WhatAboutTheFinish

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

I wasn't aware I'd made an actual point but if you need me to elaborate on my post in order to gain a greater understanding...

Your original statement contains an inference that the lower a persons intelligence the more likely they are to vote Labour, I offered some evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for the clarification to help my understanding. I thought I’d made a point about what was required for Labour to win an election and you’d answered it by quoting stats from an election they lost. 

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

YouGov - Last Election

So those with a degree;

Conservative 36%

Labour 28%

Liberal 19%

What’s your point? Same question, eradicate those with a below average education, would Labour have ever won a general election?

1 hour ago, limpid said:

Half of all people are thicker then the average person. Then combine that with an education system increasingly used (by religions) to stop people asking questions of authority figures and you end up with people voting for whoever says things that make them feel good, even when it's against their best interests.

Democracy only works when the populace is educated.

If only those with above average intelligence were allowed to vote. Would there ever have been a Labour government in British history?

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Educate the uneducated without lies, and common sense will prevail. 

I think you may have stumbled upon something there that would have such far reaching consequences, it would make Brexit seem nothing more than a triviality! 

9 minutes ago, Lord Willard said:

Our manager is a Brummy

Our star player is a Brummy

Our kit supplier is a Brummy

I like this theme ALOT

 

Too hard to resist this blast from past!

In my hand I’ve got an envelope. And in that envelope I’ve written the name of one manager who isn’t going to let us down. Now I’m going to open that envelope at the end of the season. Are you the manager that isn’t going to let us down? 

1 hour ago, PompeyVillan said:

International trade and politics are closely intertwined, meaning that political compromises are often struck in order to enable succesful trade deals to work. Trade is actually quite good, it keeps us nice and wealthy. 

I agree that they are closely linked although there does seem to be a shift today whereby trade deals seem to have become the be all and end all of political debate in the UK

To me, this seems a bit strange. I can honestly say that I don’t think I have ever heard anyone ever say ‘I’m a staunch Labour voter because I believe they are going to sign a whole bunch of lucrative international trade deals’. 

You know those things they usually bring out before elections where they get people to rank the importance of issues in deciding their vote...Health, Education, Tax etc? I’d love to see those stats for the last 50 years and see where International Trade ranks on those too.

55 minutes ago, Xann said:

If it's not to be Corbyn? It's likely to be a Tory vision of the future. We're looking at systems more like the US in areas such as healthcare and food standards.

That's ok with you?

For me a Corbyn vision vs a May vision vs a Cable vision probably equals a spoiled ballot paper.

I’m not sure the overall future of the UK has to be a binary choice between an EU or a US model, maybe there is another way, a third way if you will. 

4 minutes ago, Xann said:

If you did?

There’s a lot of variables. Clearly he’s not an obvious selection for me but who knows, he might be able to win me over?

12 minutes ago, Xann said:

You're voting for him at the next election?

I’m an EU resident so probably won’t get the chance

4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Still yet to hear an argument for Brexit in this thread that isn't 'I think it'll be fine' or 'will of the people'.

I thinks that’s because the fundamental reasons people voted for brexit haven’t changed, despite all the new reports, since page one.

Heres an old school explaination...

Or as the Leader of the Opposition would put it...

36 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

This is from the Statesmans Yearbook by Barry Turner. 

 

Well I appreciate the link to your source, it becomes easier for me to see where any misunderstanding has arisen.

Far be it from me to criticise Barry Turner so I’m just going to throw out a few questions and then if people want they can look things up and make their own minds up on the accuracy of his bio.

What year and where was the Student Comittee of Solidarity movement started? What were the reasons for its establishment?

In what year, where and what were the reasons for the trade union Solidarity being established?

Other than both organisations containing the word Solidarity in their name, were the two organisations linked?

What year did Donald Tusk graduate?

Having asked those questions, I reiterate that I think Donald Tusk is a good politician and I like him. I mentioned the fact I had lived in Poland not as a means of pulling rank on history knowledge but in an attempt to say that I had first hand experience of how good a politician he was. 

42 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I used to live in Trinidad. I am not an expert in Calypso.

You are arguing over semantics not embellishments. Tusk helped start up the student committee of the solidarity movement. It was unpopular he could have been killed. 

No he didn’t help start the Student Comittee of the Solidarity Movement. That’s a complete falsehood, not semantics. That movement was started by friends and followers of Stanislaw Pyjas in Krakow, hundreds of miles away from Gdansk and months before Donald Tusk had ever heard of the notion. He joined an existing sub branch of a student body. 

If Jeremy Corbyn joined the communist party at North London Polytechnic you wouldn’t claim he was the successor to Stalin...it’s ridiculous! 

16 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Embellished?

1. Its Donald Tusk

2. It's just after he became leader of the Student Committee of Solidarity  in Gdańsk,

3. Its widely accepted, but sometimes disputed that the death of Stanisław Pyjas was suspicious. 

4. As it was believed the death was suspicious then anyone taking that position would believe they would be risking their life. 

 

Where is the embellishment?

1. It is Donald Tusk.

2. Donald Tusk was on the Student Committe of Solodarity in Gdańsk. I haven’t seen evidence that he lead it.

3. Stanislaw Pyjas was certainly not his ‘predecessor’ as quoted. Nor was Pyjas even a member of the Student Comittee of Solidarity because it didn’t exist. It was set up, in Krakow, in response to his death. 

4. Pyjas wasn’t thrown out of a window, he was found dead at the bottom of a stairwell. If, and it is an if as there is no actual evidence to support the theory, his death was at the hands the security service it is likely the result of his reputation for organising violent street protests, not for joining a sub division of a student body.

Poland was a dangerous place at that time, I don’t dispute that. Anti government feeling was rife but was Donald Tusk more at risk then anyone else who held anti communist feelings at that time? Doubtful. When marshal law was imposed in 81 and thousands of dissidents were imprisoned was he considered such a threat to the state? Well he wasn’t arrested.

Look, I lived in Poland for 6 years and for a good chunk of that he was Prime Minister, I like him but I don’t think even he would hold himself up to be some kind of hero that stared down communism...most Poles would laugh you out the room for suggesting it. 

So yeah, I think I stick with my comment on the original post, the story was embellished and didn’t truly reflect either the facts of the case or Donald Tusk’s role in the demise of communism in Poland. 

On 01/10/2018 at 18:56, ml1dch said:

Donald Tusk, just after he became leader of the Student Committee of Solidarity in Gdańsk, after his predecessor had been thrown out of a window by the Security Bureau.

He literally risked his life to help bring about the end of Communism in Poland.

 Nice story. Maybe just slightly embellished.

On 05/10/2018 at 01:13, sidcow said:

I am 48 and have absolutely no understanding of this post whatsoever

 

You must remember the song it references? (Maybe NSFW)

28 minutes ago, LxYoungAVFC said:

I know it’s silly but I saw this today and couldn’t stop laughing. 

£1.90 for a cabbage!! Man Waitrose sure are letting their display standards slip! 

7 minutes ago, cbr600rr said:

the goal ..to win promotion.

I think this is an incorrect definition of the team’s goal and went a long way to the demise of SB. He missed this goal by a fraction and then couldn’t understand the hate.

I genuinely hope the board make clear to the new manager that they are expected to win the title. If they then miss this target by a fraction then at least we are still promoted as a back up!  

1 hour ago, fifamad said:

Maybe we should go for Zidane or try persuade Pep Guardiola? 

As an aside, neither of those had any managerial experience when taking over at two of the biggest clubs on the planet. By the reasoning of at least 50% of this forum we certainly won’t get the ‘next’ Pep or Zidane because they will only consider ‘experienced’ managers (for ‘experienced’ read ‘someone who has failed at least once somewhere else’).

I hear Steve Bruce is thinking about stewing for conskrautive dismissal to make sure he doesn’t end up brassica. 

One up for the naysayers. You were all right. I see it now. This team/club is going nowhere under this management.

6 hours ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

 I can see this lad bagging a tonne of goals for us.

I calculate this to be about 16 fewer than the ton of goals I was hoping he was going to score.

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

While the attention is all on Anderson today and whether he'll edge ahead of McGrath in total wickets I think it's worth noting for anyone too young to remember him that McGrath was something else and whatever their total wicket hauls, their averages tell the tale. Taking nothing away from Jimmy it's a huge achievement and a great career like Cook.

Since the West Indian quicks from my youth though McGrath is undoubtedly the best quick bowler there's been imo.

Almost seems a shame to lump the three types of bowlers you’ve mentioned under the same bracket. 

If you want out and out pace then you’d go with a West Indian (Marshall being he correct choice) but if the ball was swinging hoops or reversing I’d want to throw it to Jimmy. McGrath did have have a control and ability to land it on the proverbial sixpence though that maybe has never been seen before or since. 

On 07/09/2018 at 13:53, Xann said:

Another affair, another divorce.

His word isn't worth shit.

I know. Thank god the opposition are headed up by a figurehead for faithfulness and fidelity to give us an alternative to this Tory shower of s...oh wait...what...how many times? 

Never mind.