[Siderite]

The fact that society is becoming cashless wasn’t what was labelled as a conspiracy theory. The sinister theorising behind it was. ;-)

[Siderite]

To be fair, many of those former league clubs in that division are phoenix clubs who have risen to that level.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Mirrorman

[Siderite]

The costs saved from floodlights would not justify the lost fans who can’t make it, due to work commitments, I should imagine.

[Siderite]

An interesting article on the cause of price rises:

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/25/fact-check-is-net-zero-really-to-blame-for-soaring-energy-bills-green-levies-renewables

It’s from the Grauniad though, so I am sure the ‘reasonable’ will use their ‘balanced’ nature to just dismiss out of hand. :-)

[Siderite]

Can’t escape the crud at the top:
https://twitter.com/FootyScran/status/1489674745033502720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1489674745033502720%7Ctwgr%5E19542c470650e33a0d83f488dc174d9b57187309%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.givemesport.com%2F87972308-the-worst-food-at-football-grounds-after-man-utds-lunch-goes-viral

[Siderite]

Sorry. Misunderstood. I thought this was what Awaywego was referring to.

[Siderite]

You can see changing ends at approximately 2 minutes in this video from 1987:

[Siderite]

If fans are going to harass the fan’s director they risk Neil thinking why bother and giving up, with few wanting to take over. Spoiling one of the good things that have happened recently through spite.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Just Iron, mistertonmick, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

I thought the whole point of it was to have aggro with like-minded casuals, not harass the ‘scarfers’. If they must do this, why not save it for something away from the ground with Chesterfield, Oldham, Wrexham, Notts County or other clubs who have firms, not some club like Solihull, who I can’t imagine having a hooligan element?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Lord Kitchener, Awaywego

[Siderite]

Apparently they went straight for the Solihull supporters’ coaches after the game to taunt and harass their fans.

[Siderite]

It’s so sad that Rudy has gone this way. He was a respected and respectable figure after 9/11 as NYC mayor. That would have been a legacy for him, which I would have admired, despite political differences. Now he will be remembered as Trump’s lickspittle and supporter of election overturning because he didn’t like the outcome.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

Now Rudy has come up with what I am sure is a ‘balanced’ view for some, even if it is completely mad by any rational standard (sure, the former president’s home is some safe place for sensitive documents). Though, it is the Huff Post, so it might be just dismissed, despite it quoting his words.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rudy-giuliani-trump-documents_n_62ff16fbe4b063894831c567

It’s standard Republican tract. One minute we can’t assume Trump had the documents, to say otherwise is partisan. The next, he had good reasons to have the documents. Despite the flip-flopping and excuse making these are the reasonable ones, and are definitely not partisan. :-)

[Siderite]

Looks like WG will have to tune out soon, as we have another off-topic discussion to drag on and on. :-)

billpuntonsghost wrote:

…evolution?… that’s only your theory,I guess.

We also have the theory of gravity, theory of plate tectonics and germ theory. I guess you take similar disbelief to those, as they are only theories too, and we might fall up if we jump out of a building? :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Siderite]

Even the BNP? :-)

[Siderite]

The way things are going we can hopefully forget about the poisonous SNP joining in too! Lab-Lib only. :-)

[Siderite]

Sharp_Shooter24 wrote:

However, with Swann (potentially the winner of worst football league club owner ever!!)

I think Donny fans would say the arsonist was worse. :-)

[Siderite]

Indeed, but it seems to be ignored by larger media outlets and Labour are still pretending there are no issues with how trans rights are framed.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

I see Trump has now leaked the warrant to Breitbart, containing names of agents involved, and they have published it. I would say this is worrying and dangerous, but I am sure that’s my partisan nature, and that a balanced view is to accept that it’s ok for right wing rags to publish private details of evil elites who tried to take down Trump.

[Siderite]

Regardless of whether Trump’s done a wrong here, it’s coming clear that the FBI have reason to believe sensitive documents were there, which makes the idea that retrieving them was a ‘political’ move to be more preposterous by the day. I try to be as objective as possible, but I see no reason how it could be wrong for the FBI to retrieve such documents, if they believed there was a possibility of them being there (even Trump is not denying and encouraging public information being made available for this, so the idea that this is all a conspiracy by the elites, is just silly and partisan nonsense). It is, frankly, dangerous for anyone to have them in such a personal setting.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘so, in the words of Capt Oates, ‘I’m off .. and may be gone some time.’’

Very disappointing if you’re off again JI. Why is it that so many of you right wingers flee when questioned, when your values and beliefs are debated? We’re having a conversation here, no need to run off. Flip it. The so called lefty liberals on here did that and you’d rightly be saying they didn’t have the courage of their convictions.

I may have took my tone way too far, so in a way, maybe I don’t blame him. That was my error of judgement.

Though, I guess I felt a little bit let down. I thought JI had a reasonable nature, and this latest episode has destroyed that image. I thought he could make reasoned criticism of his own side, but seemingly that is not the case; any suggestion that Trump has committed wrongdoing is covered by the idea that there’s a conspiracy. If he’s not guilty, JI will say he was right, if guilty it’s because the elites were out to get him, and we can’t trust the judgement*. So, I feel like a jilted lover (an analogy; I don’t love anyone on here like that). JI has pertained to balance, yet if their only comebacks to criticism of their beliefs are “I don’t like that source” or wild, and unfounded conspiracies and refusing to acknowledge facts obtained from governmental reports, such as Russian influence in 2016 (the only accusation possibly made here is that the nation level report was a lie, which is not a balanced and reasonable view to take, unless you have some evidence, which goes beyond suppositions), then they are not the ones being neutral. It’s a partisan position.

*JI will say the same about me, but I will say that if it is found that Trump had documents of national importance for some good reason or if it was mistaken, then I will accept it and not say it’s a conspiracy by Trumpist elites. I don’t see any good reason for him to have important documents like this, but I don’t want to rule out being wrong for whatever reason.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘Happy to have brought some colour into the monotone drabness.’

Oh come on JI. All we’re doing is chewing the cud on Bru non footy. No need for pedantry. It doesn’t suit you. What might make it less drab? An ex POTUS who’s filmed giving it large about feeling up women? This is the same man we’re talking about isn’t it? Ffs, how does that sit with you?

And now a former president who looks like he might have taken nuclear codes into personal hands (of course this may be mistaken/wrong). Evidently it’s ‘political’ to think he shouldn’t have them and potentially jeopardise the state, and only partisans would say otherwise!

As with Russian interference, verified by the US Special Counsel’s report, it all has to be lies. Which is an odd take for those who claim to respect law and order, and pertain to be balanced. I don’t think wild and unfounded accusations are balanced, and are typically the reserve of the ideologues who can’t take their side being wrong on something.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

I do apologise for taking it a bit too far, JI. It’s no excuse for that, but I was fed up of the positioning of reasonability and trying to make others sound we’re being unreasonable, when it’s you who is on an unfounded position based on suppositions and zero evidence. I do not believe you to be balanced.

[Siderite]

I never said the NYT was due to the raid, it was clearly about the Epps claim.

Did Hilary try to overturn the election, culminating in a storm of the Capitol? No.

Russian influence of the 2016 election was shown. What wasn’t was direct Trump involvement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#:~:text=The%20Russian%20government%20interfered%20in,discord%20in%20the%20United%20States. I am not surprised you dismiss this, given your partisan nature. It’s hilarious how you cry martyr over being called partisan when you called others that. Seemingly it’s ok for you to say others should look in the mirror, but when directed at you it’s vile abuse, because you’re the most ‘reasonable’ among us.

Yet, despite being ‘reasonable’ you cannot accept that a search warrant of Trump’s home could be reasonable, and when asked to back up your statements you just shirk and put the onus on everyone else. I am rather weary of Republican authoritarians trying to justify their sore losing and inability to accept that their supported individuals should be investigated, and that doing so is not a crime. Such people want their supported guy to get away with anything, and come up with wild conspiracies to say otherwise. You claim to not be his guy, but your words betray you. Why should I take your words seriously, when you state that it was not the Republicans at fault for trying to overturn an election, because Clinton made a comment and never acted on it in the same way? Your bias is exposed and your credibility to a balanced opinion is, frankly, gone.

You will no doubt say the same about me, because I don’t both sides this specific issue; I don’t pretend the Democrats are as far gone as the Republicans, but that says more about you than me. I accept that there are many issues with the Democrats. The ‘Squad’ are worryingly anti-Semitic, and should never be placed an inch within power. The Democrats’ obsession with what they call trans rights makes them appear misogynistic; they do not care about women losing out in sport, they do not care about women having a place in refuges free from men, nor in dressing rooms, toilets or whatever, and refuse to listen, calling all opponents transphobes. I worry about how Democrat leaning students are so afraid of opposing viewpoints, due to claims of bigotry on topics like this, and how they might deal with politics as they mature and become the politicians of the future. Yet, because I do not both sides on how politics as it is now, I am some partisan, while you, who throws wild accusations with no evidence around expects to be taken as a neutral. Look at yourself in the mirror, before you start throwing accusations at others. You have assumed yourself to be a neutral arbiter, but your beliefs in whatever your bias takes you, with no evidence (crucially), shows you to be not.

I have had enough arguments with lefties to see the similarities between you and the Corbyn cranks. Any accusation against Corbyn has to be a conspiracy by the elite, I am some unreasoned fascist, according to them, I am some unreasoned lefty, according to you. C’est la vie from extremists. The left are just as lunatic as the right, and you sound just like them. ;-)

[Siderite]

JI, in short, if you’re making wild claims about conspiracies it’s your job to support it, not us to dismiss it. If you just dismiss anything without question, as if you’re the ultimate arbiter, you won’t be taken seriously. Unfounded accusations about conspiracies regarding favoured candidates are worrying because they undermine trust in democracy. Seemingly, you and the Republicans don’t care, because your guy might be guilty. Suppositions are all you have and that should tell you how credible it is. Not very.

[Siderite]

Just Iron wrote:

Nope. ‘Any serious wrongdoing by a Democrat worthy of investigation would have been done.’Nope. Nope.
I gave several examples. Of course they are just right wing propaganda for you. That’s why I don’t keep pushing. It just becomes a tit for tat schoolyard spat if we go that route. Then the name calling starts.
The head of the FBI being a Republican looks like your clincher… unless he could be bought, or oppose Trump like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger, or be in that overlap space where ‘moderates’ go with the flow and consensus rather than conviction or principle, or sees Trump as some sort of threat to the autonomy of the FBI or has been misled .. or a variety of reasons. Your world is easier to live in IA because it doesn’t have to see the nuances and allows quick categorisation. If the Republicans take the same approach to delicately balanced and slowly evolved institutions that we are witnessing under the present administration then the game is up in some sense for America with repercussions for all of us. I hope they don’t.

If you think the Republicans have been respecting the institutions for the past 10 years, I have a bridge to sell. This further convinces me of your partisan nature here.

Republicans gerrymandering, try to overturn a democratic result and “reasonable” JI thinks the issue is the Democrats because a Republican FBI head launched a search warrant. Interesting that Cheney was mentioned. One of the few who didn’t go with Trump’s cohort in trying to overturn a democratic election. Maybe she should have tried to overturn an election, as the “reasonable” JI would wish. Only partisans would want democracy to work. Balanced people want the Republicans to win no mattr what, under conspiracy theories. That’s how real democracy works. :-)

[Siderite]

Just Iron wrote:

My conscience is clear. If you reflect on my post you will see that I pointed out imbalance of approach and cited specific examples of this. The only direct reply was Sidey’s reference to that wonderful example of unbiased reporting …The New York Times. The truth on all of this will come out in time … and then we’ll all know to what extent we were misled, biased or partisan. Just because Trump has so many unattractive features does not mean that anyone on the opposing side of the spectrum should receive a free pass just as he should not be subjected to relentless and forensic scrutiny by the DOJ. Justice should be ‘blind’ or everything starts to unravel.

Ah, yes, because the news outlet is one you dislike it must be wrong. The argument of all biased ideologues, just as when lefties dismiss the Daily Mail. It has said it was because of him witholding documents of national importance, but I am sure this can be ignored, because in your “balanced” world it means sticking fingers in the ears and pretending that any investigation into Trump has to be biased, because of unfounded nonsense you believe. If you can’t put up evidence, it’s not on us to accept it, and glib dismissals because you dislike the source is not convincing.

[Siderite]

You say that, JI, but Gurny hasn’t yet graced us with his opinion! :-)

I disagree with your opinions, but I try my very best to separate belief from the person. I can respect the person without necessarily respecting the opinion. If that makes sense.

Though, I am sceptical of your claimed political neutrality given your response, which appears very partisan. Such conspiracies are not common outside of Trump fanatics.

I would say the same thing. I am appearing from a neutral standpoint, to some degree. I can criticise the Democrats, for example, and there is much to criticise, from the ‘Squad’ to their mistaken views on trans rights. However, an investigation into Trump for wrongdoing isn’t that. If a Trump appointed FBI lead, who considers himself to be Republican, launching this is deemed ‘political’ I don’t think you’d consider any action to retrieve documents as part of an investigation to be non-political, and it’s based on nothing but your own beliefs about elites. This speaks more of your own political bias, not mine.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

Iron-awe wrote:

Now Trump pleads the fifth amendment in the case of his business dealings in New York today as is his legal right. However the Donald has stated in the past that he doesn’t understand why people ” take the fifth ” they should just answer truthfully, could you make it up? Actually the Donald can but on this occasion declined, I wonder why.

It’s because the deep state elite have got to him! ;-)

[Siderite]

Siderite wrote:

As for Ray Epps, I am sure we should be launching widespread investigations because right wingers noticed him whispering in an ear. Investigations of those involved would be corrupt though.
<iframe class=”wp-embedded-content” sandbox=”allow-scripts” security=”restricted” title=”New Evidence Undercuts Jan. 6 Instigator Conspiracy Theory” src=”https://www.nytimes.com/svc/oembed/html/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2022%2F05%2F05%2Fus%2Fjan-6-ray-epps-evidence.html#?secret=i9TtQPoMOR&#8221; data-secret=”i9TtQPoMOR” scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″></iframe>

Proper link here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/jan-6-ray-epps-evidence.html

[Siderite]

As for Ray Epps, I am sure we should be launching widespread investigations because right wingers noticed him whispering in an ear. Investigations of those involved would be corrupt though.

[Author]

Posts