revolution saint

I struggle to see why people get worked up over the suggestion that the monarchy should be abolished. Here's your first post in the subject as an example.

No, it's not really clear at all especially since you were saying it wasn't speculation. As Badger mentioned you might find tourism actually increases in the event that Buck house etc is opened up and provides greater access. It's whataboutery anyway, the point is that the hereditary principle and the monarchy are undemocratic anachronisms in a modern society.

I actually did take a quick look at those articles and it's pure speculation (obviously) and they even acknowledge that themselves with lines such as, "we have observed difficulties in fully grasping the extent of the UK monarchy’s economic influence due to the multifarious nature of their influence on society. Additionally, we have highlighted how problematic it is to rigorously measure the economic impact of tourism."

It's an undemocratic and unaccountable institution and for me that's enough. Quite telling that you would choose to shift the argument from democratic principle because it's a pretty indefensible position to be arguing from.

How about they're undemocratic? The idea that you can be born into the role of head of state regardless of ability or talent is laughable. The Andrew that you describe as a complete idiot and an embarrassment was once second in line to the throne and could easily have ended up as King.

Andy has got nothing to worry about, he's already a guest of his majesty. Suspect they'll probably chuck him in a cell for a few hours to try and sweat him out.

The kid from "Annie".

Yeah always felt Forrest Gump was the film equivalent of “We didn’t start the fire”; nostalgia porn for boomers.

I'm not a massive Bond fan either although I didn't mind the first two or three Daniel Craig films (mostly) which seemed a bit more grounded and tended to have a plot rather than a collection of set pieces tacked together. Still prefer the Bourne films though.

Just thought of another one. The deerhunter. Tried to watch it a couple of times but never finished it.

Yeah, they definitely have a different criteria than the rest of the population. You can see it to an extent with all the awards ceremonies, all the films are either different or worthy kinds and anything purely commercial finds it hard to get a look in. Nothing wrong with worthy films per se but I wouldn’t rewatch them much whereas I have a load of superficial popcorn films that I find much more enjoyable.

Good call on 2001, another one I failed to finish.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20160822-why-mulholland-drive-is-the-greatest-film-since-2000 Agree but critics seem to love it. All a bit emperor’s new clothes if you ask me.

This is for those films that everyone and particularly critics are unanimous in praise for but you can’t abide. I’ve already mentioned Apocalypse Now in the Robert Duvall thread but I think it’s really turgid and dull. Mulholland Drive - to be honest I could put almost everything by David Lynch but this one will do. God knows what the plot is but I couldn’t figure it out. Cinematography is great and Naomi Watts and Laura Harring both get their tits out which elevates it a bit. Raging Bull - couldn’t even finish it. As always, completely subjective, no right or wrong and no justifications needed.

Yeah, good idea, probably does deserve its own iconoclastic thread.

Obviously subjective but I found Apocalypse Now to be overrated and one of the most boring films I think I've ever watched. It's become one of those sacrosanct untouchable films that everyone must consider a classic but I can't stand it. It's based on Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and that's just as bad. Duvall was a great actor though.

Had a good old innings and leaves a decent body of work. Everyone will bang on about The Godfather and Apocalypse Now but Days of Thunder beats them both hands down and he was great in it.

Agree, movement was good for his goal. We haven't had strikers that thrive on crosses for what seems like years - certainly can't remember Armstrong or Adams making many near post runs. It was noticeable against Stoke that for the Azaz goal we had two players racing to get on the end of a cross. Hopefully Larin is similar as we've got enough quality on the wings to get the balls in.

I'm going for Saints 3 Leicester -6

I have to be careful not to come across as a Trump supporter but I see his point to an extent on the halftime show being in Spanish. You'd expect a big flagship national event like the Superbowl entertainment to be in the official language of the US and, despite there being 50M Spanish speakers in the US, that still leaves over 250M who don't speak Spanish. That said, I didn't watch it, don't really care about the Superbowl and have no idea who Bad Bunny is so I'm willing to let it go if it annoys Trump that much.

Playing devil's advocate, they have tried to sign Liam Delap at least a couple of times and I suspect they thought both BBD and Downs would be capable of playing that role too. Obviously hopelessly wrong but, you know, it's the thought that counts and all that.

27M for a player who hasn't scored more than 5 league goals in any season. Probably market price but that seems mental.

Ross Stewart? Transfer Markt has him down as 22 scored and 3 missed. Definitely scored a few for Sunderland anyway.

10M is a pretty good price for 28 year old who is decent at this level and hopeless at anything higher. I kind of feel the same way I did about Che Adams - I'm not that fussed if he goes but on the flip side I've got no confidence we'll replace him with the same quality let alone anyone better. Would also feel like an admission that our season is effectively over (unless we got dragged into a relegation scrap).

YET AGAIN I HAVE SHOWN YOU UP TO BE A FOOL. I PITY THE FOOL. I HAVE SHOWN YOUR HYPOCRISY TO THE WORLD AND YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH YOU LEFTY PEDO AND YOUR OBLIVIOUS FOLLOWING OF MSM. ALL HAIL ME.