NJS

Look at the damage it did to the Titanic. Bad shit. Not forgetting the Triffids.

From what ?? I still wouldn't want FFS in charge ever again. The rest is deleted because it's the usual diatribe you mean the Halls and Shepherd ? Whyever not, Because as they never put more than pennies of their own money into the club, and with absolutely no credit being available, the transfer budget would be even less than it is under Ashley. you compete with what you have against the competitors at the time. They would not have watched the club go down and do nothing either. We were one of the biggest clubs in the country, 14th in footballs rich list and qualified for europe finishing 7th in the league only a year before they sold it to him. Nobody has asked Mike Ashley to destroy the revenues they set up. The club is in decline. It would have been anyway - or do you still deny that? The world has changed - they were lucky at the time the way football went but after 2004 the club was going massively downhill and he simply wouldn't have been able to borrow to sustain it. Plucking a lucky 7th place finish out of the air doesn't help your argument either - that was a blip and you know it. Just for once forget about Ashley and any comparisons - nothing since he took over changes the fact that we were fucked in 2007 and would have been destroyed by the crunch in 2008.

From what ?? I still wouldn't want FFS in charge ever again. The rest is deleted because it's the usual diatribe you mean the Halls and Shepherd ? Whyever not, Because as they never put more than pennies of their own money into the club, and with absolutely no credit being available, the transfer budget would be even less than it is under Ashley.

I know its a push but Burnham where he comes from is actually on the Thames.

didn't you jump in and pre-judge my position when Fish asked about the LRA ? No - believe it or not I do sometimes enjoy arguing with you but the thing that annoys me most is when someone does make a good post, maybe with some points that could be answered and you just answer with "idiot" or "you don't know me" - I was trying to say that whether Fish was right about you wasn't the point - it would have been better if you at least tried to respond to the bit about nutters being universal. That response didn't depend on whether you'd heard of the LRA or not.

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't CARE how you and your other leftie chums argue that there are other "extremists", we know there are other extremists, I'm telling YOU about the problems we have here in the UK. Why do you justify your meek acceptance of this by quoting others ? We are talking about the UK, not Uganda. The LRA is Uganda's problem, why are you bothered, unless they suddenly start bombing the UK or blowing planes up or asking for policital asylum etc. You're both mad. Do you think we should send troops in to "sort them out" or something, as justification for sending them into Iraq ? Just a question, but I wouldn't be surprised if your answer is yes, you're so potty. Do you want me to look up your posts advocating action in Libya? For the record I've stated many times I'd support UN backed action to sort out any genocidal regimes. If you only care about what happens in the UK then you are a parochial little Englander and the neigbour/Muslim thing comes to the fore. You exactly mirror Griffin's view of returning the UK to the golden days before immigration with no foreign policy beyond building massive borders. Are you sure you're pure enough genetically to satisfy the future you crave? don't be stupid. If you had your way, you would give people like Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe asylum, protection in accordance with their "human rights", it doesn't make anybody a "parochial little Englander" for wanting cunts in the world like that to get what is coming to them even if it means the death penalty or torture until they die. They deserve it, because they are scum. I literally have no idea how this conclusion has been reached. see the phrase "parochial little Englander" ? It's quoted for a reason ... The lad is pointing out that I clearly stated one thing and that was ignored and my position was stated by you as the opposite - simply because you've pre-judged my position based on your leftie/hippy etc etc idiocy.

Bright red = piles = not serious - but there shouldn't be within a million miles of a litre or more.

of course, and I didn't walk down the main street in Scarborough shouting death to the infidels and burning Scarborough AFC scarves. Is that your [somewhat vague] point ? No - the point was you had a go at immigrants just for calling somewhere else "home" - a perfectly natural attitude which you've just said you did as well.

I thought you thought education was a waste of time? Schizo.

And BTW - when you lived away from Tyneside did you ever refer to Newcastle as home?

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't CARE how you and your other leftie chums argue that there are other "extremists", we know there are other extremists, I'm telling YOU about the problems we have here in the UK. Why do you justify your meek acceptance of this by quoting others ? We are talking about the UK, not Uganda. The LRA is Uganda's problem, why are you bothered, unless they suddenly start bombing the UK or blowing planes up or asking for policital asylum etc. You're both mad. Do you think we should send troops in to "sort them out" or something, as justification for sending them into Iraq ? Just a question, but I wouldn't be surprised if your answer is yes, you're so potty. Do you want me to look up your posts advocating action in Libya? For the record I've stated many times I'd support UN backed action to sort out any genocidal regimes. If you only care about what happens in the UK then you are a parochial little Englander and the neigbour/Muslim thing comes to the fore. You exactly mirror Griffin's view of returning the UK to the golden days before immigration with no foreign policy beyond building massive borders. Are you sure you're pure enough genetically to satisfy the future you crave? don't be stupid. If you had your way, you would give people like Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe asylum, protection in accordance with their "human rights", it doesn't make anybody a "parochial little Englander" for wanting cunts in the world like that to get what is coming to them even if it means the death penalty or torture until they die. They deserve it, because they are scum. There is nothing wrong with expecting people accepted into this country to conform to the way of life and respect it if they want it to be their homeland. These fuckers who talk about their "home" being somewhere else, nowt stops them from going "home". Whats the matter with you ? So if I say I'd sort them out I'm lying. One post up you basically say what happens in Africa doesn't matter to you at all, then you mention giving Mugabe and Gaddafii what's coming to them. You're fucking Schizo man.

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't CARE how you and your other leftie chums argue that there are other "extremists", we know there are other extremists, I'm telling YOU about the problems we have here in the UK. Why do you justify your meek acceptance of this by quoting others ? We are talking about the UK, not Uganda. The LRA is Uganda's problem, why are you bothered, unless they suddenly start bombing the UK or blowing planes up or asking for policital asylum etc. You're both mad. Do you think we should send troops in to "sort them out" or something, as justification for sending them into Iraq ? Just a question, but I wouldn't be surprised if your answer is yes, you're so potty. Do you want me to look up your posts advocating action in Libya? For the record I've stated many times I'd support UN backed action to sort out any genocidal regimes. If you only care about what happens in the UK then you are a parochial little Englander and the neigbour/Muslim thing comes to the fore. You exactly mirror Griffin's view of returning the UK to the golden days before immigration with no foreign policy beyond building massive borders. Are you sure you're pure enough genetically to satisfy the future you crave?

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't think you'll find anywhere where Leazes has said that they do have a monopoly on extremism. Rightly or wrongly when the subject is muslim extremism, then he may not feel it's relevant? HF mentioned christian nutters and was told he was deluded/blind/loony/hippy.

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism?

I'll tell you now if Al Quaeda bought Newcastle and made us successful I would be thrillied to bits. same here. I honestly don't give a toss who owns the football club, so long as they attempt to fulfill its potential. Racist ? Nah, not me and you Stevie. So you're tryiing to take the high moral ground by saying you have no problem with terrorists owning a football club actually makes eveything else you say okay? Fucking hell. no moral ground at all. Just acknowledging I recognise they are not all terrorists ? You can't have it both ways, I fully understand that if they start bombing shopping centres or behaving like cowardly cunts ie hiding behind women and kids, or heckling troops but don't have the balls to fight them like men, it changes the picture somewhat. Someone that rich could easily be bankrolling these "freedom fighters" too, that you appear to think have a case.....which also obviously changes the picture. It's YOU that is pigeon-holing NJS, because you are so narrow minded you instantly smear people as "racist" as left wingers tend to do in their idealistic little world. I go by how they behave, but will also tell you that their is a silent majority who sympathise with the more active element that you don't consider, and that is a fact, because their religion comes first, second and third to them. Stevie mentioned Al-Quiada not generic Muslims - I think the former have already gone beyond shouting abuse. I don't support them or think they have a case - though I do think in Afghanistan itself they have the right to oppose an occupying force. Anything they do outside of that context is utterly wrong. I don't instantly label people as Racists - I've come to that conclusion after your many, many racist comments - how else would I judge you? Your prejudice comes first, second and third to you so what's the difference?

Like Hall did.

I'll tell you now if Al Quaeda bought Newcastle and made us successful I would be thrillied to bits. same here. I honestly don't give a toss who owns the football club, so long as they attempt to fulfill its potential. Racist ? Nah, not me and you Stevie. So you're tryiing to take the high moral ground by saying you have no problem with terrorists owning a football club actually makes eveything else you say okay? Fucking hell.

I love the image of you with a roasting pig wafting the smell over your back garden fence muttering "Freedom of speech? I'll bloody show them". A tad mental even if said in jest?

The Tories would have cut taxes and the housing bubble would have exploded quicker - they also spend 12 years saying they'd match Labour's spending penny for penny. Reform what? If you mean benefit culture how would you have encouraged people to work when there was effectively full emplyment? Gold was peanuts in the scheme of things - it's just a Tory point scoring exercise which means nothing - what difference woul it have made before, during or after the liquidity crisis? I didn't know Thatcher was in jail.

If you look at the league tables of education and religious adherence there is a correlation (apart from the obvious anomaly of the US) but I think your post alludes to another huge factor which correlates as well - poverty/quality of life. It's much easier to sell eternal salvation to people in the slums of Rio than to someone in the UK who thinks only having one holiday a year makes them poor. Education given the chance should take care of religion's role as an explanatory force for the world around us (with obvious resistance) but we need another weapon to combat its role as a source of hope for too many - if I could extend my "decadence" to "a decent quality of life" I think we'd have it - albeit delivery is a monumental task.

I know it's a "nasty" argument to make as there are intelligent, educated people who still believe but I don't know how anyone can really dispute this. I think the best weapons we have against it are education and decadence (in the good sense).

it's just too obvious Stevie. Citing the likes of you - or me - as racists instead is just easier for them. They don't understand how dumb they are. Stevie was just telling a story, you ARE a racist - simple difference. you're a do gooder and blind, therefore you are as dangerous and stupid as the real racists that you defend. I don't defend you.

It's another stupid point is my reaction. People can take their protest as far as they like within the law - if they want to just shout at soldiers they can - that doesn't mean there's a logical conclusion of actually taking up arms. I despise the institution of the monarchy - do you suggest I actually do somthing about and if I don't because I recognise the law I should be imprisoned for treason just for thinking it? eh ? Are you saying those scumbags who do all the things I've listed above, for starters, are only thinking about it ? Treason still carries the death penalty in the Armed Forces by the way. My point about these scumbags is they wish death on the troops, so if they feel like that why not have a go at killing them, man to man, out in the open, like men for their Allah ? They are yellow bellied cowards man, as well as hypocrites. If I'm against a point of view I can have a range of responses - I can keep it to myself, I can complain to someone, I can even go as far (as these protestors did) of standing with banners and shouting abuse. All of these are legal. If I go beyond that and either call for violence or do violence itself than I've crossed the line and will be dealt with by the law - do you remember the bloke who had the "behead those who insult Islam" being jailed for it or do you ignore that as it doesn't reflect your agenda? If the protestors do really want the troops to die than then they can do as you suggest. I would say that there abuse is just angry rhetoric similar to me saying I'd love to see Thatcher dead. It doesn't mean I'm going to go that far. The underlying point is that you actually want to believe that the protestors really want the troops to die because that suits you and so you project thet view on to them. More racism.

Shrewsbury was a good day out - one of the daft lads who used to go on the train got chinned in a pub much to everyone's amusement "I've been everywhere and stood my ground and get chinned in fucking Shrewsbury".

it's just too obvious Stevie. Citing the likes of you - or me - as racists instead is just easier for them. They don't understand how dumb they are. Stevie was just telling a story, you ARE a racist - simple difference.