Hamilton Saint

Is Saints Player running the commentary yet? I don't hear anything! [OK. Just started at 2:40 p.m. - why so late, when it's a home game?]

Well, this whole forum is mostly useless, too. But it helps to pass the time, eh?

No - there is really no significant doctrinal difference in the way the two parties approach foreign policy. Differences in nuance and expression, perhaps. But the fundamental thrust is the same.

D. Cheney was Secretary of Defense for George H. Bush in 1991 during "Desert Storm" (first Gulf War). From 1995-2000 he was C.E.O. of Halliburton corporation. He went on to be the Vice-President in George W. Bush's administration - the guys who decided to invade Iraq. The post-invasion scene was run primarily by private enterprise, not government. Much of the security there was run not by the military but by private companies (Blackstone Group Security, for example). Eisenhower warned the public about this sort of thing way back in the late 50s, when he identified the "military-industrial complex". Much of the key industrial activity in the US is war-related. And there is a revolving door between the government and the corporate sector. None of this is new. Read Noam Chomsky, if you want to understand post-WW2 American policy,

Yeah, I read that on the first run through, but he actually wrote "he probably needs to pick up at least four points from this game and Saints' trip to play QPR next week". Both games.

That's a very reactionary attitude - similar to Mitt Romney's comment about the 47% of the electorate that he had given up on, because they were only interested in handouts. By the way, it's not governments providing "bread and circuses", it's corporations. Last time I checked sporting extravaganzas and entertainment spectaculars are run primarily by huge multinational companies.

"asymmetrical trans-Atlantic relations" - what does that mean? "its closest ally"? - who do you mean? (It's Canada, by the way.) "Obama is a f**king useless public speaker" - are you crazy? He is a superb orator. Didn't you watch his speech last night? It was riveting. His debating skills are nowhere near as good, but as a "public speaker" (orator) he is hard to beat. Think about it, his rapid rise to prominence was built on one brilliant speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.

It probably marks the end of the Republican Party as we've seen it for the last few elections. They need to throw off the far-right extremists of the Tea Party-variety. Romney probably lost the election when he bought into the anti-immigration rhetoric of the far-right during the primaries. Latinos felt very threatened by that rhetoric. The percentage of the white vote is steadily shrinking. The Republican Party needs to adjust and move towards the centre. They're too dominated now by that shrill, bombastic, extremist crap that gets spewed on talk radio every day in the U.S. and on Fox News TV. Obama won because he retained the coalition he built during the last election - and because his strategists planned a brilliant campaign that focused on retaining his vote in all the crucial states that he had to hold on to: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc. The way that campaigns may go in the future was signalled in places like Colorado. The urban, suburban, and growing Hispanic vote leading to a win in a state that is primarily rural and, therefore, Republican everywhere outside the cities. It was the same story in Ohio, in Florida, in Pennsylvania, in Virginia. Obama held on to just about all those key, highly-populated areas in the swing-states. Given the economic situation in the country, Romney really should have won, but his campaign just didn't deliver. He was just too untrustworthy. Spent too long portraying himself during the primaries as a red-meat right-winger, and then swinging sharply to the centre during the latter part of the campaign, contradicting much of what he'd said earlier in the campaign.

to learn? to educate? to clarify?

First game was about 1964. Standing at one end of The Dell. I think it cost sixpence for kids to get in back then. My friend at St. Mary's College lived on Atherley Road, just around the corner from The Dell. Used to take the ferry from Hythe and then walk up to the ground, going past The Polygon. So long ago! Couple of years later we got promoted when I was at boarding school in Shropshire. Good times!

... had an effect. to affect - verb to have an effect - noun

Je t'aime ... moi non plus. (It means "I love you ... me neither".)

paederastianisation? OR pedestrianisation?

Agree with you completely!

That is a very subjective impression based on your own disappointment and frustration. Some people on here (as usual) are over-reacting, over-generalising, and over-assuming. KEEP CALM and CARRY ON.

The type of poster on here calling for Adkins to be sacked, it seems to me, are the type of poster who panic early during a game, after we fall behind. It's relatively early in the season. Our situation is serious, no doubt, but we must stay with NA at least 'til December. He deserves the right to turn things around. And the fall-out from his premature sacking would be intense.

You didn't see this paragraph? "Defensively the Saints look shambolic, a largely unsurprising characteristic when you look at the personnel on show. These are not necessarily poor defenders, but each one of Jos Hooiveld, Jose Fonte, Nathaniel Clyne and Maya Yoshida lacks either pace, positioning or experience. Before the two goals conceded against Spurs on Sunday, Southampton had conceded an average of three goals a game this season in the Premier League, comfortably higher than any other league side in England."

The only thing upsetting about DM's commentary is that he will invariably say - when we are down by one goal - "What we must not do, now, is concede another goal", right before we do.

Come on, Saints!!

And, then to win!

Exciting, eh?!

Adam says Saints are playing at a higher tempo.

Having a big drink!

Some people are glass-half-full types; some are glass-half-empty. We know where you stand.

Commentators say Saints have yet to get behind the Spurs' back-four.