn't on the cards. Were you one of the confused few who made the banner?

If it's a loan deal it could be good for him. You're right that he's better than that, but a couple of months in the shop window could get him a decent move in January.

For some reason, I really believed that after the "self-outing" yesterday, NSC would stop paying any attention to unknowns on Twitter. Silly me :facepalm:

Er, no. That would suggest that taking a point was a good result, whereas I think you'll find the NSC-hivemind decided that it was a terrible result, and a sign that we were doomed & that we should start thinking about how long Poyet had left.

Indeed. I'm sure I heard that Warnock has been told he can't even afford the wages to bring a striker in on loan.

I was thinking that the problem with iPad wallpapers is that they need to look good in both portrait and landscape, so can't have anything too near the edges. The ones with the Albion badge up there look quality though!

I see what you did there. Clever.

But this is the point. I should have been more specific, I guess, and said "both can't be true in respect of the economy". The point being made, that I was quoting, was that it's the Lib Dems' fault that the economy is in a mess as they are blocking the Tories' policies in that department...

This is a hilarious argument too. The public seem to be split down two lines on the Lib Dems: 1) They are bending over, having NOTHING their own way, and letting the Tories have everything they want, so they are responsible for it all 2) They are having IT ALL their own way, stopping the Tories...

...and I voted Lib Dem:

Your vote figures are for the February 1974 election, in which Labour actually won more seats that the Conservatives, despite polling fewer votes. Utter, utter madness of an electoral system that allows that... but that's another debate, and one we won't get to have again for a generation -...

So you don't class what he actually did as terrorism?

The number of votes is irrelevant in a practical sense. Getting >50% of the seats on under <50% of the votes cast though is a pretty dodgy claim to a "mandate" in a "moral" sense (for want of a better word, though I'm sure one exists) in my book.

I asked as I was thinking about whether Breivik has been generally classed as a terrorist or not. I'm pretty sure he should have been, even if "mass-murderer" has been the more common wording used.

How is "terror related" defined?

The current Government seem to be giving it a good go. "It's not our fault, it's the cards that the Labour Government dealt us" is the defence at every turn. I don't disagree with that. It has made recovery harder. But it didn't cause what we are recovering from. It's also not to blame for...

The deficit did not cause the recession. The deficit is a bad thing, and needed to be fixed. The recession is a bad thing, and needs to be fixed. I'm not defending Brown and, again, I am not a Labour supporter. But blaming the worldwide crash on Brown's spending/deficit is a complete fallacy.

Quite. Check out The Flaw, which (if you like that sort of thing) is a very good documentary film about the crisis and the role played by the loans in the US. http://www.theflawmovie.com/

The thing is, this is an argument that will go backwards and forwards. If there's a coalition, people will say it wasn't voted for. If a party was governing alone, other people would say more people voted against them than for them (like Labour who were in power on less than 50% of the vote) so...

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not a Labour supporter and I didn't claim Gordon Brown did a great job.