Jump to content


  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sampson last won the day on 12 April 2016

Sampson had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

990 Very Good

About Sampson

  • Rank
    Key Player

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,129 profile views
  1. Sampson


    He absolutely has been rubbish and not just frustrating. I mean genuinely shit. Genuinely looking like he's playing 3 leagues above his level. One of the worst players I've ever seen wear the Leicester shirt. I hope this kick starts his career here and he turns great but let's not revise history and pretend he hasn't been awful for us and say he's just been frustrating and/or not had his chance. Nah, he's just been properly bad and looked miles out his depth for us.
  2. Sampson


    Just hope someone is swayed by one performance against lower league Icelandic defenders and offers is like £30mil for him or something silly.
  3. Sampson

    A new way of operating.

    Think the early transfer window is a lot of it. A lot of clubs seem to be doing deals a few weeks earlier now the window closes in early August before the season starts. You forget there's only another 6 weeks now til it closes and this is the equivilent of late July in the past windows. I'm hoping this new window should turn out to be a good thing in the end. Just hope they also stick to abolishing the January window.
  4. Sampson

    UK Cities quiz

    I just completed this quiz. My Score 30/100 My Time 76 seconds  
  5. Sampson

    Premier League Years

    Watching Wes score those goals against Southampton and ManUtd and lift that trophy and his interview at the end just reminded me even more what an absolute legend that man is and just how vile some of the vitriol he's got recently has been.
  6. Sampson

    Silly New Rules

    The only one I think has any merit is number 6. I like the idea of stopping teams just camping in the corner flag when they're winning in injury time. The rest are all really silly.
  7. Sampson

    Foxes or Wolves....?

    We got more points in the Championship and were a better side than they are coming up in 2013-14 and finished 14th in our first season back. I expect them to steer clear of a relegation battle but I don't know why people think they're likely to finish top half of anything. They have no one anywhere near the quality of Vardy or anyone.
  8. Sampson

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Completely agree with everything apart from direct democracy being in theory the best system - Plato was right about direct democracy being the worst form of government and will inevitibly lead to tyrrany and many, many bad decisions. Representative democracy where we elect experts but have the chance to kick them out if they mess up is tthe best form of government we undoubtably have come up with in practise and theory, but direct democracy really isn't a good idea and things like Brexit absolutely should not have been a public vote, just as the voting style reform shouldn't have been and just as the Irish abortion vote right now shouldn't be (as much as I'd like to see the latter two change).
  9. Sampson

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    But it doesn't matter whether it is market based or state based or collective based or there is no state or 100% state controlled - the core concept of Socialism is absolutely and always had been public ownership of the means of production and the core concept of Capitalism has always been the private ownership of the means of production. Absolutely there are many ways you can do that and there have been many different ways that have been proposed to create both - but that absolutely is both the academic and politic definition which has defined both. That has always been the accepted definition and core concept of Socialism and you'll find virtually every author until recent years say that - that isn't what I want it mean at all, that's what the revolutionaries of 1848 wnd everyone from Marx to Proudhon to Chomsky and every other influential Socialist thinker all wanted it to mean. If some populists like Bernie Sanders want to try and change the definition in modern times to seem more pallateable, that is both an incredibly dangerous thing to try and make the ideology more pallateable and the kind of shit Mussolini did with fascism. And I would be saying the same thing if people on here started calling Trump fascist or whatever- as much as I hate Trump you are sanitizing things which shouldn't be sanitised and it's dangerous. I have no idea why you think I think Stalin murdering Trotsky has anything to do with that? I never said it did. But that *is* the broad definition of Socialism exactly - what you guys are advocating is nor Socialism! I'm not having a go at your opinions, I'm having a go at anyone on here romantasicing Socialism by saying "We should be more like Germany" Please don't think I am criticising your opinions or beliefs - I am not - I am saying that what you are advocating isn't socialism and trying to connect Germany or Atlee's Britain to Socialism and romance it and refuse to criticise the term as some on here absolutely do is dangerous. I'm not saying on here that anyone (other than Sharpe's Fox, who is obviously very tongue-in-cheek) in here says they want to overthrow Capitalism and turn the country Socialist - that was a reference to John MacDonnell. Yes, Labour have talked about these things because Corbyn, MacDonell and Abbott are being heavily moderated by their party - hence why the rest of their party kept talking about the manifesto and not the leadership in the last election. But as I've said several times on here, Corbyn, MacDonell and Abbott make it pretty open and have made it pretty open throughout their political history they are all much hardcore than that and their (MacDonnell and Abbott especially) constant sabre rattling and romantasicing of Socialism is not a positive thing - we have polls now that more Americans under 25 view the word "Socialism" more positively than "Capitalism" and that's in America, I imagine it's even worse here - and the term has been completely desentasised in young people which allows the gateway for some pretty shitty governments to come in the West in the future - exactly as it had done with Trump and the 5 star movement in Italy with people being sick of pragmatism and becoming decentacised to complicated and Economic political debate. I never said anything of the sort. How you define the Left is up to you, I don't care about that. It's the basterdisation of the term Socialism to try and make it more pallateable I object to and what I can only see decending into some rotten governments because people begin to like the sanitised virue signalling idea of it (whuch has nothing to do with Socialism) and then vote for anything under than banner - I never implied anything like Socialism being the only philosophy related to Left or that they don't have any ideas or never even mentioned the Left. I'm not really fussed about that, Left, Right And Centre are such meaningless terms these days and change depending on the point the politician is trying to make I'd rather they were scrapped altogether.
  10. Sampson

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    What do you mean "depends how you define Socialism?" Socialism has always meant only one very simple thing - public/collective and democratic ownership of the means of production. It's only manipulative populists like Bernie Sanders or Owen Jones or from people who really haven't read Socialist theory or really thought through what Socialism actually means in practice but who just use it as a trendy buzzword because it stands for equality who are trying to muddy the waters on its very clear definition to make it more pallateable. Now how you define the "means of production" in the modern day as it was meant for an early industrialised world, given it, as a 19th Century philosophy, meant factories and farming machinery, is perhaps more of a grey area - but things like the internet, website, work computers, shops, warehouses, office buildings, cranes, scaffolding etc. obviously fall under that in our modern more service driven Western world. But Germany and Sweden socialist? Britain in 1951 socialist? Or even they are "more Socialist" and using that as a way to tactictly or not so tacitly criticise Capitalism and romance Socialism? That's the kind of shit I really hate that I keep seeing on here from otherwise genuinely intelligent people. It's true that certain elements of their economies may be publically owned like the railways, but their general business practices are capitalist. These are capitalist economies - the means of production are overwhelmingly owned by private firms and private individuals in all these examples. The overwhelming majority of companies own their own land, warehouses and factories and computers and lease the internet - these things are not democratically and collectively owned either by their own individual employees or by the state. There is absolutely nothing against the law in starting a Socialist company in any Western country btw - but no one does it because it's such an obviously silly idea and if you did it you'd last 5 minutes - imagine starting a new business on your own passion but as soon as you needed to hire a couple of people to do admin for you, they get equal and democratic control over everything you make, your IT systems, the website, the little office building on the side or your house etc. 2 new staff who could just be doing this for 6 months before they plan to go to university for all you know suddenly you only have 33% of the vote on what to do these things and the direction to take your start up company in either though it's something you've always wanted to do but you just need some help for admin from people who don't really care about your passion but just want some income for a few weeks in the summer but who now have equal say in both the long-term and day-to-decision making of the business. This is one of the main reasons Socialism causes such a lack of choice and liberty - because the only way you can really get that collective long-term decision making to work is if workers work their long-term - so you can't just try and find a new job if you don't enjoy it or want a new passion or you can't just move halfway across the country to a new job if you fall in love with someone who lived halfway across the country either. I have no problem with people debating whether certain things like the health care and railways being under public control are a good or bad thing, but equating that with the actual overthrowing of Capitalism and creating a Socialist country or still romantasicing Socialism in the 21st century in the way John MacDonell does? Those are 2 very, very different things and absolutely nothing like saying "certain parts of our macro-economy could be a bit more like Germany or Sweden" (which are both absolutely nothing like Socialist countries) or for staggard taxes or different tax levels (which again, has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism - and taxes in general say nothing about whether a country is Socialist or Capitalist).
  11. Sampson

    Jamie Vardy and Riyad Mahrez

    I saw Frank Worthington and Keith Weller and Vardy and Mahrez are quite a lot better than both of them for me. I don't understand why people can never have opinions on modern players without others saying "You obviously never saw xyz". Nostalgia always clouds judgement and you can feel nostalgia for even horrible times in life when you look back. People only remember past players' good games whereas Vardy and Mahrez' bad games are still in easy memory. People make out Bloomfield's side were this amazing side who played sexy football and for a few spells we were but I think that's some very selective memories and historical revisionism coming into play. We were ultimately still quite a defensive side who used to have a mean defence but never really scored enough under him and were draw specialists (and often low scoring 1-1s 0-0s) - even the season we finished 7th under Bloomfield we only won 13 of our 42 league games - we were always a very erratic and inconsistent or streaky side who turned up every 1 in 4 games or so (and let's be honest, Worthington and Weller were both inconsistent and streaky players, even more so than Mahrez I'd argue and certainly a lot more inconsistent than Vardy). Sometimes Worthington's lack of team ethic was a big hinderemce to us moving forward too. And let's face it, we went on some horrible runs under Bloomfield and were bottom half fodder for most of that time which most people forget. I'm pretty sure our longest run without a win in the club's entire history was under Bloomfield in fact. Edit - That's not to say Worthington and Weller weren't great players, reading back it seems I'm being disparaging of them which I'm not meaning to be, I'm just saying people forget about inconsistency of players the further you go back and it's much easier to remember their good games and forget their bad ones while not doing the same for Vardy or Mahrez - who I do think are quite comfortably better players than Worthington and Weller if I'm honest.
  12. Sampson

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    What a strange post. It's nothing to do with wealth "disparity" - Capitalism always has more disparity, that's the point, but it also doesn't think Economic equality helps people out of poverty. And what does foreign policy have to do with Economic decisions. Unless you're trying to say Capitalism only worked because of imperialism and Socialism only failed because of Capitalist imperialism allowing it to steal their resources - in which case you just be joking? The different is Capitalism at least can work and help people out of poverty sometimes, whereas Socialism only keeps people in it/causes more of it. It's a Utopian fantasy because humans still can't face the finality and pointlessness of life, so had to create a story of Utopia - a better life- to make it all worthwhile. Religion died in the 19th Century and Socialism replaces that- the grand movement than deified the worker rather than God and leads to the Communist nirvana on Earth - people are willing to believe in it despite it being so obviously silly and counter-intuitive because it makes them feel like their life was worth it and they were a help to lead mankins to a better place. I can't understand how genuinely intellegent people still believe in that guff in 2018. At least religion has nice stories to it. I know we have a lame duck of a government but how people can genuinely want this man in charge of country's Economy utterly baffles me. There's plenty of other parties to vote for that can offer alternatives or ways to dustrinute capital difderently that have nothing to do with public ownership aren't just the living incarnation of everything the History books warns us against.
  13. Sampson


    One of the few worthwhile things Camus ever said tbh. He was probably a better footballer than he was a philosopher.
  14. Sampson

    Alan Partridge Finish the Quote Quiz

    I just completed this quiz. My Score 60/100 My Time 94 seconds