Fernando

Same, that's why I'm staying calm. I would love him here but until there's some concrete talks between the two clubs it's best not to get too excited.

Same situation as Mahrez. He had a previous season to fall back on. This season Mahrez just did the same thing as Costa, and Hazard. Didn't play for the manager no more.

Good goal. Just like Hazard that was crap last year and then appear at the end of the season.....

Can the FA take action after the game like they done for many incidents like this?

SAF reached three champions league finals out of how many? Surely if Conte is as bad in the cup games and he gets 20 years of trying he will get to the final 1 or 2 times. So far what I can see is that he's better for League format then cup format. And to me that's not bad, I would take winning the league more frequently like SAF did.

Don't worry, massive immigration is not bad, massive asylum seeker is not bad, and Trump don't know nothing!

Saf was usually bad tactical in the big games. That's what I seen so far with Conte. But in order to win the league you have win the game against the smaller team, something Liverpool has a problem with. I think Conte might be like that. Good at league but not so good on cup competitions.

I'm starting to think that going in the future Conte will be similar to SAF. Very good in league cup competitions but not so great in cups like CL and what not. I mean look at the big games how he fare not just so far with us but in Juventus. If that's the case I might not be that bad just as long as we continue to win the PL. Because I mean how many years of dominance SAF had with United in the league but CL always failed.

I think Fabregas would be able to play regularly if we get an upgrade to Matic. Someone like Vidal or Nainggolan. But the bad thing is we will lose a winger like Pedro. But that's the only way I see Fabregas playing as a starter if we got a player like those two mentioned.

We should go for him. Don't let him go to Liverpool or something like that. Yeah he screw up the coach by playing crap, but so did Costa and Hazard. Get him!

Same happen to us. And now we love our players and a lot dislike Mourinho. Meh, I still take Mahrez even though he did a Costa.

So are we going for him again this summer?

What a waste. Should have stayed at his last team. No point in bringing him back.

Despite the good game and goal he still remains a flat truck bully for me Ala Arsenal. Best against the smaller team. Against the top team someone else will do.

They have the lines woman for this game. Been some time since I seen her.

He was a monster in the CL final I remember.

Aye because we can deal with one year being out of the CL as seen this season. But one year getting relegated, that is no joke. That's why any club in their right mind will do their best to avoid relegation. Finishing out of top 4 not the end of the world.

I often said that 4 to 5 years is more then enough. If he does the 4 years then he can do short term contract like Pep did at Barcelona till he wants to leave. SAF thing should not be the norm. Pep should be the norm, a 3 to 5 year project.

The guy that is standing later came out on fox news saying he understand Trump for feeling annoyed being called antisimetic. And that he is okay with Trump. The one's who are Antisimetic are the Iranian regime with their wipe out Israel. You wiping out Israel means you want to get rid of all jewish people. That is antisemetic at it's core.

Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger hints at four more years in management http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11670/10773970/arsenal-boss-arsene-wenger-hints-at-four-more-years-in-management

I think it's very superficial. They make a lot of mistakes. First they refused to acknowledge the testimony of the apostles. The video I sent you already covered this. How the apostle Paul gives us a great witness. Paul was a persecutor of the church of christ but he was converted and end up giving his life for that he persecuted. As the video also mentioned the gospel have women as the first eye witness of Jesus resurrection. This would be nonsense since in that day women voice was not taken into consideration. So someone making up a story would not go this way. Second as the video I sent you that the apostle had a consistent core theology that was preached during Jesus ministry all the way to the last book of the revelation. Furthermore you have the church fathers that was the disciples of the disciples. Examples the disciples of John, Peter etc etc. They also had a common core theology until a certain time. Now that certain time is the important thing where your video mix everything. It is known that in church father history everything was common. The ideas was the same of those of the apostles of Jesus Christ, what we have in the new testaments. This time is known as the "ante nicene fathers". It's roughly from the time of christ death till like 300 and change ad. After this period of time things changed, and the councils that met started to distort the core theology. It's from this turn of events that the rise of what would be Roman Catholicism emerge. Roman catholicism is the merging of Christianity with paganism. This is where you get things like Easter, Christmas and all that. Holidays which originally was not Christian. So this is the event that they screw up by mixing from what the apostles wrote to what Roman Empire later did. And last their take on the old testament is very poor indeed. Because they are mixing testament with gnostic Gospel. And this was a very important point I made originally. During Jesus time and during the time of the apostles there was no new testament! All that they had to rely on was what the old testament said. In fact you couldn't come up with a new testament that totally contradict the old testament. That's a big clue into why many gnostic Gospel where not used. Paul couldn't contradict what was written in the old testament. If it said in the beginning God created the heaven in the earth then that is what we would start with. You couldn't come up with a gospel that said "in the beginning Sophia created everything and made lesser beings to be god". You would be considered a heretic. So they failed to realize that Christianity is Jewish in nature. Messiah was Jewish, the first apostles and converts was Jewish. It is a very Jewish narrative and we the non Jewish have been grafted in to this old Jewish family under Jesus.

Actually there is a program I can share with you. Is a christian apologetic show. They talk about all these issues with top professional. Since I realize the talk about is the validity of the bible, if what we have written is true and all that stuff. Well you can start here: They are programs of 30 minutes each. So it's more like 25 minutes each since they have a couple of minutes of info about books and such.

Okay I'll get back to you tomorrow. Because I will watch this after work. And there is material but I need to see first what is that they are trying to say so I can know what to give you. So let me see what is this about. Thanks

Please do share. I want to see what they are talking about in detail.

No i liked your honest answer. This is not the first time I heard of something similar about the Gospel. But they forget one thing most of those coming with all these theory. Anything that is recorded in the gospel, 90% of it is nothing new. In fact majority of these things was written long before the gospel or Jesus appeared. They was written in the Torah and prophets. Which today we would called the old testament. The old testament "prophesied" about the coming time of Jesus and his works. Many of the writings of the old testament go way beyond the Roman empire ever existed. In fact the "prophecy" I mentioned about Jesus second coming, majority of it as well come from the old testament. Jesus quotes even from the book of Daniel an old Testament prophecy. So that's one mistake they don't realize. Second after the Roman empire disbursed the Jewish nation, many people believed that God had forsaken their people the Jews. In fact that's when "replacement theology" emerge. That the "church" had replaced Israel and that god no longer cared about the Jewish people. That belief was very strong till say 1948 when Israel was formed as a nation in one day. Then this theory had to be discarded because it was clear that god was not done with the Jews, and in fact the old testament had many prophecies of this event that was a mystery for many people. And thirdly the life of Jesus and crucifixion is attested by many historians, not just in the gospel. Flavius Josephus a famous Jewish historian makes reference of Jesus the man. Mind you the Jews don't believe in Jesus, and they have no reason to report anything about him. There's other like Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Lucian and much more. That being said history does shows that Jesus existed. Now the debated point is not that he existed or was crucified, but did he actually rose from the dead as the gospel mentions? Well that is for another talk.