spongebob toonpants

The old left wing pc dogooder sandalista in me loves the fact that we are being lead out of the wilderness by a black swp member. I reckon all the great managers have been socialists, maybe I,ll start a thread on it when I'm sober

I think you are all overestimating where we are at the moment. I have nothing but admiration for Hughton, and I am enjoying the spirit and mentality of the team at the moment, but we are miles behind where we could hae been at this point. If Ashley had backed Keegn over Wise, and invested fairly modestly in the team following Keegans advice during that ill fated transfer window I am absolutely crtain it would be us not Spurs laying in the Champions League this season. As it happens relegation wasnt the disaster it could have been, but this is almost entirely due to the luck in having a man with the decency ability and patience of Hughton(a Keegan apointment) at the cub at the time. I am pleased that Hugton is in charge now, but relegation a blessing, not a chance. The last two years have been a huge missed opportunity.

The problem with the contract uncertainty as much as anything is the problems it gives with recruiting a new number 2, and the message given to the team so that they key players don't get itchy feet during the window. Existing players and any new recruits are going to want to know what they are signing up for

Just so we know what we are dealing with here The Walking Dead Zombie Rules (from AMC) Zombie Rule #1: Ability to run is based on the amount of time a zombie has been undead, and how much decay has set in. Zombie Rule #2: Zombies decay but at a much slower rate than humans, and it's still possible to differentiate between young and old zombies. Zombie Rule #3: Zombies are like lions: if they've eaten, you can walk by them without fear, but a pack of hungry zombies will attack you. (Good to know. Good to Know...) Zombie Rule #4: The quickest speed of any zombie is a shambling run. see Night of the Living Dead. NO sprinters exist. (Also good to know...) Zombie Rule #5: Zombies are not dexterous. They cannot pick up or use any items more complex than a rock or a stick. Zombie Rule #6: Zombies have poor eyesight but they do have a strong sense of smell. Zombie Rule #7: Zombies cannot speak but can communicate by pack mentality. The herd tends to move together if they sight food. (Jeez!!! Crafty bastards...) Zombie Rule #8: There is no overt recognition of people or places, there is a sense of familiarity that can dictate where a zombie moves. Zombie Rule #9: There's no known cause of the zombie mutation, but it's suspected to be a virus or infection. Zombie Rule #10: Once you're bitten you'll die and reanimate as a walker. How long it takes is related to the nature your bite. I thought the first episode was excellent - surprisingly graphic.

Safety Car was a farce in that race, not clearing the back markers out of the way was ridiculous.

I get where you are coming from but its rose tinted spectacle stuff for me. Jonas's runs virtually all resulted in conceding posession. Taking the pressure off should be popping crosses on Carrols head. Gives the team balance - very important to our recent run.

he conducts himself superbly. He's done a great job, said last year that if Alan Shearer had came in and did what he had done, we would be saying we had a Brian Clough on our hands. Early days yet. To go higher, he needs big backing [whatever anyone thinks to the contrary] and show he can handle higher calibre players because with them comes personality and ego problems. Thats just the way it is. Give him a contract, and it also blows the theories that appointing someone from within, timing is important, all of this sort of bollocks to smithereens. To be honest I would be happy if we keep the decent players we have got and carry on going for the likes of Tiote/Ben Arfa. I don't see us ever buying right at the top of the market again I just hope Ashley realises how lucky he has got with Hughton and the way he has pulled everybody together. The trouble with team spirit is it is so much easier to destroy than it is to create, and I have absolutely no confidence that Ashley wont pull the rug out one way or another at any moment

Considering the state of the club when we went down, the players he was left with and the atmosphere round the club. Given the way Ashley and co went on last season, and the lack of support or any form of leadership from above this season,what he has acheived in the last season and a quarter is nothing short of astonishing. The way he has conducted himself in interviews after the last two games when pressed about his contract, as he has conducted himself throughout is impeccable. I love him

the fucking pies are fucking old the fucking chips are fucking cold the fucking beer is fucking flat the fucking flats have fucking rats the fucking clocks are fucking wrong the fucking days are fucking long it fucking gets you fucking down evidently chicken town

I think an unforeseen consequence of him not playing in central midfield is he doesn'thave to put himself about so much or win so many tackles. I think he was being hampered by his reputation playing in the middle and he seemed to be getting a raw deal of the ref. On the wing he is a bit out of the melee which has let his ability show through a bit moe. Not sure i this makes any sense but hey ho

Post the link -I fancy reading it, but NO makes my brain bleed

Didn't have the knees or the temperament to be world class.

Thats exactly right. When we got beat 3-1 by WHU the year we went down, even though it was early in the season, the performance was so bad you knew we were doomed. I watched todays game with a lifelong hammer, he reckons they are nailed on to go down

Its all summed up in these couple of sentences for me. You have proved time and again you haven't got a clue what you are talking about, but at least you are consistent - you believe the tories know what they are doing, and you are backing them up I don't mind a bit of blind political support, in my opinion you know what your basic principals are and you support the party that represents them. I'll be honest CT, I have a lot more respect for someone like you, who has picked a side and is sticking with it, than for people who don't vote or who are swayed by whoever is being supported by Murdoch at the time. I obviously think you are wrong, and disagree with pretty much everything you post, but I'll be honest its these floating voter wankers I cant stand

I only saw the second half, West Ham's were abject. Not only that it was so quiet it seemed like a training match. I'm liking the look of Tiote a lot. I thought Shola was canny. All in all it was almost bizarre how easy it was.

Because its a discussion forum You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste. Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times? You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do. Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards. The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source. Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign. Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?. All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made. One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008. I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed. If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition. See Above FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over. Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power. The plan I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT) So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared. Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19% Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer. Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens. To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho. I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country. My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap All a bit sour grapes really this last bit I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with? Thanks for that answer - I'll be honest its more serious and specific than I expected. It will be much more interesting if we can actually discuss this without resorting to cliched party line propoganda. I make no bones about my hatred of the tories, but I don't claim to know all the answers and willl readily admit that though I cant imagine not voting Labour, they aren't always right and not all tories are completely evil So in that spirit Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?. All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made. Do you accept that pre the banking crisis and ensung recession the Labour Party was being responsible and did you agree with Cameron/Osbourne and their policy of matching Labour spending The follow on from that-and I'm not trying to be clever, partisan or catch you out, I have already admitted the tories are playing a blinder politically, is do you thnk the Tory claim of 13 years of extravagance is true,or just a political stick to beat Labour with One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008. I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed. If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition. See Above I think itw pretty widely accepted that Brown played a blinder during the banking crisis. Again in the spirit of civilised discussion I will readily concede that Brown whatever his qualities as an economist, and without doubtng his commitment or intentions, was a a terrible communicator, a lousy politician and for these reasons a disastrous PM, but it is acknowledged across the political spectrum that his (Keynsian)approach to the crisis saved the economies of Britain and Europe from plunging into deeper recession/depression. With this in mind does it worry you at all that Osbourne called every major decision to Brown differently during this period FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over. Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power. The plan I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT) So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared. Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19% Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer. Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens. To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted If its rolling back the state to 2007 levels does that mean these levels are acceptable/desirable. I realise tha politically both sides will be point scoring over this sort of statistic, but I am more interested what you think idealogically about it. I dont expect the govt to be brutally honest about it, they dont need to be. They are winning the argument with the public anyway I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho. I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country. Along with the prison reforms one of the most interesting aspects of the govt is Ian Duncan Smith's approach to welfare reforms. I dont really see how the cuts in social housing and child minding and the emphasis in leaving council housing if your job pays you enough to rent in the private sector fits in with IDS's policy of it paying to work. It seems to encourage the opposite. I get the feeling he has been a bit shafted but I am interested to see how it develops My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap All a bit sour grapes really this last bit I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with? Nah not really sour grapes, I've already said Brown was a disaster as a politician, and that Cameron/Osbourne have been played this csr very astutely. As for which cuts I agree with, thats not really a narrative I agree with. I think Labour (apart from Balls) has got it wrong aswell. I wouldnt be cutting the public sector I would be paying people to dig holes, then paying them to fill them in. I would also fully nationalising the banks we already own so we could get them to lend to small business at a decent rate and I would probably raise taxes on the top rate for a couple of years, after all we are all in it together

To be fair to Rooney I think he's got a point about ManU. Theyve lost Teveza and Ronaldo in the last couple of seasons, Giggs and Scholes have got to be on their last legs, Vidic is forever linked with leaving Rio is fucked, Van de Saar is nearly as old as me and Fergie is 68. He probably thinks that when Fergie goes, and it cant be that far off, that signing a new long term contract isn't that good an idea

Because its a discussion forum You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste. Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times? You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do. Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards. The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source. Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign. Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?. One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008. If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition. FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over. They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power. I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT) Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens. I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho. My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

Interesting article. Purely as a Labour supporter one of the most depressing things about the current situation is the Tories succesful domination of the narrative of the cuts The myth needs nailing that Brown, not bankers, caused our economic woes. Then the case against cuts can be made http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...bour-blame-game

fop alert

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig? The sheer brass neck on CT. It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question! PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting. Your lack of self awareness is quite astonishing

Well I hope you live long now, I pray the Lord your soul to keep I think I'll be going before we fold our arms and start to weep I never thought for a moment that human life could be so cheap 'Cos when they finally put you in the ground They'll stand there laughing and tramp the dirt down

So your argument is basically the rich can afford to get away with it, lets fuck over the poor people. Its times like this I wish I was French (almost)

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland..... Just to avoid doubt. Doesnt that mean the opposite of what you think it means

Fish out of water. Makes a rod for his own back by lack of positional awareness and isn't good enough to make up for it on the fly