Shocking

[Gemmill 35459]

gemmill, you mong, leazes is clearly just a thick, racist pighead. none of the old business

[TheMoog 0]

To be honest I think half the time Leazes is pretty much spot on of his outlook on this country, it doesn't surprise me though that his views aren't accepted on a media which is historically left-wing or dominated by people who've lead somewhat sheltered lives from the real world such as students.

 

On a serious note I wonder how many people would choose to live in a traditionally non-British community, seeing how well they are accepted there... just a thought like.

[Gemmill 35459]

Gang of blokes in the corner pissing themselves, giving it the fake fishing rod reeling-you-in bit. Leazes sat across the pub barking "namby pamby cunts" etc.

[adios 717]

On a serious note I wonder how many people would choose to live in a traditionally non-British community, seeing how well they are accepted there... just a thought like.

AP in 'their lot just as thick as our lot' shocker

[Gemmill 35459]

Gang of blokes in the corner pissing themselves, giving it the fake fishing rod reeling-you-in bit. Leazes sat across the pub barking "namby pamby cunts" etc.

Armchair Pundit trying to catch Leazes eye from across the bar to give him a nod of solidarity.

[adios 717]

I like where this is going

[Gemmill 35459]

Thread just got gay.

[Meenzer 14136]

On a serious note I wonder how many people would choose to live in a traditionally non-British community, seeing how well they are accepted there... just a thought like.

 

[adios 717]

 

tbf to AP, there's truth that these things tend to be too 1 sided. Leazes and NJS tend to be about the same emotion over substance from opposite sides, and there's a couple decent heads on the left, but there's no one to argue the points decently for the right (that I'm aware of)

[LeazesMag 0]

 

tbf to AP, there's truth that these things tend to be too 1 sided. Leazes and NJS tend to be about the same emotion over substance from opposite sides, and there's a couple decent heads on the left, but there's no one to argue the points decently for the right (that I'm aware of)

 

Emotions ? Arguing ?

 

I'm not arguing with anybody. I'm right, it's as simple as that.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

On a serious note I wonder how many people would choose to live in a traditionally non-British community, seeing how well they are accepted there... just a thought like.

 

 

no response to him then

[TicTacWoe 0]

what I find shocking is that Leazes didn't start a thread about the pig incident. Which I think most people including the "namby-pambys" as he puts it and most muslims/jews would agree is ridiculous.

[adios 717]

it's all right leazes, I'm not questioning your manliness, anger and hate are emotions too

 

what you and AP got up to in that bathroom stall is just male bonding, faggots be damned

[Meenzer 14136]

On a serious note I wonder how many people would choose to live in a traditionally non-British community, seeing how well they are accepted there... just a thought like.

 

 

no response to him then

 

Eh? I'm saying that's exactly what I did for years. Assuming I've understood what he's saying correctly, obviously.

[LeazesMag 0]

it's all right leazes, I'm not questioning your manliness, anger and hate are emotions too

 

what you and AP got up to in that bathroom stall is just male bonding, faggots be damned

 

yawn

[The Fish 9215]

Leazes is hilarious.

 

his only arguing tool is, if you disagree with him, then you must agree with the most ridiculous abstract he can conjure.

 

Oh, so you're not offended by x, then by golly you MUST agree that all people should be forced to eat shit and lick vomit from the shoes of the parent they were just forced to rape to death.

 

Honestly Leazes, you tell everybody that "experience" is the best way to learn, well how's this for experience; Everytime, everytime, you relate some concocted fairytale that suits your right wing agenda, you're taken to task by "do-gooders" who (rather than this elusive "experience") have facts and resources providing weight to their opinion.

 

Yet everytime you're made to look like a doddering old fool you revert to saying "Well, regardless of whether I'm right or not about a subject of gravitas, you once made an error of judgement about football"

 

It's fucking boring.

 

right winger ? Not exclusively, only in certain things, which isn't necessarily wrong by the way.........

 

such generalisation only highlights your own limited perspective.

 

Anyway, I also find namby pamby's boring, but I suppose that's different ?

 

I won't bother going into football either, because only a short while ago certain other - we'll call them "opinions" which had no factual base, spouted by many people, were also very boring too. Aren't things "boring" when you don't agree, particularly when all the facts show that your own perspective is bollocks

 

Doddering old fool ? Maybe I think I'm trying to talk to some who are naive brainwashed numpties ?

 

Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point.

 

no, I don't. Why is it ridiculous ? Because it doesn't suit your view ?

 

 

It's not your opinion that is invalid, it's your argument.

 

If you came back at those who occupy the counter point to your belief with data and accounts or note, rather than "man in a pub" here-say, people would pay attention.

If you would consider other's view point instead concocting a new one for them, people wouldn't take the piss out of you.

 

When you do make the occassional (accidental) valid point, people listen, but when every discussion dissolves into strawman arguments and "Yeah but you liked Souness" people do not.

 

You accuse us of being "brainwashed" and "naive" when I'd argue that the opinions of people on here are far more informed than your average "man in a pub" experience.

 

Basically it's not your opinion that is boring, it's you.

[tooner 243]

Leazes is hilarious.

 

his only arguing tool is, if you disagree with him, then you must agree with the most ridiculous abstract he can conjure.

 

Oh, so you're not offended by x, then by golly you MUST agree that all people should be forced to eat shit and lick vomit from the shoes of the parent they were just forced to rape to death.

 

Honestly Leazes, you tell everybody that "experience" is the best way to learn, well how's this for experience; Everytime, everytime, you relate some concocted fairytale that suits your right wing agenda, you're taken to task by "do-gooders" who (rather than this elusive "experience") have facts and resources providing weight to their opinion.

 

Yet everytime you're made to look like a doddering old fool you revert to saying "Well, regardless of whether I'm right or not about a subject of gravitas, you once made an error of judgement about football"

 

It's fucking boring.

 

right winger ? Not exclusively, only in certain things, which isn't necessarily wrong by the way.........

 

such generalisation only highlights your own limited perspective.

 

Anyway, I also find namby pamby's boring, but I suppose that's different ?

 

I won't bother going into football either, because only a short while ago certain other - we'll call them "opinions" which had no factual base, spouted by many people, were also very boring too. Aren't things "boring" when you don't agree, particularly when all the facts show that your own perspective is bollocks

 

Doddering old fool ? Maybe I think I'm trying to talk to some who are naive brainwashed numpties ?

 

Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point.

 

no, I don't. Why is it ridiculous ? Because it doesn't suit your view ?

 

 

It's not your opinion that is invalid, it's your argument.

 

If you came back at those who occupy the counter point to your belief with data and accounts or note, rather than "man in a pub" here-say, people would pay attention.

If you would consider other's view point instead concocting a new one for them, people wouldn't take the piss out of you.

 

When you do make the occassional (accidental) valid point, people listen, but when every discussion dissolves into strawman arguments and "Yeah but you liked Souness" people do not.

 

You accuse us of being "brainwashed" and "naive" when I'd argue that the opinions of people on here are far more informed than your average "man in a pub" experience.

 

Basically it's not your opinion that is boring, it's you.

 

 

...ooooooh!!

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes is hilarious.

 

his only arguing tool is, if you disagree with him, then you must agree with the most ridiculous abstract he can conjure.

 

Oh, so you're not offended by x, then by golly you MUST agree that all people should be forced to eat shit and lick vomit from the shoes of the parent they were just forced to rape to death.

 

Honestly Leazes, you tell everybody that "experience" is the best way to learn, well how's this for experience; Everytime, everytime, you relate some concocted fairytale that suits your right wing agenda, you're taken to task by "do-gooders" who (rather than this elusive "experience") have facts and resources providing weight to their opinion.

 

Yet everytime you're made to look like a doddering old fool you revert to saying "Well, regardless of whether I'm right or not about a subject of gravitas, you once made an error of judgement about football"

 

It's fucking boring.

 

right winger ? Not exclusively, only in certain things, which isn't necessarily wrong by the way.........

 

such generalisation only highlights your own limited perspective.

 

Anyway, I also find namby pamby's boring, but I suppose that's different ?

 

I won't bother going into football either, because only a short while ago certain other - we'll call them "opinions" which had no factual base, spouted by many people, were also very boring too. Aren't things "boring" when you don't agree, particularly when all the facts show that your own perspective is bollocks

 

Doddering old fool ? Maybe I think I'm trying to talk to some who are naive brainwashed numpties ?

 

Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point.

 

no, I don't. Why is it ridiculous ? Because it doesn't suit your view ?

 

 

It's not your opinion that is invalid, it's your argument.

 

If you came back at those who occupy the counter point to your belief with data and accounts or note, rather than "man in a pub" here-say, people would pay attention.

If you would consider other's view point instead concocting a new one for them, people wouldn't take the piss out of you.

 

When you do make the occassional (accidental) valid point, people listen, but when every discussion dissolves into strawman arguments and "Yeah but you liked Souness" people do not.

 

You accuse us of being "brainwashed" and "naive" when I'd argue that the opinions of people on here are far more informed than your average "man in a pub" experience.

 

Basically it's not your opinion that is boring, it's you.

 

in your opinion

 

you read a book written by someone sitting in an armchair spouting theories, or

 

you can listen to the views of someone with first hand experience, in a pub or somewhere, face to face.

 

You choose the person sitting in an armchair in comfort spouting theories who lives in an idealistic little world. Like the politicians you take the piss out of, ironically.

 

Fuckwit.

 

And boring.

Edited November 17, 2010 by LeazesMag

[tooner 243]

Leazes is hilarious.

 

his only arguing tool is, if you disagree with him, then you must agree with the most ridiculous abstract he can conjure.

 

Oh, so you're not offended by x, then by golly you MUST agree that all people should be forced to eat shit and lick vomit from the shoes of the parent they were just forced to rape to death.

 

Honestly Leazes, you tell everybody that "experience" is the best way to learn, well how's this for experience; Everytime, everytime, you relate some concocted fairytale that suits your right wing agenda, you're taken to task by "do-gooders" who (rather than this elusive "experience") have facts and resources providing weight to their opinion.

 

Yet everytime you're made to look like a doddering old fool you revert to saying "Well, regardless of whether I'm right or not about a subject of gravitas, you once made an error of judgement about football"

 

It's fucking boring.

 

right winger ? Not exclusively, only in certain things, which isn't necessarily wrong by the way.........

 

such generalisation only highlights your own limited perspective.

 

Anyway, I also find namby pamby's boring, but I suppose that's different ?

 

I won't bother going into football either, because only a short while ago certain other - we'll call them "opinions" which had no factual base, spouted by many people, were also very boring too. Aren't things "boring" when you don't agree, particularly when all the facts show that your own perspective is bollocks

 

Doddering old fool ? Maybe I think I'm trying to talk to some who are naive brainwashed numpties ?

 

Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point.

 

no, I don't. Why is it ridiculous ? Because it doesn't suit your view ?

 

 

It's not your opinion that is invalid, it's your argument.

 

If you came back at those who occupy the counter point to your belief with data and accounts or note, rather than "man in a pub" here-say, people would pay attention.

If you would consider other's view point instead concocting a new one for them, people wouldn't take the piss out of you.

 

When you do make the occassional (accidental) valid point, people listen, but when every discussion dissolves into strawman arguments and "Yeah but you liked Souness" people do not.

 

You accuse us of being "brainwashed" and "naive" when I'd argue that the opinions of people on here are far more informed than your average "man in a pub" experience.

 

Basically it's not your opinion that is boring, it's you.

 

in your opinion

 

you read a book written by someone sitting in an armchair spouting theories, or

 

you can listen to the views of someone with first hand experience, in a pub or somewhere, face to face.

 

You choose the person sitting in an armchair in comfort spouting theories who lives in an idealistic little world. Like the politicians you take the piss out of, ironically.

 

Fuckwit.

 

And boring.

 

 

are all books written by people with no first hand experience?

has that been your experience?

what does the bibliography of the guy next to you at the pub look like?

does he provide references of the first hand experience he tells you he's had?

 

just wondering

[Guest]

:( :lol:

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes is hilarious.

 

his only arguing tool is, if you disagree with him, then you must agree with the most ridiculous abstract he can conjure.

 

Oh, so you're not offended by x, then by golly you MUST agree that all people should be forced to eat shit and lick vomit from the shoes of the parent they were just forced to rape to death.

 

Honestly Leazes, you tell everybody that "experience" is the best way to learn, well how's this for experience; Everytime, everytime, you relate some concocted fairytale that suits your right wing agenda, you're taken to task by "do-gooders" who (rather than this elusive "experience") have facts and resources providing weight to their opinion.

 

Yet everytime you're made to look like a doddering old fool you revert to saying "Well, regardless of whether I'm right or not about a subject of gravitas, you once made an error of judgement about football"

 

It's fucking boring.

 

right winger ? Not exclusively, only in certain things, which isn't necessarily wrong by the way.........

 

such generalisation only highlights your own limited perspective.

 

Anyway, I also find namby pamby's boring, but I suppose that's different ?

 

I won't bother going into football either, because only a short while ago certain other - we'll call them "opinions" which had no factual base, spouted by many people, were also very boring too. Aren't things "boring" when you don't agree, particularly when all the facts show that your own perspective is bollocks

 

Doddering old fool ? Maybe I think I'm trying to talk to some who are naive brainwashed numpties ?

 

Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point.

 

no, I don't. Why is it ridiculous ? Because it doesn't suit your view ?

 

 

It's not your opinion that is invalid, it's your argument.

 

If you came back at those who occupy the counter point to your belief with data and accounts or note, rather than "man in a pub" here-say, people would pay attention.

If you would consider other's view point instead concocting a new one for them, people wouldn't take the piss out of you.

 

When you do make the occassional (accidental) valid point, people listen, but when every discussion dissolves into strawman arguments and "Yeah but you liked Souness" people do not.

 

You accuse us of being "brainwashed" and "naive" when I'd argue that the opinions of people on here are far more informed than your average "man in a pub" experience.

 

Basically it's not your opinion that is boring, it's you.

 

in your opinion

 

you read a book written by someone sitting in an armchair spouting theories, or

 

you can listen to the views of someone with first hand experience, in a pub or somewhere, face to face.

 

You choose the person sitting in an armchair in comfort spouting theories who lives in an idealistic little world. Like the politicians you take the piss out of, ironically.

 

Fuckwit.

 

And boring.

 

 

are all books written by people with no first hand experience?

has that been your experience?

what does the bibliography of the guy next to you at the pub look like?

does he provide references of the first hand experience he tells you he's had?

 

just wondering

 

don't you tell us in the UK about politics when you live in Canada ?

 

Fuck off.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

:( :lol:

 

still following me around like a lovestruck puppy

[The Fish 9215]

in your opinion

 

you read a book written by someone sitting in an armchair spouting theories, or

 

you can listen to the views of someone with first hand experience, in a pub or somewhere, face to face.

 

You choose the person sitting in an armchair in comfort spouting theories who lives in an idealistic little world. Like the politicians you take the piss out of, ironically.

 

Fuckwit.

 

And boring.

 

Why does some White Van Man in a pub have more insight than a professor in, say, Sociology? Because the WVM heard about this guy who said his brother once was forced to pray to Allah or else lose his job? I'd argue that at least the Professor sitting in his chair has read into the subject and has tried to look at both sides of the stroy, instead of the WVM who has heard a story and has taken it on faith.

 

Oh and is it not possible that the books I've read are written by men and women who have actually lived in the arenas we're talking about, so neither your espoused man in a pub, nor the wooly liberal ideological comfy armchair sitting do-gooder?

 

Yet again Leazes, the point I'm making is that, you may have profound thoughts on the matters, but they're lost as you ignore anything that doesn't conform to your construction of the world you live in.

 

Oh and seriously, when has anybody on here said anything like that which you've accused them of in this thread? (Other than Gemmil being a Graeme Souness bummer)

[Guest]

:( :lol:

 

still following me around like a lovestruck puppy

 

:pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :lol: :lol:

[tooner 243]

Leazes is hilarious.

 

his only arguing tool is, if you disagree with him, then you must agree with the most ridiculous abstract he can conjure.

 

Oh, so you're not offended by x, then by golly you MUST agree that all people should be forced to eat shit and lick vomit from the shoes of the parent they were just forced to rape to death.

 

Honestly Leazes, you tell everybody that "experience" is the best way to learn, well how's this for experience; Everytime, everytime, you relate some concocted fairytale that suits your right wing agenda, you're taken to task by "do-gooders" who (rather than this elusive "experience") have facts and resources providing weight to their opinion.

 

Yet everytime you're made to look like a doddering old fool you revert to saying "Well, regardless of whether I'm right or not about a subject of gravitas, you once made an error of judgement about football"

 

It's fucking boring.

 

right winger ? Not exclusively, only in certain things, which isn't necessarily wrong by the way.........

 

such generalisation only highlights your own limited perspective.

 

Anyway, I also find namby pamby's boring, but I suppose that's different ?

 

I won't bother going into football either, because only a short while ago certain other - we'll call them "opinions" which had no factual base, spouted by many people, were also very boring too. Aren't things "boring" when you don't agree, particularly when all the facts show that your own perspective is bollocks

 

Doddering old fool ? Maybe I think I'm trying to talk to some who are naive brainwashed numpties ?

 

Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point.

 

no, I don't. Why is it ridiculous ? Because it doesn't suit your view ?

 

 

It's not your opinion that is invalid, it's your argument.

 

If you came back at those who occupy the counter point to your belief with data and accounts or note, rather than "man in a pub" here-say, people would pay attention.

If you would consider other's view point instead concocting a new one for them, people wouldn't take the piss out of you.

 

When you do make the occassional (accidental) valid point, people listen, but when every discussion dissolves into strawman arguments and "Yeah but you liked Souness" people do not.

 

You accuse us of being "brainwashed" and "naive" when I'd argue that the opinions of people on here are far more informed than your average "man in a pub" experience.

 

Basically it's not your opinion that is boring, it's you.

 

in your opinion

 

you read a book written by someone sitting in an armchair spouting theories, or

 

you can listen to the views of someone with first hand experience, in a pub or somewhere, face to face.

 

You choose the person sitting in an armchair in comfort spouting theories who lives in an idealistic little world. Like the politicians you take the piss out of, ironically.

 

Fuckwit.

 

And boring.

 

 

are all books written by people with no first hand experience?

has that been your experience?

what does the bibliography of the guy next to you at the pub look like?

does he provide references of the first hand experience he tells you he's had?

 

just wondering

 

don't you tell us in the UK about politics when you live in Canada ?

 

Fuck off.

 

 

 

no, yet another false assertion of yours.