revolution saint

congratulations, make sure he's a red as well as red and white!

Best bet is get some qualifications and try and ride out the storm at university. Probably be in a good position to get a better job that way.

Again in no particular order, The Jam Stone Roses Smiths Small Faces Rolling Stones Beatles Cure Elvis Costello & The attractions Genesis (yeah uncool choice but I loved the earlier stuff) Radiohead (only for The bends) Inspiral Carpets Thank god we didn't have to include solo artists although I've just realised I've put 11 down...and I can't be bothered to get rid of one.....maybe radiohead or possibly the beatles.

Will you please stop referring to Democrats as socialists - they're not. They don't believe in nationalisation, they believe in the market. Maybe they believe in government intervention slightly more than republicans but that does not make them socialists. Frankly it's a bit annoying to proper socialists. We don't even have a socialist labour party over here! As for the dictator thing and , "History shows that many tyrants were swept to power by the "will of the people", most didn't know what they were letting themselves in for.....Chairman O and Pelosi's ambitions are shaping up to be no different" are you really suggesting Obama is a tyrant? Really? Disagree all you like but he was elected democratically, or are you suggesting maybe there's a lot of Americans who don't deserve a vote? I guess given the republican history in subverting democracy this isn't an unfamiliar stance for you. The other thing I'd like to add given your ultra right views is just how ironic it is that the good old US is in hock to what country primarily? What really rich country pretty much owns the US? What country could break the US in a day if it called in it's debts? Must be some bastion of the free market eh? Nope, it's China. Good old commie China! Must make your blood boil! Oh and I'm by no means condoning China, it's human rights or anything to do with them but I do find it ironic.

Perhaps you're right, maybe Brown should have saved for a rainy day. maybe Blair and brown spent too much on services and infrastructure. The tories would have just given it away to the rich though, they would have privatised industries on massive subsidies. PFI is a Tory idea anyway, and ****e into the bargain. Bottom line, regardless of who got us here is that government spending is the only way out. My own personal view is that it isn't government that got us here - it's the banks and their mindless pursuit of profit. You say capitalism is "the best range of options" and you're probably right. However it's capitalism that leads us to boom and bust not government. Adam Smith's invisible elbow and all that. When we're in recession I'd rather blame the people who drove us to this, not the ones trying to get us out.

Absolutely. You've saved me the trouble of finding it, well done.

To be honest I'm suprised anyone is debating this point anymore. It's blatantly obvious Lowe & Wilde have done a **** poor job, have pushed us closer to administration and division 3 than anyone in a long, long time. I defy anyone to come up with a decent argument why anyone.....that's anyone in the world could do a worse job. I don't go to many games now, that's because as Rupert says, "This is a results based industry" but we started well and got worse. In fact we got a lot worse. For me actually it's about entertainment as well as results but after the first month or so we've got neither. I love this club but I'm not blind, why should I pay to watch it die? I only listen to games through habit these days.....thanks Rupert, thanks for doing such a great job in making the majority of the fans totally abject to it's plight.

Exactly, human nature screws up any system. The difference is capitalism positively lauds greed, it worships it, feeds on it and ultimately relies on it. Capitalism doesn't rock, it sucks.

Worth based on what a product cost to produce? For example, I have a pair of trainers that cost 20 quid to make - I sell them for 30 quid. Fine I make a small profit. However, I move the factory that makes the trainers to Indonesia and the trainers cost £10 quid and if I put a nike "swoosh" on them then I sell them for £50. Bill Hicks didn't tell marketing people to kill themselves for nothing. Now you can argue that it's consumer choice to pay over the odds, and you'd be right. But what happens when someone offers a loan to pay for whatever it is I'm told I want? Maybe it's a bank. Everyone in that bank takes the risk I can't pay it back and all for something I either don't need or is overpriced. My point is it's not government that caused this problem, it's the very nature of capitalism.

I don't think the bank of england had any powers taken away from them, if anything they were strengthened. Politicians no longer dictated interest rates - bankers did. Seems to me that in a capitalist society greed is lauded (whilst everything is good) and then those people are abdicated responsibility because...well, it's the state's fault for not regulating better. As for revolutionary? I can't remember ever advocating or being a revolutionary so I'm innocent on that score. Apart from the username obviously. However I would point out that any economic or political system is subject to subversion by greedy people. In capitalist states those people become bankers and rich.....in socialist states they become politicians. Neither is good. The difference is that greedy robbing bankers are not accountable, whereas (in theory) politicians are. I'm struggling with the concept that only capitalism produces wealth. You'll have to help me out on that. Only capitalism would put a price based on what someone is prepared to pay and not what something is worth though.

So the banks screwed up and it's the government's fault? You were arguing earlier for captalism.....surely it's capitalism that got us into this? Unfettered and unregulated markets? What could the government do when the banks started failing? Not put money in and see houses repossessed and savings lost? Whose fault is this? Market or state?

"Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace you whooooo, you may say I'm a dreamer...." Sorry, couldn't resist. For what it's worth, I agree.

I don't see your point that capitalism is essential to distribution of wealth. In fact capitalism is all about consolidating wealth in the hands of the priviledged minority. Capitalism is about exploitation. Exploitation of the workers, exploitation of the consumer. Goods should be priced by what they cost to produce and and not what people are prepared to pay.

It was a throwaway "ironic" comment not aimed at anyone. Anyway unsuprisingly, I agree with you. As an aside though is it possible to make a comment and then not be part of the debate?

You're both missing the point - it's the fault of the state when this kind of bet goes wrong. Clearly it has to be. If it's labour in power then all the better - we can blame the damn socialists for our stupidity. We hate the nanny state....we blame the nanny state when we screw up......that's the rules isn't it?

This may seem strange but I agree with a lot of this. The banks should have been regulated a lot better than they were. However, that tighter regulation would have had to occur when banks were posting record profits. Can you imagine the outcry if government intervention happened at a time of rising (apparent) prosperity? It's the fault of the banks (and us) that have believed an economy based on debt could carry on forever. I don't think there was much of an alternative when the banks started to fail though. Let one bank fail and the rest would topple like dominos. Millions would have lost their homes and their savings. I don't think there was much choice in the matter - the government had to bail out the banks to prevent meltdown. There's a delicious irony here that when unfettered capitalism produces results then it's because of entrepreneurs and the private sector, when it fails then it's the fault of the state.

Not sure I understand, isn't it "political correctness" that's kicked him out? It's liberalism that would allow him to speak. For what it's worth both terms are meaningless labels IMO. I agree. You don't win an argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and not listening.

During a conversation at work today we stumbled on to the idea that there doesn't seem many band names containing body parts. Naturally this topic proved far more interesting than work and we came up with: Elbow The Shins Flaming Lips Belly Stiff Little Fingers The Faces We discounted Radiohead as too tenuous. Can anyone come up with any others? I suppose I could google it but where's the fun in that?

I saw that the programme about the depression as well. Very interesting especially about the amount of credit available to speculators. Trouble is when an economy is doing well then introducing regulation is seen as a curb to entrepreneurs etc. In many ways the government can't win (and that's any government) because when things are good then they're perceived to be an unneccessary hindrance and when things are bad then it's their fault. Take the housing market here - anyone could see that for quite a while prices have been far too high. If we'd enforced strictly the 3 x your salary rule then domestically the housing market would have been realistic but what government is brave enough to do that? Who wants to alienate people and tell them they can't buy a house when the credit industry is crying out to lend? Anyway back on topic, at least it looks like Ford is offering a decent redundancy package because statutory minimum is awful. Still very very bad news though and good luck to anyone affected.

I only ever got Setanta for the boxing which is still the best coverage there is.

That would be the terrorist fist bump again!

I frequently refuse to be televised.

Think I'm right in saying we never finished lower than 12th with CN in charge? There was some great football, great kids coming through but as others have said - following McMenemy was a hard task. Our defending at times was abysmal though and whilst we seemed to score for fun we could also concede equally easily. Given the state of the club since he left I'd take CN's brand of football any day of the week. Oh, and technically I don't think he was sacked - didn't we just not renew his contract? Whatever the reason the idea of appointing Branfoot was lunacy as was getting rid of Case.

One of the main players in "Debbie does Dallas", take your pick - a pr**k or a c**t.

Thing is he's a bloke who's doing a god awful job. I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing but the problem is that pretty much no one agrees with him, and they're all right. the dutch experiment has been a failure. He's brought us to the point of almost relegation for the second time - is that success? No. Frankly if we had a chairman who did absolutely nothing then it would be less harmful so in that respect then yes anyone but Lowe is better. Could anyone do a worse job? I doubt it. You're forgetting relegation. You're forgetting refusing to back our best manager in years when the funds were available, you're forgetting buying a bloated average squad instead of quality, you're forgetting that the stadium would never have happened without the council, you're forgetting the many numpty managerial appointments. I think any success we had was in spite of and not because of Lowe. The only thing I will give him credit for is the rejuvenation of the academy. If that had been married to a policy of buying quality and not many average players then we'd have been OK. Unfortunately Lowe thought he knew best and guess what? He didn't. The idea that he can come back and have another go at being absolute rubbish is why people protest. If he was the manager would you support him after so many bad decisions? He's said before "this is a results based industry" and he's right. His results will see us relegated for a second time. I'm all for seeing if anyone can be as bad as Lowe. I don't think it's possible.