RicoS321

Optician lad? That's sad, seemed a decent sort.

It'll stop being funny after Gray's final game in charge when they lose against us.

Getting a bit tedious this winning pish. Terrible day out. We struggled to create much in the first half, they pressed us well and created the better chances. Mitov kept us in it with a great save again after Molloy made a real arse of it (he was otherwise really good in that half). Once again, though, the manager just sorts it all out. Devlin clearly told to get as far up the pitch as possible and that gave Keskinen and then Morris the space to do damage. We roasted them in that first fifteen minutes, and each sub that came on once again offered something to the team (Ambrose wasn't really up to much, but worked hard). Shinnie excellent again. The back four were great, they're going to make errors, but everything is building from them, and quickly too. Palaversa struggled a lot in the first half but came into it in the second and did okay. Clarkson was good and was always looking for the killer pass, it's frustrating to hear people criticising him when his game relies on taking the gamble with very difficult first time balls. Duk never really settled in the game but was okay. Keskinen was okay too and significantly better when Devlin pushed forward. Both Duk and Keskinen could make better decisions. Morris, Besuijen and Nisbet all came on and played really well. Nisbet was determined to score a goal.

Yes it was a side issue, that's exactly what your quote is saying and exactly what I've been saying. People think a side issue has been given too much airtime, I think a side issue has been given too much airtime. That happens in two. The first is when "progressive" politicians include buzzwords in every single policy and discussion. The second is when people say glib things like: Trying to provoke a response (not necessarily in your case of course) and dragging all and sundry into a discussion that the overwhelming majority neither understand or genuinely care about. The result being another thing to fight over. Women's prison rights are a minor side issue that have received zero coverage around election time in my lifetime, until trans.

Take your anti-heat rhetoric somewhere else, bigot. As someone who produces heat on a regular basis, I find your call for patience and love offensive.

Battle of the benches in the championship telly game tonight, with Niall McGinn at home to Alfie Bavidge.

Well you've spectacularly managed to miss my point, but fair enough, I'll respond. First, I couldn't give a fuck whether the democrats were elected or not, so I'd like to hope they weren't taking their campaign as seriously as I was. I don't think people who care about the issue are bigots, nor did I suggest that anywhere, I don't think the majority care at all, they simply get dragged into the "debate" by the press, social media and their respective sides of said debate. It's contrived, entirely. Because it's a side issue that has been elevated to the moon by weirdos - whipped up hysteria. You might be genuine in caring, it may be important to you or a family member, but the majority have simply been dragged along and forced to pick a side. Point 1: well, yes, that was my point Point 2: the issues that are more important than women getting raped in prison by men disguised as women are every other issue that regularly effects women in prison for the very reason that those things actually happen (I'm sure you can point to a single incident, perhaps two or three even). I'm also not getting irate about the lack of defence against bear attacks in women's prisons. It's a minor issue, which any competent government or private prison company should be able to deal with. The volume of men changing gender before committing a crime to go to prison and rape someone is manageable. Or if it isn't, then there is a lot worse happening in our prisons that we can't cope with. But let's be clear here, I'm not saying that I spend any time claiming to give a shite about issues that affect female prisoners, I absolutely don't. Just as I don't believe that the majority of people who suddenly feel strongly about men in women's prisons don't either. The point wasn't about me, nor about you. Because the people I talk to who suddenly seem to care about this issue are friends, family and colleagues who I absolutely know had zero interest in female prisoners before the crap-rags, talkshows and (to a lesser extent, because they don't have the reach) the opposing Green party weirdos decided to whip up a culture war. Point 3: you've basically provided more detail. Good work. I'm not quite sure what you mean by male supremacy movement, and I know that my kids aren't being indoctrinated in school (well, they are, but in something far more insidious), but otherwise I agree with your point - a side issue that has been elevated, as I said (obviously not a side issue for those with gender dysphoria, and their families, but everyone else). Point 4: I agree with your position on gender, but I choose not to elevate it to anything beyond the side issue that it is. I don't care. There is no virtue signalling from me, because I'm not even taking a position, which I thought was fairly clear. I don't need a bureaucracy to tell me what gender is, and neither do most normal people. Just as I don't fall foul of "can't say anything these days", because I generally say what I like, and nobody really has a problem. To be honest, I'm surprised that anyone is genuinely surprised that the post modern system we live in wants to dictate what we do and don't believe is real. I live in the fucking suburbs, reality was stripped from my life a long time ago.

I have. He's an uninspiring loser, as are all politicians. Lacking in imagination, wisdom, love, integrity and authenticity. I get that you're a republican voter, nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't start holding a candle to these fuckwits. That's no different to those that hold Sanders or Corbyn or Churchill as a shining beacon. The system doesn't allow for anyone who you'd actually want as a leader, to lead. Hence why Jesus never joined the Roman Tory party under Augustus. Vance is still willing to support genocide when it suits, to take money from billionaires in turn for policy and lick the boots of a pathetic man-child narcissist in Trump for his own personal gain. Playing the system means you're automatically not fit to lead that system. Or, actually, you're automatically fit to lead that system. In fact, he's a perfect fit. Hopefully, one day soon, the majority will see it for what it is and stop engaging with it. It's a system designed to fail anyway, and its failings are beyond the control and vision of guys like Trump and Vance (or else they wouldn't be there).

Why? What do you do on your holidays?

Okay, well then it's not true.

No, EVs are not a step in the right direction, they're a can kicking exercise, and if people like the democrats didn't lie about such non-solutions, you would know that. I'm not being remotely pedantic here either. To me, it's equally bad to be pretending that you don't believe in climate change as presenting solutions (net zero, EVs, green growth, CCS etc etc) that you know not only won't solve the issue, but keep us believing that it will until it's too late to change course. The result of both is exactly the same, so why does it matter which political wankery got you there? Why would anyone pretend that one is better than the other, when the issue is simply one of timing?

I find these types of statement hilarious. They're generally said by people who have absolutely zero interest in women's sports and when asked about prison conditions would usually respond with the moronic: "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Where were you when women were being raped and abused in institutions up and down the country by men with cocks, that were not dressed as women at the time? Or when women were giving birth in their cells? Or any other far more pressing issues in women's prisons that don't involved getting biffed by a tranny. It's fucking mental how such a side issue has been elevated to something important. It's impressive actually. It started with an attempt to help a relatively small number of people with identity issues, was picked up by the crap-rags who made it the biggest issue of our times (your daughters are going to get fucked by a man dressed as a girl in the public toilets!!!!). Hilariously, the"progressives" responded in equally loud and shouty manner, resulting in it being a bigger story than if Jesus had returned. Now it's an issue that everyone and their dog has to have "a position" on. I genuinely couldn't give a fuck about another person's genital history.

The democrat party pretend to have a solution. It involves continued pursuit of economic growth apparently. I'm not entirely sure why you'd care whether someone has acknowledged the issue or not, if it's entirely out with their ideology to solve the problem. It's not a step towards anything, it's just a meaningless step. It's like someone admitting that they're an alcoholic, and their solution is that they'll only drink when they're out, because they like a drink at a party. Then finding out that they were actually drunk that very moment, and had been for six days.

That's an extremely strange statistic. Sounds to me like you're excluding the production of the ICE vehicle for some weird reason. For the record, over their lifespan, there are significantly less emissions produced by an EV. For reference, I have driven an EV for fourteen years and do not believe that EVs are an answer to the issues that we face.

But the other team's stance leads to exactly the same outcome. Why is one abhorrent, but the other not, purely on the basis of timing? One side pretends that they have the solution, and the other pretends that they don't believe it's happening.

Ach, it was only the league cup.

No, I'm equating calling people cunts for the way they vote with people who criticise addicts who are sold their vice. In other words, I'm criticising the caller of cunts. Although, I could extrapolate it further and criticise myself for criticising you for being drawn into the pathetic "them and us" game so completely that you think that "they" are cunts. Frankly I find it strange that people have such adverse reactions to the outcomes of democracy. Surely if you believe in democracy as a system then you understand that's what you're signing up to? Because what you appear to be saying is that these people are cunts naturally, and when given the opportunity to vote for a cunt, those natural cunts vote for him. There is no room for people having been manipulated, misunderstood, tricked, taken in by false promises etc, they are simply unadulterated cunt. In which case, do you believe that there's some sort of magic cunt accumulator, whereby a single cunt will vote for Trump, but a mass of cunts would vote for Harris? Otherwise, why would you be so surprised by the results of democracy that you'd start calling people cunts? Personally, and to quote a famous man, I think there's great cunts on both sides.

He's overweight and eats cheeseburgers for breakfast. He's not got eight years in him.

Why? Because they didn't vote democrat? I'd be intrigued to hear where your virtuous boundaries begin and end. Where do you draw the line when labelling someone a cunt (in this case, you appear to be labelling @OrlandoDon, who has literally just posted inferring he voted for Trump, one)? For example, does supporting someone who continues to support and enable a genocide make you a cunt? What about supporting someone who pretends that perpetual economic growth is not only possible, but desirable, without the slightest concern for future generations? Or supporting someone who takes donations for corporations and billionaires in return for favourable policy? Would those people be cunts? No, of course not, because by that point you'd have just been choosing arbitrary moral red lines in a childish game. If you accept that politics is just one giant exercise in marketing, PR and propaganda, then you're effectively just measuring the degree to which people can be persuaded. Thus call Trump supporters cunts is the equivalent of calling a gambling addict a cunt, or the obese person who can't walk past the special offers at the till.

You could be right. I expect a lot of it has to do with partisanship though, especially in the US, which is incredibly polarised. There'll be plenty of democrats pointing to sustained economic growth and modest wage rises as evidence that it has been a vast improvement on Trump, who oversaw huge deaths during COVID (not my argument). To me, it just highlights the ridiculous nature of society's metrics, which are largely beyond the control of the average politician and president (or prime minister), such as economic growth and inflation. You basically form a view of how things are going based on what team you support - seeing what you want to see. It's a system that, globally, is failing, with the general public just spectators being tricked into playing the meaningless voting game. It's on a downward spiral that is beyond the control of someone like Trump (or the democrats). Life for the average American will not improve under Trump, they won't be able to point to a single policy of his (unless it's targeted, specific to a small group) that has improved their lives beyond the margin, but he may give them the illusion of improvement as he clearly did for many last time round. The perfect illustration of the system at play, is the supposed polar opposite positions taking place in the US and the UK. The UK has freed itself from under the boot of the Tories, while the yanks have ditched one old and senile guy. Yet if the system brings growth to the West, then it'll be because of both sides. If inflation falls then it's because of the "leftist" (there's nothing left about Starmer) policy in the UK and the right wing approach of Trump. What I hope the Trump presidency brings is the final realisation that they're not opposites, just as socialism and capitalism aren't, they are both exactly the same thing. I don't hold out much hope, I expect we'll back to the same "my billionaires are better than yours" shitfest we have today in 4 or 8 years time.

Trump is an immensely popular character in the US. He won because of that.

Four more years..... That's a lot of cheeseburgers.

Not that you're specifically saying that VAR should intervene, if it was a foul throw and the linesman didn't spot it, then VAR can't intervene. They don't adjudicate on the ball returning to play, hence they couldn't pick us up on whether the ball was still moving against the jambo scum.

Go on, write him off. Join us. It's cathartic.

Well no, we've got a backup right back. Milne. Surely priority is based on how good the player is? Milne is better at right back than McGarry is at left back. By a considerable distance. Regardless of whether it is his natural position or not. In my opinion, left back is more of a priority than right back because our left back backup is the shittest of the two. Although, personally, I don't think either is a massive priority, and would be more comfortable with a striker and a wide player.