Cockeyed views

Read article More feeble threats and grandioso statements from the Cheika. I guess when you have one of the worst tours, one has a tendency to get into this sort of nonsense. Clearly Cheika cannot be held totally accountable for the results of this tour and in many ways it’s probably a good outcome for the Wallabies. If they had done well, they would have become even more arrogant (if that is at all possible). What puzzles me is that, it is world renown that our scrum is our fundamental weakness. Rather than focussing on fixing this, Cheika steps right into the politics and brings Beale back into the game! The backs are still competitive (although not as dominant as during some of the “golden” eras) and if at all Beale makes them worse. Cheika should get his mind out of the politics and focus on coaching, and in particular, the problem in the forwards. Beale was a total waste of time in both the last games. As I predicted, Cheika made the political decision to fly him (first class ...

Read article The Aussie win-at-all-costs mentality brings another victory! A great team effort one would have to say - that is a Team-Australia effort - which of course included more than the men in Aussie jerseys!! Anyone who's watched the NRL knows that the referees are totally political beings. Which part of the 4 nations organisation decided that it was a good idea to have Aussie refs?! It must have been the commercial area. Keep the Aussies in the running - MONEY!! Are the Aussie players embarrassed that they needed the referees help to remain in the competition??. No, the Aussie mentality is quite different, we all know that. It's no different to cricket or any other sport, we used to like criticising sub-continental umpires for being biased but never noticed ours being even worse. But it helped us win, so it didn't matter - Aussie top order batsmen were never given out LBW and some of the run-out decisions were simply appalling - but all of that never gets into ...

see article "This would present a more unstable and volatile nuclear threat than the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China at the height of the Cold War". This statement alone, suggests that this article is written from the perspective of the White-supremacy-Gung-ho-Saxon-crusader "mob" (I guess I should explain myself – most of the phrase is self-explanatory except for, perhaps, the Gung-ho-Saxon part, which I use to refer to nations with predominantly Anglo Saxon stock, in particular the US, GB and Australia, who charge into wars in the most Gung-ho fashion – an “axis” that is struggling to maintain the power structures of old.). It suggests that it was the "Commie bastards" who were creating instability whilst the peace loving '"Angelic capitalists" were the poor victims - awwww didums! Sure, if an attempt to take 3 billion people out of poverty and breaking the shackles that the white-supremacy-gung-ho-Saxon-crusader "mob...