Liverpool FC Forum

by **GYBS** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:41 am

bigmick wrote:
GYBS wrote:Saint why doesnt this mate just post himself instead of through you ?

Have a guess GYBS.

aah a previously banned poster

by **LFC2007** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:02 pm

redbeergoggles wrote:I will for the sake of the continued debate oblige your requests , I deem you to be of a naive nature ,because although your posts are in context quite eloquent ,and well written ,you seem to be missing the one inextricable truth and that is threads like this one are penned for one sole reason ,and that is simply to declare which side of the proverbial political fence you preside on ,and your feelings however passionate and controversial they may be .

I feel passion is something your posts seem to be sadly lacking ,thus the inference to the Bleeding heart Liberal tag which in the course of this post I will endeavour to explain , I might be slightly incorrect in my assumptions as I haven't the sheer willpower it would undoubtedly take to rake through your earlier posts ,but I don't recollect you giving the slightest hint to were your allegiances lie ,and I hope this explains my opening statement, where I quite openly declared my beliefs .

Your first paragraph, again, is utterly, utterly bizarre. You deem me to be of 'naive nature' because in your assessment the aim of this thread is 'simply to declare which side of the political fence you preside on, and your feelings, however passionate and controversial they may be'. Thus, it is implied from the first sentence of the second paragraph that I am naive because I lack said passion. Now, clearly a lack of 'passion' cannot be equated with 'naivety', which is why your first paragraph is utterly, utterly bizarre.

Continuing into the second paragraph, you infer that said perceived lack of passion validates the use of the term 'bleeding heart liberal'. How, why, I have no idea. You end with another bizarre comment concerning 'allegiances', which refers back to your initial assertion that this thread has one purpose and one purpose only, that of declaring allegiances (how and why you have reached that conclusion, I have no idea, it's just bizarre). You think opinions merit respect, yet here you are making your determinations as to the purpose of this topic, and to those who don't conform, you brandish them 'naive, bleeding heart liberals'. Ironic.

I expect your waiting for me to explain my assumption that you are naive ,well the last part of your post infers nothing but ,that being the following

("You're a Christian. If a group of 16 men turned up at your place of worship campaigning for an end to your religion in Britain, I suspect you'd have something to say ") so lets say for the sake of argument the respective roles were reversed and it was Christians trying to openly promote Christianity in a predominantly Islamic country ,would the same amount of tolerance be afforded ?

Here you're stating that the cited comment validates the use of the term 'naive' in respect to me and my opinions (I though it was simply because I lacked 'passion'?). The purpose of the cited comment was to explain why in these types of social interactions can give rise to strong views being aired and perhaps even confrontation. If you'd kept the following information that preceded the cited quote, you would see this; 'If you think the general response - one of anger - from sections of the Muslim community and anti-fascist groups was without just cause, perhaps you ought to consider what it is that aroused such a backlash in the first place.'

That is to say, if a group whose aim is to 'combat the spread of Islam' arguing that Harrow mosque is a 'house of hate', comes into the vicinity of that mosque, it is not unreasonable to expect tempers to fray between the supporters of that mosque and its opposers. Indeed, if any group who possessed similar aims came into the vicinity of any place of worship they opposed, it would not be unreasonable to expect opinions to fly about, and perhaps tempers to fray - depending upon the circumstances. I introduced the (admittedly hypothetical) example of anti-Christian protestors in particular since it is the predominant religion in Britain and thus served as a resonant example of the capacity for these sorts of disturbances to occur - to clarify to anyone who may be of the opinion that the response to this particular (planned) demonstration was - in its entirety - 'out of order'.

To the question you ask in relation to that quote, that is, whether Christians intending to 'promote Christianity in an Islamic country' would be afforded the same degree of tolerance, I'm inclined to say no, but it would depend on which country you had in mind. That's besides the point, though, which is that different countries and groups of peoples abide by different principles, and so what you would expect to be tolerated in most Western countries, wouldn't be tolerated in some parts of the middle east - a region that contains Islamic states of different variations. That other nations shouldn't tolerate Christians to practice their faith within their borders is a manifestation of those differences. By itself, however, it doesn't form an argument for or against the practicing of a particular faith in Britain.

It seems your missing the importance of forums fella,they simply exist for opposing voices to come together and in your words rant ,about their beliefs or indeed eulogize over their team and their aspirations for the future ,not a less than competent regurgitation of the propaganda, the media regularly forces the more malleable to ingest in copious quantities ,quite simply forums are not about being clever they are about wearing your heart on your sleeve and saying what comes from the heart .

I think in summation I will include a definition of the phrase bleeding heart Liberal "A person who is considered excessively sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited." ,feel free to pick your way through my post fella ,Im sure you have the time ,I on the other hand do not ,so as to ensure I do not become embroiled in this futile debate ,I will desist in posting in this particular thread as I like my prey to have a pulse ...........

I don't know what to say :laugh:

Ps If you don't wish to be pigeon holed stop believing the Lies the ubiquitous masses are being readily fed on .

Another re-assertion.

Overall, it's a very limited response you managed, RBG. It's mainly rhetoric with lots of bizarre, unsubstantiated statements mixed in, which is quite frankly a p!ss poor platform to continue a debate.

by **redbeergoggles** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:53 pm

I find your ramblings totally unintelligible almost like you have collated a series of press cutting and used them in a lame pretext for a response

How utterly utterly bizarre

Like I stated earlier when your ready to add a little honesty to your posts then maybe I will take you seriously until then just keep GOOGLING

by **LFC2007** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:09 pm

redbeergoggles wrote:..then maybe I will take you seriously...

Stop it

by **redbeergoggles** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:17 pm

I think we should it seems implausible you could use the word bizarre again let alone the word utterly

by **LFC2007** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:24 pm

If you can't hack a proper debate there's always that you can pick up on :laugh:

by **redbeergoggles** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:42 pm

Or maybe I could diffuse and dissect your posts, strip them bare maybe ,you never know you might even possess a personality in-between the quoting of the lies the media constantly feeds you ,until then carry on sitting on the fence fella ,its much safer .

by **LFC2007** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:54 pm

You're better off sticking to posting up oddball sh!te about the 'young wizard Ryan' and the like.

'Once upon a time in a little place called Holland, their [sic] existed a tiny Island called Ajax...'
:laugh:

by **redbeergoggles** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:14 pm

I will let you get back to your dredging feel free ,Ive been around since 04 if you want to go that far back ,no doubt you will because you seem sad enough ,I will refrain from casting up your earlier efforts as you can only stifle a yawn for so long

by **GYBS** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:15 pm

by **Emerald Red** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:02 pm

So, what's this thread all about again?

by **LFC2007** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:54 pm

Emerald Red wrote:So, what's this thread all about again?

Well, originally it was about a group called 'Stop the Islamisation of Europe' who planned (but failed to execute) a demonstration outside Harrow Central Mosque last Friday. Since then, unfounded accusations (as confirmed by SIOE and the Mosque) have been made claiming that the Mosque in question chose 9/11 as the date for its opening. It then deviated considerably to take on the broader issues at stake - everything from social cohesion, to the UK constitution. In these debates, some chose to back up their arguments in a logically sound manner, whereas others went on long, emotional rants, but (in some instances) against what exactly is as yet quite unclear. A classic example would be the poster who - without any substantiation whatsoever - claimed I had been 'quoting the lies' the media had 'fed' me. Since I took up him on these claims, his contributions have remained limited to one or two-liners, and that's that where the topic is at the moment.

by **redbeergoggles** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:31 pm

whereas your responses have been equally enthralling ,perhaps if you showed a little emotion and dropped your mask ,instead of reverting to type by dragging up past threads .
If I wanted to listen to your perspective on relevant issues I would simply pick up a paper after all it seems that's where you accumulate most of the sh*te you spout ,what gives you the slightest inkling I would want to enter into serious political debate with a drone like you ,when I can have much more fun getting under your skin

by **Number 9** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:00 pm

GYBS wrote:

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:29 pm

redbeergoggles wrote:whereas your responses have been equally enthralling ,perhaps if you showed a little emotion and dropped your mask ,instead of reverting to type by dragging up past threads .
If I wanted to listen to your perspective on relevant issues I would simply pick up a paper after all it seems that's where you accumulate most of the sh*te you spout ,what gives you the slightest inkling I would want to enter into serious political debate with a drone like you ,when I can have much more fun getting under your skin

Not going to interfere here so long as all stays civil etc. but I'm curious what 'showing emotion' has to do with the issue? It would seem that honest, rational, sensible discussion of such a complex and multifaceted issue would benefit most from setting some of the emotional stuff to one side. IMHO, discussions such as these are fundamentally derailed rather than advanced when hearts are worn on proverbial sleeves.

Liverpool FC Forum

Its all kicking off in my hood!

Who is online