Jump to content

Happy Face

Legend
  • Posts

    39427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Happy Face

  1. The funniest thing about barton fink is that its the r rated film millhouse and that sneak into on the simpsons. "Barton Fink! Barton Fink!"
  2. Wii u PlayStation vita iPad 3 iphone 5 all due soon
  3. Happy Face

    Younguns

    Whatever happened to Gary Cooper?
  4. I'll reply to you in detail at some point. Just want to say, if you think I've not read any Hitchens, you should read some of the posts where I've referred to him on here going back years.... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=search&fromsearch=1
  5. Cheers, that'll do me then. I'll pop over to silverlink tomorrow.
  6. Second in the league this season, third overall. PL say its his 3rd in the league. Stoke and WBA previously.
  7. So ant, or any other it experts, is this a canny deal for me then..... http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Base-Units/buy-HP-P6-2053UK-Computer-Base-Unit/769738/?cm_mmc=Pricerunner-_-Feed-_-Computer%20Base%20Units-_-769738&_%24ja=tsid:8359|cc:|prd:769738|cat:computer+base+units#product_description wary that comet are 20% more expensive than dabs and that in the first place. £480 for.... Brand: HP Processor: Intel Core i5 model number: I5-2320 Processor speed: 3 GHz Processor bus: tbc Processor cache: 6 MB Memory (RAM): 4 GB Storage Capacity (hard drive): 1 Tb Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Shared graphics: Dedicated graphics: AMD rad HD6450 1 GB 3D blu-ray player: no Optical drive: Plays & records CDs and DVDs Media card slots: 6-in-1 USB 2.0 slots: 6 Dual Core processor Intel H61 Chipset 8GB Maximum supported memory DDR 3 Supports Double layer & Dual Format +/- recording 8kg weight Ethernet Wireless LAN Express Card Slot Microphone Jack Headphone jack Wired Keyboard and mouse
  8. Watched tgtbatu last night with me dad. That's Christmas.
  9. Hitch was very much with the consensus in his cheerleading for the Iraq invasion at the time. To try and portray him as a brave intellectual fighting the tide of misinformed opinion is absurd. He became that only as the consensus changed and he refused to admit his views could have been ill-judged or based on lies. The likes of Moore (can't find the quote you attribute him) and The Dixie Chicks were totally ostracised for their anti-war stance which was about as popular as a Mosque half a mile from ground zero. Nice twist of words but he clearly says Hitch didn't "fight" the war he cheered. And he credits him... Hitchens, like most people, did have admirable traits, impressive accomplishments, genuine talents and a periodic willingness to expose himself to danger to report on issues about which he was writing And the wish to see Al Qaeda "members" dead point reads like one of your Leazes impressions in what seems to be a serious post. Who could oppose justice against Al Qaeda? When the cost of justice is an aggressive war, invasion of a nation that's shown no violence towards you, the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, then that muddies the water a tad. I'm in favour of giving the nations police every possible means to fight crime within the UK too, I wouldn't say that justifies on the spot house to house searches of entire random streets around the country...though that would be VERY effective. The balance of cost and effect has to be weighed up. The point of the article as I read it wasn't the character assassination of Hitchens itself (though it is one), it's that there's been too few of them written, and Hitchens himself would prefer a debate to be had (like he contributed to following the deaths of Mother Theresa and Diana and Jerry(?) Fallwell). I totally agree with that point. Much of the anti-Hitchens stuff Greenwald has done here leaves a sour taste in my mouth, not because I disagree, but because I wish it had been written while Hitch was alive. I've read Greenwald for years and (like he says) he never wrote about Hitch before now. Reading the strong feelings in this article I got the impression he feared getting into a war of words with such an intellectual heavy weight and waited the bloke out before presenting his thoughts.
  10. :lol: Rule 17 item 5 - players cannot call other players or officials negrito or paki, but jigaboo and spade are fine.
  11. Has someone hacked leazes account? This is cliche comedy gold.
  12. On the death this week of Christopher Hitchens and the remarkably undiluted, intense praise lavished on him by media discussions. Part of this is explained by the fact that Hitchens —like other long-time media figures, such as Tim Russert —had personal interactions with huge numbers of media figures who are shaping how he is remembered in death. That’s understandable: it’s difficult for any human being to ignore personal feelings, and it’s even more difficult in the face of the tragic death of a vibrant person at a much younger age than is normal. But for the public at large, at least those who knew of him, Hitchens was an extremely controversial, polarizing figure. And particularly over the last decade, he expressed views —not ancillary to his writings but central to them —that were nothing short of repellent. Corey Robin wrote that “on the announcement of his death, I think it’s fair to allow Christopher Hitchens to do the things he loved to do most: speak for himself,” and then assembled two representative passages from Hitchens’ post-9/11 writings. In the first, Hitchens celebrated the ability of cluster bombs to penetrate through a Koran that a Muslim may be carrying in his coat pocket (“those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. So they won’t be able to say, ‘Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.’ No way, ’cause it’ll go straight through that as well. They’ll be dead, in other words”), and in the second, Hitchens explained that his reaction to the 9/11 attack was “exhilaration” because it would unleash an exciting, sustained war against what he came addictively to call “Islamofascism”: “I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost.” Hitchens, of course, never “prosecuted” the “exhilarating” war by actually fighting in it, but confined his “prosecution” to cheering for it and persuading others to support it. As one of Hitchens’ heroes, George Orwell, put it perfectly in Homage to Catalonia about the anti-fascist, tough-guy war writers of his time: As late as October 1937 the New Statesman was treating us to tales of Fascist barricades made of the bodies of living children (a most unhandy thing to make barricades with), and Mr Arthur Bryant was declaring that ‘the sawing-off of a Conservative tradesman’s legs’ was ‘a commonplace’ in Loyalist Spain. The people who write that kind of stuff never fight; possibly they believe that to write it is a substitute for fighting. It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours. Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him. I rarely wrote about Hitchens because, at least for the time that I’ve been writing about politics (since late 2005), there was nothing particularly notable about him. When it came to the defining issues of the post-9/11 era, he was largely indistinguishable from the small army of neoconservative fanatics eager to unleash ever-greater violence against Muslims: driven by a toxic mix of barbarism, self-loving provincialism, a sense of personal inadequacy, and, most of all, a pity-inducing need to find glory and purpose in cheering on military adventures and vanquishing some foe of historically unprecedented evil even if it meant manufacturing them. As Robin put it: Hitchens had a reputation for being an internationalist. Yet someone who gets excited by mass murder—and then invokes that excitement, to a waiting audience, as an explanation of his support for mass murder—is not an internationalist. He is a narcissist, the most provincial spirit of all. Hitchens was obviously more urbane and well-written than the average neocon faux-warrior, but he was also often more vindictive and barbaric about his war cheerleading. One of the only writers with the courage to provide the full picture of Hitchens upon his death was Gawker‘s John Cook, who —in an extremely well-written and poignant obituary –detailed Hitchens’ vehement, unapologetic passion for the attack on Iraq and his dismissive indifference to the mass human suffering it caused, accompanied by petty contempt for those who objected (he denounced the Dixie Chicks as being “sluts” and “fucking fat slags” for the crime of mildly disparaging the Commander-in-Chief). As Cook put it: “it must not be forgotten in mourning him that he got the single most consequential decision in his life horrifically, petulantly wrong”; indeed: “People make mistakes. What’s horrible about Hitchens’ ardor for the invasion of Iraq is that he clung to it long after it became clear that a grotesque error had been made.” Subordinating his brave and intellectually rigorous defense of atheism, Hitchens’ glee over violence, bloodshed, and perpetual war dominated the last decade of his life. Dennis Perrin, a friend and former protégée of Hitchens, described all the way back in 2003 how Hitchens’ virtues as a writer and thinker were fully swamped by his pulsating excitement over war and the Bush/Cheney imperial agenda: I can barely read him anymore. His pieces in the Brit tabloid The Mirror and in Slate are a mishmash of imperial justifications and plain bombast; the old elegant style is dead. His TV appearances show a smug, nasty scold with little tolerance for those who disagree with him. He looks more and more like a Ralph Steadman sketch. And in addition to all this, he’s now revising what he said during the buildup to the Iraq war. In several pieces, including an incredibly condescending blast against Nelson Mandela, Hitch went on and on about WMD, chided readers with “Just you wait!” and other taunts, fully confident that once the U.S. took control of Iraq, tons of bio/chem weapons and labs would be all over the cable news nets–with him dancing a victory jig in the foreground. Now he says WMD were never a real concern, and that he’d always said so. It’s amazing that he’d dare state this while his earlier pieces can be read at his website. But then, when you side with massive state power and the cynical fucks who serve it, you can say pretty much anything and the People Who Matter won’t care. Currently, Hitch is pushing the line, in language that echoes the reactionary Paul Johnson, that the U.S. can be a “superpower for democracy,” and that Toms Jefferson [sic] and Paine would approve. He’s also slammed the “slut” Dixie Chicks as “fucking fat slags” for their rather mild critique of our Dear Leader. He favors Bush over Kerry, and doesn’t like it that Kerry ”exploits” his Vietnam combat experience (as opposed to, say, re-election campaign stunts on aircraft carriers). Sweet Jesus. What next?I’m afraid my old mentor is not the truth-telling Orwell he fancies himself to be. He’s becoming a coarser version of Norman Podhoretz. One of the last political essays he wrote in his life, for Slate,celebrated the virtues of Endless War. ***** Nobody should have to silently watch someone with this history be converted into some sort of universally beloved literary saint. To enshrine him as worthy of unalloyed admiration is to insist that these actions were either themselves commendable or, at worst, insignificant. Nobody who writes about politics for decades will be entirely free of serious error, but how serious the error is, whether it reflects on their character, and whether they came to regret it, are all vital parts of honestly describing and assessing their work. To demand its exclusion is an act of dishonesty. Nor should anyone be deterred by the manipulative, somewhat tyrannical use of sympathy: designed to render any post-death criticisms gauche and forbidden. Those hailing Hitchens’ greatness are engaged in a very public, affirmative, politically consequential effort to depict him as someone worthy of homage. That’s fine: Hitchens, like most people, did have admirable traits, impressive accomplishments, genuine talents and a periodic willingness to expose himself to danger to report on issues about which he was writing. But demanding in the name of politeness or civility that none of that be balanced or refuted by other facts is to demand a monopoly on how a consequential figure is remembered, to demand a license to propagandize —exactly what was done when the awful, power-worshipping TV host, Tim Russert, died, and we were all supposed to pretend that we had lost some Great Journalist, a pretense that had the distorting effect of equating Russert’s attributes of mindless subservience to the powerful with Good Journalism (ironically, Hitchens was the last person who would honor the etiquette rules being invoked on his behalf: he savaged (perfectly appropriately) Mother Theresa and Princess Diana, among others, upon their death, even as millions mourned them). There’s one other aspect to the adulation of Hitchens that’s quite revealing. There seems to be this sense that his excellent facility with prose excuses his sins. Part of that is the by-product of America’s refusal to come to terms with just how heinous and destructive was the attack on Iraq. That act of aggression is still viewed as a mere run-of-the-mill “mistake” —hey, we all make them, so we shouldn’t hold it against Hitch –rather than what it is: the generation’s worst political crime, one for which he remained fully unrepentant and even proud. But what these paeans to Hitchens reflect even more so is the warped values of our political and media culture: once someone is sufficiently embedded within that circle, they are intrinsically worthy of admiration and respect, no matter what it is that they actually do. As Aaron Bady put it to me by email yesterday: I go back to something Judith Butler’s been saying for years; some lives are grievable and some are not. And in that context, publicly mourning someone like Hitchens in the way we are supposed to do —holding him up as someone who was “one of us,” even if we disagree with him —is also a way of quietly reinforcing the “we” that never seems to extend to the un-grievable Arab casualties of Hitch’s favorite wars. It’s also a “we” that has everything to do with being clever and literate and British (and nothing to do with a human universalism that stretches across the usual “us” and “them” categories). And when it is impolitic to mention that he was politically atrocious (in exactly the way of Kissinger, if not to the extent), we enshrine the same standard of human value as when the deaths of Iraqi children from cluster bombs are rendered politically meaningless by our lack of attention. That’s precisely true. The blood on his hands —and on the hands of those who played an even greater, more direct role in all of this totally unjustified killing of innocents —is supposed to be ignored because he was an accomplished member in good standing of our media and political class. It’s a way the political and media class protects and celebrates itself: our elite members are to be heralded and their victims forgotten. One is, of course, free to believe that. But what should not be tolerated are prohibitions on these types of discussions when highly misleading elegies are being publicly implanted, all in order to consecrate someone’s reputation for noble greatness even when their acts are squarely at odds with that effort. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/singleton/?mobile.html
  13. It's like defending a 2 footed career ender on the grounds that the tackler isn't violent. Cannot believe LFC so vocally opposing the ruling . Appealing the length of ban is fine, but this wagon circling is obscene to witness.
  14. Nice to hear from you again though, you've been pretty quiet for a few weeks. Nowt to do with our form i'm sure as you're always keen to point the finger at those who fail to post in a match thread when the result/performance confounds their view.
  15. Behave yourself Tiote, Cabaye, Guthrie, Colo, Williamson and to an extent HBA... they are all short of fitness/suspended so don't play like we've a full strength team missing only one centre half. It's disingenuous Sorry Fish. Just exasperating for us folk who've been listening to the European talk on here for the past few months and trying to temper it with the fact the squad is far too bare/poor to cope with inevitable injury and suspension, to then be told 2 points from 18 is fine because we have injuries and suspensions. Anyone who thinks things are going to improve on that score as the season goes on and we have the intensive xmas period is living in cloud cuckoo land. This is the risk we knew Ashley was taking, there's a reason Barfa was so cheap (11 games in 2 years or summat) and Marveaux was so cheap (half an appearance?) and Gosling (1 game) and Santon (3 games), we all had questions over their fitness when they arrived.....Ba is another and that risk paid off big style, for now (ACN is going to be a nightmare). We've got 9 players with 14 appearances or more from our 17 league games. That's an impressively consistent Iineup we've been able to put out. I think we're doing remarkably well to go into the Bolton game with only Taylor missing from the first 11 that went on that outstanding run. Because of the one thread on Europe started by a notorious wum ? Your post is based on the assumption that other clubs refused correctly to take risks on these players but because of our risk-taking owner we ignored the signs that other clubs were afraid of and are now reaping the consequences? Thats bollocks man. Ben Arfa transfer has nothing to do with injuries, Marveaux was out of contract and ran it down to smooth a move to England which leaves you with Santon and Gosling as the examples of a inherently risky transfer policy. Its being too mean to have expensive wages on the bench and bad luck, nothing more complicated. I think the main point being ignored by many is how valuable S Taylor was to us. I know he is not popular but the increase in number of goals conceded since he went out the side is remarkable. Its clear that the other half of the problem is that there was no one to replace him but he was playing really well and formed a great partnership with Colo. Anyway "all the European talk on here for months" forced me to log in and tell you to shut up. What a load of bollocks, the last 3 weeks have been dominated by doubts over Pardew, for the later part of our amazing run when we hit 3rd spot there was some legitimate optimism and one thread on the topic. Dont try and portray Though marveaux was knocked back by Liverpool on fitness and stoke wouldn't risk Ba. You're talking bollocks if you think Gosling and santon were the only players ashley signed with dodgy legs.
  16. We signed him after his leg was snapped and while he was out for the season. He came because he made trouble and forced the move. The cheapness was a combination of the 2. Don't see how that can be argued.
  17. I do understand the point you make HF but I think that's overplayed sometimes by the PC brigade be they White or Black. You could take a White kid and Black kid having a blazing row on any estate throughout the country and in most cases neither would understand the history. Or for that matter be bothered by it. Suarez isn't a child, nor is the city of Liverpool who are backing him so strongly.
  18. black people historically have not been classed as human beings. When you reference their colour as a term of abuse you do so with the entire weight of that historical prejudice. Ginger people got teased at school. daft comparison.
  19. Behave yourself Tiote, Cabaye, Guthrie, Colo, Williamson and to an extent HBA... they are all short of fitness/suspended so don't play like we've a full strength team missing only one centre half. It's disingenuous Sorry Fish. Just exasperating for us folk who've been listening to the European talk on here for the past few months and trying to temper it with the fact the squad is far too bare/poor to cope with inevitable injury and suspension, to then be told 2 points from 18 is fine because we have injuries and suspensions. Anyone who thinks things are going to improve on that score as the season goes on and we have the intensive xmas period is living in cloud cuckoo land. This is the risk we knew Ashley was taking, there's a reason Barfa was so cheap (11 games in 2 years or summat) and Marveaux was so cheap (half an appearance?) and Gosling (1 game) and Santon (3 games), we all had questions over their fitness when they arrived.....Ba is another and that risk paid off big style, for now (ACN is going to be a nightmare). We've got 9 players with 14 appearances or more from our 17 league games. That's an impressively consistent Iineup we've been able to put out. I think we're doing remarkably well to go into the Bolton game with only Taylor missing from the first 11 that went on that outstanding run.
  20. our injury woes aren't even bad. Steven Taylor is the only injured first teamer. And he ain't coming back soon. If that's all it takes to descend into relegation form of 2 points out of 18, then we really should be worried.
  21. and we've conceded 7 in 3 against Norwich, Swansea and wba ....2 of those games at home. Those aren't top teams.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.