pap

Excellent. That's three categories now.

I'm glad not to have your support, I think. I've never seen this place as a popularity contest, more a dump for thoughts and feelings that ms pap has long tired of hearing. (Obvious joke set up)

Cheers for noms. My votes:- Main Board Sense + Knowledge Poster of the Year Kraken While special mention must go to Monk, THEVMAN and Turkish, Kraken speaks sense and doesn't spend ages ripping everyone a la Turkish. Lounge Poster of the Year Bletch When bletch can be arsed to post on the Lounge, he's the best poster on there; a conversation killer in the best possible sense. I've seen him shut hugely disputed threads down with a few well-placed questions to the most vocal proponents of any particular argument. It is to his credit that most of those killer posts still lie unanswered, some for years. Despite bletch spending too much time with the wasters on the Muppet Show (us, basically) - he gets my vote. Muppet of the Year Bearsy I don't want my admiration of the Bear to get too crawly-bumlick, but I think he deserves some recognition for the resurgence of the Muppet Show. I like the way the Bear acts as mischievous glue for the whole of SaintsWeb. Best Trolling (Ur on ignore!) of the year Barry Sanchez The poster that proves that knowledge of a particular subject isn't necessarily a pre-requisite for discussing it. Expert on Danny Fox's potential witchcraft. I suspect he's in the running for all-time high posts-per-day. Mods, can you confirm this? Perhaps produce a little chart? Sniping Mongboard Hater of the Year CB Fry On account of all our run-ins this year. Dumbest Poster of the Year 110PerSaint Close run thing. Female Poster of the Year - note i have special prize for winner! Bridge Too Far Not sure if I am doing btf a favour here, considering your special prize offer - but she gets my vote. Genuine ITK Poster of the Year (This Is Not A Drill) VMAN Fallen Comrade Most Missed Poster Of The Year Miltonroader Milton's ability to spew threads and fish for moaners was sublime. I have difficulty missing dune. Nature abhors a vacuum. Most Self Important Poster Of The Year Verbal Almost unfailingly condescending and inflexible, with a "Monty Burns" level of understanding of the modern world. Too important to post more than 3 times a day. Love Story of the Year Bearsy ♥ Tokyos Thread of the Year The Ramirez Off Topic Thread Still going strong. Aiming to solve world peace by 2015. Saintsweb Moment Of The Year When Brett from Camden turned out to be neither Brett, nor from Camden I don't mind Jamie, but this was a spectacular backfire.

I'm not sure I can agree with all of this. My biggest problem is all the points of truth it sets out in making a case for post-imperialist aggression, the "oil habit" being chief amongst those. If oil ended tomorrow, humanity would still continue. We'd either conjure ( or indeed, just implement ) a different means of producing energy, or society will rapidly change to meet this new reality. Yes, we want oil to perpetuate this profligate existence of endless and unnecessary production, but we don't need oil, certainly not to the extent we do now. Further, we've known that supplies are finite for decades and that oil has numerous other applications in addition to fuelling vehicles. Instead of actively planning for the end of oil, most Western efforts now seem to be focused on securing the few good supplies that are known to exist, whether it previously belonged to them or not. If it's a grubby fight for anything, it's profit and convenience - not survival. I'm not sure that my standard of living is worth the deaths of all those used to secure it. Is yours? The military-industrial complex cannot be ignored. Unlike the Presidents that sign it into action with vast swathes of public money, it doesn't die after two terms of office. It isn't accountable or beholden to the voting public. It can afford to lobby for certain outcomes, and in many cases, is actively supported by other lobbying interests as well. We even had the ridiculous situation of former Halliburton executives winding up in positions of power in Dubya's administration. Which company got a lot of the no-bid countries in Iraq? Hmm. Would that be Halliburton? I'm not suggesting that the military-industrial complex is driving policy on its own, but its always there, ready to be used by anyone who fancies using it. Many US presidents have employed it since the end of the Second World War, the conflict which cemented the existence of the sector in the first place. From a US perspective, it had been incalculably useful in the country's elevation from isolationist giant into a true world superpower. Who'd want to dismantle that kind of operation? Particularly when there's a bi-polar arms race on. The big mistake with the military-industrial complex was feeding it after the Cold War ended. The Iraqis were convinced that Kuwait was slant-drilling into the Rumaila oil fields. Seeking direction from the US State Department, Hussein was informed that the US regarded the matter as a local dispute, and would not get involved. The Iraqis duly invaded Kuwait, the US went back on their word and got involved, Hussein was laughably declared "a new Hitler", and the military-industrial machine got to roll again. It's a dangerous situation when you have large parts of an economy comprised of companies that require conflict to exist, deadly when that happens to coincide with a hawkish administration. These companies are able to build up massive cash piles during wartime at taxpayer expense, often using their windfalls to produce favourable conditions for more profit. How do you separate sinister military-industrial motives from pure national interest when in the cases of Cheney, etc - it's the same actors in different roles at different times? The muddying of the waters during W's administration is an example of what Eisenhower's warning was all about; the military-industrial complex becoming linked with government policy to the point of fusion. Some would argue that such symbiosis was achieved in the late 1960s, but it's irrefutable by time Dubya's administration rolls in.

I don't think it's fair to knock a man just because you don't own the DeLorean that would enable you to find his quip funny.

Yeah, it's called "Sunday", mucker. There are about 50 of them every year.

Eisenhower wasn't wrong in issuing that warning. Shortly afterward, the US had the murky business of JFK which was followed by a major course shift in foreign policy. I believe that we're seeing much of the same thing now, with corporations in that sector benefiting massively from the business opportunities that a belligerent foreign policy prosecuted broadly against "the bad guys". Of course, the worry is that with globalisation, weapons are one of the few things the West makes "soup to nuts" that it can sell. That puts Western nations in a massive conflict of interests when it comes to warfare, where economic stimulus is achieved through waging war, particularly if those wars have been pre-emptive. The US has been up to its nuts in meddling of all kinds since the end of the Second World War. I've met enough Americans to know that their Government's actions don't reflect the will of the people. F*ck, the people are the ones that are getting jipped. Their sons and daughters being sent off to war, their earnings being used to finance it, along with the future generations that have to foot the bill for all the borrowing that happened because the books didn't balance. A real shame that Ike's warning wasn't heeded.

Do you think they'd get on with the skinheads that'd invariably be attracted to such an event of national pomp and circumstance?

Will the liberal elite be invited to this national day of celebration?

I think that your first comment, and indeed much of this thread, is a case of you projecting your own feelings and insecurities onto everyone else. I'll be dipping back into the war thread to reply to one of Hamilton Saints' posts when I have time to do it justice. On an unrelated but still historical note, I'm keen to hear more of William the Liberator.

Barry is obviously New Labour.

Aw Barry, I do feel sorry for you if these are the conclusions you've reached. Do you think you're going to attract many plaudits by describing anyone who doesn't agree with you as a sandal-wearing killjoy? People in this country know how to let their hair down. It's one of the things I like about it. I don't think you should get this animated because some people celebrate different things than where they happen to be born.

Or much of the country, which is why the call for national unity is such a laugh, even within England. Any national celebration would be more about vicinity than unity.

tbf, it was better than your take on socialism

Precisely, and Saints haven't been an easy choice

What do I take pride in? The quiet nobility of parenthood, the quality of my work, the relationships I've worked hard to maintain and the sort of person I've become, despite questionable raw material

Nope, because I had bugger all to do with it. I'm not proud of the babywear I used to sport in the late 70s either.

I can't stop other people from being nationalistic, but I can point out the vicarious nature of taking pride in something you had no part in. It's actually a less defensible position than that of the vicarious parent, who at least can claim to have been an influence in their young charges. The whole country? Nah. I'm very happy to celebrate the achievements of individual Britons, especially those who have helped to make this country what it is today. Can't take any pride in them, though. To quote Bart Simpson, "it was like that when I got here".

The question is already answered. We don't celebrate it, nor can I see any good reason for doing so. If we were going to do nationalism, you'd have thought it would have happened when such ideas were in vogue, and the likes of Moseley were doing the rounds. Never happened, and it's probably not a coincidence that most nations that did go big into nationalism were young or newly formed nations, unsure of their place in the world.

Don't you think we have rather more important things to do than slap ourselves over the backs for being fired out of a British-based m!nge?

Not really sure what you're asking here. I'm very lucky to have been born in this country. Everybody is. That all said, I don't take pride in my nationality because I had f**k all to do with choosing it. Furthermore, it's difficult to have pride in the way that this country has conducted itself during my lifetime. Every single government in my lifetime has perpetuated a massive fraud on the British public, and it appears as if politicians are getting worse, not better. We're at the point now where most stuff of value has been sold, our kids ability to get a home is second fiddle to the value of the financial system and the country seems to be owned by central bankers. What is there to be proud about?

The standard non-response from yourself. What's your stance on other accidents of birth? Should I celebrate the fact I have brown hair, or that my dad's name begins with a "P"?

Completely agree on this. French and American kids are brainwashed at school.

Interestingly, Buchanan argues that the US is in exactly the same position now as Britain was in at the outset of the 20th century, particularly in relation to foreign policy commitments. e.g. Trying to be the policeman of the world, first in instead of last in, all the while creating new enemies as we did.

Most of the things I have pride in are things I've done myself. I never had any choice over where I was born. Seems a bit weird to be proud of an accident of birth.