Happy Face

I'm sure the title winning international legend who worked under Dalglish, Keegan and Robson has a lot to learn about the game from Joe.

Blacks take offence to the N word, so using it is inappropriate and using racially aggrovated language, completely different from saying "Am away doon to the chinkies" or "ye seen these greasy diving eyetie cunts". At the risk of repeating myself, you still seem confused by the difference between calling someone based on their physical attributes and on their nationality. If you think it's fine to say "going down the chinkies" when you're going for an Chinese meal, you should have no qualms with also saying "going down the niggers" when you go for fried chicken. Eyetie, Kraut, Frog, Rosbif etc. I don't find any of them particularly offensive, they refer to a someones nationality, there's no suprise that "derogatory" terms for white people always follow this trend. Chink, Nigger, Paki, camel jockey, rag head etc. are more offensive, because it doesn't matter where you come from, it's not a national stereotype being mocked, but a PERSONAL one. Whether you're Japanese, Taiwanese or Korean you'll get called Chink. Whether you're Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Indian you'll get called a Paki. I'm fully aware this won't change your mind, but do you agree that just because it doesn't offend you it can still offend others? I'll defend to the hilt your right to offend people by the way. If I couldn't offend the filthy nazi racist bnp cunts I don't know what I'd do.

Is the example we set not something to be proud of?

Source? They're still not listening like....

They keep saying no-one saw it coming.

As are you. Ta

You just don't get it do you? Have people from Newcastle ever owned Mackems as slaves? Have they murdered them by the thousand? Have they stolen their land? Have they prevented them from working or travelling? Have they stopped them from marrying who they want? Equating foorball rivalry with racism is absolutely ridiculous to an incredible degree. tongue in cheek reply to people who have incredibly hissy fits over being called nasty names They don't though Leazes. There's racist language used all over the board that everyone lets go without comment, for example... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=525952 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...ost&p=41808 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...1&hl=chinky Only gets a response when someone bangs on that it's not racist, which it clearly is. no, what NJS says has merit, its all disgraceful and wrong. But I was responding to the notion of calling someone a few names which is vastly different to genuine racist actions. I realise the post "stopped short" because I was going to say that I worked with a black lad when I was about 20 and he was a great lad, everybody liked him because he used to call us white honkies etc but it was all friendly stuff. Nothing malicious on either side but nowadays there would be some interfering arsehole complaining about it and people getting into bother. Plenty of people have called me something like Geordie bastard when I worked down south for starters but I just responded by calling them southern twats. No big deal. What's that? Everybody liked the only black lad you once worked with in the 70s because he endured the racism without complaint. You're the model of tolerance mate.

Water Memory!

You just don't get it do you? Have people from Newcastle ever owned Mackems as slaves? Have they murdered them by the thousand? Have they stolen their land? Have they prevented them from working or travelling? Have they stopped them from marrying who they want? Equating foorball rivalry with racism is absolutely ridiculous to an incredible degree. tongue in cheek reply to people who have incredibly hissy fits over being called nasty names They don't though Leazes. There's racist language used all over the board that everyone lets go without comment, for example... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=525952 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...ost&p=41808 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...1&hl=chinky Only gets a response when someone bangs on that it's not racist, which it clearly is.

Except they haven't. You can say what the fuck you like about anyone you want. Go and see Chubby Brown, Jim Davidson or the other fat racists. They do it every night. You seem to have a bigger problem with others choosing not to use that kind of language than anyone has with you choosing to.

One more thing, have you never shit in your own pants before? Do you still? Or did you grow out of your childish stupidity?

The claims of environmentally friendly taxes do ring hollow when the government only seem to be pushing from the bottom up rather than the top down. The average Joe driving 10,000 miles a year and getting one return flight for their holiday hardly make a dint, but gets all of the flak. Just ban the industry from producing combustion engines or running cattle farms

I might have done years ago. I don't think I have since I learned it's etymology.

So Iti, Kraut, Frog, Porkchop, Argie - they're all racist too. "Paki" is racist because people take offence at the use of that word. Some are more offensive than others. But none moreso than chinky if you ask me, which is a derogatory term related to a races physical appearance (chink eyes).

I remember having this argument 2 years ago and even setting my signature to "Chink is not short for Chinese." Sure it was Leazes or Stevie at the time too. Of course it's racist man.

I mean "9 maverick bars"

6 a Maverick a bars

Zimmerman - Isis

Whoever leaked it could have added whoever they want.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/kidney.asp

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom. True of a lot of people. Don't worry Fop, some day you'll chance upon a drunken young lady passed out down an alleyway and you can finally get rid of that pesky '50 year old virgin' tag. Am I 50 or 18? Or just immortal? The problem was they allowed it for more than 10 years before that. I couldn't agree more. Lots of mistakes were made although part of living in a democracy like ours is that the boundaries of acceptable freedom of speech are tested all the time. It's also one of the good things about the UK in a way though. What was being said was always well beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech, the only difference was that it was more politically convenient to just ignore it, until it started coming home to roost. I agree btw. I think most people would have found it totally unacceptable. It wasn't just a case of political convenience though, it was way off the radar before 9/11 too. It wasn't under the radar (under the public and media's radar, maybe), for example police investigated Finsbury Park mosque several times in the 90's they were always told to back off and leave it alone, even though there was more than enough evidence to convict a lot of people spewing their bile there. Much like integrated transport policy they knew they had a problem by didn't want to deal with it because they knew it would be a political shitstorm that they'd at best gain little out of in the end and at worse lose a lot. Have you any decent links to support this then, or is this just another general dig at politicians? I find it hard to believe the security forces, or politicians, would have sat on their hands if they considered it a serious threat. 9/11 cahnged everything. There have been several investigations into that (and attempted cover ups too) - although in fairness it was probably a risky one for the police as the dispatches episode showed, but considering you didn't know about a universal flu vaccine I can see how you wouldn't know about them either. The thing that 9/11 changed was they realised that monitoring it and doing nothing about it wasn't likely to just allow the status quo to go on.... and in fact that they had a raft of new anti-terror legislation to play with. 9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories. 9/11 didn't change the threat level from 'Al Queda' terrorists and fundamentalist nutters in general? I beg to differ. Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan precede the invasion of Iraq? What are you on about tbh? 9/11 was the result of the threat, not a trigger for it. 9/11 may have inspired some people in very small numbers. The greater converter of regular citizens into terrorists are things such as illegally invading Iraq (as Parky says), spending billions on non-iraqi contractors to fuck up the most basic reconstruction work in their country and leaving more people in poverty over there than ever before, while westerners live it up in the green zone. The threat wasn't known before 9/11 though was it? Not imo anyway. I'm not going to disagree with you re: Iraq, I've always been an outspoken critic, but we did invade Afghanistan first, did we not? I agreed with that invasion. Bin Laden was on America's 10 most wanted prior to 9/11. He was added in 1999. Ramzi Yousef first attacked the WTC in 1993.

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom. True of a lot of people. Don't worry Fop, some day you'll chance upon a drunken young lady passed out down an alleyway and you can finally get rid of that pesky '50 year old virgin' tag. Am I 50 or 18? Or just immortal? The problem was they allowed it for more than 10 years before that. I couldn't agree more. Lots of mistakes were made although part of living in a democracy like ours is that the boundaries of acceptable freedom of speech are tested all the time. It's also one of the good things about the UK in a way though. What was being said was always well beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech, the only difference was that it was more politically convenient to just ignore it, until it started coming home to roost. I agree btw. I think most people would have found it totally unacceptable. It wasn't just a case of political convenience though, it was way off the radar before 9/11 too. It wasn't under the radar (under the public and media's radar, maybe), for example police investigated Finsbury Park mosque several times in the 90's they were always told to back off and leave it alone, even though there was more than enough evidence to convict a lot of people spewing their bile there. Much like integrated transport policy they knew they had a problem by didn't want to deal with it because they knew it would be a political shitstorm that they'd at best gain little out of in the end and at worse lose a lot. Have you any decent links to support this then, or is this just another general dig at politicians? I find it hard to believe the security forces, or politicians, would have sat on their hands if they considered it a serious threat. 9/11 cahnged everything. There have been several investigations into that (and attempted cover ups too) - although in fairness it was probably a risky one for the police as the dispatches episode showed, but considering you didn't know about a universal flu vaccine I can see how you wouldn't know about them either. The thing that 9/11 changed was they realised that monitoring it and doing nothing about it wasn't likely to just allow the status quo to go on.... and in fact that they had a raft of new anti-terror legislation to play with. 9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories. 9/11 didn't change the threat level from 'Al Queda' terrorists and fundamentalist nutters in general? I beg to differ. Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan precede the invasion of Iraq? What are you on about tbh? 9/11 was the result of the threat, not a trigger for it. 9/11 may have inspired some people in very small numbers. The greater converter of regular citizens into terrorists are things such as illegally invading Iraq (as Parky says), spending billions on non-iraqi contractors to fuck up the most basic reconstruction work in their country and leaving more people in poverty over there than ever before, while westerners live it up in the green zone.