adios

was thinking the same, doesn't even look like he gives a shit any more

-tears in my eyes, I want to read that story

at least once aye, I was holding my tongue on my opinion of match ratings in general

equal opportunities for all!

bit harsh on ant & dec like

I don't know if any of my fellow foreign Keeganites feel the same, but I would certainly appreciate those of you who get to the reserves games updating us after a match on how the up and coming youngsters are getting on if any of you are willing to post about it in this thread.

The live version of Shine On You Crazy Diamond really is spine tingling stuff. Aw I love that song, you have to be in the right mood though exactly what I was thinking

been off since the 29th going to see if I can make a proper run at it this time

fantastic yoke, really can't believe how responsive it is, as I had feared it would not live up to the dream, but you really are the controller. only thing lacking is a wider range of titles, but there's enough there to keep you entertained, and if you have kids there's more titles still that wouldn't appeal to me that they will no doubt love. tbh for the price, the experience of technology like that, it's worth paying for that alone. I was worried I'd leave it sitting like the wii, but it's had plenty of use already.

Bet you thought this was more wummery from me. I've resolved to be less of a cunt from now on, so this seems like a good place to start. I've thought about how offended you were by what I said. The statement was meant to be taking the piss out of you being thick, which in itself was me just winding you up, your daughter never even entered my mind. Still I know people are sensitive about their kids and I should be more respectful of those feelings. I was out of line, and I apologise.

utter shite

I was just thinking the same thing

In that case, thanks. I'm not used to them, you see I appreciate I might not be the easiest to understand at the best of times

that was a genuine compliment, you muppet

No, that's not what I'm saying. Even before Wednesday I thought he was probably better than he'd looked for us though, especially last season. As you'd expect him to do be able to do a half-decent job, especially as we were the best side in that division. I do think, bearing that in mind, that he would've been too much for a team like Stevenage to handle, especially with his confidence high after playing well and scoring 3 goals recently. And if he starts getting a few goals he could perhaps be sold on for a decent price to a championship / newly promoted side, or perhaps even provide decent cover as a 4th choice striker here next season. alex just speaks sense so often on like every topic

Thought Triggs had gone to the great kennel in the sky? Not that i thought the dog actually had a twitter account... bastard! I was all set to take the piss when I started reading your post too

on that note, I'm off to watch jersey shore! it's so fucking terrible I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, the government directly or indirectly 'force' people into certain behaviours. What's wrong with that? What's the alternative, anarchy? I thought that went out after the 70s. I've just said I'm in favour of progressive tax and social programs, not exactly an anarchist mindset? I'm highlighting just how big a stick government is, and supporting the idea of only using that stick where absolutely necessary, not just to force people into subscribing to your particular world view (or anyone's).

on that note, I'm off to watch jersey shore!

Is the fairest but least 'revenue generating' option for the goverrnment. Completely agree with the priniciple though. Redistribution of income relies on a careful balance between thresholds and population sizes around those thresholds. Also, some people might work very hard to end up with 2m quid but if 50% of their effort is taxed at 90%, they might not make the effort. Or their incentive structure changes, which has an impact on the economy, taxes and therefore social spending. yep, and people who make these arguments tend not to understand the dynamic nature of wealth creation and think any talk like this is conspiratorial (not that that doesn't also exist). I'm socialist like, but I have no problem seeing JawD's point of view, particularly given how he generates his money as a business owner. On a 'but for' test, but for him setting up on his own and taking risks with his families income/security, there'd be fewer jobs about as he employs people. But for him (and his family) those jobs wouldn't have happened. I think that's a fundemnetally different mindset to someone who's salaried, doing a job in relative security in an existing organisation that someone else would be doing if they weren't. Ie but for them it would be someone else. And I say that as someone falling into the latter category. I've a lot of respect for someone in JawD's position in other words. At the same time I err more towards Renton's personal views about inheritance (who wouldn't be more proud of kids who were independent as opposed to reliant?), but I have a problem with enforcing that model on everyone. Ewerk's proposal is the best in theory, but Chez is no doubt right about the practical shortcomings. I just don't know if the Toontastic General Chat thinktank can solve this one. that's no surprise, and people don't need to justify themselves, I was more pointing out that most of the people flying the flag for these policies have fuck all idea about the practicalities of them. and it's not like that's limited to one side, most of us follow politics like football, all emotional decisions and no logic.

especially if we're sat at a work computer getting paid to do it

any government interference is ultimately by force, what would happen if you were to ignore all legislation on the smoking ban and subsequent warnings?

Is the fairest but least 'revenue generating' option for the goverrnment. Completely agree with the priniciple though. Redistribution of income relies on a careful balance between thresholds and population sizes around those thresholds. Also, some people might work very hard to end up with 2m quid but if 50% of their effort is taxed at 90%, they might not make the effort. Or their incentive structure changes, which has an impact on the economy, taxes and therefore social spending. yep, and people who make these arguments tend not to understand the dynamic nature of wealth creation and think any talk like this is conspiratorial (not that that doesn't also exist).

Agree fully with this. Obviously the extent the state 'interferes' with an individual's rights is massively complex though. I've always though the Western European social democracies have been the closest to getting the right balance though. This includes the UK. I don't think you be wrong with a political philosophy as it's value based, but I will say I find your views scary. amazing how easily you will see the thin end of the wedge with conservative issues, but not worry about them on your end. I don't think you can separate being a wanker and profiting from it, where legislation is concerned. you are stopping them by force, how can you argue with that? and there's no reason to put state interference in quotes, it's a reality, and it's not that complex.

I'm not in favour of high taxation for the sake of it - that's why I think inheritance is an opportunity to introduce a moral aspect so that money you "earn" on your own merits is treated with more "respect" than that which is unearned. Of course I'd put a lot more effort into reducing tax avoidance.evasion as well and abolish all fiddles. Also as I've said before I don't object to people looking after their kids per se but the way some people almost rely/look forward to their parents death from a monetary view is horrible. none of our business though, surely? legislating morality where it infringes on the lives of others' is one thing, but now you're talking about legislating against people being wankers? seriously? this is like the difference between prosecuting for fraud and for lying. how far away is borstal for saying "the dog ate my homework?" do either of you honestly believe it's ok for us to indirectly via our government wander over to someone in mcdonald's and say 'give me that hamburger you fat fuck, or I will take it off you (by force if necessary)?'