hypochondriac

So would I but just as likely that he is fairly average like last year. Could go either way at this point.

Could we really rely on two possibly injured strikers and then Archer who may or may not do anything next year?

The main thing is if we can afford Ings and Stewart given that both could break down. Archer, Stewart and Ings feels too light and Archer, Stewart, Ings and A.N.other feels like not a sensible use of our resources. If we didn't have Stewart then I'd agree that Ings would be worth a place but with him I'm not sure how we can justify it as much as I'd like to.

Indeed. I had a really good source a couple of years ago but sadly they've now left. I had itk glory for such a fleeting period.

Looks like there's at least a small chance that the Islamic occupation of Iran may be coming to an end. I think everyone of all stripes can be happy with that outcome. Years of brutal oppression of minorities and especially women and decades of suffering. Fingers crossed it will lead to a positive outcome.

You can't be serious?

Not that odd at all given that's about average in a conflict unfortunately. Obviously that's if we believe the figures coming from the Iranians which is almost certainly wildly inflated.

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?