wisedog

But the question on everyone's lips is what word am I using to describe Trump that keeps getting censored? It really could be any number of things.

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

my problem with Trump is I believe he is committed to Trump and Trump only. Now all politicians have their share of "self serving" and "ego" but Trump has taken it to a new level. I am not a fan of the Abbott's and Bernardi's of this world and they ( like their counterparts on the left) do like the sound of their own voices - but I believe they are committed to making a difference. Trump is narcissist and his first instinct on anything he does is "how does this affect me". His incoherent ramblings and his shoot first and ask questions approach is mind numbing. I have said this before - there have been Prime Ministers in Australia that i  have vehemently disagreed with but not one has ever made me believe that they were unfit to hold high office - Trump is unfit to hold the office to which he was elected.

He won't ever have the eloquence of Obama. But he's something of a story teller in his own way. I have to admit to you I've occasionally despaired of the human race to realise someone so uncouth could occupy the highest office in the world. And yet, as indicated above... I'm more inclined to judge the aforementioned [censored] by the results.

As much of a [censored] as he is; he was clever enough to smash the Republic establishment and beat Hilary. He's isolated himself from the CIA, the FBI - every Liberal news outlet in the country. He was a joke candidate who has cleared every hurdle placed in front of him and he's still running.

All of this probably terrifies people and I understand that. But I'm not all that happy with the status quo - so I don't really mind watching an orange skinned gentleman nudge the apple cart.

And for what it's worth, I do sense that at the end of all of this people might be pleasantly surprised. Feel free to bookmark this page and bump it when half the world is in ashes. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Definitely insecure. Some stupid. For sure.

And yes, time will tell if the North Korea dialogue amounts to anything. But it's been acheived in no small part to unprecedented sanctions from Trump. And time will also tell if these tariffs are a monumental disaster for America. It may not be, certainly many conservatives think it will. It's all up in the air and there's something exciting about that, I think you'll agree. Exciting or terrifying given your emotional disposition. I'm quite sure Trump will get a second term, probably because all the stupid and insecure people like me.

I stand by my post but I respect your opinions. I feel there would be many counter examples of the Obama-era:

What would leftists say if Trump brought upon the chaos in Libya given their unanimous disapproval of Bush's incursion in Iraq. (Except from Christopher Hitchens).

What would leftists say if Trump withdrew from Iraq and left the door open for unimaginable horrors. (Actually, that's what they always wanted, but it was still a F-ING DISASTER. LIKE PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST F-ING THINGS TO HAPPEN THIS CENTURY). If I really racked my brains I could probably think of some more for you but I'm at work and felt I should probably respond in some way. Double standards are all part of the game. The point is, I don't feel Obama ever did anything of true significance. Other than present a modern face of America. And preharps that is significant.

Anyway, I'm sure you're all good dudes. But I'm frustrated, even though I'm not from America, from my perspective, while it may seem nihilistic, I'm actually glad to see someone 'f-ing' with the system. And isn't it bizarre that people who hold these views align themselves to the Right these days... and not the left who would be the traditional home of rebels. Lefties are becoming very, very boring and it will probably be part of their undoing because so many of their followers are vain, vapid idiots. And so the vain, vapid idiots will drift to the right instead. The pendulum swings and swings.

All the best.

I consider myself a moderate - but I'm more in Wrecker's camp in that I'm deeply uncomfortable with the group think that pervades the left - that there are these new prescribed opinions that we mus hold. Most of you may think that consensus preached by the political elites is better than alternatives; that it does more good than harm and that's fine. In some ways I agree with you, but I'm sick of watching careers ruined because of slight verbel missteps, I'm sick of watching rich, inner suburbs types or for that matter, Hollywood types pose as men and women of the people when they couldn't be further from that. I'm sick of feeling ashamed because I was born male and white. 

What I loved about Trump - and he is a massive [censored], there's no question about that. What I loved about Trump is that he showed how powerful it can be to ignore the authority of the political media, instead of backing down and looking shame faced, he stuck to his guns and never apologised. When Abbot reinstituted knighthoods and there was a massive backlash - one of the many hits he took that led to his downfall. If he took a leaf out of Trumps book and said... "Fu you. This is our history. It shouldn't have been removed to begin with. There are knighthoods conferred in Canada and Northern Europe and it's a great thing." Instead he was shamed out of his decision. and why would anyone follow you if you won't fight for the idea you came up with? 

I feel that this was the secret to Trump's success and a really signigicant development that others who's views aren't represented by the political left will learn from. He never backed down, in the face of insummountable NBC editorials or Twitter hashtags. (Except for when he made those dispariging comments about Ted Cruz's wife... but as I said... he's a [censored].)

As for his policies, there was dog whistling of course, but while he carries on like an imbecile, he's turning things on their head and getting results. Jobs - a dialogue with North Korea. I look at Obama and I think, what the f did you actually do? It's like your presidency was just a massive American PR exercise. Obama... I like him. He was probably the president we needed after George Bush. And thank f it wasn't Hilary.

Anyway, I love all you guys and value your thoughts about football and jazz and the like. But I wanted to put in my two cents. But upon looking over this disatribe, I see it's far more than two cents and I'm sorry for subjecting you to it.

Began a bit of a jazz odyssey last year. I found you sort of have to let the music wash over you rather than listen to actively like pop or rock. I also enjoyed going into record shops and picking up CD's without really knowing what I was going to find - just looking at the personnel and knowing who I liked. And there is really too much to every really get through. They were seriously prolific musicians back then.

The first person I really looked into was Bill Evans - I was immediately drawn to the piano in Blue in Green on Miles Davis' Kind of Blue. (Bill Evans famously complained about the lack of credit for what was largely his composition. I believe in place of royalties, Davis offered him a $20 note he had in his wallet.)

Evans was a chronic alcoholic and drug user, whose life was described as the "longest suicide note in history". Like a lot of white rappers these days (who are far less talented) he faced a lot of criticism from black audiences, who felt he was intruding on their own art form. But ultimately, he was one of the very greatest and distinctive jazz pianists from a golden era and made a very significant contribution.

Condolences, DD! What a gorgeous boy he was.

Always think of this video in times like these. RIP Neville.

What a petty thing to bring up in a radio interview. Wouldn't be surprised but sounds like something someone made up to make our demise even sweeter.

We were flying mid-season and there was finally a bit of swagger and bravado about the Dees. I really don't think the football world enjoyed seeing us succeed.  Part of me wonders if the players were chastened and embarrassed by the attacks and criticism of media and past players and if this contributed to our shaky form at the end of the season. Who knows.

I have to admit there's something strangely likeable about Bugg. I gather in these comments, even before this incident some posters see him as representing a kind of culture shift. Obviously, no one wants to see a repeat of what occurred on Friday.

It was ugly. I think the incident deserved for 4 - 6 weeks. I'm not entirely convinced he was aiming for Mill's head, but not even Bugg has said anything to the contrary.

What I don't like is the the cliche-riddled sanctimony from past players, even those with a record of committing similar acts. They then try to conflate this incident with a wider 'culture issue' which they raise in the same breath as Oliver's 'dive'. In truth, the culture at Melbourne hasn't been this healthy for 10 years.

I think there is a willingness in some sections of the media to keep us down, which is often evident in the in-game commentary (particularly BT). We probably are being too defensive, but I think we have been down for so long, some of us are afraid this media gang attack, will send our players back into their shells and we'll stop playing with confidence and flare.

4 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Maybe it's because I have a soft spot for him, but I don't feel as though Buggy intended to get him as he did.  A whack to the neck/top of the chest may have been his intention, but if you take the risk then this is what can happen.

Doesn't excuse what he did and he will get weeks (4 sounds about right), but doesn't deserve the high level of criticism on here at the minute.  Buggy will be back.

Exactly my thoughts. I just can't understand why a player would spontaneously punch an opponent in the jaw without any provocation or niggle - particularly after the Houli drama. Unless, of course Bugg is an absolute madman.

I too give Bugg the benefit of the doubt and think he was only trying to make contact to the shoulder/upper chest - which made Ling's sanctimony a bit grating, especially as he then to utterly dismissed the next hit on Bugg as playing for a free.

Perhaps I'm being too defensive of a demon player. 4 is right, I feel.

50 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

No, the issue was that we had some "high-ups" that were stupid enough to get caught out.

Some were made to look amateurish in something that should be easy to do, which ended up costing the club half a mill.

 

I wasn't referring to people who believe the only crime was getting caught.

I was referring to the people who retrospectively condemn individuals within the club for pursuing a policy they had themselves supported.

On a side note, 'tanking', prior to our experience was not quite seen as the evil as it is now. The AFL were wilfully blind to the practice after Collingwood and Carlton's efforts. I even remember commentators urging us to take to take full advantage of our position. As alluded to above, most supporters were also in favour of it. Then after Brock McLean's comments, the situation changed and the football world discovered their collective outrage.

10 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The urban mythology in this thread about what Chris Connolly was supposed to have done whilst at the club is mind boggling. 

Chris was quite entitled to have his say and G Jakovich was channeling his brother at his weirdest in response.

Yes, and I think if you went back to the threads from that time, quite a few posters would find it awkward to see what they were posting back then.

You might for instance, find an interesting response from supporters after an unexpected win against Port Adelaide in round 15 2009. And a similarly interesting response after losing from a kick after the siren against Richmond in round 18.

What happened, wasn't some evil plan devised by few crooked high-ups. There was a significant push from the supporter base in favour of the policy in order to set ourselves for the best chance at long term success.

The injuries in 2007 were horrendous. I think at the time, we had even set a record for the amount of players we used at the half way point of the season.

I also remember Gary Lyon declaring how fortunate the next coach was to be inheriting a list like Melbourne's. 

I always enjoy seeing players who don't hit their straps until their mid or even late 20's. It gives you hope that the players you've picked that haven't shown much in the first 2 to 3 years will come good eventually, as was the case with Jetta last year.

Most years on Demonland, there's a Youtube draft sensation we all hope we'll nab as a rookie. Most of the time, they don't come to much i.e. Casey Sibosado. I remember there being lots of talk about Hall in 2011 and I was disappointed that we didn't grab him. You can add Rockliff to the regrets category and perhaps Papley as well.

However, I'm not even sure the Melbourne environment could have drawn this form out of Hall. 

Count me in again. The Eggmen in the Stynes League.

Appreciate your work, Deevoted.

I assume you mean a separate section of Demonland, not a new website entirely? I see no reason why Melbourne Demons - Women's Team couldn't be added alongside Melbourne Demons, General Discussion, Fantasy Footy, etc.

You'd have to be pretty brave given his injury history.

Speaking of creative/stupid, has anyone noticed the scores Gawn's put out lately? I wonder.

Not a great year for me so far. After holding firm, I'm now in panic mode, burning through my trades and thinking of creative/stupid ways to make the money to fix my team.

Half the premiums I've picked just haven't come on which is really they key to the whole thing. Selwood, Bontempelli and Sloane killing me.

Haha, I mean a little more complexity in the gameplay, not just flashing stumps and fireworks.

I agree Macca.

This is the first year I've watched the t20 and it's done its job in whiling away the summer nights.

Occasionally, you are treated to some really great hitting, as when Hussey and Kallis batted together last week and scored 90+ apiece. And Kallis again tonight.

The format's main flaw is that if the side chasing loses 4 or 5 early wickets, the contest can be over with 15 overs still to go. At least in 50over cricket you have the time to take stock for a while and shore up the innings. A few matches this year have been blowouts unfortunately.

I couldn't bear the thought of actually going to a game - the music between balls is enough to keep me away - but the crowds in Perth and Adelaide particularly have been really good.

Count me in, as well. Thanks for your efforts, Deevoted.

FWIW, Swans supporters outraged that it would "only" be 2 & 3.