The same 'scare tactics' were mentioned before Trump took over. I won't go further on that one....
Fraser is by far the exception, not the rule.
I think all politicians are corrupt and inept and only out for themselves and their bank balance. Labor, Libs, ON....whoever.
Nobody gets anything for free. You want to fix the current problems, go ahead, but it will be at the expense of something else instead. As i said, pick your poison.
yeah nah. If they are not doing the job they were elected to do they must be taken out of that position. Rewarding poor governing with extra terms is saying ok we accept the corruption, we accept the 200B debt, we accept the pot holes, the waiting lists, the crime etc etc etc. Unless you want the country to turn into the 3rd world you have to replace them and trust the new leadership will improve things. If they dont they are replaced as well.
To try and down play that by throwing in the alternative could be worse is simply showing your bias to a particular party.
Based on your thinking the yanks should re-elect Trump too cause the alternative could be worse
Pick your poison....
You've got me wrong. I'm 'showing my bias' is proof of that.
I couldn't give a fat rats clacker about what happens. I've already stated they're all the same. What i'm pushing back against is the fact that people say THIS will fix the problem. I disagree. There are no good options. There's a big pile of trash in the room, everyone keeps pointing at and blaming the current government for it. Each alternative political party will highlight this big pile of trash and say they will fix it. If/when they get into power, that big pile of trash may well be cleaned up. However, all they will do in reality is move it to another room. Or put it in the closet. Or put it in the garage. Hide it there, until its found, and the cycle repeats. Eventually someone else will make promises that everyone falls for....the trash just gets hidden somewhere else.
No matter which way you go, you won't be pleased with the result.
Scare tactics which you used in the sacking Voss debate. I wont go further on that one.....
Only the most staunch labour voter would use that argument and it won't work on election day as majority of voters can judge things without that level of bias. Victorians will cast their vote based on understanding the sad condition our state is now in with the current party governing for the last 12 years. Regardless of the fact we dont have a crystal ball to see how the Libs will fare you simply cannot reward the current inept party with another term.
The same 'scare tactics' were mentioned before Trump took over. I won't go further on that one....
Fraser is by far the exception, not the rule.
I think all politicians are corrupt and inept and only out for themselves and their bank balance. Labor, Libs, ON....whoever.
Nobody gets anything for free. You want to fix the current problems, go ahead, but it will be at the expense of something else instead. As i said, pick your poison.
But fk me the umpiring makes this incredibly difficult to watch. If the AFL is serious they will rectify this absolute substandard umpiring in the womens game.
There is sub-standard umpiring in the mens game. Not sure they'll be able to fix the womens before they fix the mens.
To me it seems like there are different rules for holding the ball in AFLW. They refuse to blow the whistle for incorrect disposal. They let the scrum drag on too long.
I'll take that bet Lods. Albeit, not from a qualifier loss, but rather a late season meeting.
I know its happened, from a player who went through it. Not from our club though.
A move that could've been made, wasn't made, deliberately, because they wanted to keep that move should they face them in the finals, which they did, and it worked. They turned it around, GF was won in part due to that.
You'll have to be a bit more specific. Player and the move. It shouldn't be a huge secret if it's already occurred.
If we know that, we can better judge the extent to which such a move actually aided the winning of the Grand Final.
It seems pretty risky to me that if they had a plan thaty they thought was a game changer they didn't use it in the first game. My guess would be that it may have been discussed, dismissed as too risky, but when the opportunity came and a trigger needed to be pulled they made the throw of the dice with no certainty it would come off.
Which is a completely different situation to actively holding back a move they were confident would work.
(Edit: If your talking about a home and away game, rather than a qualifier, that's a completely different story. I'm sure those sort of tactics would be used or withheld for later ,when games really mattered, quite often.)
At this stage of the year it has to be all out effort (and moves)...or there may be no tomorrow.
I've mentioned it on here before. TBH, i can't recall the specifics, but it was Demons vs Dogs the year the Dees won a flag. They played eachother late in the year, dogs getting up by 20 points in a game that didn't matter to the dees. They met again in the GF and the dees ran away with it after half time. A mate of mine sponsored one of the dees players (no longer on their list) and they used to have regular catchups and used to get good inside info. He was not the player in question, but spoke about the thinking throughout the year, specifically that game leading into finals and knowing they would most likely play again.
There are examples in the men's comp of clubs coming back from a qualifier loss to beat the same team in a grand final. I'd bet those losses weren't part of a grand plan...but rather just taking a few lessons from the initial loss and working on them.
I'll take that bet Lods. Albeit, not from a qualifier loss, but rather a late season meeting.
I know its happened, from a player who went through it. Not from our club though.
A move that could've been made, wasn't made, deliberately, because they wanted to keep that move should they face them in the finals, which they did, and it worked. They turned it around, GF was won in part due to that.
OK clearly people misunderstood what i was saying.
I'm not saying we don't try and win it, but i'm saying lets not show all our hand to do so. Leave some cards up our sleeve.
eg......If we've been training Good as a key forward, and can use that as a 'cheat' to get us a couple goals on a poor matchup. Do we show that card now, and give Kangas a few weeks to come up with a way to counteract that? We're better off saving that element of surprise for a Grand Final.
Or lets put it this way. The move to play Diesel in the FP in the 95 grand final. IIRC, he didn't know about that until the week of, if not the day of. Imagine we did that earlier in the year. People could come up with a plan ahead of time. Instead, he wins a Norm Smith because they had no answer for it.
Excellent selections IMO, with (hopefully) many more great ones to come.
Interesting collection.
Had never heard of 3 of them.
The Boys soundtrack. Earth Cry and surprisingly......Down City Streets
The first two understandably as they are not 'songs' so much as you'd think of.....but can't recall Down City Streets, but can understand why its in there.
Personally i would've had 'Goanna - Solid Rock' on there.
