Stupie82

Sounds like the democrats have turned up in force in Florida.

 

Trumps not going to do it

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-early-vote-2016_us_58200106e4b0e80b02cae01c

Hmmm still way too early to call, even with a huge turnout for Democrats. Out of the last 9 elections, Florida has been republican 6 times, although the last 2 in a row have been Democrat. Interesting 24 hours ahead indeed, although my guess is she will be the new POTUS.

In the very early doors of the Brexit referendum and after the polling stations had closed, I remember watching Sky News and seeing reports of the public and MP's cheering and celebrating a remain "victory"... well that didnt half turn on its head as the night went on 

Frank de Boer?!?!  :rofl:

 

Not a fucking chance

Thats their level of mentality. The still think they are the pre-liquidated version of Sevco, where they can spend spend spend and attract the top managers. I personally think they are over achieving yet they were raging last week at even being in second spot. They are saying it will be at least next season before they challenge for the title... deluded fuckwits the lot of them. I have said it for many many years...  their own fans will be their own downfall and the final nail in the coffin.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but he wont be allowed to win that election and that's why she will win. As i said before, i predict it will be exactly the same as Al Gore and Bush... and it was fucking rigged so that dodgy eye'd war criminal could win. Only difference this time is its against the Republican rather than the democrat. The good thing is, even when he does lose, he wont go down quietly. He has already said that he will contest it if she wins.

If he does win... well i will just sit back and watch the country implode. 

2 days to go.... whats your prediction?

Me... i think Clinton will slightly edge it. My guess is he will win the popular vote, but will lose out on the electoral votes. Similar to Bush vs Al Gore.

Rooney and stockley up top 

Shinnie at LB by looks of it too. 

I rejected organised religion early doors. Never believed the church stuff. But I made a conscious decision to read the Bible, age 15 or 16. It was a good read actually. I thought it wise to see what the fuss was about before slamming the door shut for life. So I considered myself an atheist for 20 years, which I don't now. Still despise all "religions" but I guess when you close the door on the state-sponsored devices, it kind of forces you to create your own belief system (or religion).

 

For me, the objective of life is very simple; to die without regrets.

 

Seems that there's a lot of regret and reflecting on "the good old days" in here. That's sad.

Its natural for humans to think back to other times. That's not to say one isn't enjoying life now, but that your life in its present format, is a culmination of past events that have shaped and formed your present life. To think of those moments and by having them in the first place, is a blessing. I have fond memories of various events throughout my life, but i don't long for any of them back and I always 'live' in the present.

Life to me is one big lesson, you learn from something, you grow, you learn again and then you grow further.  I think that's why older people appear much wiser, because they have experienced life and learned from it. Its not wrong to regret something, but rather than wallow in it, learn from it.

 

Native Indians and Aboriginies were connected to the earth. The enslavers were connected to ugliness and greed.

 

Given that the world rulers now are similarly disconnected, it is inevitable that Mother Earth will hit back.

 

By great destruction, as predicted by many. Under the hand of the maddest manifestation ever of human ugliness.

 

Well said!!

This presidential race reminds me of the Al Gore Vs Bush election, although Al Gore isnt exactly Trump or Clinton. Nonetheless, I imagine it will be that tight again and it will come down to maybe one or two states to make the final decision. Of course there is the reality of a draw, in which case congress decides the outcome. Shudder the thought!!

My own opinion is that the world has been a ticking time bomb for the past century. Wars that should have ended all wars, have been the premise of future conflicts for decades to come. We are entering into an era of the unknown, where greed and corruption is as rife as its always been, but in a world that is spiraling out of control and has gone over it's own tipping point. The next decade will be very interesting indeed.

As for this election, I look at the two candidates and know that they are as bad as one another. Clearly Trump has more obvious social flaws and is pig ignorant, but Clinton is a cunt! Either have the ability to destroy the world. It may sound OTT, but one of them will unbelievably be the president of the most powerful nation on the planet...

1. God

2. Eoin Jess

3. Duncan Shearer

Fowlers Wee Heavy

Football Chums (chews for those not old enough to mind them)

Ford Capris and RS Cosworths

Blue disabled cars behind the goals at football matchs

Cremola Foam

Nae sure if its an urban legend or not, but i'm sure i read somewhere that they had lost the original recipe for Cremola Foam... used to drink it by the gallon until we got a soda stream!!

Excellent post Dolly... !!

Decent adverts that you have fond memories of.

Good quality and funny TV shows... Only Fools and Horses, Steptoe and Son etc

On the subject of TV shows, ones that contained taboo subjects and no one gave a shit or got easily offended.

Decent music... well that might be an age and taste thing, but modern day mainstream music to me is gash!

Epic movies... everything churned out these days are either remakes or are full of smut in the hope to draw cheap laughs. You dont see movies like Godfella's, Usual Suspects, Schindlers list etc these days.

Porno mags in bushes

BT Phone cards. Always remember having them when i was a kid. Mum said i needed them in case i got kidnapped or something, but i'm like "aye mum, the kidnappers are gonna let me phone home eh".

Wee cans of drink... mind the little half can thins you used to get?

£1 notes...

Esso football coins. They were the tits!

I have to agree with Manc, B- for me. I really dont think anyone should be undermining a cup final. I couldn't really care how we got there, or who we beat to get there, as it's completely irrelevant. Some seasons you get difficult teams, other seasons you dont, but what matters is getting there and winning it. If we win it, i wont be thinking we only beat one really good side to win it, i will be thinking its another cup in the cabinet.

The league has been the biggest disappointment so far, but its not a disaster... far from it. I said last season that once Rangers got promoted, it would be more difficult and it has been. They are nothing special, but neither are we, however on paper we have the better players and we should be above them. That said, the league season is a long one and there are many games to go and I would expect us to be in 2nd place at the end of the season. If we win the league cup and finish second then its an A-. He only gets an A if he wins the league, which wont happen.

I'd say doing what expected with the budget you have compared to others is adequate.

Doing a bit better than you should on the budget you have is good.

 

We've met expectations in my opinion, no more.

 

We've had a right to expect better than what we've been served up for decades though. No team has a right to win things but with the budget we've always had in place (between 2nd best in league and 4th) we have a right to expect more than a couple of cup finals and a run of finishing top 6. I dont think thats unrealistic, I dont think expecting Calderwood to get us to a Hampden final a couple of times was unrealistic, I dont think expecting us to finish clear 2nd and last season pushing for 1st in a league with no rangers was unrealistic, I dont think expecting us to be constantly top 3 or 4 is unrealistic.

 

I'm tired of hearing from fans, both our own and other teams claims of us having high expectations, too high for a club like ours. Too high is expecting to win the league, qualify for the group stages of the CL and for us to be spending £500K 3 or 4 times each transfer window on players.

 

Last season was our best chance in 20+ years to win the title. Last season was our best chance in the next 20+ years to win the title. Unrealistic expectations would have had people shouting for Milne to spend a couple of million in January, realistically if we had spent £250 on 2 players in the right positions (keeper and creative central midfielder for the hole) we'd have been a lot closer and probably top by the end of the campaign. It would've been a gamble but its a £500k gamble worth taking in that situation.

 

McInnes has been a solid manager for us since being appointed however he's made plenty mistakes as well. He isnt taking the youth through, none of our U20 development league winning team has really touched the 1st team squad and without that they will stall. We were pish in the cups last year, we stuttered in the league partly because of his tactics and partly because Milne didnt invest when needed. 

 

For McInnes to go from being decent to being good he has to finish 2nd this season, attack and give us a fighting chance in the league cup and get to the semi of the SC minimum. Less than that is average in my opinion and also expected on our budget.

I agree with what you are saying about the league last year, it was our best chance and that was more a lack of ambition by the club rather than Derek. He clearly wasnt given the budget to go and win the league and Milne holds responsibility for that!His tactics can be bizarre, but it was a lack of ambition by the chairman that cost us it!

I always say, cups are a lottery and while the expectation is to do well on our budget, it isn't always as that easy. Using that analogy, Celtic should be winning trebles, which they dont and look at their budget ( Celtic and trebles dont go ). That said, getting papped out at the first hurdle is completely unacceptable and we do have a squad that should definitely be making semi's and finals, but as i have said, its not always as clear cut as that. In my opinion, If he wins the league cup and finishes 2nd, i think that is a very decent season.

I also agree on the point about the youth... that has been the most frustrating part about McInnes and it is clearly something he needs to improve on. If the youth team is shite, then someone needs binned. But we did win the YDL and those players looked more than capable of a step up. We will never all agree on tactics and selection, but thats why we arent football managers. I trust him enough to get it right when it matters and while the league is effectively over, the cups are our most realistic chances of silverware!

It was obvious that McInnes was hoping for lightning to strike twice re Maddison. But whereas he came on at HT v. the Huns, 52 minutes was a weird time to make a double sub. Especially that nothing significant happened in the first 7 minutes of the second half. He's not a very good manager. I've never rated him higher than adequate and sometimes good. The damage was done in the first half. We weren't good enough to equalise despite some good effort.

Clearly what you class as a good manager and one who is adequate, are not the same to other people. I would say finishing 3rd, 2nd and 2nd again, with one cup win and another final coming up isnt exactly adequate, I would say that’s good and I would also say it’s the best in over 20 years. I would say that has only met some fans expectations, while I feel Aberdeen fans expectations have outweighed reality since the early 90’s and despite the fact we are a big club in Scotland, with a good budget, we are not guaranteed to win everything and we have proved that. Runners up places and the odd cup are about what I would expect and he has achieved that. Anything more would mean defeating Celtic regularly and for other teams to achieve that too, which is getting more unrealistic every year.

Look, im not saying McInnes is perfect, he isn’t and I agree Saturdays tactics were poor and he got it wrong. However, he has done enough to deserve a slip up every so often and while its costly as far as the league goes, we are never going to win it. If he wins another cup this coming month, then to me he deserves to be held in higer regard and deserves more respect.

my thoughts exactly.

Over reaction as usual, I suggest we wait until we are in the bottom half of the league like we used to be before slagging the Manager.

He is not perfect but he has done a bloody good job since he has been here.

He is not devoid of criticism and he has got plenty wrong, but yesterday I could see what he tried to do. With Celtic, its not case of just going out all guns blazing and pinning them back. Celtic dont get pinned back, they dont allow teams masses of possession and they dont ship many goals. Are they beatable, yes, but not as much as last season. Celtic this season are FAR superior to every other team in the league.

If i had to take a positive from yesterday, it was Dembele was kept quiet and Sinclair didnt get too much chances either. Lets not forget, these guys are on a reported 40K a week each... Our whole first 11, wont even amount to 1 of their wages. 

"There are acceptable ways of losing and I think today was one of them," he told BBC Scotland.

 

Any manager that thinks a defeat is acceptable is in the wrong job.

Surely it's just another way of saying we didnt win, but that the mentality and effort shown by the players was acceptable. No one wants to hear a manager say that losing its acceptable, but i dont think he meant it the way folk are interpreting it. Yes, losing is losing, but i think what he was saying was we didnt just roll over and let them thump us, but rather we had a go, they showed effort, but we still lost.

I heard him say on the radio that the difference between our players and St Johnstones is around £500 a week, but with Celtic its more 500-600k a year. That is fact and reiterates the gap and quality we are trying to deal with. If he had gone out yesterday with 2 up front and really had a go, but we shipped 6 goals in the process, folk would still say he got it wrong. In other words, he isnt getting it right unless he wins, but beating Celtic is getting less likely. They have far superior quality and they really could go this whole season unbeaten... that is the level they are at.

I am also seeing a lot of people saying Lewis kept it from being a humping... well thats what he is paid to do is it not? and he does it very well i hasten to add.

For me, the greatest disappointment yesterday was watching how poor McGinn and Mclean were. Truly awful and its not the first time this season. I sometimes think that McGinn gets unfair criticism at times and contributes more to games than he gets credit for, but yesterday he was very poor. Mclean... well he just isnt good enough in my opinion and needs a long spell on the sidelines.

I could see what DM was trying to do yesterday and it didnt work, but he tried something different at least. It was perhaps the wrong game to do it, but after Hamilton he probably felt a risk was worth taking.

I used to think it was excellent, but the last couple of seasons were poor. Watched the first episode from this season and thought it was pish. Haven't watched another.

Only as much as to escape our atmosphere, as said before once in space there's 0 gravity so with conservation of energy the spacecraft is essentially using no fuel from around 100 miles up. There is a very small supply of fuel in the landing module used to fire up a reverse thrust to slow the craft down on final descent to the lunar surface, and also to provide literally a few seconds thrust to escape the lunar atmosphere on returning to earth. (Remember the lunar atmosphere and gravity is about one sixth of that on earth, coupled with the fact the mass of the  landing module is tiny compared to that of the launch rocket at take off from Cape Canaveral, where some of the fuel initially used is in effect used to carry the fuel required to escape our atmosphere).

Exactly just what i was away to write!    Well said!!

Here are some images I took from Cape Canaveral in 2009 and Johnson Space Center 2014

Some poor wifey hit by a coin by the scum today

If man got to the moon in 1969, how much fuel did they need to get back and how did they get it there?

 

Simple question. It's simple mathematics. You can only believe it happened once you know the answer.

 

I don't know the answer and until I hear it, I'm with R.E.M. and the Red Hot Chillis.

You need very very little fuel in space . It's a vacuum, you can use the gravity to pull you in and sling shot you around a body. Even just a slight burst of power will allow a craft to travel a long distance as there is no friction in space.

James May at the edge of Space when he went up in a SR71 was excellent, I would have loved the chance to do that! (Edit to say I'm nae a pilot either but I did take a flying lesson in a cessna at Dyce once  )

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc8wnu8bsB0

Looks more like a U-2... but still awesome

An SR-71 is like this

I have seen one in the flesh at Duxford Museum, but havent ever saw one fly. Awesome machine.

Skynews : The FBI has opened a fresh investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal emails following the discovery of new messages.

FBI director James Comey said the probe will examine whether the new emails - connected to an "unrelated case" - contain sensitive government information.

Interesting link from wiki leaks below!

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

I think there is more lifeforms out there, it's just arrogance to assume we are all by ourselves.

 

I don't think they got to the moon back in 69, I don't think they were advanced enough technologically to do it and still don't think we have.

As Manc_Don says, visiting Cape Canaveral will at the very least help prove to you we had and have the technology to visit bodies outside our planet. I have been to both Cape Canaveral in Florida and Johnson Space Center in Houston and the things you see and learn will 100% make you realise that they have they have the ability and technology to do it. Either that or NASA is the most expensive lie ever told.

In my own opinion, if we had the scientific technology to create a 15kt nuclear bomb in 1945, explode the 50MT Tsar bomb only 16 years later, build the SR-71 Blackbird that could travel 2500mph at 85,000 feet in the early 60's, then IMO we had the ability to put a rocket into space and send a craft to the moon. Its easy to think the 60's were a long time ago, but the advancements in technology from the end of WW2 to the 70's was phenomenal.

We are all of different opinions and thats what makes this such a great debate.