revolution saint

Jasper Carrott Albert Einstein Nicholas Anelka Michael Caine Richard Hall Jamie Bell Billy Crystal Quincy Jones Wolfgang Peterson Pam Ayres Mr Happy In addition Karl Marx died on my birthday and it's also Pi day and "Steak and Blowjob Day"

I downloaded "So Tough" a few weeks ago and spent an enjoyable morning stuck on the bus in traffic the next day listening to it. It was my revision music of choice and brought back a few memories.

Picked up "devils's backbone" in HMV for a fiver earlier this week and just watched it. I really enjoyed it and does work well with 'Pan's". I thought "The Orphanage" was great too though but I watched it before there was a lot of hype about it so possibly didn't have raised expectations. Have to say some spanish films from recent years have been fantastic.

Doubt we'll be that lucky, don't a lot of countries have IQ tests before allowing immigration?

never mentioned the miners but since you raise the question - it was poor management that made the coal mines unprofitable. Better management would have saved the devastation of whole communities that still suffer to this day. If you think that doesn't affect you then think about the benefits you pay to those miners and their children because Maggie failed to make an industry that is profitable in other countries fail in ours.

There's your answer. If we failed to bail out the banks then people would lose their jobs and their homes and it wouldn't finish at just one bank - they'd all fall like dominoes. Maybe your bank was sensible but if RBS collapsed then investors of every bank would withdraw cash and everyone would suffer.

But she is mental! She's got dementia, so factually I'm right and besides I actually provided reasons why she is clearly not "the best leader since Churchill", care to offer anything?

That's not funny and doesn't provide any evidence to counter the argument except a playground insult.

No, she's mental. She kick started the greed cycle that sees bankers crawling to the state for handouts and us bailing them out. She destroyed the manufacturing industry and she was unable to comprehend any other argument counter to her own opinion. She got what she deserved and was saved the embarassment of being kicked out by the public by her own party. She was absolutely useless but gave a few soundbites that people love. Personally I'll follow Elvis Costello's advice and "tramp the dirt down" on the finchley *****.

Or Nanny had to pay for her kids (banks) recklessness? Moan all you like about how the govt has bailed out the banks but it is and was necessary. Prior Govt. spending may be considered excessive depending on your point of view but it didn't cause this recession - the banks did. In fact it was the banks a little closer to your home that started the rot. If we're playing the blame game then let's go for the real culprits.

congratulations, make sure he's a red as well as red and white!

Best bet is get some qualifications and try and ride out the storm at university. Probably be in a good position to get a better job that way.

Again in no particular order, The Jam Stone Roses Smiths Small Faces Rolling Stones Beatles Cure Elvis Costello & The attractions Genesis (yeah uncool choice but I loved the earlier stuff) Radiohead (only for The bends) Inspiral Carpets Thank god we didn't have to include solo artists although I've just realised I've put 11 down...and I can't be bothered to get rid of one.....maybe radiohead or possibly the beatles.

Will you please stop referring to Democrats as socialists - they're not. They don't believe in nationalisation, they believe in the market. Maybe they believe in government intervention slightly more than republicans but that does not make them socialists. Frankly it's a bit annoying to proper socialists. We don't even have a socialist labour party over here! As for the dictator thing and , "History shows that many tyrants were swept to power by the "will of the people", most didn't know what they were letting themselves in for.....Chairman O and Pelosi's ambitions are shaping up to be no different" are you really suggesting Obama is a tyrant? Really? Disagree all you like but he was elected democratically, or are you suggesting maybe there's a lot of Americans who don't deserve a vote? I guess given the republican history in subverting democracy this isn't an unfamiliar stance for you. The other thing I'd like to add given your ultra right views is just how ironic it is that the good old US is in hock to what country primarily? What really rich country pretty much owns the US? What country could break the US in a day if it called in it's debts? Must be some bastion of the free market eh? Nope, it's China. Good old commie China! Must make your blood boil! Oh and I'm by no means condoning China, it's human rights or anything to do with them but I do find it ironic.

Perhaps you're right, maybe Brown should have saved for a rainy day. maybe Blair and brown spent too much on services and infrastructure. The tories would have just given it away to the rich though, they would have privatised industries on massive subsidies. PFI is a Tory idea anyway, and ****e into the bargain. Bottom line, regardless of who got us here is that government spending is the only way out. My own personal view is that it isn't government that got us here - it's the banks and their mindless pursuit of profit. You say capitalism is "the best range of options" and you're probably right. However it's capitalism that leads us to boom and bust not government. Adam Smith's invisible elbow and all that. When we're in recession I'd rather blame the people who drove us to this, not the ones trying to get us out.

Absolutely. You've saved me the trouble of finding it, well done.

To be honest I'm suprised anyone is debating this point anymore. It's blatantly obvious Lowe & Wilde have done a **** poor job, have pushed us closer to administration and division 3 than anyone in a long, long time. I defy anyone to come up with a decent argument why anyone.....that's anyone in the world could do a worse job. I don't go to many games now, that's because as Rupert says, "This is a results based industry" but we started well and got worse. In fact we got a lot worse. For me actually it's about entertainment as well as results but after the first month or so we've got neither. I love this club but I'm not blind, why should I pay to watch it die? I only listen to games through habit these days.....thanks Rupert, thanks for doing such a great job in making the majority of the fans totally abject to it's plight.

Exactly, human nature screws up any system. The difference is capitalism positively lauds greed, it worships it, feeds on it and ultimately relies on it. Capitalism doesn't rock, it sucks.

Worth based on what a product cost to produce? For example, I have a pair of trainers that cost 20 quid to make - I sell them for 30 quid. Fine I make a small profit. However, I move the factory that makes the trainers to Indonesia and the trainers cost £10 quid and if I put a nike "swoosh" on them then I sell them for £50. Bill Hicks didn't tell marketing people to kill themselves for nothing. Now you can argue that it's consumer choice to pay over the odds, and you'd be right. But what happens when someone offers a loan to pay for whatever it is I'm told I want? Maybe it's a bank. Everyone in that bank takes the risk I can't pay it back and all for something I either don't need or is overpriced. My point is it's not government that caused this problem, it's the very nature of capitalism.

I don't think the bank of england had any powers taken away from them, if anything they were strengthened. Politicians no longer dictated interest rates - bankers did. Seems to me that in a capitalist society greed is lauded (whilst everything is good) and then those people are abdicated responsibility because...well, it's the state's fault for not regulating better. As for revolutionary? I can't remember ever advocating or being a revolutionary so I'm innocent on that score. Apart from the username obviously. However I would point out that any economic or political system is subject to subversion by greedy people. In capitalist states those people become bankers and rich.....in socialist states they become politicians. Neither is good. The difference is that greedy robbing bankers are not accountable, whereas (in theory) politicians are. I'm struggling with the concept that only capitalism produces wealth. You'll have to help me out on that. Only capitalism would put a price based on what someone is prepared to pay and not what something is worth though.

So the banks screwed up and it's the government's fault? You were arguing earlier for captalism.....surely it's capitalism that got us into this? Unfettered and unregulated markets? What could the government do when the banks started failing? Not put money in and see houses repossessed and savings lost? Whose fault is this? Market or state?

"Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace you whooooo, you may say I'm a dreamer...." Sorry, couldn't resist. For what it's worth, I agree.

I don't see your point that capitalism is essential to distribution of wealth. In fact capitalism is all about consolidating wealth in the hands of the priviledged minority. Capitalism is about exploitation. Exploitation of the workers, exploitation of the consumer. Goods should be priced by what they cost to produce and and not what people are prepared to pay.

It was a throwaway "ironic" comment not aimed at anyone. Anyway unsuprisingly, I agree with you. As an aside though is it possible to make a comment and then not be part of the debate?

You're both missing the point - it's the fault of the state when this kind of bet goes wrong. Clearly it has to be. If it's labour in power then all the better - we can blame the damn socialists for our stupidity. We hate the nanny state....we blame the nanny state when we screw up......that's the rules isn't it?