Liverpool FC Forum

[kartiek]

edited

[burjennio]

Many presumptions have been made there, please don't pigeon hole me into a political sect - you have no idea of the broader opinions and values I hold. You've even admitted yourself the police force employ on quota rather than merit FFS, then have the audacity to "chuckle" at the fact non-ethnic-minorites aren't being discriminated against, what the feck do you call it Mr liberal Catholic? (a presumptuous oxymoron I've made there). I've stooped to your level now, to counter the claim that I somehow read the Daily Mail, (while you present the innuendo of 'little Englander' towards me), and making all my claims off of the back of this "f*cking rag".

Instead of trying to insult my intelligence re my views, and where I get my informed opinion from, try debating the point instead. Of course, when a debates not going the way of someone from the 'thought police', they/you jump up and down and accuse people of reading the daily mail (making the innuendo I'm racist) and being ultra-conservative to stifle debate becuase your points, and claims have been refuted. Typical. 

a. the daily mail jibe was in jest, its a classic stereotype attributed to people who share similar views to yourself. The Mail is also not racist it is just the most pro-conservative mainstream newspaper in Britain.

b. Im not a catholic, I was raised protestant but have been an athiest since my late teens.

c. You claim my point is "wrong and illogical" yet present no evidence whatsoever as to why you believe so. People like this do exist, Boxscarf already threw down this ridiculous point of view to start this whole debacle.

d. The PSNI recruitment system isnt discriminatory against any side protestant or catholic, its discriminatory against any worthy applicant that gets screwed over as the PSNI equalities board have to fill their 50/50 quota.

Of course, you won't give a reason as to why this discrimination takes place, rather you define at as just being "ridiculous". Of course you would, because you are too busy treading on eggshells up there in your ivory tower.

  what does that even mean? Did you hear that little soundbyte on one of those American ultra conservative radio shows? You must be one of those stereotypical opinionated blowhards who thinks hes the only one with enough balls to say what he really thinks right? Its adorable

e. "Audacity to chuckle" at your non-ethnic majority rant shows what an absolute cuckoo land you live in when you choose to willfully ignore the fact that Britain's power structure is overwhelmingly dominated by Upper-middle class white Christian men just as it has been for the best part of a millennium. Management structures in the vast majority of workplaces are almost exclusively white British. You and I will be long dead before a change in populace or politics comes anywhere close to changing that.

f. There is no point to debate with you, you claim informed opinion yet rant about "PC brigades" and other shady conspiracies then claim you have refuted an argument to a minor point that I have now clarified twice but you havnt even presented an opinion on - you simply quoted me, stated my "accusations were flawed and illogical" despite the fact that you have offered no rebuttal whatsoever against them and by extension provided no evidence otherwise!  For example, on the subject of Black Pride, you come out firing that

African blacks and Arabs were using slavery on the continent of Africa way before the white man went there and implemented the transatlantic slave trade?

which in itself is an illogical argument and classic misdirection - just because Rome invaded Britain 2,000 years ago wouldn't justify us invading Italy tomorrow would it? You then rather patronizingly state that

I haven't insinuated once that "black pride" shouldn't take place, good for them!

before returning to the role of the victim in the very next sentence, claiming that

I won't be buggered into thinking I should feel guilty of what my "ancestors" did back then and having this rubbed into my face as some guilt trip that pervades society today with all it's PC indoctrination. And it's the same that I wouldn't expect a German (Merkel excused) today to personally feel guilty of what their forefathers did in 1945.

Where did I say you had to? Your aggressive nature, and repeated ignoring of the actual crux of my point to rant on again about how you clearly have nothing to feel guilty about says a great deal about your character. I think the following article would be of great interest to you, or anyone insane enough to think you are making any kind of relevant point:

Reverse Racism



Im not going to derail this thread any further in a futile attempt to convert you when you have clearly nailed your colours to the mast in regards to your baffling belief in the suffering of white Britain. You may have the last word and Im sure it'll be compelling, witty and fully put my "liberal catholic" ***** in its place    I can only hope that someone out there who for whatever reason, may have had similar political leanings as yourself can read through the last couple of pages and realize how completely full of mad dog sh*t you actually are, start engaging their brain and go and do their own research and most importantly use some common f*cking sense and realize that we're all in this mess together, and the sooner we embrace that fact the better a world we will live in 

[Thommo's perm]

Like I said since PC pervades society and uses discrimination to combat discrimination I would say it's being rubbed into the faces of people who don't come from ethnic minorities. And also you accuse those who feel no guilt of what their ancestors did by coining it "passive racial aggression". When it's clearly not. You expect people to feel a burden of guilt for something they had no hand in what so ever, yet if they don't, you term them "passive-racial-aggressive" to 'try' and trump and take some sort of righteous moral high ground - it doesn't wash with me because it's a totally illogical and flawed accusation that deserves you to be called up upon.

Stop twisting my words. The point I made was that a person claiming that since they had no direct input into racial abuses hundreds of years ago they feel that black people have no right to "rub it in their face" is an incredibly arrogant stance and passive aggressively racist. As I previously stated it has nothing to do with guilting anyone that these groups exist but as a celebration of their own particular culture.

I didn't twist your words, no point in trying to wriggle out of these flawed and illogical accusations you've made:

Its that modern passive-aggressive racist attitude again - "Well Im not a racist and I never owned a slave so black people should just forget about it and move on because its nothing to do with me."

You're clearly an ultra-conservative in regards to your view that "non-ethnic majorities" are somehow being discriminated against (that sentence alone should utter a chuckle from anyone reading it) so the next time you spit out your low fat latte in righteous indignation at something you read in the Daily Mail take a second, three deep breaths, and ask yourself the question "If all this crazy bullsh*t was really happening on a daily basis wouldnt it be reported in many more reputable places than this f*cking rag?

Many presumptions have been made there, please don't pigeon hole me into a political sect - you have no idea of the broader opinions and values I hold. You've even admitted yourself the police force employ on quota rather than merit FFS, then have the audacity to "chuckle" at the fact non-ethnic-minorites aren't being discriminated against, what the feck do you call it Mr liberal Catholic? (a presumptuous oxymoron I've made there). I've stooped to your level now, to counter the claim that I somehow read the Daily Mail, (while you present the innuendo of 'little Englander' towards me), and making all my claims off of the back of this "f*cking rag". 

Instead of trying to insult my intelligence re my views, and where I get my informed opinion from, try debating the point instead. Of course, when a debates not going the way of someone from the 'thought police', they/you jump up and down and accuse people of reading the daily mail (making the innuendo I'm racist) and being ultra-conservative to stifle debate becuase your points, and claims have been refuted. Typical. 

Here it is again, you state:

I agree that the quota thing is ridiculous btw, the PSNI (police force) has to assign jobs 50/50 based on religion in N Ireland which to me is completely counter-productive to promoting equality.
Image


Of course, you won't give a reason as to why this discrimination takes place, rather you define at as just being "ridiculous". Of course you would, because you are too busy treading on eggshells up there in your ivory tower.

Great discussion lads
Proves the point that racism is a very emotive issue and people really cant discuss it without insulting each other, thus preventing mature discussion and debate.
No wonder the FA, the courts and the media fu'ck it up time after time, which is why we will never go forward unless and until we can sit down and actually talk about the issue in a civilised manner

[Kenny Kan]

b. Im not a catholic, I was raised protestant but have been an athiest since my late teens.

That's what happens when I use your very own debating skills unto you.

c. You claim my point is "wrong and illogical" yet present no evidence whatsoever as to why you believe so. People like this do exist, Boxscarf already threw down this ridiculous point of view to start this whole debacle.

Although there is no actual "evidence" to say that you cannot use ad-homs towards people you disagree with re their views. In typical 'crime-thinking' fashion, you band about the term 'racially-passive-aggressive because by doing so', you think you have the moral upper hand. When in fact people like yourself are using the term through laziness rather than producing a cogent debate.

d. The PSNI recruitment system isnt discriminatory against any side protestant or catholic, its discriminatory against any worthy applicant that gets screwed over as the PSNI equalities board have to fill their 50/50 quota

And here is the faux pas!  Discrimination is discrimination and you've just highlighted my point, worthy applicants getting "screwed" over. It doesn't matter whether it's religious, gender, sexual or racial discrimination, it's still discrimination! Although, I'm inferring racial discrimination is given more importance to you where ethnic minorities are concerned, if so, why is that, what makes this discrimination any worse than gay abuse and discrimination?

Like I said, the Met police were in fact institutionally racist and sexiest - which may I add before anymore of your accusations are thrown my way; are 'totally unacceptable'. However, the 'think tankers' who intended to make this wrong a right, have used the exact same thing they abhor - DISCRIMINATION. They have quotas to fill, so if someone of ethnic minority isn't as qualified or well trained in the police force as say for example a white fella who is - but subsequently gets the job over the white man because he "fills a quota", isn't this discrimination? Don't worry to answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

The reverse is also true of course, if an Indian surgeon gets to practice in theater over a white man who is less qualified in heart surgery, shouldn't he get the job? I know if I was a patient in theater, needing a heart transplant I'd expect the Indian to carry out the procedure because he has the job on merit. It's called equality and it's undergone without any kind of discrimination.

People don't pay taxes and expect standards to drop because of quota fulfillment but now it seems you are unsure of what you are saying, as if religious and racial discrimination are different, newsflash they're not, they are both legislative acts that are concerned with certain 'types' of discrimination and one isn't more important than the other, one isn't "special", they are equal. Hence, they are supposed to strive for equality; but how is it equality when a person gets given a job on quota and not merit?

e. "Audacity to chuckle" at your non-ethnic majority rant shows what an absolute cuckoo land you live in when you choose to willfully ignore the fact that Britain's power structure is overwhelmingly dominated by Upper-middle class white Christian men just as it has been for the best part of a millennium. Management structures in the vast majority of workplaces are almost exclusively white British. You and I will be long dead before a change in populace or politics comes anywhere close to changing that.

Yes, Britain's power structure is overwhelmingly white in it's make-up. Just as Haiti, India, Pakistan, Italy and most other nations in the world have indigenous people at the helm of their "power structure".  Still, it's nice to see the likes of Dianne Abbotts *cough* and Trevor Phillips take up position's of 'power and elitism'.

f. There is no point to debate with you, you claim informed opinion yet rant about "PC brigades" and other shady conspiracies then claim you have refuted an argument to a minor point that I have now clarified twice but you havnt even presented an opinion on - you simply quoted me, stated my "accusations were flawed and illogical" despite the fact that you have offered no rebuttal whatsoever against them and by extension provided no evidence otherwise!  For example, on the subject of Black Pride, you come out firing that

This remark leaves me a little perplexed. You go on about the term "PC brigade and other shady conspiracies" while proclaiming discrimination against a more worthier applicant in the police force takes place in N.Ireland.  Sorry, I forgot about the indoctrination of liberal catholic ideology where it implies only white people can discriminate against one another and other ethnic minority races, but when the argument is reversed is suddenly becomes a 'conspiracy theory'.

Here's another conspiracy I found just out of interest:

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Document ... 20WEHE.pdf

Free Welsh eye examinations for:
Uniocular patients i.e. patients who would be significantly handicapped if they
lost vision in their better eye.
Patients who are profoundly deaf – these patients need sight to lip read.

Patients with retinitis pigmentosa, or siblings of patients with inherited eye disease.

Patients whose family origins are Black African, Black Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi.

Those at risk of eye disease by reason of race or family history.

_________

How can this be equality, unless of course there is some biological reason all said races above, for coincidental purposes are more prone to losing their sight. Then this isn't true equality is it, it looks like preferential treatment and doesn't promote equality but instead resentment.

Where did I say you had to? Your aggressive nature, and repeated ignoring of the actual crux of my point to rant on again about how you clearly have nothing to feel guilty about says a great deal about your character

Tell me, oh righteous & moral one, what does it say about my character now that we seem to be attacking the person and not the post?

I acknowledge the wrong doings of past slavery and know it was morally wrong and an abhorrent thing to do. And I sincerely appreciate 'Black pride' takes place no matter how patronising you find this view of mine. But by the same token, that's not enough for the 'crimethinker' you are, is it? You actually want me to feel guilty about something I wasn't even part of. Your character assassination of me implies that I should feel guilty  for something that happened 100's of years ago. I repeat, I don't hold modern day German's guilty of Nazism and believe they shouldn't personally feel guilty of what their forefathers did in 1945. I don't damn an individual on something he didn't do and thus I don't damn [make them feel that they should feel guilty] an entire race today on something they weren't part of yesterday. If you can't understand that reasoning then I'm afraid it says just as much about the kind of character you are, rather than me. Have a nice life, living that wet contradictory dream of yours. 

[burjennio]

Here's another conspiracy I found just out of interest:

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Document ... 20WEHE.pdf

Free Welsh eye examinations for:
Uniocular patients i.e. patients who would be significantly handicapped if they
lost vision in their better eye.
Patients who are profoundly deaf – these patients need sight to lip read.

Patients with retinitis pigmentosa, or siblings of patients with inherited eye disease.

Patients whose family origins are Black African, Black Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi.

Those at risk of eye disease by reason of race or family history.

Its for pre existing medical conditions, primarily diabetes

http://www.diabetesaction.org/site/PageServer?pagename=z1076

Ask the Diabetes Educator Archive

11/11/03

Q:
I have noticed that many Asian Indians have diabetes, while very few African Americans have it. Are some ethnic groups more prone to diabetes than others?

A:
Yes, research is showing some groups are more prone than others to developing diabetes, but I would reverse your statement. African-Americans are more prone to type 2 diabetes than Asian Americans. Other groups show an even greater inclination. Pima Indians and South Sea Islanders, such as Somoans, are among the highest rate, with a strong genetic disposition. Remember, though: strong genetics do not predestine the disease; lifestyle habits become the main determinant, particularly for Type 2 diabetes.

[RED BEERGOGGLES]

Can we please return to slowly but surely running out of superlatives to describe the seriously, sublime, scintillating ,superb ,and sensational skillage of one
Luis Alberto Suarez Diaz ?

[Benny The Noon]

Can we please return to slowly but surely running out of superlatives to describe the seriously, sublime, scintillating ,superb ,and sensational skillage of one
Luis Alberto Suarez Diaz ?

He needs to score more and convert more of the chances created.

[D___C]

Like any top team that makes their best player the focal point, hopefully under Brendan we will build the team around him. Hes been exceptional for us but he will be even better in a team that plays to his strengths. The Suarez of Uruguay (where he has Cavani and Forlan to link up with) is what we will see with better players around him so he can link up more, as last season he had to go it alone on a number of occasions with the likes of big andy 30 yards behind play.

Mobile players with excellent technique, such as Borini and Sterling, will be a huge improvement on what he had alongside him last season.

[Thommo's perm]

Like any top team that makes their best player the focal point, hopefully under Brendan we will build the team around him. Hes been exceptional for us but he will be even better in a team that plays to his strengths. The Suarez of Uruguay (where he has Cavani and Forlan to link up with) is what we will see with better players around him so he can link up more, as last season he had to go it alone on a number of occasions with the likes of big andy 30 yards behind play.

Mobile players with excellent technique, such as Borini and Sterling, will be a huge improvement on what he had alongside him last season.

[Benny The Noon]

Like any top team that makes their best player the focal point, hopefully under Brendan we will build the team around him. Hes been exceptional for us but he will be even better in a team that plays to his strengths. The Suarez of Uruguay (where he has Cavani and Forlan to link up with) is what we will see with better players around him so he can link up more, as last season he had to go it alone on a number of occasions with the likes of big andy 30 yards behind play.

Mobile players with excellent technique, such as Borini and Sterling, will be a huge improvement on what he had alongside him last season.

You just post the same post over and over again

If we build a team around one player and make him the focal point what happens when you lose that player to injury or he is sold - we did that with Torres

you build a team around systems you want to play and around all the players at the club to enusre you dont become a one man team

[stmichael]

suarez interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuQ_eG9z ... r_embedded

[metalhead]

love the part were he had a dig on the Mancs.

[eds]

Ripped off Soccernet.......

Suarez blames ban on Man Utd 'power'July 18, 2012
Email PrintBy ESPN staff
Liverpool striker Luis Suarez claims Manchester United's "political power" resulted in his ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra last season.

GettyImages
Luis Suarez earlier claimed his "conscience is clear" over his eight-match ban
Suarez was suspended for eight games and fined £40,000 over the October 2011 incident. The Uruguay international says the period of his trial was traumatic for he and his family, but also believes Manchester United conspired against their fierce rivals Liverpool.

"It was so hard what happened to me," Suarez told Uruguayan TV station RR Gol. "I don't show my emotions in the field, you know, but outside I do it. I cried a lot with all the Evra stuff.

"The trial week was so complicated for me. My wife and I cried a lot during that week. That's when I realised who were the people who really support me and who were the people who were with me because of their personal interest.

"People at the club are sure that it was a way that Man United used to put me out of the team and stop Liverpool. But in England, Man United has this political power, and you have to respect that and shut your mouth.

"I had to go to Manchester in a taxi for the trial. I got up at seven in the morning and I came home at nine at night. I was exhausted, I was so tired. I wanted to cry, and kick all the things around me.

"I came home and I wanted to do all that, but I couldn't because my daughter was at home. There were really complicated days, and then things became harder after the punishment."

Suarez returned to Old Trafford following his ban, and promised the club he would shake Evra's hand before the match. Liverpool issued a statement saying their striker had "let the club down" after vision of him pulling his hand away from Evra's surfaced, but the striker insists the incident is part of an ongoing conspiracy against him.

"Before the match against Man United, I promised my wife, the manager and the directors that I was going to shake my hand with Evra," said Suarez.

"Why not, I thought, because I had no problems with him. I had been punished because of him, but I had no problems with shaking hands. But I was not forced to greet him. In fact, there was the possibility that neither Man United nor Liverpool's players would shake hands, as it had happened with Queens Park Rangers and Chelsea.

"But I thought why not, if my punishment was over. I had no problems with Evra. It was only a handshake and I was OK with that.

"But it was a misunderstanding, what happened between me and Evra at Old Trafford. In fact, I think it was all arranged against me again, as it had happened with the punishment.

"The media in England showed the moment when I passed in front of him, but they didn't see that he had his hand low before. Only the media in Uruguay but also in Spain showed that I wanted to shake his hand."

[eds]

It truly amazes me that we as a club have not gone after the "choc ice" comments made by Rio Ferdinand.

To come out and have the audicity to say it is "slang" and not racist takes the f**kin cake, is that not what this whole Suarez storm in a tea-cup was all about!!!!!

Just goes to show you how powerful these Manure f**kers are when we don't hear a f**king peep from the so called "free and un-bias" English media about it.

It is clear as day that the s**t stirring little monkey Evra made the whole thing up and the whole thing was a political stunt against Suarez and our club.

If Terry escapes FA sanctioning for his "black c**t" comment after he admitted saying it the club should pull out of the premiership and call this for what it is a politics driven "farce"............ 

[Benny The Noon]

It's time to let it go now and move on.