Dr. Gonzo

By the way, protesting in the streets without fear of political reprisal or risking your life or well-being is a very western value. If you don't believe me, go try to organise a protest in Iran or Saudi Arabia and let us know how it ends up.

Because your governments have broken their homeland and supported their hypothetical forced removal for the past 100 years. Same reason my mum's family ended up in the UK after the US and UK fucked around in their country, left it broken and couldn't be bothered to clean up the fucking mess they created. If you want a world with less extremists - while also supporting an extreme foreign policy, you let refugees rebuild their lives in places that offer stability and peace and that actually have opportunities for upward mobility. And if western governments are going to sit by and allow ethnic cleansing by a close ally, the only way they can even come close to cleaning up the mess is by giving that path to refugees. If the West's goal is more stability in the region, to prevent future terror attacks and whatnot... perhaps not following in the footsteps of the Afghanistan withdrawal human crisis is a good idea to follow. It's a guaranteed way of making countries that are already lacking a good amount of stability even more unstable. Furthermore, it's not like Arab countries have a great track record with refugees lol. I think the alternative to the west taking in refugees in this hypothetical would simply just mean an even less stable Middle East. I don't think it would make anyone safer, nor would it mitigate how bad the humanitarian crisis would be.

If Israel is going to finish off the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, leaving no option other than a humanitarian crisis for the west to deal with it... it's hard to say these countries aren't reaping what they've sown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration is the best argument for why the UK has a lot of culpability in this issue and if the west is going to have to clean up Israel's mess, I think it's hard to say that the US and UK shouldn't bear most of the brunt of the refugee crisis.

I think rockets have been fired into Israel pretty regularly since October 7th - but there's far less casualties because Israel's got pretty effective defenses against Hamas rockets. They also haven't been the same sort of barrages that were used when Hamas attacked. Occasionally one gets through and there'll be a small number of casualties. It's not going to grab the same headlines as the obliteration of Gaza. But both Hamas and Israel are purposely firing into where they know civilians are and they're both fucking arseholes for doing so. I think it's a bit fucked too, the head of Hamas from the safety of his penthouse in Qatar saying that Palestinian civilians in Gaza aren't Hamas's responsibility, they're the UN and Israel's problem.

I think it's a bit weird the US gave weapons to Ukraine and put all sorts of conditions on them. Meanwhile the US is giving weapons to Israel, to target a much smaller area with a far higher likelihood of civilian casualties than anything Ukraine would be doing... and the US comes out and says there's no preconditions on how Israel can use these weapons. I think Ukraine's got a more legitimate reason to want to use the most advanced weapons possible on the Russian military that's invaded it than Israel has justification for this collective punishment of Gaza because Hamas uses innocents as human shields for propaganda purposes. I mean ultimately it probably comes down to the fact that Hamas can't respond with nuclear weapons but Russia can, but it also comes off as a ringing endorsement for Netanyahu's wartime strategy. And given Netanyahu's public support in Israel currently, or lack thereof, should the US be giving him this kind of public support? He is a big part of what happened on October 7th in all honesty and is he the right man to be leading Israel forward as they respond to that attack? The architect of the failed status quo should probably be nowhere near the drawing board for what happens now that Hamas has thrown the status quo out the window after October 7th.

I totally agree with this. If you bet on your games, even if you say it's not affecting your performance, it's always going to be in the back of your mind that you have at least some control over what happens. And that's not accounting for the fact a high profile player, which he was, probably has a great deal of influence over his teammates as well. There's just too many possible angles for gambling on a match you're playing in to lead to what can look like match fixing. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with gambling. Obviously if you end up with an addiction... it can lead to quite shitty paths because that's what addiction does. And if he wasn't a professional footballer, I think he'd be in quite a lot more problems with his gambling than he's currently facing with the ban - apparently he's got quite a bit of gambling debt. He's fortunate he's got the Saudi funding paying his wages, if he overcomes addiction he'll still be really well off financially and in a better place. Surely a better place to be in as a gambling addict than up to your eyeballs in debt with no way out. Personally, I don't think there's any good reasons for footballers to gamble on football. They've got too many connections in the sport to rule out even just the appearance of something corrupt by betting on football. If they want to gamble still, there's other shit to gamble on... bet on rugby or some shite like that, or take a page from Zaniolo's book and gamble on poker. Honestly, I think gambling on poker and blackjack is infinitely more fun... But in Tonali's situation, if we take him at face value on his gambling addiction - it seems like he's got quite a serious problem with gambling, one where in another life he'd not be getting the same second chance he gets now. He's still very young, he's still going to make good money. He doesn't have to let this ruin him financially or otherwise. I imagine for someone with a problem as bad as he's alleged, stopping gambling all together is the best thing for him. I hope he gets the help that gambling rehab is meant to provide him and he comes out of this having learned a very important lesson - for his own sake. Not many people are fortunate enough to have a bad addiction but also have the means and opportunity to beat it and come back from it stronger. He does - so hopefully he makes the most of it.

Lol, I think that would be a hilarious disaster... but one of the biggest criticisms of Ten Hairs is United don't have a defined playing style and look like a collection of random players put together. One thing that's a certainty of Fat Sam coming into any side is he will give them a defined playing style. It'll be an ugly, defense first, style of football... but at least it's a cohesive style of playing. I don't know what the answer is for United though, it's a very bizarre problem they've managed to create for themselves tbh. There's a number of issues that need to be addressed, I just don't know how they go about prioritising the issues addressed. The Glazers get a lot of criticism for their ownership of United. And there's some things their tenure as owners of the club that just mark them as awful owners. They take more money out of the club than they've put in (and how much did they really put in if they did a leveraged buyout? It's got to be minimal). They've neglected the infrastructure of the club: Old Trafford is in disrepair, the training facilities and academy are falling behind compared to their competitors. This is going to impact United negatively in the long run in terms of revenue and in terms of the academy being a pipeline for young talent. As money rules football more and more, having an academy that produces first team players is all the more important for clubs not backed by the wealth of an oil exporting nation. At the same time, for all their criticism... I don't think it can be said that United do not financially back their managers and do not put a priority on improvement of the first team squad. The issue has been entirely with how that significant funding has been spent. This is partially on Woodward, isn't it? But it's also partially on the managers who asked for big funds and then didn't really accomplish anything with those funds. Chopping and changing managers constantly has also been a massive problem, imo. Rashford is a great example of this. I think he's a player with a fantastic amount of raw ability. He also looks like a player who's development has stagnated to an extent because he's got a new manager every couple of seasons. But then they've got the issue of Ten Hag. The man was brought in to replicate the good work he'd done at Ajax. The man who's now saying, he can never get United to play like Ajax. Despite bringing in a number of ex-Ajax players, having 18 months to impart his system onto his new squad, and with something like £400m spent on new players to try to implement that system. And somehow 18 months on, United seem to have less of an identity on the pitch than they did in the first days of his time on the pitch. It's a pretty miserable situation to try to fix at United, tbh. It's a situation brought on by people at the top not thinking about the long-term of the club. Neglecting infrastructure to chase short term success is only really going to pay off if that short term success is achieved. Otherwise, it's just wasteful spending. But sacking another manager after a short period at the club where they can't immediately turn things around... it does nothing to address the instability unless there's a really good long-term plan for who is going to be brought in and how money is going to be spent to make the on-pitch performances better. I think it's understandable if United want to sack Ten Hag sooner rather than later. I'm not seeing much evidence that he's going to be able to turn things around, I'm seeing more evidence that he's losing faith in himself doing the job he was brought in to do when he's saying things like "United will never play like Ajax." I'm not seeing a manager making signings that... seem to make sense for the short term and long term goals at United. Signings like Antony coming in for big money and looking pretty fucking average don't indicate a great eye for talent. Signing Mount on big wages when it's not clear how exactly he fits in at United don't indicate a great eye for planning. The brand of football he's got going at United don't paint the picture of a man who's got a vision for a club to build into. It seems like a manager going through the motions with an expensively assembled squad. At the same time, United saw decades of success when they were patient and gave Alex Ferguson time even when United didn't look like they were up to much. I do think stability is an important factor at success at a club that isn't backed by the endless resources that clubs like Chelsea under Abramovich, City with the UAE, PSG with Qatar, etc. don't really need to consider because they don't truly operate like normal football clubs. But I'm not sure looking at what worked decades ago, when English football was very different, and expecting that kind of stability to work with the current manager is all that realistic. I also think player culture has changed quite a bit - especially at the top clubs. I thought Ten Hag would be your Klopp. Pretty much each week that's passed since March though and... I'm increasingly more sure that he's actually up to nothing at United other than spending a lot of money and hoping for the best each week. With Klopp it wasn't instant success, but we could very clearly see that he was pushing his ideas out from his brain onto the pitch through the squad - he was changing our system to fit how he wanted us to play, he was cutting out players like Sakho and Balotelli from the squad to make sure the mentality of the squad matched the mentality he wanted. And tbf to Ten Hag - he's tried something similar like that with both Ronaldo and Sancho in terms of trying to change the squad's mentality. But he's not really done much to demonstrate he's actively implementing a set style at United that'll lead to success. Personally, if I were a United fan.. I'd want Ten Hag gone. I just don't have faith that he can build what he had going for him in the Netherlands here in England. At least not right now with United. Imo a lot of heads need to roll at United for them to start building upwards back to where they want to be. That includes people above the manager who need to stop neglecting the club's infrastructure. The stadium's quality is important. If it wasn't, clubs wouldn't spend so much money building new stadiums or upgrading their stadiums. The club's training facilities and academy facilities are also important - both from a recruitment perspective as well as developing the players already at the club. And having loads of money to spend each window is great... as long as there's a fucking plan for spending that money. Sack the entire recruitment team, as well, since they've been pretty fucking abysmal in all honesty. If I were a United executive, I'd be drawing up a shortlist of managers that fit the sort of profile as Ange before he joined Spurs tbh. Managers that aren't the highest profile names and haven't necessarily "proven" themselves at big clubs, but managers who have a track record of implementing a good style that fits in with United's tradition of attacking football. I'd also be looking at clubs around Europe that have an impressive history of recruitment and seeing if I could poach any Directors of Football or Scouts. And then I'd probably be trying to bring in De Zerbi and Brighton's recruitment team, because in this hypothetical I work for Man Utd, so you can't expect me to look too hard into spending huge fat stacks of cash all at once. And even if that's not proper due diligence in bringing in new people to make good decisions... I think it'd be a hell of a lot more productive than doing whatever the fuck United have been doing. Having said that, I fully welcome United breaking the glass in case of emergency and bringing in Fat Sam. Laughter is good for the soul, after all.

Yeah, I think he's just made that up to feign outrage at this tbh. He's admitted he bet on Milan matches he played in, as well as other matches. He says it didn't impact how he played and claimed he's got a massive gambling addiction. I'm not saying he's lying, because doing something stupid like betting on matches you can impact is absolutely something I could see a player with a compulsive gambling addiction doing without even thinking about. But there's no way to ever prove whether or not it did impact his performances - but banning a player for betting on their own matches is absolutely reasonable. Zaniolo, on the other hand, has maintained he's not bet on football at all and that his online gambling was all on poker, blackjack, and shit like that. And if he's telling the truth, which I think the Italian authorities believe he is, I don't think any ban should be required for that. Because what the fuck does football have to do with poker or some shit like that? Fuck all and if he wants to gamble online playing games like that, I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to do that. It's not going to impact any matches. Generally speaking, footballers should just avoid gambling on anything football related. They've got friends on other teams, they've got friends in other leagues - it just creates too much of the appearance of match fixing being likely to allow tbh, even if match fixing hasn't occurred. But gambling on your own club is absolutely something that justifies lengthy bans imo. A player would have too much influence to negatively impact the integrity of the sport for their financial gain - it's basically the most common sense decision to have a blanket ban on that.

She'd basically already died before officially being taken off life support. Her parents confirmed she was already braindead with 0 chance of recovery 2 weeks ago. Iran's used the Israel-Palestine conflict, that they've got a big hand in egging on with working with Hamas and threatening to send in Hezbollah, to move forward with many of the executions of protestors from the past year. So a lot of young men and women who think they deserve a life that involves having their human rights respected are going to get killed for having the balls to stand up against these awful abusers.

I think both sides are openly genocidal tbh. Just one side actually has the means to carry out a genocide and the other side are going to get massively fucked for Hamas lashing out. It’s pretty clear if there’s going to be any humanitarian hope for the people of Gaza, it’s got to be Egypt or Jordan taking them in because Israel’s not going to lift a finger other than taking Gaza from them.

He bet on his own matches, that’s about as direct of a link to match fixing without him admitting any intent, which he’d never do.

Some people don’t want to leave their homeland even when they have the means to and would be safer outside their country.

Usually they suggest thoughts AND prayers. This guy just suggesting prayers, with no accompanying thoughts. Budget cuts or a sign that GOP leadership is vocally anti-thought?

They were relegated for match fixing

Yeah look on your clubs website though brainiac, there’s more sponsors for a club than just the shirt sponsor

If 1 offense is -12 points. 115 offenses should be -1380 points. There's 114 points possible in a premier league season. 138 for the leagues below. I think that changes once you get down to the low enough on the football pyramid because at some point it stops being 24 teams. If City are found guilty, and Everton's alleged punishment set the precedent... demoting to the championship is literally just a slap on the wrist for them. I don't think it matters in the long run because I think it's more of a clickbait headline than anything, I doubt 12 points get deducted from Everton. But if it does and it comes to light that City are in fact guilty of even just half the 115 offenses... they'd need to be demoted down several leagues.

He's an absolute zealot, like Mike Pence. Good description of these types of politicians is: taliban in a suit. New speaker of the house has suggested the correct response to handling mass shootings is prayer.

26 26

I think it's funny he's meant to go to gambling rehab while nobody in the governing bodies of football seems to have any issue with him playing for a club that is sponsored by and promotes Sportsbet.io, BET MGM, and Fun88 - and if you scroll all the way down on www.nufc.co.uk you'll see their logos nicely arranged in that order. Taking the integrity of the sport out of why players can't gamble - which is hard to do because that's a serious concern for sure - is it right we've got so much promotion of online gambling in football?

I agree. I think it's really just a load of clickbait going with the sensational "worst case scenario." And if they wanted to make an example for the big clubs to watch out for, I can think of 114 more reasons why City should be the club made an example of rather than Everton.

You're meant to use guanciale! Bacon's a shit guanciale substitute, pancetta's an alright substitute. Find yourself some guanciale though when you do a non-vegetarian one though and blow your tastebuds away!

They finally elected a speaker. Now to see if the new guy can avoid a shutdown. He seems fairly radical, so I doubt he's able to.

Tbf I have no idea if that’s the legal term. Its what the Georgia case is about let me look it up really quickly. It’s a criminal racketeering charge(!) - sounds worse in legal terms. And in other news in the GOP circus, they’ve put forward their 4th nominee as speaker of the house. One congressman called this “democracy in action” - but this has never happened in the US before. It’s a bit mental.

And trying to overturn an election because he lost and that made him sad

The party that's never been more in unity continues to demonstrate that unity by having another speaker candidate drop out over infighting in the party: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-republicans-try-again-pick-leader-2023-10-24/ Never before has the US had such competence and unity in their legislative branch.