thetrees

OK some of this will be got back but it was perfect for what is needed now

We have had weeks of news about people worried about money, paying their heating bills, feeding and clothing their kids.

Brown's answer?

Cut VAT, a cut that doesn't affect heating bills, food, or kids clothes.

Brown's message is clear.

Let the kids freeze, send them out in rags, and starve them, just make sure that you go out and buy another plasma TV.

After all, we must keep Chinese manufacturing buoyant

Let's be clear the pre-budget report, if it is going to be as widely reported, is something akin to somebody who is about to have their house re-possessed going out and spending 20 grand on their credit card.

Those on here voting BNP and Labour have one thing in common, they are voting for parties that haven't got the first idea how to run an economy.

no I did not TT thats the twist !!!

I said the war was not morally justifable, you have twisted it

My apologies then for misinterpreting it.

I don't 'twist' as I don't feel the need to do so.

I shall refrain from posting in this thread any further.

EDIT: even if it means giving Ian the last word :winkold:

TT, debate the falklands in a thread you can start

because you can twist it how you like but some wars have never been morally justifable is Iraq ?

or vietnam ?

or Korea ?

or WWII ?

just questions

Not twisting anything Ian.

You did state that the Argentine invasion of the Falklands was morally justifiable, did you not?

Yes or no will suffice.

If I believed in the war and my country truly needed me, yes, I'd fight.

thats the key isn't it does you country really need you in Iraq ?

of course not

You've moved around a bit Ian.

I think the point was that you rated the Argentine invasion of the Falklands as morally justifiable.

Whilst I accept that you and I have different standpoints on most issues, up until now I have always respected your position.

On this I think that your hatred of one person has blinded you to the illegal action that was taken against that 'pile of rocks', where several of my generation died or were badly injured.

Without question.

Better to go with a bang than a whimper.

Would you shout "This is Red Five, I'm going in!" as you entered the fray? I hope so.

I agree with the Die With Your Boots On sentiment. When in doubt, turn to Iron Maiden songs for advice on what to do. Although that did cause a bit of a stir at a Round Table do, when I spent a couple of hours playing with madness, before bringing my daughter to the slaughter.

At last! Someone who 'gets' my username...it's only taken 5 years... :-)

Better than the person who thought I was a closet red...I mean...

i always thought that you were a big Nigel Mansell fan :?

it is my view on why Falklands was invaded, however it is not a poltical debate for others it weas justifable

So a military government invading a tiny neighbour in an attempt to whip up popularity in their own country is justifiable?

Astounding :shock:

another thread if you wish to debate that

no desire to Ian, I just wish that you would stop using the word morally

it is my view on why Falklands was invaded, however it is not a poltical debate for others it weas justifable

So a military government invading a tiny neighbour in an attempt to whip up popularity in their own country is justifiable?

Astounding :shock:

simpel the falklands is a bunch of rocks where it could be argued we could have solved the problems politically but a certain PM wanted a war to help flagging poll ratings. Now others will disagree but it is my view.

I doubt that a certain PM 'wanted a war' but concede that it certainly helped her politically, as major events in history have helped others.

If you can try to strip your political grievances out of it the 'bunch of rocks' is populated by human beings, who have a right to protection from aggressors as you and I do. Given that you would have 'politically' solved the problem I assume you see them as expendable? A strange thing for 'moral principles' to be founded upon in my opinion.

Here we go, I'm suprised it took till the 3rd page to become a political thread.

Any chance we can have a politics sub forum of off-topic?

Alas, wars are started by politicians, so probably better to avoid war threads in the future.

I did try to strip the politics out of it :winkold:

simpel the falklands is a bunch of rocks where it could be argued we could have solved the problems politically but a certain PM wanted a war to help flagging poll ratings. Now others will disagree but it is my view.

I doubt that a certain PM 'wanted a war' but concede that it certainly helped her politically, as major events in history have helped others.

If you can try to strip your political grievances out of it the 'bunch of rocks' is populated by human beings, who have a right to protection from aggressors as you and I do. Given that you would have 'politically' solved the problem I assume you see them as expendable? A strange thing for 'moral principles' to be founded upon in my opinion.

depends Moz, if I got conscripted (not likely at 36 !!) for WWII then would go but say for Afghanistan, Falklands or any others, would rather go to prison

Moral principles also have to count

I don't quite understand where your 'moral principles' are coming from Ian.

The Falkland Islands are sovereign British territory populated by British subjects who had an express desire to remain as such. They were invaded by an uninvited aggressor.

Afghanistan I can understand, although I would venture that in WW2 we went off to fight because of Poland, so maybe there's not too much difference.

Personally I would fight for my country unconditionally.

I went for England. If it was Champions League, rather than Premier League, then I would say Villa.

Villa and the Premier League

An England win would be nice, but couldn't stand the media crap surrounding it.

I have zero interest in the Chumps League and wouldn't even attend a final.

Undoubtedly, as he was the greatest footballer I have ever seen and probably the best ever World Cup performer for his efforts in '86.

Talkshite have been going off on one about him for days but the simple fact is that the England captain, John Terry, is a cheat. Moreover his cheating is sponsored by his association who overturned his red card for cheating at Man City earlier in the season.

The England vice-captain also a cheat, falling over regularly and uses his 'star' status to bully referees into giving him decisions.

The game is littered with cheats, including a number of English ones, none of whom are fit to lace Mr Maradona's boots

so that makes cheating allright does it? just because the english cheat how does that detract from the fact he cheated.

Nope, just the whipped up 'holier than thou' English media outrage extremely hypocritical

Undoubtedly, as he was the greatest footballer I have ever seen and probably the best ever World Cup performer for his efforts in '86.

Talkshite have been going off on one about him for days but the simple fact is that the England captain, John Terry, is a cheat. Moreover his cheating is sponsored by his association who overturned his red card for cheating at Man City earlier in the season.

The England vice-captain also a cheat, falling over regularly and uses his 'star' status to bully referees into giving him decisions.

The game is littered with cheats, including a number of English ones, none of whom are fit to lace Mr Maradona's boots

From a UK perspective I am in favour, simply because the human rights act makes our penal system cushy.

With the advance in DNA testing we can prove guilt more easily, and violent murderers should be dispatched.

This would then free up places in the prison system to effectively punish other criminals.

A re-introduction of capital punishment should be in tandem with a reintroduction of corporal punishment, so that those poor lambs who like to smash things (and people) up on a Saturday night get short, sharp retribution.

Tell me that wouldn't be a deterrent.

some peopel will always kill no matter the sentence

they wouldn't kill twice though, would they?

Sorry,but I don't see anyone in the Everton squad that could improve ours

The feel good factor does not fit in our trophy cabinet. Those "terrible" times bought us trophies and runners up spots.

You have no idea what you're saying. You can't have.

I'm stating facts - we won things under Doug.

You seem to have read that I said Doug was a lovely chairman. My point is that even if the fans are happier with the way the club is run this won't mean much if we don't add to our honours list.

Given the parlous state of the club in July 2006, and the fact that 'winning things' has become harder in this country owing to the FA's determination to keep the 'top 4' as is, I think that we can happily accept that it may take just a little longer to bring in silverware.

And I feel a lot better than I did when we were under the old regime.

The reaction depends upon your age.

As someone who grew up in the 70's I can honestly say that I could never be jealous of Manure and confirm that we all hated them when they were shit as well.

Liverpool I used to respect, but since 1985 they have been a consistently vile club with equally vile supporters.

Arsenal would make up my trio, purely because they joined the other two in their attempts to destroy English football.

Much of what the original poster wrote of other clubs could be written about the Villa, so i prefer to just pay teams like Spurs, Man City, Newcastle and West Ham the respect that their stature and history deserves.

Hi General

An unusual amount of top executives in Birmingham from Vegas this week.

You are in the entertainment business, they are in the entertainment business, any connection?

Or are they just here to buy SHA?

Cheating is easy.

Remaining faithful is a challenge.

Only shallow people shirk the challenge.

(IMHO of course) :winkold:

Heart-Sing Child

Just converting some more vinyl

Go.

Watching football as a neutral is good fun.

Also Southampton's corporate hospitality is okay, I did it last time we played there.

Simply cutting out all of the emotion he is a damn fine player, and if he were in the side and performing to the level of last season, who knows where we willl end up.

On the emotional side I think MON would forgive him and if he can, then we supporters should trust MON and go with it

because allan, all the reports indicate Randy is 100% behind this

and we don;t need the money for Barry so if his value goes down, so be it, principles are sometimes more importnat than money

Randy has proved this at villa, the browns and in his own personal life.

point missed once more. I'm all for and fully agree with Randy supporting MO'N that is as it should be, at least publically.

I would say that the support is both public, private and unequivocal.

Mr Lerner owns the club, so if they 'miss' the sale of GB for a large fee, the money lost is his alone.

He is happy to sanction that on either a point of principle, or because he is a damned good businessman who knows exactly what the culmination of this situation will bring.

I'd go for the latter.