Messages

"No, Liverpool's have not been awful throughout. There have been some awful performances, and some superb performances."

I disagree. I have yet to see a single superb Liverpool performance under Klopp.

Chelsea away, City away, United at home, Villa away, City at home, Southampton away... just six off the top of my head.

"Ranieri is a dataset of ONE. Doesn't prove anything, either way, about Klopp"

It shows you don't necessarily need a long time to improve a team. Giving a poor manager like Klopp too much time is a mistake in my opinion. One Liverpool made with Rodgers.

So by your logic, the only proof of progress for a team is instant and consistent success and improvement on the field. The respective squad, suitability of players, training etc. etc. is all irrelevant.

You must have been some critic of Ferguson back in the late 80s. God knows what you would have said about Shankly back in the day.

And Liverpool's "mistake" with Rodgers resulted in arguably the most exciting campaign of football ever seen from any team in the premier league era, one that came within a whisker of the title.

"Chelsea, City, Arsenal, United, Spurs ALL have arguably better squads than Leicester AND Liverpool. Do they ALL have shit managers too?"

No. I have never suggested they do all have shit managers.

Well you're not very consistent then, are you?

I mean, IF your gauge of how they're doing is only results on the field.

"Most sensible people  recognize that no manager is a miracle worker and there will be setbacks along the way when a new man comes in."


He's had five months.  Liverpool's performances have been awful throughout this time. You only have to look at Ranieiri to see that a good manager can have an immediate impact. The squad Klopp inherited was good enough to finish top four, yet Liverpool languish in 8th.

No, Liverpool's have not been awful throughout. There have been some awful performances, and some superb performances.

Ranieri is a dataset of ONE. Doesn't prove anything, either way, about Klopp. They both inherited totally different situations. Have had different squads and injury problems to deal with. How do their historical records at previous clubs compare?

Chelsea, City, Arsenal, United, Spurs ALL have arguably better squads than Leicester AND Liverpool. Do they ALL have shit managers too?

Rodgers have an average first season at Liverpool, yet came within a whisker of the title in his second with some of the best football ever seen in the premier league. By your "standards", he would have been shipped out after three months amd we never would have got to see that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

A liberal rag that has lost credibility as a source of news and unbiased reporting, the democrats own the media in the states and when I go back i won't buy a paper ever again, its time has come and gone, journalistic integrity is dead and buried.

Stew Norm Ornstein is old style GOP. He is more of a real conservative than Cruz is. What the extremists have done to the GOP is shocking.

The same goes the other way hi, the twat in chief has driven the country's democratic party to the far left neither party is fit to govern hence the need for more options.

What evidence is there that the Democrats have been driven to the "far left"?

I'm a bit shocked by the numerous offensive responses to my honest opinion on football from other Liverpool supporters.

I was expecting some reasoned debate, but it seems juvenile abuse is all some people are willing to offer. Disappointing behaviour.

Your schtick consists of:

1. Klopp is incompetent, even though he's only been there 2/3/4/5 months.
2.Any bad result is used as proof of this.
3. Any good result is used as proof of this ("they only beat them by x goals" or "the opposition is shite and they should have won by more")
4. Steven Caulker, brought in on loan in an emergency to cover centre backs, was thrown up front a couple of times at the end of games (never mind that it did actually help!)
5. Simon Mignolet was given a new contract (puzzling, I'll grant you, but it doesn't mean he can't be sold or used as a number 2 if his performance doesn't improve)

Did I miss anything?

What is there to debate about?

Most sensible people, not out to wind up or looking for attention, are willing to give the man time to assess the players, get them trained on his style of play and, over the summer, replace and recruit. Most sensible people  recognize that no manager is a miracle worker and there will be setbacks along the way when a new man comes in. Most sensible people look at his cv and see a man with a proven track record. And most people recognize that, especially over the past month, that there HAS actually been a marked improvement in the team, especially since the return of Sturridge and Coutinho from injury, and the improvement in performance from Firmino, Lallana, Lovren and Sahko.

So work away. Seize upon each and every result as proof of your theory that he not up to scratch, no matter how twisted and tenuous the logic. I don't know why people don't just ignore you as your "opinions" on Klopp are actually boring, devoid of substance and not worthy of discussion, but I guess they get upset because you seem like you're just fishing for a reaction and attention. And that may well be the case. If it is, you need to come up with something better than "Klopp is a fool" though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

A liberal rag that has lost credibility as a source of news and unbiased reporting, the democrats own the media in the states and when I go back i won't buy a paper ever again, its time has come and gone, journalistic integrity is dead and buried.

What has any of that rant got to do with the signed opinion piece that seafoid posted?

Do you have any opinion to offer on or do you dispute any of their summary of the shift of the GOP to the right and their purging of any and all moderates?

[w**k stain bo]

"w**kstain"??

WTF has Obama got to do with what happens at these rallies? 

Funny that the first person you thought of was the Kenyan lad. 

Nah, read again... stew typed "...but under this w**k stain bo..."

[Like I said before, there is no reason for anti-trump protestors to attend his rallies.]

Disgusting scenes at the Trump rally in Chicago by the libtards.
The usual suspects out in force ready to disrupt and start riots at the first sign of something they disagree with.
The media did a good job stopping news of all the looting and gunfire after the rally, cos lets face it, not like them to miss an opportunity to do some free shopping!

The bright spot here is that the general american public will now wake up and see that if these types hate Trump so much then he must be doing something right.
The Kenyan lad has brought them to this point with his policies and pandering to sections of the community. It needs to stop.

Have a look at this and keep on blaming the liberals . . . Do Trump and his supporters not deserve their fair share of the blame??

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rachel-maddow-explains-how-donald-trumps-rhetoric-has-ramped-up-violence-at-rallies-video_uk_56e69b0be4b05c52666ec8c4

Like I said before, there is no reason for anti-trump protestors to attend his rallies. These anti-trump bullies are the ones inflaming the situation and should let democracy take its course even if they don't like his message.

If there was no popular support for Mr Trumps policies he wouldn't be winning all these states. Just shows the american public are sick of pandering to the PC brigade and are willing to be more vocal about it now.

Have you read the US Constitution?? First amendment means that liberals can protest Trump all they want!! Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights just because they are liberal?

Liberals cannot protest inside a building he is renting you imbecile!

Why do you lads never take responsibility for anything, these c***ts that went in and disrupted his meeting should have been jailed, they broke the law but under this w**k stain bo anything goes.

"w**kstain"??

WTF has Obama got to do with what happens at these rallies? 

It is a matter for the local authories i.e. Chicago police (or university police, if they have the jurisdiction), Cook County DA etc. etc.

Related to this I would ask if today's win will mean as much to Paul Durkin as it will to the player who has been there from under 8? Would it have meant more to Durkin if he had won with his hometown club?

I have heard something about one of the local Ballyboden players actually getting into a serious fight with Durcan over him taking up a potentially more deserving players place in the team. It was well hushed up before this game.

Not at all surprised at the Mayo boys' collapse. Crossmaglen would have given boden a much better game.

You would have to have some serious balls to square up to a man of Durcan's size!

Apparently Durcan's first cousin, McDaid, is on the team, and that is why Durcan decided to transfer there last summer.

Its a fair point about long term players being pissed off, but how many clubs would turn down a player like Durcan, who, after five or six years as an average, but mistake-prone, intercounty keeper, has turned himself into one of the top keepers in the country and one of the best at kick-outs?

And how many lads would fly all the back from Qatar, repeatedly, like Durcan did?

One would assume that the reams of cameras at OT will enable identification and punishment of anyone engaged in violence. Let's hope so.

On the game itself, Liverpool rode their luck at times in the first half. Mignolet got VERY lucky when he came for a cross, then stopped in no-man's land, only for Lingard to send a header fairly close to him. He reacted very well to make a good save, but a better player than Lingard would have buried that.

The penalty came from a horrible pass across the area from the left corner back position, and presumably Klopp will be giving Can or Milner or whoever hit it a bollocking.

Even in the first half though, despite the chances they gave up, Liverpool should have had two or three goals as well. Those who say that Van Gaal is reluctant to loosen the reins for fear of sacrificing defensive solidity may have a point.

Second half was a relative stroll. United seemed to run out of ideas and enthusiasm in the last 20, especially with some bizarre substitutions, and then it was just a matter of whether Liverpool could grab the winner on the night. I was actually disappointed they didn't, but it was a superb performance across the two legs and Liverpool were thoroughly deserving winners.

[The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to be considered]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.

A Socialist has a really good chance of becoming the Dem nominee and you don't think the party has shifted to the left?

Except he hasn't

When all is said and done and this thing is done, he will have gotten almost as many actual votes as Hillary. Dem party won't (or at least wouldn't) release vote totals from Iowa because seemingingly Berne won more actual votes (per MSBNC)

It's only because of the super delegates his window s closing

And the superdelegates are the party establishment.

Until Dems start consistently electing people leaning as far left as Bernie, and engaging in the primary warfare that has purged the GOP of almost all its moderates in the last six years, you can't really claim that the party is shifting.

[The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to be considered]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.

A Socialist has a really good chance of becoming the Dem nominee and you don't think the party has shifted to the left?

Bernie is one man, whose success (charisma aside) as a candidate is more a product of Hillary's problems as a candidate and the complete lack of alternatives than any vision he presents. The party itself is centre left in US terms, and centre right in international terms. He hasn't a single endorsement from a sitting Democratic senator and only a handful of house members. Hillary has 40 from current senators, including Sanders' Vermont colleague, Leahy.

He has no hope of winning the nomination anyway.

Insurgent candidates happen in primaries. They don't usually signal a grand shift in overall party position. They're more an outburst of enthusiasm from a certain faction within the party which usually gets overwhelmed by the mainstream favourite. Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan, Bernie Sanders, Eugene McCarthy etc. etc. Bernie has gone further than most, but he hasn't had much to oppose him.

[The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to be considered]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.

What an absurd thought, Muppet!!!

Oraisteach.....how closely do you follow the news, or do you just ignore the parts that dont suit you?

3 Senior Democrats...Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are all on record saying a president should not nominate anyone to the supreme court during an election year.  I'll see if I can find the clips for you if you dont believe me

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, theyre frothing at the mouth with indignation-LOL

Get over it....its politics, and a Democratic Senate would be doing exactly the same if it was the final year of a Republican Administration

Except that the current GOP congress, on top of all the rest of their obstructionism, has brought the blocking of justices and other appointments to levels never, ever even approached in the past.

The Dems have rhetoric against them. No one knows if they would have followed through. Politicians are ALWAYS making threats, usually in the hope of influencing or cowing the opposition or as a starting positin. The last time this issue came up, Reagan got his appointment (even the one who was rejected, Bork, before Kennedy's nomination, got hearings and a vote).

The GOP, on the other hand, are intent on actual action (or lack of action). There is NO precedent for what they are doing. But, if they follow through with their threats, they're setting one, and the shoe will be on the other foot eventually, just as it will for all of the other positions they've refused to allow be filled.

This is partly why it makes me laugh when you hear the right wing media and GOP base whining about the people they've sent to Washington doing nothing for them. Have they been asleep for the past seven years? Or is it that they think only the people THEY elect should matter when it comes to the give and take of democracy? That only THEIR elected politicians should get everything THEY want, despite the fact that the country overwhelmingly elected and reelected the current president?

Not to mention Obamas filibuster of Alito

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

As a senator from Illinois, Obama and 23 other senators attempted to stage a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, one of former President George W. Bush's picks to serve on the bench. The filibuster bid failed and Alito was confirmed.

Each side is as bad as the other, its the blatant hypocrisy and double standard of the Dems that I find amusing

Again, the idea that the GOP won't even entertain (won't even MEET with) ANY nominee is unprecedented. Both sides filibuster, absolutely. Most politicians are indeed hypocrites. It's part of the game. But there has been NOTHING like the GOP's sheer rate of blocking and refusal to consider nominees for ANYTHING before.

What an absurd thought, Muppet!!!

Oraisteach.....how closely do you follow the news, or do you just ignore the parts that dont suit you?

3 Senior Democrats...Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are all on record saying a president should not nominate anyone to the supreme court during an election year.  I'll see if I can find the clips for you if you dont believe me

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, theyre frothing at the mouth with indignation-LOL

Get over it....its politics, and a Democratic Senate would be doing exactly the same if it was the final year of a Republican Administration

Except that the current GOP congress, on top of all the rest of their obstructionism, has brought the blocking of justices and other appointments to levels never, ever even approached in the past.

The Dems have rhetoric against them. No one knows if they would have followed through. Politicians are ALWAYS making threats, usually in the hope of influencing or cowing the opposition or as a starting positin. The last time this issue came up, Reagan got his appointment (even the one who was rejected, Bork, before Kennedy's nomination, got hearings and a vote).

The GOP, on the other hand, are intent on actual action (or lack of action). There is NO precedent for what they are doing. But, if they follow through with their threats, they're setting one, and the shoe will be on the other foot eventually, just as it will for all of the other positions they've refused to allow be filled.

This is partly why it makes me laugh when you hear the right wing media and GOP base whining about the people they've sent to Washington doing nothing for them. Have they been asleep for the past seven years? Or is it that they think only the people THEY elect should matter when it comes to the give and take of democracy? That only THEIR elected politicians should get everything THEY want, despite the fact that the country overwhelmingly elected and reelected the current president?

Obama trolling the GOP by nominating a libtard to the Supreme Court. Yer man must have a thicker skin than a rhinoceros.

Smart.

They will be apoplectic. There will be a massive row, filibuster, etc. etc.

Then there will be a compromise on something or other, like the debt mountain, or Obamacare. And he will nominate someone else. And everyone will be happy. Until the Reptards realise what happened. Probably at Hilary's inauguration.

By all accounts this man is a moderate, even described by Orrin Hatch as a " consensus nominee" a few years back when he was hoping Obama would nominate him instead of Elena Kagan.

Should be interesting to see how they play this now.