hypochondriac

Yep. Unfortunately with my job I've had to deal with people from all walks of life. There is a particular type of person who isn't very intelligent and so their response to anything is to get angry, shouty and sometimes abusive because they don't have any skills to deal with things differently. You have to treat these people a certain way and understand that they aren't doing it personally at you but they are incapable of doing things differently. I would imagine this is similar for some MPs where you have to represent everyone in your constituency including people who really are best ignored in other situations. I wouldn't want to have to deal with that on a daily basis. Lot of MPs are still pricks of course but for that aspect of it they get my sympathy.

Absolutely. Also much of the public expecting the government to do everything for everyone. We'd be much better off with the government stopping trying to give stuff to everyone for free.

If accurate, we could conceivably get rid of 7 of our 8 top wage earners this summer.

Yes I agree. If the financial incentive was better though you might get a better class of politician. Regardless of left or right, what I'd like is competent and skilled people making good decisions to make the country more successful. What we get is short term focus grouped decisions that tinker around the edges and do little for my life other than making me pay more taxes whilst everything gets worse.

I agree with that. MPs should get much higher salaries and expectations on them should also be much higher. We almost expect MPs to be useless so it's no surprise when they are mostly terrible.

Met Beckham backstage at children in need in 1999. Sam Gallagher in a strip club in Budapest a few years back. Have say next to Peter Rodrigues in the pish seats at SMS a few times and a relative of kine is pretty close to Gordon Watson so have had a few chats with him at parties.

Firstly the transfer window opened a couple of days ago. Secondly how the feck would you know?

Oh dear. Look like Labour will have difficulty continuing to stall this. There could be some uncomfortable findings quite close to home: https://www.thetimes.com/article/654cb11b-da3c-48d2-9ddf-31ac6d2c5c81?shareToken=e3d2d3a88e68a880a8779df7d0102ffe

Also why would we want to? He never wanted to come here before and now his old manager isn't here.

If he's down then I'm down.

Just the front page unfortunately: SaintsFun B-anter :: Index

This is why your responses are generally worthy only of derision and contempt. Imagine the wailing you'd be doing if I said the only reason you hate Israel is because you hate Jews. You're better off not engaging with me if your replies are as pathetic as that.

You're the one who mentioned brown skin for some reason, not me- as if the colour of their skin has any bearing on my opposition to them having nuclear weapons.

I don't consider it likely that either side will use nuclear weapons at this point but I'd consider Iran more likely to than Israel if they had the capability. What I do know is that increasing the amount of nuclear weapons for any country will increase the likelihood that they will be used- either by a rogue country or others. I don't want nuclear weapons to be used by any country and I would support in general nuclear weapons being reduced globally. I don't know what you mean by "Israel having a clear path to a weakened Iran." The Iranian regime is a despicable one that oppresses it's people- particularly women and minorities- and if there is regime change in the future then I would cross my fingers that there is able to be someone in charge who can return Iran at least in part to what they had a few decades ago before this fundamentalist poison. I haven't seen any evidence that Israel is seeking to conquer Iran.

Absolutely bizarre, particularly because Mulsim isn't a race. I would prefer that no one had nuclear weapons but it's the most mad logic to think that because one group has a load of apocalyptic world ending weapons that the best thing to do would be to get loads more for everyone. It's the logic that second amendment fans use that the best way to keep Americans safe is for everyone to get more and more guns. Eventually the number of guns go up and up and strangely the risk from guns goes up as well. You didn't answer my question either. Is there a number of countries where you think we should stop regarding nuclear weapons? If Iran should have the right then should it also be the right of every single country on Earth?

Firstly that has nothing at all to do with my post. Secondly I'd rather no one had nuclear weapons but I'm happiest if no one else has any more. The rest of your post was covered in my subsequent questions so I will await your reply on that.

Am I imagining it or was there a poster called something like the godfather who was a Liverpool fan and sold pop art images?

I don't want nuclear armed and unstable extremist Islamist regimes with mad religious ideas who can oppress their own people with impunity free from any chance of being removed because they got world ending weapons. If the roles were reversed, would you be happy with Israel getting nukes to counter Iranian nukes? Would there ever be a number of countries with nukes where you would think there may be a few too many?

Keith loves Amy was the best thread on here. Just superb. What was the name of the poster with the learning difficulty who called the big black defender dominant? Was Rulebook Ric Asian? How long did StuRomseySaint have a gammy eye for?

"The damage in that region is and has been caused by allowing the Israeli regime to do wtf they like with impunity for 50+ years" Nothing to do with with anything I have read or heard elsewhere. I'm challenging you on what you actually said in your own words. In light of these and similar statements, it's absolutely incredible that you would accuse others of bias. No one else on here that I have seen have made similar statements to that or that they would be OK with Iran getting some nukes and that they wouldn't be an issue if Israel just cooperated. Quite astonishing statements to make.

Laying the blame entirely at the feet of Israel for the damage in the region is either the most stupid thing I've seen written on this thread or is just masking something a lot uglier. Either that or you're just saying ridiculous things to provoke reactions.

What does any of that have to do with being OK with them having nuclear weapons? I'm supportive of there being less world ending weapons in the world generally as there is then less chance of someone taking the wrong decision one time, accidentally causing a disaster or some rogue agent getting their hands on one and firing one off in the name of Allah to prove a point. If we take your point to its logical conclusion, should we be OK with every nation on Earth having a few nuclear weapons each? Clearly that's going to make the chance of something awful happening much higher, particularly when religion is involved. Are you seriously suggesting that you'd be OK with any nation that wants nuclear weapons from having them with the logic being that no one was fired one yet?

Not wanting extremist Islamist regimes to possess nukes and being happy if they are prevented from having them is swallowing propaganda according to you. I wouldn't be so quick to call others stupid.

But you're cool with someone like that having nuclear weapons because you don't like the opponent?

It may actually moderate Iran's response if they know their air defences are fucked and are effectively sitting ducks.