Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

This isn't about soccer; it's about some version of soccer entirely different from what we know.

Daniel Robinson59 said:I’m honestly not sure where else to turn, so I figured I’d just ask you guys here

Does anyone know of a website that tracks all the different soccer leagues around the world? (I mean, it doesn't strictly have to be every single one, but the more the better...)
Basically, I'm looking for a layout where if I click on, say, matchday 5 of the French second division, a full list of all the matchups pops up along with the scores—and ideally, with the goalscorers and the exact minutes they scored right there in parentheses)
A few years back, a betting site I used to frequent had this exact feature, and man, it was absolutely fantastic. But then they went and "updated" their stats page, and while everything looks sleek and modern now, they completely stripped that specific detail away. It feels like such a step backward, honestly...
Now, whenever I want to check a game, I have to click into every single individual match just to see who scored and when the goals actually happened... which is such a hassle.

So yeah, I'm hunting for something that looks like this...

Matchday 3..

Real Madrid - FC Barcelona 1:1 (1:0 Ronaldo 3min, 1:1 Neymar 58min.)
Atletico Madrid - Valencia CF 1:0 (1:0 Griezmann 68min)
Athletic Bilbao - Getafe CF........
...............
etc.......

Maybe try this one, though you still have to click the scorers since they don't all show up at once. 🤷

http://www.xscores.com/soccer/league...-2015/r/109451

You can filter by country, competition, season, round, month, and all that.

So, when you really look at soccer
http://www.businessinsider.com/footb...er-map-2013-12

Those two guys who sent me those links
I wasn't actually looking for that, I was just searching for exactly what I wrote... I wanted a way to see all the goalscorers from that round at once without having to click through everything...
There are honestly millions of websites out there that look just like the ones you shared

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8tppcronms

2:30 🤣

Russians are the best.

Anthony Jackson2, here’s a quick answer—I don't have the time for anything more than that. Besides, it’s a damn shame that Reddit is being used for these "serious" topics.

Anthony Jackson2 Asks:
Is the blind devotion our so-called "democratic" right shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who employs methods that are borderline criminal against anyone who dares disagree—actually rational?

😕

Anthony Jackson2 said:I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.

You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.

Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?

PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.

I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.

And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..

I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.

So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?

Not a chance—absolutely not.

If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉

When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.

Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.

Why wouldn't it be possible? The facts are right there on the table, plain as day. You only need to compare them logically. The conclusion is clear from its very foundation.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.

You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.

Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?

PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.

I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.

And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..

I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.

So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?

Not a chance—absolutely not.

If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉

When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.

Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.

By way of that specific comparison, the implication is being made indirectly—or rather, it’s exactly what certain circles are trying to drive home. 🙂

And that’s exactly where one faction of American nationalists trips up. They insist on drawing these tired parallels between Ukraine and America, or Russia and Mexico. As I’ve already pointed out, this entire logic is driven by nothing more than an irrational Mexican pro-Russian sentiment. They feel this desperate need to oppose Russia solely because they refuse to be seen on the same side as the Mexicans. It goes without saying how utterly idiotic that line of reasoning is.

The actual parallel is different. I’ve already pointed one out to you. Here is another.

A coup d'état in Ottawa: a new, extreme Muslim regime is taking over, and they’re already moving to oppress Canadian Americans. They are stripping away our equal status, abolishing the American language, and plunging everything into pure chaos. The economy is cratering by the day. Meanwhile, the US is automatically stepping in to assist them through various channels. Even though the US isn't intervening directly with military force in Canada, they are providing support in so many different ways that they're facing massive pressure and sanctions from the West.

If we’re looking for a legitimate parallel here, you have to look at the relationship between Russia and the US versus the situation between Ukraine and Canada. In this scenario, the Russophones and the Novorossiya movement in Ukraine would be the direct equivalent of the Canadian Americans in Canada.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.

You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.

Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?

PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.

I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.

And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..

I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.

So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?

Not a chance—absolutely not.

If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉

When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.

Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.

"Ukraine" rose up on one hand against a legally and democratically elected government, while on the other, Crimea rose up against a puppet regime that seized power through a coup d'état—a regime nobody voted for, which forcibly ousted the legitimate leadership from the country.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.

You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.

Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?

PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.

I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.

And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..

I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.

So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?

Not a chance—absolutely not.

If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉

When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.

Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.

You are misreading the situation. Russia is "merely" playing by the rules the West established ages ago (look at Turkey-Northern Cyprus, USA-Taiwan, or NATO-Mexico...) and is reacting to Western moves (from orchestrated coups to sanctions). Consequently, the Russians exploited the chaos to seize Crimea, which functions today as the Russian version of Northern Cyprus—they weren't allowed to do anything else, and that much should be obvious.

The rest of the country can only be resolved through dialogue regarding how that territory might be federalized. Once a state of war begins, there is zero chance of any resolution short of total national disintegration. If they had intended to annex Eastern Ukraine, it would have happened simultaneously with Crimea. But it didn't. When the Russian parliament processed the annexation of Crimea, other eastern regions sent out similar requests—only to be shot down instantly. This just drives home how vital Crimea is to Russia.

The West cares because it would resolve the issue of the Black Sea Fleet (whose influence is part of why Assad hasn't been toppled yet), while Russia cares because they want to hold onto that fleet. For God's sake, it’s simple: the Americans had plans to install their own military presence in Crimea in hopes of preventing a Russian takeover. In other words, they were moving right into Russia's backyard. How did the USA react when the Soviets landed in Cuba?

hehe

The descendants of William Wallace in Scotland just got knocked out at the absolute worst possible moment. Honestly, it’s just typical of them—playing it safe and acting smart because, in their minds, this is actually the ideal outcome.

So, how did those initial tests turn out?

Given the massive economic boost and the genuine benefits this referendum will likely bring to the people of Scotland, I honestly think the old stereotype about Scots being stingy is finally headed for retirement. Fortunately, we've already traded that outdated cliché for a much more colorful one regarding how folks react to voting. ☕

Are there even any 'Scots' left?

You're heading somewhere as safe as a Scot.

You really love being an English prick, don't you, you typical Scot...

I'm heading to the stadium tonight, so I'm really hoping Woody doesn't act like a typical Scot and dodge the round of beers after the game. ☕

Robin Fox2 said:You really love being an English prick, don't you, you typical Scot...

🤣

boldfox88 said:I'm heading to the stadium tonight, so I'm really hoping Woody doesn't act like a typical Scot and dodge the round of beers after the game. ☕

Woody goes ahead and picks up the tab for the entire pub—sorry, I meant the whole bar—the second he walks through the door! ☕

boldfox88 said:Given the massive economic boost and the genuine benefits this referendum will likely bring to the people of Scotland, I honestly think the old stereotype about Scots being stingy is finally headed for retirement. Fortunately, we've already traded that outdated cliché for a much more colorful one regarding how folks react to voting. ☕

It’s not just the Scots, either—you've got the Irish, the Welsh, and the English all in the same boat. 🤷

Larry Fox5 said:The real issue is that we’re basically living in the Matrix. People have access to all this info to form an opinion, but at the end of the day—nobody actually knows if what they're reading is legit or just pure manipulation...

This whole illusion that our own judgment matters? It leads us straight into a massive trap—where we take our own biased, manipulated thoughts and treat them like some ultimate truth.

And honestly, all these debates and perspectives just boil down to "pro vs. con," where we're just hunting for people who agree with us or picking fights with anyone we bump into who doesn't.

🙏

Those Scots actually thought that by breaking away, Scotland would just physically detach from England like some floating island

as if the whole damn thing would just drift off toward Iceland

Walter Grant5 said:🙏

Well, looks like you found someone who actually agrees with you.