Happy Face

Obama has vested this power in all future presidents. President Palin would no doubt be a trusty person to weild the sword.

Scary there wasn't a single question about it in the debates either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix

Obama personally ordered his killing when he was cherry picked from the Kill List on a Tuesday morning conference call. When the White house press secretary was asked why this happened, his answer was Ianucciesque... http://www.mediaite.com/online/team-obamas-pathetic-justification-for-killing-16-year-old-american-boy/

There's nothing scientific in comparing the first 10 games of two seasons. They are by design random fixtures thrown out by a computer and this season the random games thrown out have been tougher than last year. The results and performances at Tottenham, Wigan, Fulham, Norwich, Liverpool and Everton last year were shambolic or close to it. We totally fell to pieces repeatedly and had to cut that out. On the road this season we haven't lost to anyone other than second place. This despite not having our spine of Krul-Colo-Tiote in 90% of games...and having one of those key players sent off in a couple of games. The fact we could still ride out results in those games suggests we've cut out that panic mode in our game. The fact we've not lost a game at home to anyone but the team in first, winning all but one of the rest, suggests to me you're talking bollocks. I agree, we're largely shite to watch going forward....but to repeat myself, we were last year too. We just got the rub of the green a hilarious amount last term. You've got our goal difference wrong. it was +8, but that was predicated on a very mean defence rather than attacking verve. The goals for is more important to your argument...and we've scored 12 goals. We'd scored 12 goals after 9 games last year too. The 3 goals in the next game against Stoke took us to 15. It's a VERY similar record.

You've clearly read my arguments if you're choosing to paint me this way. Again, I assume you've chosen to ignore them because there's not really any way to deny them. Of course I never said Romney would be a "better liberal". However, he ran a much more centrist campaign when he lost the primary to McCain in '08. His shift to the right on policy in '12 was a strategy in winning the primary in a loony toad quack right wing party. Since then he moved gradually back to the centre until the debates where he and Obama could barely find a thing to disagree on. Their biggest argument was over when exactly the president actually said "Terrorist attack" The question I pondered was of these 2 nominees that have broadly similar views which roughly reflect those of the Republican party 15-20 years ago, which one would face the most opposition in applying their right/centre policies. The answer is plainly Romney. When Bush was in power the Democratic opposition was deafening. He could barely tap a phone without someone painting a Hitler moustache on him and marching on Washington. There were protests all over the shop and every media outlet outside of Fox lambasted him. Obama kills a 16 year old American with his own bare hands with no oversight whatsoever and there's barely a ripple. Obama's next big move is going to be the "Grand Deal". Moderate (temporary) tax increases that will quickly be reversed by the next Republican president, in exchange for permanent cuts in Social Security and Medicare. How Liberal of him. He tried to make the same deal in his first term too, but republicans opposed the Tax increases he wanted to go hand in hand with it. They'll be more open to that now they took another hammering at the polls, punished for their intransigence. Obama will face no democratic opposition to these cuts because it's a widely accepted myththat social security is unaffordable. Funny that the same people that hammer the Tories for their policies in the UK politics thread are so happy to see Obama the Social Security slasher let loose in the US.

Factual? in my opinion, one of our better assets is how we have kept our shape and been difficult to break down. None of the 5 goal wallopings we saw frequently last year.

Not like you to attribute jokey views to someone that's said no such thing and ignore the actual arguments they made completely. Assume it means you have no argument against the points I've made.

Actually when CT mentions Shane the song I imagine him singing to himself at night in his Taxi is Ben by Michael Jackson. I have done for months. they lyrics only seal the deal.... Shane you're always running here and there (here and there) You feel you're not wanted anywhere (anywhere) .... Shane most people would turn you away(turn you away) I don't listen to a word they say (a word they say) They don't see you as I do I wish they would try to I'm sure they'd think again if they had a friend like Shane

Less than three days after Sandy made landfall on the east coast of the United States, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute blamed New Yorkers' resistance to Big Box stores for the misery they were about to endure. Writing on Forbes.com, he explained that the city's refusal to embrace Walmart will likely make the recovery much harder: "Mom-and-pop stores simply can't do what big stores can in these circumstances," he wrote. He also warned that if the pace of reconstruction turned out to be sluggish (as it so often is) then "pro-union rules such as the Davis-Bacon Act" would be to blame, a reference to the statute that requires workers on public works projects to be paid not the minimum wage, but the prevailing wage in the region. The same day, Frank Rapoport, a lawyer representing several billion-dollar construction and real estate contractors, jumped in to suggest that many of those public works projects shouldn't be public at all. Instead, cash-strapped governments should turn to public private partnerships, known as "P3s" in the US. That means roads, bridges and tunnels being rebuilt by private companies, which, for instance, could install tolls and keep the profits. These deals aren't legal in New York or New Jersey, but Rapoport believes that can change. "There were some bridges that were washed out in New Jersey that need structural replacement, and it's going to be very expensive," he told the Nation. "And so the government may well not have the money to build it the right way. And that's when you turn to a P3." The prize for shameless disaster capitalism, however, surely goes to rightwing economist Russell S Sobel, writing in a New York Times online forum. Sobel suggested that, in hard-hit areas, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) should create "free-trade zones – in which all normal regulations, licensing and taxes [are] suspended". This corporate free-for-all would, apparently, "better provide the goods and services victims need". Yes, that's right: this catastrophe, very likely created by climate change – a crisis born of the colossal regulatory failure to prevent corporations from treating the atmosphere as their open sewer – is just one more opportunity for further deregulation. And the fact that this storm has demonstrated that poor and working-class people are far more vulnerable to the climate crisis shows that this is clearly the right moment to strip those people of what few labour protections they have left, as well as to privatise the meagre public services available to them. Most of all, when faced with an extraordinarily costly crisis born of corporate greed, hand out tax holidays to corporations. The flurry of attempts to use Sandy's destructive power as a cash grab is just the latest chapter in the very long story I have called the The Shock Doctrine. And it is but the tiniest glimpse into the ways large corporations are seeking to reap enormous profits from climate chaos. One example: between 2008 and 2010, at least 261 patents were filed or issued relating to "climate-ready" crops – seeds supposedly able to withstand extreme conditions such as droughts and floods; of these patents close to 80% were controlled by just six agribusiness giants, including Monsanto and Syngenta. With history as our teacher, we know that small farmers will go into debt trying to buy these new miracle seeds, and that many will lose their land. In November 2010, the Economist ran a climate change cover story that provides a useful (if harrowing) blueprint for how climate change could serve as the pretext for the last great land grab, a final colonial clearing of the forests, farms and coastlines by a handful of multinationals. The editors explain that droughts and heat stress are such a threat to farmers that only big players can survive the turmoil, and that "abandoning the farm may be the way many farmers choose to adapt". They had the same message for fisherfolk occupying valuable ocean-front lands: wouldn't it be so much safer, given rising seas and all, if they joined their fellow farmers in the urban slums? "Protecting a single port city from floods is easier than protecting a similar population spread out along a coastline of fishing villages." But, you might wonder, isn't there a joblessness problem in most of these cities? Nothing a little "reform of labour markets" and free trade can't fix. Besides, cities, they explain, have "social strategies, formal or informal". I'm pretty sure that means people whose "social strategies" used to involve growing and catching their own food can now cling to life by selling broken pens at intersections, or perhaps by dealing drugs. What the informal social strategy should be when superstorm winds howl through those precarious slums remains unspoken. For a long time, climate change was treated by environmentalists as a great equaliser, the one issue that affected everyone, rich or poor. They failed to account for the myriad ways by which the super rich would protect themselves from the less savory effects of the economic model that made them so wealthy. In the past six years, we have seen in the US the emergence of private fire fighters, hired by insurance companies to offer a "concierge" service to their wealthier clients, as well as the short-lived "HelpJet" – a charter airline in Florida that offered five-star evacuation services from hurricane zones. Now, post-Sandy, upmarket real estate agents are predicting that back-up power generators will be the new status symbol with the penthouse and mansion set. For some, it seems, climate change is imagined less as a clear and present danger than as a kind of spa vacation; nothing that the right combination of bespoke services and well-curated accessories can't overcome. That, at least, was the impression left by the Barneys New York's pre-Sandy sale – which offered deals on sencha green tea, backgammon sets and $500 throw blankets so its high-end customers could "settle in with style". So we know how the shock doctors are readying to exploit the climate crisis, and we know from the past how that story ends. But here is the real question: could this crisis present a different kind of opportunity, one that disperses power into the hands of the many rather than consolidating it the hands of the few; one that radically expands the commons, rather than auctions it off in pieces? In short, could Sandy be the beginning of A People's Shock? I think it can. As I outlined last year, there are changes we can make that actually have a chance of getting our emissions down to the level science demands. These include re-localising our economies (so we are going to need those farmers where they are); vastly expanding and reimagining the public sphere to not just hold back the next storm but to prevent even worse disruptions in the future; regulating the hell out of corporations and reducing their poisonous political power; and reinventing economics so it no longer defines success as the endless expansion of consumption. Just as the Great Depression and the second world war launched movements that claimed as their proud legacies social safety nets across the industrialised world, so climate change can be a historic occasion to usher in the next great wave of progressive change. Moreover, none of the anti-democratic trickery I described in The Shock Doctrine is necessary to advance this agenda. Far from seizing on the climate crisis to push through unpopular policies, our task is to seize upon it to demand a truly populist agenda. The reconstruction from Sandy is a great place to start road testing these ideas. Unlike the disaster capitalists who use crisis to end-run democracy, a People's Recovery (as many from the Occupy movement are already demanding) would call for new democratic processes, including neighbourhood assemblies, to decide how hard-hit communities should be rebuilt. The overriding principle must be addressing the twin crises of inequality and climate change at the same time. For starters, that means reconstruction that doesn't just create jobs but jobs that pay a living wage. It means not just more public transit, but energy-efficient, affordable housing along those transit lines. It also means not just more renewable power, but democratic community control over those projects. But at the same time as we ramp up alternatives, we need to step up the fight against the forces actively making the climate crisis worse. That means standing firm against the continued expansion of the fossil fuel sector into new and high-risk territories, whether through tar sands, fracking, coal exports to China or Arctic drilling. It also means recognising the limits of political pressure and going after the fossil fuel companies directly, as we are doing at 350.org with our "Do The Math" tour. These companies have shown that they are willing to burn five times as much carbon as the most conservative estimates say is compatible with a liveable planet. We've done the maths, and we simply can't let them. Either this crisis will become an opportunity for an evolutionary leap, a holistic readjustment of our relationship with the natural world. Or it will become an opportunity for the biggest disaster capitalism free-for-all in human history, leaving the world even more brutally cleaved between winners and losers. When I wrote The Shock Doctrine, I was documenting crimes of the past. The good news is that this is a crime in progress; it is still within our power to stop it. Let's make sure that, this time, the good guys win. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/06/hurricane-sandy-americas-disaster-capitalists

I thought it was an excellent read, save a few weird points (Different Strokes?). Watched the first episode of the new series the other night and the taste is getting sourer by the episode. Can they not just have one canny muslim, even a white one

Absolutley. No-one supports an overkeen ref by pointing out it was the players who ruined the game with continuous foul play though.

The guardian graphic novel of the election is a gorgeous web page to scroll down.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/nov/06/america-elect-graphic-novel

They tell of an aged gent named Leazes Mag "I was right" he would often brag During a Bar-B on his hut In union Jack pants he'd strut so the muslims next door knew about the freedoms we in the UK have fought for and won and be forced to go and fight in their own country (despite being British for 3 generations) or be exposed as cowards.

Catch 22 for the refs. They get great write ups and press for "not ruining the game". Imagine the dogs abuse for a ref who books 15 players and sends off 4 off his own back. There'd be hell on even if the FA directed them to take that approach across the board. I'm all for it.

Dave summer ‏@summerislelord so excited about going to brugge im going to wank into a sock#clunew

Hostess service on your coach! That IS innovation. What kind of a daft kick off time is 6pm? Dafties.

Well there is a canny difference, but it's swings and roundabouts. That's why I was pretty laid back about who won either way throughout the thread. What strikes me is all those people who have defended Obama's record on the grounds that his hands were tied by the senate, that he was helpless and his only impact can be to make suggestions Those people are saying it would be armageddon for Romney to get in as he would fuck everything up completely with his unchecked power.

It's not silly like. More than half of the 25 most valuable companies in the world are american. China only have a few, the UK a couple. They're way out in front. We had a big thread on the Iranian elections and fallout too iirc though. You didn't kick off in that thread because Iranians had no interest in the FA cup.

Feel like I'm going on about my trip in every other post, so apologies for that, but I have to say like, every person that asked where we were from related it back to football when we told them and talked about the Man U game we lost. To be fair most of those people were in tourist areas trying to sell stuff, but still ... I doubt the fella selling tickets at the London eye would be knowing about who'd just played who in the NFL. NBC have just taken the football rights from Fox too and will be showing every single game apparently. Ashley bought at the right time I reckon.

Because they are the world superpower and the global economy is entirely dependant on theirs. A massive proportion of UK business and employment is directly supplied by the US and their companies. They are major players in every war. They have complete control in the UN and where they cannot force a decision their way they have the autonomy to ignore the UN. Apart from that there's no reason to take an interest in them.

I've taken to rounders after watching the latter stages of their MLB play-offs and "world" series. Saw Pablo Sandoval hit 3 home runs in a world series game. Only the 4th player to ever do it. Canny.

Shane is a nigga who tried to run game on a nigga. CT buck wild with the trigger! Shane is a nigga who try to run game on a nigga. CT buck- I FUCK yo' ass up! What? HUT ONE, HUT TWO, HUT THREE, HUT! CT the Bastard, live and uncut! Styles unbreakable, shatterproof To the young youth, ya wanna get gun? Shoot! BLAOW! How you like me now? Don't fuck the style. Ruthless wild! Do ya wanna getcha teeth knocked the FUCK out? Wanna get on it like that, well then shout!

The Steelers fans do like chatting about the UK, the London riots, the olympics, David Cameron and that tbf... http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?p=936140 http://www.steelersfever.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473028&postcount=19