Hamilton Saint

Saints Player OK for me. COYS!

Some Time in New York City by John Lennon & Yoko Ono

If you actually look at the history of the U.S. debt and deficits, the worst presidential offenders of the modern era were Ronald Reagan, George Bush (Sr.) and George W. Bush (all Republicans who believed that cutting taxes would fix everything). The best presidents, as far as the debt and deficits go, were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (both Democrats). Clinton did an excellent job turning around the mess he inherited from Reagan. Here are some data for your consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

This the option I would choose - especially if you already have a good audio system with a receiver and a decent pair of speakers. It's what I did.

The song's called Everybody's Talkin'. Nilsson's version (1969) - used in the film Midnight Cowboy - is actually a cover of Fred Neil's original (1966).

I never liked Benny Hill - lowbrow and crass. But I loved Tony Hancock!

Consistency? Apply the same outrage you feel for the killing of innocents in Libya (is that a moral outrage, by the way?) to the killings in Norway. If your objection to the former is a sense of human compassion for the victims, or a sense of moral indignation at the culpability of the perpetrators, then you ought to feel the same human response for those in Norway and the same horror at the crimes of the individual responsible. They are morally different in this way. The act committed by the Norwegian was cold-blooded, premeditated and motivated by a warped ideology that filled him with hatred. It was done by an individual. Responsibility is clear-cut. The bombing in Libya was a political act driven by various conflicting motivations - one of which was to protect innocent civilians (remember them) from Muammar Gaddafi. The decisions made that led eventually to bombing specific targets were made by many people for multifarious reasons. Responsibility is shared and diffuse. The people who did the actual bombing were carrying out the orders of their superiors. The blame is spread across many governmental and military layers. Who is ultimately responsible? The military figures who decided dropping bombs was the best way to go? Are the air force personnel who carried the bombs to the target guilty? Or just the politician who first decided to participate in the mission? Easy answers, or not?

OK. You're not really listening. I've made some points about what you've written. You don't really address them - preferring to go for highly-emotive, rhetorical flourishes.

Now you're making incorrect assumptions about my political views. I'm opposed to the bombing of Libya for the same reasons as you - the killing of innocents. But you need to be consistent. As I said before, yours is the logic of the terrorist - that one set of horrors justifies another. And I don't know what you mean by "the whole sovereignty thing". And I don't see how what I've said is "pious" or "righteous".

Or deeply human? Or deeply compassionate? As I quoted before: "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned". Do me a favour; explain where the rhetorical rant ends and the clever irony begins.

I've read the OP again; you need to work on your irony and sarcasm some more. And the abbreviation of lunatic is loon, btw.

The point you're trying to make is confused by the over-heated rhetoric. There is a difference in the two scenarios you present. There is blame that needs to be apportioned to the guilty parties. The revulsion you feel about what's happening in Libya does not justify calling the Oslo-killer a "hero". Of course he's not a hero - regardless of the "courage" of his convictions. His convictions are wrong. He is wrong. His convictions are the sort that are the scourge of the modern world. The concern you feel for the innocents in Libya ought to be extended to the innocents in Norway. Do you really not feel that, or, as I said, are you just playing a cheap, rhetorical game?

Your thinking is very confused. Yesterday you said he was/is "completely sane". Now you call him a "lune" (you meant loon, I suppose). One set of politically-caused deaths does not justify a different set of ideologically-driven murders. You cheer on a killer because he had the courage of his convictions? That reminds me of Yeats: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worse Are full of passionate intensity." Your logic is the logic of a terrorist. Despicable.

Well, I like Guinness, real ale, ouzo, scotch, dark rum, grapefruit juice, porter, Youngs Double Chocolate, gin (martinis and G&T), coffee with milk, and Yorkshire Tea. I don't like iced tea, tomato juice, vodka and fruit juices that have had potassium sorbate added as a preserver. I can feel the chemical in the back of my mouth. Horrid.

Let's have a wager on that - Doble or nothing?

Great to see Terry at St. Mary's!

Just because he carefully planned it doesn't mean he's sane. How do you know he's "completely sane"? And if, "in his head, he was gutted that he didn't get a century", wouldn't that indicate that just perhaps he wasn't quite "completely sane"? Was Charles Manson sane when he carefully planned the Sharon Tate murders?

Run-on sentence. The end part doesn't refer to Bart.

"Full Time: Saints 3-0 Werder Bremen. Great start to the Memorial Cup. Werder Vs Athletic Bilbao up next".

Just did some quick research. On the opening day of the last 18 seasons we have won only once (Coventry away in 1999-2000); we drew 8 times; and we lost 9 times. We were at home 11 times and away 7 times. FWIW - well, that does explain why I never expect us to win the first game of the season!

Aretha Franklin's 30 Greatest Hits Here she is in her prime on The Cliff Richard Show (1970).

But which one's Pink?

Yeah - a great film with a great soundtrack!

Keep On The Sunny Side

The original poster asked for the ideal midfield in a 4-4-2 formation.