maqroll

Off the top of my head, WW1 WW2 Iraq War Fleetwood Mac Star Wars Movies A Fish Called Wanda The Police (the band) The Police (law enforcement) Monty Python Aston Villa Football Club

They probably didn't want both of the starring newcomers to have English accents.

Tequila by Alvaro Mutis translated from the Spanish by Forrest Gander —for María and Juan Palomar Tequila is a clean flame that clambers up the walls and shoots over tiled roofs, relief to despair. Tequila isn’t for sailors because it blurs the navigational instruments and dismisses the wind’s tacit orders. But tequila, on the other hand, enraptures those returning by train and those driving the train, because it stays faithful and blind in its loyalty to the rails’ parallel delirium and to hurried greetings in the stations where the train pauses to testify to its inscrutable destination, errant, subject to the inevitable laws. There are trees under whose shadow it is wonderful to drink it with the parsimony of those who preach in wind and other trees where tequila can’t stand the shade that dims its powers and in whose branches it stirs up a flower blue as the warnings on bottles of poison. When tequila waves its fringed, serrated flag, the battle halts and armies return the order they intended to impose. Often two squires accompany it: salt and lime. But it is always ready to start the conversation without any more help than its lustrous clarity. From the start, tequila doesn’t recognize borders. But there are propitious climates just as certain hours suggest it, knowing full well: to fix the time when night arrives at its stores, in the splendor of an afternoon without obligations, in the highest pitch of doubt and hesitation. It is then when tequila offers us its consoling lesson, its infallible joy, its unreserved indulgence. Also, there are foods that call for its presence: those springing from the ground from which it, too, was born. Inconceivable if they didn’t bond with millenary certainty. To break that pact would be a grave breach with dogma prescribed to allay the rough job of living. If “gin smiles like a dead girl,” tequila spies on us with the green eyes of a prudent sentry. Tequila has no history, no anecdote confirming its birth. It is so from the beginning because it is the gift of the gods and, usually, when they promise something they aren’t telling tales. That is the office of mortals, children of panic and habit. Such is tequila and so it will be keeping us company all the way to the silence from which no one returns. Praise be, then, until the end of our days and praise the daily effort toward denying that end.

I think I'm overloaded with fantasy teams at this point. NFL, NHL, NBA. and three PL ones...

Reminds me of when Premier League games were shown on delay in the States, and you had to go to a pub to see them. I was watching a Man Utd vs somebody game, and this old drunk English dude with a Man Utd shirt comes into the bar and shouts out the final score. My friend almost got into it with him, lol. The guy was a total dick though, no need for that.

Just back from the movie. Almost as good as "Empire", beats "Jedi" easily, and CRUSHES the prequel ones. Very pleased, really enjoyable film for an old Star Wars nerd like me.

no game tonight?

An England World Cup campaign might be very tempting for him.

Fergie may have been a dick, but wasn't as arrogant.

Maqroll Chelsea 2-1 Sunderland Everton 2-2 Leicester ManUtd 2-0 Norwich Southampton 1-1 Spurs Stoke 1-1 Palace WestBrom 1-0 Bournemouth Newcastle 2-0 Villa Watford 0-2 Liverpool Swansea 0-1 WestHam Arsenal 3-2 ManCity http://pastebin.com/wM5HjKLG

Watch some Chinese club come in for him with an absurd offer

When you're in the shit in the NBA, it's a really long haul back to being a team that wins more than loses. He may well have made mistakes, but as long as he commits the money to Palace for them to spend relatively freely, there's not much more you can ask for other than to not hire complete retards.

You really can't compare the two sports. In the NBA, if your team sucks, it takes at least 5-6 years to turn it around. As long as he has endless cash to throw at Palace, they'll be sitting pretty in the PL.

Didn't take him long to land on his feet. Must have been tapped up.

So it means...something?

Theere are a few genuine LOL ones.

This just made my day- http://uproxx.com/sports/2015/12/donald-trump-nfl-logos/

Golden parachute, a pundit gig in Lisbon, and then he'll be back managing Porto or PSG or Roma, etc. next season.

Like I said, it's a great debate, and a worthy one. By and large I agree with you and have many misgivings about what our governments do in our name. And for all we really know, "Jihadi John" is a fictional character, created to stoke anger. I wouldn't put it past them. And if so, consider me duped, because I've been basing my whole argument on the guy. Who knows what is real or simply conjured to convince? And does a court of law really mean justice, or even due process? Do the ends justify the means?...I think it's situational. The atomic bombing of Japan was totally horrific, BUT....it ended the most calamitous conflict in human history. As a blanket statement, "the ends do not justify the means" is problematic because sometimes, they do, subjectively speaking. I'm off to bed too, good talking with you.

He is shown actively beheading people on video. His family members have said that it is him doing the killings. I'd hazard to say that's proof. But I know your rejoinder would be that it was never proven in a court of law...and I get that. And I'm conflicted! (Not conflicted with the ****'s death though) The means might not ultimately be justified, (and it's a great debate, BTW) but it's hard to argue with the ends.

He did, in some of those videos. So if the perpetrator of those crimes was claiming allegiance to The Islamic State, his adversaries are given the leeway to retaliate as if fighting against a soldier of a sovereign state. If that's what they claim ISIS to be (and they do) then they must be prepared to confront violent opposition to their atrocities, not unlike the Allied response to Nazi Germany. I'm not going to chase you down a tunnel over the general rule thing. As I said, I'm conflicted by the question at hand. Regarding justification...Jihadi John was a proven murderer who claimed that he intended to continue to murder. If an endeavored capture and legal prosecution of him allowed him another twelve months to murder innocent people (which he stated he would) then a targeted assassination to prevent that seems a difficult but necessary decision. With all that said, trusting our governments to police themselves properly with regards to extrajudicial killings is a major concern and something that should require constant vigilance.

By beheading British citizens in the name of The Islamic State, he is effectively claiming citizenship in said state. To answer your general rule question, a general rule is just that, a generality, something not constant. I fully understand the implications of these types of killings (which, by the way, have occurred clandestinely and sometimes openly for centuries by both UK and US), and it IS a very dodgy road. It is not without inner conflict that I am able to reach the point where I think they can be (again, in rare instances) justified.

What if by their actions, they were to do so? I refer again to Jihadi John. He in essence declared war on Britain and in effect consequently renounced his rights as a British citizen. I should clarify, by the way, that as a general rule, I do not advocate extrajudicial killing done by any person or group or state. But I believe it can be justified in rare instances, if a continuing threat was ever present and capture unlikely or too dangerous.