:-(
I'd really hoped that we were going to avoid this sort of crap altogether. It's so utterly ghastly and American and I cannot seriously believe it's going to change the way anyone at all votes.
Printable View
:-(
I'd really hoped that we were going to avoid this sort of crap altogether. It's so utterly ghastly and American and I cannot seriously believe it's going to change the way anyone at all votes.
Yes. Sorry. Whatever's easiest.
I think this is what we suggested before.
Quote:
You have to bear in mind I'm new to this game. However, would a strongly fennel-y, dried garlic and onion rub not be a good thing, imparting a deal of natural sweetness and aroma, but without the cloying sugar?
I wonder if we could find a way to inject the flavour of sage into it? Perhaps something more citric.
Injecting a great lump of pork is my favourite thing. I insist that you have the pleasure. It's, well, sexy.
Its not a debate is it? I thought it was just taking audience questions, separately?
May has done well to avoid it. She isn't remotely impressive or warm and is bloody miles ahead. Corbyn would probably make himself look even worse in a debate but she doesn't need that.
Technically correct in that those 11 players all took part but Nelson was sub - controversially dropped for John Devine. Then arguably more controversially made the 12th man meaning when we were looking for a game changer we were faced with just swapping left backs. I was 8 and could tell that was a bad move
Parkes, Stewart, Bonds, Martin, Lampard, Pearson, Allen ( :hehe: ), Brooking, Devonshire, Pike, Cross since you ask
couldn't get the West Ham subs though - Paul Brush
The current crop would be proud to defend like that for the goal...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCTRC906iFM
3.09 :bow:
Oh, well in that case fair enough. It'll make feck all difference anyway. I quite liked the thing in the French presidential debate where there was no audience and minimal mediation by the host. Nobody needs the audience clapping like performing seals and getting all puffed up because they're getting to ask a question.
Exactly. The sort of self-regarding, subhuman filth who would go to Question Time should be kept as far away from the democratic process as possible. I mean seriously, what sort of a cûnt do you have to be to think to yourself: 'Ooh, Question Time's on near me. I'll sign up for that in the hope of saying something to a politician whilst oozing self-important smugness'. Pricks.
Which is why Tony Benn was always good fun on there as he would happily tell them they were idiots.
I remember one bloke saying they chop your hand off in Singapore for stealing something (they don't) which is why they don't have any crime. Benn said "Well they don't have democracy in Singapore either, perhaps you'd like to try that as well and we wouldn't have to listen to your opinions"
A very childish answer, obviously. Shut the **** up though :)
Well yes - the substitution on the circumstances made sense - it was more why have a 31-year-old full back on the bench rather than someone who might change things or at least celebrated wildly like Steve Walford the year previously. I might be remembering wrongly but Neill was heavily criticised as people thought Nelson being on the bench was a sop to an old friend having dropped him from the first XI. We were **** that day anyway not sure it would have made a lot of difference
Is there any evidence that he was paid by the USSR? It was an accusation frequently thrown at people on the left, usually on a somewhat unsubstantiated basis.
He was passionate about parliamentary democracy though, and the whole process of clawing power off the elite, from Magna Carta to the Chartists and Suffragettes. Had he been around to help lead the Leave campaign from a democratic and self-determination perspective it would have been a more decisive victory, and less open to the nasty accusations of xenophobia etc.
Yes
Terry was too soft because Sammy was fit but John had impressed when filling in and so wanted both of them to be in the 12 on the day
I guess the manager predicted a comfortable win against a 2nd Division side and with that in mind saw room for sentiment by keeping both John and Sammy happy
I like your Walford joke :-)
Energetic John Hollins or young Paul Vaessen might have been less stupid substitute options