Verbal

Like watching a slow-motion car crash between two Robin Reliants.

Yes, but when your wife overspends, you don't pay off the bill by printing money. Or do you...?

I see you and raise: Today's figures will ease fears that borrowing is in danger of overshooting forecasts set by the tax and spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and could add weight to arguments against the size of the coalition's package of austerity measures, which includes £81 billion-worth of spending cuts. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-public-finances-eased-by-tax-haul-2222134.html

Films made by the Nazis might be quite a short thread. Not that they didn't make hundreds of them - I just don't think they played at the Odeon much. Triumph of the Will is interesting though, as an artfully composed glimpse into a mass psychosis.

Apparently Gadaffi has scarpered to Venezuela, taking his little piece of **** son with him. I wonder if that means al-Megrahi gets sent back to the UK for medical treatment?

I remember one game - a 4-4 draw at Carrow Road, I think - where Danny Wallace single-handedly ripped the opposition apart. He may even have scored all our goals - can't quite remember. Our defence was obviously not so hot.

So how do you do that without breaching copyright?

Oh I agree. I wouldn't want to get between you and your mutual fluffer dune.

Does this mean you won't be my netfriend?

My suspicion is that's the best you can do.

Nothing whatsoever. You are a void.

Well it already has of course, since most of the weapons used against protesters seem to have originated in the 'entrepreneurial' mind of some wonderkind in BAe. And the West has been heavily implicated in reinforcing the very corrupt regimes that are now crumbling. I think the question is how much the modify their interference.

The CIA already tried the latter by overthrowing a democratic regime in Iran - and laid the ground for Ayatollah Khomeini.

I'm crying inside.

Only you could possibly be offended. Your so thin skinned you're practically transparent. I suppose that's the reason for your dumbass avatar. With your choice of 'character' you've somehow gone from the accidental (and no less funny because of it) homoerotic to the accidental autoerotic - your failed attempt to convey some sort of 'attitude' impressing only the one who matters most to you: yourself. And how in love you are! I wish you and you every happiness together.

I repeat: taxing banks above 1% is not 'clobbering' them! And you're splitting hairs about the bail out. As I said earlier, Barclays' losses were guaranteed by the UK taxpayers, along with the entire banking system, in order to avoid a disastrous run on the banks. It's hardly surprising, if they're paying 1% corporation tax, that they're able to avoid actually drawing down on the Treasury loan scheme. So back to the question: you approve of the idea of a British corporation whose reward for failure is to write off the huge losses from that failure in order to pay 1% corporation tax, and then 'compensate' the employees who got it into that mess by roughly the amount that should have gone to the British taxpayer? And it's Mr Wolfe to you.

Well some still do. The loopy right in the US, through its mouthpiece, Fox News, has been complaining long and hard about the protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen. They have campaigned loudly for a crackdown, and have launched some pretty vicious tirades against Obama for even the most half-hearted words of support offered to the people on the streets in the Middle East.

Oh for god's sake! Are you really, seriously saying that 1% corporation tax for Barclays is just fine and dandy? Especially for one of the banks that had to have its entire financial structure guaranteed by the British government for it to survive? And why is the tax rake so low? Because of the very bubble investments (notably in derivatives) that caused the whole banking system to wobble to the point that we were all facing the end-of-times, economic equivalent of the Cuban missile crisis. Writing the losses off from derivatives has worked wonders for Barclays' super-rich, super-clever investment employees. I'll give them this - making a profit from their own screw-ups is really taking the government and people for fools. Even more so, when some start bleating about how paying more than these derisory amounts will result in the banks runnings away to 'softer' tax regimes. The banks have sent their PR battalions out and you've lapped up every word. Meanwhile, Barclays tried to cover all this shenanigans up by going for a gagging order against the Guardian in the High Court. Is this one of those' added benefits'?

I was hinting at the deal Blair evidently massaged between Libya and BP, which somehow, by accident, not in any way related, happened to coincide with the release of al Megrahi. Should have made that clear.

Really? You're giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt.

He seems to have made a career out of it. He is no different to Hassan Butt of al muhajiroun. They know what they say offends. But they carry on happily, waiting for neo-con loons like Hannity to fall into the trap. Butt recently admitted, in his words, he was a habitual liar. He's have to be. Both have made claims about their involvement in terrorism that would have got them locked up ages ago. But they are both attention-seeking fantasists. Koranic dunes.

It's not a serious question. It's a question that betrays a lack of a moment's thought. How far above 1% corporation tax does 'taxing the banks into submission' start? 1.5%?

Hannity is a gullible idiot for falling for that stunt. You can see Choudhary winding him up and enjoying every minute of it.

Can you keep your problems with women out of this?

So you think Barclays paying roughly 1% corporation tax is acceptable?