MrSifter

I do like the bold Donald but I'm afraid his time at Rangers was wretched. He never defended the club or the fans and allowed Duncan Ferguson to be prejudiced. He also shat all over the fans by deflecting for Murray at various AGMs. He played with a rattle snake and got badly bitten.

A Rangers fan writes to the SPL's very own Wilhelm Frick, Rod MacKenzie.

Not sure if this has been raised as I've not read the thread but what about Scottish Cups and League Cups? Wouldn't it be silly if we were stripped of league titles but kept these? If they stripped leagues then surely the SFA would have to launch an investigation of their own and the SFL too.

Delahunt has never hidden the fact he's a Shettleston. I remember reading an interview with him in the Yellow pages (oddly enough) about fifteen years ago. Under the "best views in Glasgow" he said Porkheid.

I was expecting something better than the drafting of a twelve year old. This is, to be sure, complete and utter pish. What a waste of a thread.

How underwhelming.

Edit - just seen you've edited the OP.

I always think people confuse the reason the Club was founded with what and who it came to represent. One was spontaneous and one came organically as the Club and support grew together. Rangers were the premier Scottish club and represented the best of Scottish values of the day. Ruth Dudley Edwards makes the point that RCs are more accepting of hierarchy and rules than Presbyterians. She makes the joke if you put six Orangemen in a room you'd get ten different opinions. That to me sums the Rangers support up. We're a broad and diverse church with many different opinions. I'd rather this than a one size fits all monoculture with a monobrow. The thing with the mhankies is their historical narrative isn't as this TRS article portrays. It plays into the myth of "Irishness". The simple fact is they were founded as a Roman Catholic club to keep RC Glaswegians out of Protestant soup kitchens. There's is a tale of anti-integration and sectarianism.

Taxation isn't immoral because you get to keep some of the money you've earned? You're actually arguing that? What you've just said means our lives and labour belong to the state. You're arguing for slavery. Free range slaves on the tax farm.

That's true, but the whole thing about tax becoming a moral issue is quite recent. It's part of a wider agenda being pushed by politicians simply because they spend too much of other people's money and always want more to waste.

The issue is paying taxes and morality. What is complete nonsense is to say taxation is the reason we live in the society we do. Individuals have the right to life, liberty and property. Any act which infringes upon these is immoral. Taxation infringes upon this and is therefore immoral. Some people might actually be forced to pay for whatever services they use without taxation of other more industrious individuals. Heaven forfend that ever happens, we couldn't dare have such fairness.

"Fair share". You can judge someone's character by how much they want to ponce off others. Just because some consequential good comes from taxation makes it in no way moral or fair. There is no such thing as a "fair share".

What's moral about taking someone else's hard earned money in the first place? It's remarkable, politicians call people "greedy" for wanting to keep their own money but never accuse someone of being "greedy" for wishing to take someone else's money. Tax can in no way be an issue of morality as the very premise of taxation in the first place is immoral.

Since when did taxation become an issue of morality? If you go to the root of taxation it is, under the threat of violence, the state taking money that someone else has worked for and earned. In any other context this is theft. We now have politicians and discredited bloggers trying to tell us tax avoidance is immoral. How dare people legally keep more of their own hard earned money instead of giving it to politicians to spunk as they like.

How much of this was down to Martin Bain? As far as I could see, he was responsible for negotiating contracts and transfers. He never appeared great at either.