Happy Face

http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/alleged-ch...ts-said-to.html

38 percent say he wants to take away Americans' right to own guns. 32 percent say he is a Muslim. 29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government. 29 percent think he has done many things that are unconstitutional. 27 percent say he resents America's heritage. 27 percent say he does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do. 25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president. 25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions speaks of. 23 percent say he is a racist. 23 percent say he is anti-American. 23 percent say he wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers. 20 percent say he is doing many of the things that Hitler did. 24 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats say he may be the Antichrist http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/...ence&title=

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/africa/8587871.stm Kerching!

Watching Sam Allardyce after gave me chills. He was over the moon to have won away from home for the second time this season, from a penalty they should never have got, against the second bottom club. Kept them up though He's like a cheap street whore, priding herself on the fact she's still on the game despoite being ridden with vd.

He wants punching for going to watch the 50 cents

Everyone's going on like this season has been vastly superior on what we'd ever hoped for, but a clear majority saw us being in this position long before the season started. ....and were far from being the pessimists Acca et al would have you believe.

I think it's fair enough to charge if you're not going to have any adverts (HBO stylee) i think it's a crock to have adverts plastered all over, as well as charging viewers (SKY Stylee).....it's even more of a kick in the teeth if there's no exclusive content. The BBC have all the same news anyway, it's not like the times website have any exclusivity on reporting the Premier League like they do for showing it. I guess this will trigger the next step in the Murdoch war against the BBC. As long as their website is free to use globally, the income from charging people to use the Times website will be minimal, surely. Tbf if they want to charge for access and have adverts then that's their choice, adverts on websites are obviously different to those on TV in that normally they don't interrupt the content. The Times do have certain web-specific content iirc, though generally I think it's stuff that just isn't good enough or important enough to get published in the paper. But as you say, who will really pay for it when websites like the BBC are around? I'm sure Murdoch wasn't too disappointed at the budgetary reduction for the BBC websites (though I'm not sure how much that'll affect BBC News). Course they can do what they like, I just wonder if it'll be successful that way. I love Salon, where you can subscribe to an ad free service or live with the pop up flash videos. Spotify are taking over the world with an ad service that's free and subscription service without the ads. I don't even know if subscribing to The times means there's no ads, it doesn't say. But if they're leaving ads up AND charging that defies the way most web services have gone. I could at least imagine somebody somewhere paying to access the times website. I find it inconceivable The Sun intends to follow suit though.

I think it's fair enough to charge if you're not going to have any adverts (HBO stylee) i think it's a crock to have adverts plastered all over, as well as charging viewers (SKY Stylee).....it's even more of a kick in the teeth if there's no exclusive content. The BBC have all the same news anyway, it's not like the times website have any exclusivity on reporting the Premier League like they do for showing it. I guess this will trigger the next step in the Murdoch war against the BBC. As long as their website is free to use globally, the income from charging people to use the Times website will be minimal, surely.

I watched the conformist last week and the scene in the forest with the light through the trees as The Conformist passively watches the massacre is amazing.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/israel-us-...ns-benefit.html "sit there and think about what you've done, come and see me when you're ready to apologise."

they were given the opportunity to put up or shut up by the sounds of it. clearing out the egos was needed, but this is surely the most extreme way of doing it? Like torching your car to get a new paint job, to use my preferred analogy. I prefer my Fritzl analogy. She was lucky to get locked up and abused for 20 years because now she has a film deal. Huzzah for Josef.

Just listening to his latest. Black Noise Nice The electronica heads out there will enjoy.

Thought this was going to be about Roy keane getting the job.

Surprised me that Harper, who's been here so long is implying that relegation was in the clubs best interests. Looks like everyone's on board with the Ashley revolution at the club....course, these players would all still be sat on the bench otherwise so perhaps they mean it's been best for their careers.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcas...72703-26108538/

why? I'm right in saying the current freedom of speech laws are anything but free. get over it I'm not arguing about the implementation of specific laws. I'll quote you again.... ?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression. Freedom with boundaries is not just a word. It's reality. As soon as you implement a system of law, (either enshrined in writing as with 99% of human life or just as a herarchical structure among intelligent beings where whoever's on top decides what's acceptable) no matter how lax or strict the rules, you have freedom with boundaries the question is to what degree. Freedom without boundaries is just a word, a philisophical concept because your freedom to do as you please impinges upon other individuals to live as they please.

We all rip the piss out of the "world series" of baseball never leaving the US. Restricting the world cup to 6 countries would be almost as bad. I agree with BR. Thats what I mean by "political" ie giving it to banana republics/countries by PC correct loonies, rather than the countries with the biggest support, finance and means to hold it and televise it at the best time of day for the biggest TV audience to boot. But '94 and '02 (BR's worst world cups) weren't in banana republics. They were in some of the most advanced countries in the world with some of the best facilities seen at any world cup. Half the 12 stadiums in Mexico '86 held less than 40,000. Only one of the 20 stadiums in Korea/Japan were that small. There was nothing under 50,000 in the US either. I don't like it when the world cup is on at shite o'clock either. But FIFA's job is to promote football around the world. Didn't 2002 open up the Asian market for the Premier league over there to the tune of hundreds of millions?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8587082.stm In 2002, the John Jay report tabulated a total of 4392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse were considered by their diocese to have been "substantiated". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases Why can't these fuckers be in the same jail as Ian Huntley?

http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/netanyahu-...th-another.html

or with any luck, somebody might bring in all these despicable trophy players, qualify for europe with them, and be totally despised for "overspending" or embarrassing us all. What you getting at Leazes?