Adam The God

Amazon, right? Do you have a subscription? Or do you download it?

A good point then. I stand corrected, he was fit enough to play and didn't manage the stats of Oliver. Still, you could definitely argue the broken leg may have hampered his confidence.

I love how our fine friend here Biffen refers to the Left being fascist. He doesn't understand the meaning of the word. From the New Oxford American Dictionary: Fascism - "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." As usual, as clueless as Breitbart and Alex Jones.

So it is his fault that the Southern states are full of slave farmers? A lot more people in California and New York. The Electoral College is ridiculous. Even Trump himself wanted it gone at the last election.

But before or after he'd played games?

I think that happened twice in 2005 and 2006. Then we fell off a cliff and exacerbated the situation by dumping all our senior players unceremoniously over the next 3 years.

I feel like the public sentiment with regards to Bontempelli even at the start of last year was ridiculously unwarranted. I will admit he stepped up in finals, but before that he was massively overrated. Cripps didn't have a final to showcase his talents, so I think that argument is relatively unfair. But I can certainly see Oliver reaching Cripps' level. Cripps did nothing in his first year or so and then it clicked. Oliver came out and dominated his first game against GWS.

My recollection was that he was rated, but not in the same sentence as Yze, Neitz or Schwarz.

I'd argue on output Cripps is miles ahead of Bontempelli, but I like making outrageous statements.

This is slightly laughable this thread. Certainly cringey. MFC supporters have always been great at selling themselves hope. We now have a legitimately exciting list that has actually shown on multiple occasions that individually they're capable of potentially great things. But I reckon it's a year too early for this thread. Let's play finals first with this team, before comparing them to a team that made it to the big one. Just on that 2000 team. We certainly had a soft under belly, but I loved Farmer, Yze, Neitz and Schwarz. I agree with you whole-heartedly @Choke that Powell was thoroughly underrated. He was a beauty and a goalscoring midfielder (HF doesn't do him justice - he could win clearances). Wouldn't it be great to have a few of those over the coming years?

Things couldn't be much worse than an Abbott or Turnbull led country. Look at the independent data from the OECD.

Completely agree. Aren't they both superb in that scene? Love Michelle Williams.

What twaddle. Yes, it should. You can't just go wherever you like as a country or would you be alright with the Chinese doing similar in Australia? No, you wouldn't because you want "China [kept] in check". And of course you think one of, probably the most, reputable news source in the world in the BBC, is struggling for relevance in your Post-Truth world. To the contrary, news sources' like the BBC are now more important than ever. And my "theory" as to why Russia might have done it is conjecture, yes, but the BBC did report that a Russian missile was fired from pro-Russian separatist-controlled land in Ukraine, while the Russians and even the pro-Russian separatists denied involvement. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing there. So when Russia and America become official allies in this fairyland of yours, what happens to America's alliance with Saudi Arabia and the conflict of interest with al-Assad and Putin? You don't think things through, Biff. Your worldview is incredibly simplistic and one dimensional. Typical of a neoliberal attitude. What I find ridiculous is you stand up for Russia on the one hand, because they're in bed with Trump, but on the other hand, you say they "disseminate misinformation". So you're saying the Russian's can't be trusted when they say something? You realise you're shooting yourself in the foot, RE: the MH17 discussion? Oh, and the argument was that the Kremlin was funding the Ukrainian separatists, not the Russian Army...

And FYI, I scored 17 on the Baron-Cohen test. I believe that's quite low...

Just got back from Hidden Figures. Really enjoyed it, although a bit Oscar-baity. Janelle Monae is gorgeous. Would probably put it at 5 or 6 on that above list. Definitely more enjoyable to me than Hell Or High Water and I probably enjoyed it more than Hacksaw Ridge too. What did you think of the scene in Manchester By The Sea that features on the poster? Amaaaaaaaaazing, IMO.

O'Neill. Must be a Catholic terrorist. We have to ban these people. They're unstable. Although I did meet a Catholic once. She seemed fine, but she wasn't that religious.

Very good, Biffen. Very good.

Fences, Moonlight and Hidden Figures I'm yet to see. All the African-American led pictures funnily enough. I'm seeing Hidden Figures tomorrow. My ratings of the rest: 1) La La Land 2) Arrival 3) Lion 4) Manchester By The Sea 5) Hacksaw Ridge 6) Hell Or High Water I'd say they're all terrific, with the exception of Hell Or High Water, which I found good in spots, but pretty forgettable almost immediately. The rest of the films really resonated with me at certain points. There is a scene in Manchester By The Sea, which is possibly one of the greatest scenes of all time. The acting, the direction, the dialogue. It creeps up on you and strangles you until you cry. Amazing stuff. In terms of the other films, I really liked Elle and as previously mentioned loved Nocturnal Animals. Haven't seen Jackie yet, which might have to wait now that it didn't get nominated for Best Pic. Allied was a taut espionage thriller and Florence Foster Jenkins was hilarious and touching. Rouge One was entertaining, so much so I saw it twice. Doctor Strange as interesting. And that's about it. I really hope Michelle Williams wins for Best Supporting Actress. She's under utilised, but bloody amazing in Manchester By The Sea. She and Joshua Jackson have done really well for themselves Post-Dawson's Creek.

A Second Cold War would be a financial and information-based "space race" between traditional Western powers and traditional Soviet bloc countries that have massive populations and rising middle classes. The whole point of the posturing in the English Channel was that Cameron (and I'm the last person to defend him) was put in an impossible position. In that situation, you simply have to let them sail down the channel. As usual you've pulled something out of your arse about false Muslim killings. I have no idea what you're referring too, but I suspect you've dropped a tab. As for your claims that it is Ukraine's fault for cutting Russia's gas supply, that has no basis in the current war in Donbass, which started basically because Putin saw an opportunity to exploit the unrest following Euromaidan. Have you been watching too much state sponsored RT? The rumours/theories at the time regarding MH17 were simply that Russia had sponsored the attack, in order that their forces enter the Ukraine without the Ukrainian government's permission. But apparently you think 'a drunk Russian soldier' is a more viable alternative. We'll agree to disagree there. And I'm not sure comparing the MH17 shooting to 9/11 is the smartest idea either, given just yesterday the BBC reported that the supposed separatists were in fact being funded by the Kremlin. This also backs up those rumours/theories above about MH17 being a state sponsored attack. But I do wonder what Vlad has, given his bravado and unpredictability. If he's anything like Trump, he's probably very, very emasculated when he looks down between his legs. Point stands though, he's an interesting character and undoubtedly a dictator.

Again, you always know you've beaten someone and that they've got no leg to stand on when they resort to name calling. Rotherham is completely irrelevant to your "evidence" and hence it wasn't worth addressing. But I will say now that not releasing certain details of those cases to the public was a frankly ridiculous and inexcusable lapse of judgement. But if that's all you and old mate Teresa May have to hang on the Left politically, when you and the loony Right have got little evidence for your wide-reaching every-muslim-is-a-terrorist-unless-i-met-them-in-paris-and-anyway-they-weren't-really-religious conspiracy, then you may as well give up. And I'm sorry to disappoint you but my business is financed by private individuals, as well as government grants. The later being the go to for your idol Donald, so I wouldn't be too quick to jump at that, lest you be deemed a hypocrite and that would never do.

That SEN interview is hilarious. I'd be furious and hollow if I was a Richmond supporter. Also hilarious how nervous and awkward he sounded at 4.13. Didn't know how to sugarcoat it. :D

What I find really interesting is how the conservative media has shifted perspectives on the Russians and particularly Putin himself. He's transformed from a power hungry, expansionist dictator to an alright guy that conservative Americans are happy for their country to cosy up to. I know he's white and Christian, but I hardly need mention the rivalry these two countries have shared for years. I was stunned when the Democrats barely bothered to attack Trump for his ties to Russia. And even more so, when he was attacked, that this seemed to have no effect on the constituency or Trump's popularity. In previous elections it would have been deemed political suicide for an American politician to take the stance Trump did with Putin. But in the age of INFOWARS, Breitbart and our liberal and conservative echo chambers, it failed to harm Trump. But what's more troubling is that the world seems to have a blindspot when it comes to the Russians. The entire Russian Navy sailed down the English Channel in October last year and that failed to make world news. That is insane, unauthorised posturing by Putin. And, by the way, if ever there was a more obvious signpost that we've entered the Second Cold War, I haven't seen one yet. Nevertheless, I find Putin a fascinating character, because his man Vladislav Surkov (his Chief Political Strategist) is playing from a very different playbook and the West don't quite know how to react to his theatre politics. I suspect this is in part why the Dems and the liberal media are holding back from attacking Putin. This, along with a little war that continues to rage on in Ukraine, which has gone conspicuously underreported for near on two years now, could also be a major reason for this stasis. Why? Because as was being muted back in 2014 at the beginning of the fighting in Donbass, and particularly after the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, Putin is and continues to financially back so-called "separatists" in the East of Ukraine. This is where according to the UN, close to 10,000 people have been killed (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=56110#.WJ2-k7Z94Xp). Putin is inching closer to taking territory from the Ukraine and all in the name of Mother Russia. What might explain the lack of reporting of this war is the chilling and uncomfortable parallels between this and the onset of World War 2. But this is where we come back to Trump and his administration, who are almost certainly copying pages from Surkov's political technologist playbook. One could argue that Trump and his people have even taken it a step further with their 'alternative facts', invented massacres and labelling of the mainstream media as fake news. However, there are more overt similarities between how Putin runs his regime and what Trump and his people are trying to do. If you distract everyone by creating such uncertainty (between what is real and what is fake), you can then waltz in and change a country during the night. And if Trump has his way in the courts, he may well be able to do just that.

Naww. Snowflake. Conservatives often do it, because their original argument falls over. Oh, he's back and still making broad generalisations, based on his own experiences in North Altona. You don't seem to see the difference between saying there are some problem apples in the bunch and saying the entire batch is rotten. But of course you don't. If you've met great Muslims that you consider "basically non-religious", perhaps that's because you've put that lens on them, not that they're not Muslim. These people are Muslim, it's just they're like the majority and not radicalised... like we keep saying. As for backing up "every stupid reply on here", you haven't backed up a single thing. Haha, absolutely blinkered. And when cornered, like all good conservatives, you descend into name-calling. Well played again.

Even though it can be frustrating debating with conservatives, I do always enjoy it, because they're so ridiculously easy to shut down. The conservative viewpoint is almost always a straw-man argument. Let's walk you through this one, Biffen. And I should point out that I am a hardliner when it comes to rape, sexual abuse and domestic violence. Our laws are weak and require upgrading to ensure rapists and other perpetrators are locked up for 25 years to life. Just bear that in mind before you accuse me of anything here. Now, let's get to this sham of an article. So the article starts by stating that the European Agency for Fundamental Rights have produced a report that says Sweden and Denmark experienced the most sexual assaults in the EU during 2012. It then proceeds to compare the stats in Sweden and Denmark, with those of the UK, France, Germany and Finland over that time. The only factual information given is a report by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights that says the two former countries experienced the most sexual assaults in Europe. But then the article continues by quoting the Gatestone Institute, which is a reasonably well known conservative not-for-profit international policy council and think tank. It then frames these quotes to give the overall impression that Muslims are the reason for this, based on no supplied evidence whatsoever. The Gatestone Institute says "over the past 10 to 15 years, immigrants have mainly come [into Sweden] from Muslim countries such as Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Might this influx explain Sweden's rape explosion? It is difficult to give a precise answer, because Swedish law forbids registration based on people's ancestry or religion. One possible explanation is that, on average, people from the Middle East have a vastly different view of women and sex than Scandinavians have." So even a conservative think tank has no "precise answer" and instead tries to blame the law for not matching its fears and conjectures. Gee, I wonder if this article has a conservative agenda behind it? Surely not, it's only framing quotes from a conservative think tank as if they were facts themselves to draw an unsubstantiated link between Muslims and rapes committed in Sweden and Denmark during 2012. Talk about a home run. Thanks for the "evidence", babe.

Nah, not good enough. Show me the stats. #headinthesand