Rayvin
-
Posts
21717 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Everything posted by Rayvin
-
I'm a bit lost here, which bit of my post was contentious? Thatcher? ewerk said we were plumbing new depths, I'm just saying it's been worse.
-
Hitler, Stalin and Mao are all amongst previous depths. And Thatcher, who kicked all this nonsense off. He's bad, but he's not on as yet unplumbed depths.
-
I agree, he's absolutely on par with the standard of cuntishness we've come to expect from the political class. Well said.
-
Neatly suits his agenda really.
-
The US has condemned Russian actions in Ukraine as of today. Sanctions to remain in place until Russia hands the Crimea back to Ukraine. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/haley-russia-un/index.html
-
I think so, it's entirely subjective though. He's not playing for them, and they got him for £13m 6 months ago. Loaning him out takes him off the wage bill and they can fully recoup their losses in the summer. Asking for £2m for 6 months was just taking the piss. Sounds like it was because they were desperate for immediate funds - what we probably should have done is offered them £13m for a permanent transfer immediately. EDIT - If it was an attractive proposition for a deal, you'd think other teams might have considered it.
-
If we demonstrate supporter anger quickly enough, it might force Ashley into a corner again.
-
I'm not blind to this, but Palace were effectively asking us to pay £2m more than they paid us, for someone they don't even use. The failing was in not having alternatives lined up/resting on their laurels. Not on refusing to agree to such a stupid deal.
-
If it's all coming down to that Townsend deal it's a tough one for me. That was a shit deal. £2m for the loan and then £13m in the summer.
-
Good question - doesn't seem like many are based on this report in the Guardian (since it's only noted for a couple of clubs), but Levy is at Spurs, for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn My thinking for Charnley was just that his salary is so much lower than you'd expect it to be for a company with a turnover of £100m+, that there must be something else getting paid to him. The alternative, which I can readily believe, is that he's subpar.
-
Yeah I just checked the same thing and I get your point, but he did get us relegated last year, so there's no guarantee that he would have actually earned one. I find the notion that he's not on some manner of bonus scheme incredible, but I guess Ashley is a strange guy.
-
It's just a hypothesis. Given he's on such a low salary though, it wouldn't be a surprise to see some manner of bonus scheme in place depending on his performance. Profit seems like a fairly standard one to use. The other would be actual league performance, but the likelihood is that it's somewhere between the two in order to balance his focus.
-
I've lived in China and can confirm that, despite the hysteria over here at the moment, the standard of life is comparatively very low. Unless you're meaning that in the years to come they'll all own us. It's possible, but they're also quite an incompetent nation themselves, so I wouldn't bet on them running away with this century just yet.
-
That picture of her is scary as fuck
-
I suspect this is at Charnley's feet to be honest. If he works on an annual bonus basis, as most CEOs do, then it's not inconceivable that it's linked to profit. If it is, he could have looked at that £30m and thought it would be a good means of lining his pockets. Especially if there's a possible takeover in the summer. But even if there isn't, he'd still consider it anyway because if he gets even 5% of that, he's quids in. He could get sacked and still be laughing. I'm not attempting to exonerate Ashley since, if that kind of this is happening, it's something he should have considered. But I could see Charnley doing that. If we go up anyway, he'll probably even get away with it.
-
The whole administration looks to be a shambles to be honest. That said, I actually think Mattis is supposed to be pretty good, so I'm surprised about the botched raid issue. Unless that was just Trump overriding him.
-
That looks like the kind of thing most Republican presidents would do. Depressing stuff though.
-
Manipulation based on what though? Trump was elected so Bannon offers him nothing now on that front. They've only worked together for 6 months so I can't imagine Trump trusts him particularly. What does Bannon have that could be used to control Trump? The only thing I can think of is a superior intellect.
-
Yeah that's a fair enough article. Becomes a little hyperbolic towards the end but the departing from tradition aspect of the NSC appointment is a worry. I'm not entirely sure that Bannon would be in a position to just insist he was on it though. He has no real power beyond that which Trump has given him. And I think for me, that suggests that he can't be the main power. Maybe you could argue that Bannon gave the power to Trump as well though. If Bannon is able to manipulate him that it makes the difference, but it's too grand a stage for him to operate with impunity.
-
Yeah he clearly does, but as has been claimed repeatedly on this thread, Trump listens to no one. I'm not sure we can have it both ways on this. I could see Bannon in a kind of Grima Wormtongue kind of role, but I'm not sure I see him as the man behind the curtain. I checked the holy war comment as well. Not quite sure if I'm picking it up the same way - he seems to have claimed that the Judeo-Christian Western society was in a near permanent state of war with Islam. I mean, I can see the reading of that as a 'Holy War' but I can also see the reading of it as a statement that Western liberal values should be protected. Is he a massively Christian guy? I dunno, I guess all of this is possible but I think all criticism should be aimed at Trump.
-
So you think he infiltrated the Trump campaign and took over the whole thing in six months? I mean to be fair to you, if that's true we really do have to be worried. Cos the guy has gone from running a news site no one had ever heard of to running the United States of America in 6 months. If he can do that, he can do anything. Why couldn't he be on the NSC as a puppet of Trump?
-
Didn't he say those things 9 months ago or so? Actually this is an intriguing point, hasn't Bannon only been working with Trump for 6 months? I'm not sure about the idea that he's the power behind the mask, he was very much a late arrival in the whole debacle. I think Trump is perfectly capable of being the real evil himself.
-
You don't think he'll create a US-Russian axis? Not sure the 'rest of the world' would be able to say very much at that point.
-
I get what you're saying but he was definitely reading some of it - as I say, I watched the Guardian's cherry picked section. You can tell he read some of it because he didn't realise that MLK had 'junior' on the end of his name and had to insert it awkwardly a second or two later. You could also tell because he was looking down at it while speaking like That's not to say he wasn't ad libbing a lot mind, as he clearly was. But there was a speech. How much of it made it through is another question altogether.
-
He's just reading a speech though, isn't he. I wonder if any of them actually read up on it. He looked a tit because his ego got in the way. If he'd kept himself out of it I think it would have been a poorly read speech by someone not well informed on the subject, but I don't think it would have been contentious. I think the fact that he and Bannon were both effectively forced to be there by convention suggests that we aren't as far down the slippery slope to fascism as has been suggested recently though. We may, however, be closer to realising the vision set out in idiocracy.
