nyblue23

Stronger than nearly all spirits, really. Only everclear and 151s come to mind, and no one drinks those straight without a death wish. Most whiskeys sit between 90 and 125 proof, gins between 84-90 and all other spirits other than overproof rums right at 80. That beer is 135 proof. Nuts.

He was by far our best player on the pitch. Looking worth every penny at this point. Hopefully he keeps it up.

Extremely harsh for a 20-year old seeing his first 1st-team action.

On the basis of this game, by some margin.

Jesus Richarlison is good. Too bad the rest of our team is garbage.

Yeah not really Keane's fault at all there. Went in with a good tackle but just unlucky to have it pinball back. Jags embarrassing.

Now it's 3-0.

No still 2-0.

Richarlison already looks our best player. Might be eating my doubt soon.

God Stek is bad. I can't believe we suffered through half a season with him in goal.

This team looks much much better relative to what it sounds like the first half offered up.

I agree with most of this. Taxes are far too high in the U.S. for lower and middle classes as well, and loopholes often allow multinational corporations to pay next to nothing in taxes. A flat tax in some ways makes sense, although 30% of 24,000 pounds a year makes a wage of just over 16,000, where 30% of 240,000 and you’re still sitting very pretty. Either way, the most important investment should be in education, as education will prevent that cycle that you feel too many welfare recipients in the U.K. fall into. In a capitalistic society, money management and financial literacy should be taught from a very young age, and generally speaking, all schools should be funded equally according to their levels and number of students. Better education policies and funding would go a very long way toward alleviating so much injustice, in turn stimulating the economy and probably even allowing for eventually lower tax rates as the wealth gap decreases. The problem right now is that almost no one in either of our countries starts from the bottom and works their way out. Socioeconomic mobility has become almost non-existent. You may have come from a well-supported working class family (as did I, though we’d call ours lower-middle class), but if your parents had two incomes and supported you even emotionally through your education, you were still a lot better off than many: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/an-analysis-of-2-decades-of-efforts-to-improve-social-mobility https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/491240/

Most use it as such relatively unconsciously... usually people who deny that racism still exists and take almost nationalistic pride in their white Southern roots. A few use it explicitly to signify white supremacy. And yeah it’s a disturbingly large group, though not even close to a majority of white folks.

Christ. That’s like 8 drinks in one.

Bolasie

Don’t love the transfer myself, but I’ll be pulling as hard as any for him to come good.

Fair play. Looks like both broke rules and it is hard to say. Regardless, no matter the lobbying and campaign contribution laws in any country, I think it’s fair to say that most would agree wealth brings political clout, influence and power.

I can’t speak to this with as much education about British politics generally, but I can say from a theoretical perspective that conservatives get the vote not only of rich white folks, but of uneducated populists as well. By virtue of limiting economic regulations, conservatives naturally assume the votes of the wealthy elite, who then get to pour money back into campaigns for their preferred conservative candidates (I’m not sure of contribution laws in regards to political candidates in the U.K., but I know that far more money was spent on the leave campaign than the remain). Further, uneducated majority populations also tend to vote conservative for more populist and xenophobic reasons; Trump was elected largely because he appealed to the large swathe of working class white Americans who believe that immigrants are destroying the U.S. economy and, more specifically, muting their own individual chances of financial success. These folks tend to hold conservative social views that also more closely align with conservative parties on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion, etc., largely as a lack of education corresponds to stronger religious belief. This convinces them to vote against their own economic interests, and put faith in leaders with whose values they believe they align. This means that progressive parties must rely on the votes of poor minorities (who don’t vote much in most Western countries), and the shrinking educated middle class in order to secure power. There are obviously a ton of nuisances specific to each of our countries, but as income inequality grows and globalization increases, I think the situations are more and more analogous.

Two things here: People do not take risks and put themselves through university in a vacuum. Opportunity to do so doesn’t arise from a black hole. Poverty is a vicious cycle and permeates every bit of a child’s education, whether in my country or yours. Extra taxes are not a punishment. They should and can be a way of leveling the playing field for those who were not afforded the same opportunities at birth that many of us on this forum probably were. Secondly, it is common knowledge that wealth, when distributed to the lower and middle classes, has a far greater effect on the economy than when distributed to the wealthy, who simply absorb extra money into their wealth. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/better-economic-growth-when-wealth-distributed-to-poor-instead-of-rich https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart http://factmyth.com/factoids/people-with-more-money-save-more/

Come in a little late there. I don’t think he’s better than Lookman necessarily, and I think Lookman has even more potential. They’re almost such different players that it’s hard to know... Richarlison strong and direct and Lookman pacey and tricky.

I just think it’s funny. And Cahill is badass for the prodding.

I think I finally get it. You’re crossing pronouns. The “he” in bold is for Vlasic but it directly follows you talking about Richarlison. In the previous post, “the lad” directly follows a paragraph about Vlasic, but you’re referring to Richarlison. Regardless, my point still stands. Vlasic will likely get used on the wing. Richarlison is a better option on the wing, I agree, but maybe not a 50 million pounds better option and definitely not a 50 million pounds better option than Lookman, who is a natural winger, and who needs game time to develop.

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/07/23/former-everton-man-tim-cahill-responds-to-phil-nevilles-comment/

Wouldn’t say Williams has been rediscovered really. Think he’s our 4th choice CB right now. Mirallas has been surprising through the preseason looking very lively and bright. I get that his attitude has soured most supporters beyond repair, but he’s showing he’s still a very capable player.

Young enough to still be good. 31.