Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - J70

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 698
1
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 21, 2018, 02:39:08 PM »
Second goal was ridiculous. WTF was Gomez at with that “flick”? And then Karius in no mans land from the free?

Stoke will be no walkover next week as they’re fighting too. May definitely need to get a point at Chelsea.

2
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 05, 2018, 04:44:02 PM »
Footballers are often not the sharpest tools in the box.

Anyone else loving that new Allez Allez song the fans have been singing for the past month or so?

3
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 05, 2018, 03:21:18 PM »
UEFA has opened disciplinary proceedings against Liverpool (per ESPN).

Absolutely appropriate.

4
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 05, 2018, 02:59:28 PM »
it didnt take long to try to blame others for last nights trouble.  :o


Everton fans accused of Man City bus damage:

FORMER Liverpool midfielder David Thompson says it was Everton fans who damaged the Manchester City team bus.
 
Manchester City's coach had at least one window smashed on the journey into Anfield last night and was deemed unusable for the return trip.

It meant a replacement had to be found while Pep Guardiola's team were playing in their 3-0 first-leg defeat.

Merseyside Police are conducting enquiries to identify those responsible for throwing objects at the bus, while Liverpool have condemned the attack and vowed to support City in establishing the facts of what occurred.

But Thompson has thrown a spanner into the works by tweeting: “Heard it was evertonians and not Liverpool fans who damaged the man city coach typical.”

After the match, City boss Guardiola expressed his surprise at the incident.

"Normally when the police know that is going to happen, they try to avoid it happening," he said.

"The bus is destroyed. I didn't expect that a club as prestigious as Liverpool would do these kind of things."

Match Commander Superintendent Paul White said: "We are aware that damage was caused to the Manchester City team bus as it approached Anfield stadium ahead of the Liverpool v Manchester City match.

"Thankfully no-one on the bus was injured, but injuries were caused to two of our officers when projectiles were thrown towards the bus. The officers and stewards are there to protect the public and keep them safe.

"This behaviour by a number of people who threw bottles, cans and pyrotechnics towards the bus is completely unacceptable and we will conduct enquiries to identify who was responsible and bring them to justice.

"We worked very closely with both clubs to ensure the safety of the public and the teams themselves, and it is disappointing to see that a number of people behaved in this appalling way."

Express Sport understands UEFA's disciplinary body is awaiting reports before deciding whether to open a case.

Despite the attack on the bus taking place in the streets surrounding Anfield, there is scope for European football's governing body to take action should it deem that to be an area the host club are in control of.

Article 16 of UEFA's regulations about order and security at matches states "host clubs and national associations are responsible for order and security both inside and around the stadium before, during and after matches.

"They are liable for incidents of any kind and may be subject to disciplinary measures and directives unless they can prove that they have not been negligent in any way in the organisation of the match."

The regulations also state that associations and clubs are liable for inappropriate behaviour on the part of their supporters and may be subject to disciplinary measures and directives, even if they can prove the absence of any negligence in relation to the organisation of the match, including a lack of order or discipline observed inside or around the stadium.

Assuming Thompson was serious, he is a complete moron.

5
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 05, 2018, 02:41:58 PM »
Hope they identify the scumbags who damaged the bus. There is no place for that kind of shite anymore, and with the amount of phone footage about, as well as whatever public and TV cameras show, they should have little problem bringing these halfwits to justice and throwing the book at them.

Can't see what the club could do given it was not on their property and was a police matter, but if UEFA comes down on them, so be it. You can't defend that shit. Given that this happens quite regularly across Europe, there obviously should be plenty of precedent for them to fall back on.

I would think it will take a bit of balls on the part of any Liverpool fans heading to the Etihad next week though.

On the game itself, outstanding performance, even if the team got lucky, especially, with the disallowed City goal. Salah's was marginal, but even at that, City had multiple opportunities to defend it and clear the danger. How they left Salah in such acres of room in the first place is what they SHOULD be focused on. You'd wonder why City weren't better prepared, given that they suffered the exact same pumelling in the league match two months ago.

6
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 09:22:18 PM »
But this census is different because it will be the first census taken where some of the states with the largest populations are openly defying federel immigration policy. 

Have these states seen an increase in the number of illegal residentsas a result of the sanctuary status?

If they have, that dilutes the vote of every legal resident in the country-can you not understand why that would be a legitimate issue for some people on the right to be concerned about?


BTW-The citizenship question was on the census up until the 1950s.

Lots of shit happened through the 50s.

What does that Pew data show for proportions of illegals? Are blue states gaining lots of Congress people at the expense of red states?

I dont know, but they very likely could!

Based on....?

7
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 09:03:54 PM »
But this census is different because it will be the first census taken where some of the states with the largest populations are openly defying federel immigration policy. 

Have these states seen an increase in the number of illegal residentsas a result of the sanctuary status?

If they have, that dilutes the vote of every legal resident in the country-can you not understand why that would be a legitimate issue for some people on the right to be concerned about?


BTW-The citizenship question was on the census up until the 1950s.

Lots of shit happened through the 50s.

What does that Pew data show for proportions of illegals? Are blue states gaining lots of Congress people at the expense of red states?

8
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 09:00:51 PM »
How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Who the f**k is cherry picking?

I linked the data, I listed the top counts. You are so full of shit its getting boring at this stage.

We've been through the census question thing already a couple of months back  - my arguments stand, especially with no worthy counterpoints to date.

I don't really give a bollocks about the politics of it or the GOP supposedly outmanoevering the Dems. What's right is right. The sanctuary city policies are generally correct (and you're not arguing them - you're just posting bollocks about it all being a political football instead of addressing the merits of the policies - you know, the reason so many people support them). Leaving the citizenship question off the form to do a proper count of people in the country is the right thing to do, especially when the matter of citizenship is already addressed in other surveys. If you're reduced to arguing that the GOP is going to win the politics of these issues and not the merits of the issues themselves, I'll gladly concede you may be right. It doesn't make the GOP or your support of them correct however.

Haha...oh gee....how convenient

One of the unintended consequences of sanctuary cities and states and inviting in even more illegals is that you get more congressmen and more electoral college votes........

The consequences don't make the policy wrong.

Just like the fact that Dems will potentially lose votes by advocating that illegals be treated as human beings, NOT statistics, doesn't make them wrong either.

Do you have any arguments on the merits (or otherwise) of sanctuary city policies themselves?

Are you opposed to them PURELY on the basis that you perceive they'll inflate Democratic representation (of course ignoring the data I linked earlier)?

Are you not aware that the census and the population data is creates is used for a hell of a lot more than just congressional representation, that those numbers have real, every day consequences for local communities?

We debated all this previously, of course, but as usual with you lads, its like water off a duck's back and pretty much a waste of time.

Do you think criminal illegals should be handed over to federal law enforcement officials for processing and deportation?

I’ve no problem with someone convicted of a crime being handed over, hence my qualification that I agree with MOST sanctuary city policies.

But again, we’ve covered this before.

9
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 01:56:35 PM »
How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Who the f**k is cherry picking?

I linked the data, I listed the top counts. You are so full of shit its getting boring at this stage.

We've been through the census question thing already a couple of months back  - my arguments stand, especially with no worthy counterpoints to date.

I don't really give a bollocks about the politics of it or the GOP supposedly outmanoevering the Dems. What's right is right. The sanctuary city policies are generally correct (and you're not arguing them - you're just posting bollocks about it all being a political football instead of addressing the merits of the policies - you know, the reason so many people support them). Leaving the citizenship question off the form to do a proper count of people in the country is the right thing to do, especially when the matter of citizenship is already addressed in other surveys. If you're reduced to arguing that the GOP is going to win the politics of these issues and not the merits of the issues themselves, I'll gladly concede you may be right. It doesn't make the GOP or your support of them correct however.

Haha...oh gee....how convenient

One of the unintended consequences of sanctuary cities and states and inviting in even more illegals is that you get more congressmen and more electoral college votes........

The consequences don't make the policy wrong.

Just like the fact that Dems will potentially lose votes by advocating that illegals be treated as human beings, NOT statistics, doesn't make them wrong either.

Do you have any arguments on the merits (or otherwise) of sanctuary city policies themselves?

Are you opposed to them PURELY on the basis that you perceive they'll inflate Democratic representation (of course ignoring the data I linked earlier)?

Are you not aware that the census and the population data is creates is used for a hell of a lot more than just congressional representation, that those numbers have real, every day consequences for local communities?

We debated all this previously, of course, but as usual with you lads, its like water off a duck's back and pretty much a waste of time.

10
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 11:37:57 AM »
How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Whitey ... read your constitution.. you know the document that you “originate” to. They are supposed to count all of the people who are in the United States. All of the people are not necessarily citizens. Should we ignore the written word in the constitution this time round.

Who ever said anything about not counting them.?  That is exactly what the addition of the question to the census is attempting to do......count them!

But legal residents need and have a right to know if their votes are being diluted by the presence of large numbers of illegal residents in other states,

https://www.thoughtco.com/should-us-census-count-illegal-immigrants-3320973

Yes, that data would otherwise be hidden in the American Community Survey and the like and on websites and research like the Pew one I linked a few posts up. ::)

11
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 11:36:54 AM »
How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Who the f**k is cherry picking?

I linked the data, I listed the top counts. You are so full of shit its getting boring at this stage.

We've been through the census question thing already a couple of months back  - my arguments stand, especially with no worthy counterpoints to date.

I don't really give a bollocks about the politics of it or the GOP supposedly outmanoevering the Dems. What's right is right. The sanctuary city policies are generally correct (and you're not arguing them - you're just posting bollocks about it all being a political football instead of addressing the merits of the policies - you know, the reason so many people support them). Leaving the citizenship question off the form to do a proper count of people in the country is the right thing to do, especially when the matter of citizenship is already addressed in other surveys. If you're reduced to arguing that the GOP is going to win the politics of these issues and not the merits of the issues themselves, I'll gladly concede you may be right. It doesn't make the GOP or your support of them correct however.

12
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 01:29:46 AM »
How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

13
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 01:25:12 AM »
Number of Electoral college votes based on the number of congressmen in a state

Number of congressmen based on population (both legal and illegal)

Democrats establish sanctuary cities and states in a cynical attempt to attract additional (illegal)  population (on top of what they already have). Due to birthright citizenship the children of the illegals are automatically citizens.

If Republicans pulled something similar, you'd all be out with the burning pitchforks

Another fact-free contribution. Democrats are betting the house on what will happen in a generation? While alienating the white working class (as you are always reminding us), which is killing them right now?

Sanctuary city policies (for the most part) are moral and compassionate and defensible on their own merits. They don't need some supposed cynical long term political bet to rationalize them.

14
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 28, 2018, 12:50:11 AM »
How many additional seats have democrats gotten by pulling this stunt?

I give up. Tell me. How many seats have they gained? (We'll overlook the fact that net migration from Mexico is a negative number for now.)

Didn't you know that's what it is all about?

The ten year census and national congressional representation.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the local everyday business of trying to engage with and get cooperation from fearful immigrant communities. ::)

One wonders does he even believe the shite he writes himself?

15
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: March 27, 2018, 06:29:42 PM »
It boggles my mind how the US generally allows partisan legislators to oversee districting.

Arnie and the state of California have shown the way to go, as had the PA Supreme Court. It has to be taken out of the hands of corrupt political hacks, whatever their leaning.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 698