the_walls
-
Posts
37 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by the_walls
-
-
18 hours ago, BlueGaz said:
You think that all the Scots who bought tickets and openly supported ROI in the qualifier at Hampden would be fully in favour of a Team GB? I don't.
I just asked a question buddy.
-
1 minute ago, glasgow jock said:
IMHO the hard core sectarian element are a small minority (well it certainly used to be) - does Ireland have an element of the population with a self loathing cringe ?
Not that I am aware of anyway.
I just find it utterly bizarre that Scottish football fans would cheer against the Scottish football team, no matter how bad the perceived bias is against their club. Mental!
I'd imagine those type of lads would be fully in favour of a Team GB?
-
On 22 November 2016 at 3:11 PM, glasgow jock said:
I know this is a minority of Rangers fans, but find some of the comments sad, Scottish cringe in full flow
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?/topic/301597-good-luck-england/
Wow
Would that be indicative of a large chunk of Rangers' support or would it just be a small minority?
-
On 19 November 2016 at 2:58 PM, islayscot said:
This chimes with me
I've two boys aged 5 & 6. Both play football, as well as other sports. They have an Irish mum and the euros was good in terms of having a team to cheer. I fear my dream of getting them into watching Scotland won't happen as the sport in this country goes from bad to worse.
Another potential Aiden McGeady and James McCarthy so
-
Just watching our under 16s against your under 16s. Our lads are playing in white and yours are playing in blue (I still dont see how green and blue would clash). Now if you can play in blue while we are playing in white, we can't you play in blue while England are playing in white?
Just as an aside, your home strip doesn't look like a typical Scotland kit, far too much white in it.
Oh we're 3-0 up by the way
-
45 minutes ago, Green_Tide_Rising said:
Quite Ironic really ...especially considering the 1916 Proclamation by the rebellions leaders declaring us a Republic and how it ultimately lead us to becoming the "Republic of Ireland"...the same name FIFA have no bother allowing as a member of their organisation.
Its up to the individual if they want to wear it imo, not FIFA
FIFA fining us now just make us them look even more what we all already think of them....corrupt and hypocritical
Well your opinion is objectively wrong. It is up to FIFA. It is their club hence it is their rules and their rules state it is not up the individual player if they want to wear it or not. As per FIFA rules they are simply not allowed, whether one likes the rule or not.
I think if we get fined after being cleared by UEFA it is a bit of a joke (and even if UEFA made an error according to FIFA, that's not the FAI's fault). However if we received no such clearance then we would have to accept that it is correct that we receive some sort of fine or public rebuke. Even if we were grassed out.
-
1 hour ago, michaelconroy said:
This has set a worrying precedent for the game throughout the world. Celtic done it when they defied UEFA by waving Palestinian flags and now FA & SFA are going to further deepen the problem. Now, there would be nothing stopping other FAs around the world stating their political stances at international fixtures from now on. A hefty fine would be the "norm" for this type of rule breach but I can see this resulting in a points deduction. Rules are there for a reason. To stop these things from happening. Otherwise, what would be the point in any rules at all? Why not just play the game without a ref too while we're at it? Few folk saying it doesn't matter what they do, whether they wear a poppy or not... well it does matter. We are told not to, therefore we shouldn't. I mean, this could end up seriously scuppering our massive chance to beat England and prolong our chance of qualification. Keep politics and football separate.
I agree with most of this but I have to laugh at the old chestnut that is the bit in bold. The whole notion of INTERNATIONAL football is political! The very fact that the United Kingdom has 4 teams rather than 1, particularly when other regions such as Catalonia aren't entitled to have their own team, is political.
I don't recall the SFA wanting your team to wear the poppy when we played ye in Celtic Park about this time of year two years ago. Is it simply because ye are playing England? I don't even recall seeing a single Scotland fan wearing one!
Hopefully the Welsh follow your lead in defying FIFA and get a nice big points deduction.
-
4 minutes ago, Parklife said:
Wait until Wales beat you 5-0, Rob Earnshaw scoring a hat-trick and cartwheeling about the pitch in celebration. Then you'll fecking hate Wales too!
Fair enough
-
3 minutes ago, Parklife said:
Are you mixing up a country and a football team? I have no hatred for any of the parts of the U.K., i do hate football teams though. I hate Wales as they've beaten us every time we've played them in the past 15 years.
Fair enough. I don't think I hate any team for simply beating Ireland though. What are they meant to do, let you win?
And in fairness, while it might be hard to take watching other teams from the same part of the world in the Euros when you're not there, before this tournament Wales had not qualified for anything since the 50s and even then that was the only time they had qualified for anything. They have had a lot more heartbreak then yourselves up until this summer. Fair enough not caring if they do well or not but actively begrudging them doing well? I don't get it but sure each to their own I suppose.
-
On 20 March 2016 at 0:01 PM, kumnio said:
Really hate all of the so called home nations, hope they all get humped. Hope Iceland, Sweden and Hungary do well, three great countries.
Hate? Really? And all of them? I cannot fathom why someone from Scotland would hate Wales. What have the Welsh ever done to the Scots?
-
6 minutes ago, deecie said:
But on the positive side, you've excellent self awareness.
Good man yourself
-
4 minutes ago, deecie said:
It can be both.
Hope this isn't too hard for you to understand.
Yes I am clearly thick and lack basic comprehension
It 100% cannot be both. The passport is a United Kingdom passport. The United Kingdom's official title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is mentioned as it is not a part of Great Britain, it goes no further than that, it is simply a statement of geographic fact. Just like there is no such thing as a Great Britain passport, there is no such thing as a Northern Ireland passport. There is simply a United Kingdom passport.
-
9 hours ago, deecie said:
Yes, it does say Northern Ireland.
Would you get out of that. Are you actually being serious? You choose to ignore the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and" bit and just acknowledge the "Northern Ireland" part and that makes it a Northern Ireland passport
By that logic every British citizen holds a Northern Ireland passport rather than a United Kingdom passport. Surely you can't actually believe this
-
On 12 February 2016 at 0:53 PM, deecie said:
The front cover of my passport disagrees.
Really? Does it not say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
-
On 09 February 2016 at 9:24 PM, deecie said:
Apologies! Never realised you were a NI Fan.
I opportunistically applied as I have a NI passport (and to a lesser extent love Josh Megennis).
I applied for the Ukraine & Germany games in Cat B/C/D and didn't get any. Unsurprisingly i'm not too downhearted about the whole situation.
How can you have a NI passport? There is no such thing as a NI passport.
-
are all the Irish forums no working ,your teams on the brink of qualifying and you come on this site to gloat ,who's the ######ing pathetic one
No the YBIG forum is working fine. Who is gloating? I see a thread talking about wanting us to get "pumped" etc and point out how pathetic that is. Some of your fellow Scots have actually done likewise. As I say, it makes you look totally small time. Have I hit a nerve?
-
Personal insults now. Top man. If you don't want to visit forums for other teams, good for you. I like reading other views from other sets of fans. Is that really a big deal? If I find a point of view particularly sad or pathetic, particularly when it relates to Ireland, I might make my feelings known. Now you or anyone else are free to ignore it or, like you have, throw out an insult. Fine, no problem. The implication though seems to be that I am the pathetic one for visiting your forum simply on the basis that Ireland still might qualify and I cannot fathom how one can come to that conclusion? I'm simply sitting around on a Sunday afternoon, still somewhat delicate from Bosnia and browsing the internet. Now if I had gone straight from Sarajevo to Glasgow and sat in a bar full of Scottish fans you might have a point. I don't think typing in a website address and having a read of what is written comes even remotely close to that. Also (and perhaps your computer doesn't have this capability) you can be on more than website at once. Rest assured though, I won't be on here tomorrow night, Ill be roaring on our lads to (hopefully) qualification to France.
If we fail, well congratulations in advance to you and all the other bitter Scots. Once again, top man
-
Hope dzeko puts 3 past ye
Who knows, maybe he will, still doesn't make you look any less pathetic.
-
Wow, what an utterly pathetic thread. Fair play to the lads who have pointed that out but the rest of ye are making Scotland look totally small time. No wonder ye voted no.
Great trip to Bosnia with a good result. Immensely looking forward to tomorrow night and hopefully sealing our place in France. An injury time aggregate winner off James McCarthy's arse after a long hit and hope would do nicely, the melt down here would be ridiculous.
COME ON IRELAND!!
-
The bitterness from some of ye is hilarious
-
We have a full blown international border through our country. Partitionist talk like that from an Irish man is much more annoying that the ignorance of some English boy.
Well said
-
There is 3 big games left in terms of our chances of qualifying IMO.
1. We win in Georgia
2. Germany beat Poland
3. We beat Poland at Hampden
Those 3 results go our way and we qualify automatically unless Ireland beat both Germany and Poland in the last 2 games - which is a big ask. A point against Germany at Hampden in addition to those 3 results and it doesn't matter what Ireland do in the last two games.
You can rest easy, no chance of that happening
-
You can dress it up in anyway you want but it is odds on you will need to get some sort of a result at home to the world champions (very unlikely for reasons I have mentioned elsewhere) and/or way to Poland. The very minimum amount of points I see us picking up is 4 points (and that is me being as pessimistic as is possible) that means we will finish with bare minimum of 15 points and so if I remain in Irish pessimism mode then most points you will pick up is six (against Gibraltar and Georgia) and would mean you also finish on fifteen but finish below us on head-to-head.
As for Martin O'Neill's 'style of football'....err strike that as there is no style in it then I presume you love football played in the air. Niall Quinn on Sky conceded Scotland play the better football and the RTE panel were damning about Ireland's lack of creativity and their lack of any craft in midfield. That is seasoned Irishmen speaking not Scotland supporters.
Im not trying to dress anything up. Im making the point that a draw for you boys in Georgia puts big pressure on you to beat Poland in order to keep things in your own hands. Do you disagree with that? I dont see how you can. By the by I have no doubt you will win in Georgia. I obviously hope Im wrong.
I would agree Scotland play better football and I do become exasperrated at our "tactics". However the point that was made was the following "I know we are not in any way world beaters,but no one wants to see MoNs anti football at a major tournament.".
It is crude football but I think it is ridiculous to call it "anti football". It is also not the case that Scotland play unbelievable attacking football that people drool over in comparison to Ireland. It was a pointless throw away comment that, in my view, offers nothing to the thread in question "Would you take a draw in Georgia right now?"
-
I know we are not in any way world beaters,but no one wants to see MoNs anti football at a major tournament.
I do!
I forgot Scotland were the international equivalent of Barcelona.
Thoughts and Questions About God
in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere
Posted
That is a "god of the gaps" argument right there. Just because you or I understand it doesn't mean it must have been god who did. People living in hunter gatherer societies would have had no idea where thunder and lightning came from. It would have been indistinguishable from magic and put down to the will of a deity.
Even if one were to agree with your statement, it still cannot in anyway back up any of the dogma of Christian belief. If we accept that only a eternal omnipotent entity could have created the universe, can you point out to me how that leads to belief in a deity that cares about what we eat, who we sleep with, how we sleep them and whether we worship him or not when no proof exists for any of this save a collection of books written by fallible men in Bronze Age Palestine who knew nothing of modern scientific learning?
Eh no it doesn't, the very opposite in fact. Scientists would agree that once we answer one question we are faced with a multitude more questions that we have no answer to and that what we do know is massively outweighed by what we do not know. Scientists are also fully prepared to change their mind on any issue once conclusive evidence is presented. In light of all that I am really baffled why feel science pretends to have all the answers? A lot of people who don't believe in any deity (myself included) would not that 100% god does not exist as it is impossible, but merely on the evidence that is available, it overwhelmingly points to the likelihood that god does not exist. Remember the burden of proof is on those claiming that there is a supernatural being in the sky who has created and judges us all of us and not one scintilla of proof has ever been provided in support if this.
A few of my own thoughts as regards Christianity.
1) Hell
Human beings have been given free will and only those that willfully separate themselves from god are destined for eternal damnation. So on the day I die I will be condemned to a eternity of torment despite the fact that I may have cared for the sick ill and marginalsed my whole and generally led nothing but a pure and wholesome. I could even never once have broken any of god's commandments. Yet the person who has raped, murdered and generally led an utterly evil life but has "seen the error" of his ways and has accepted Jesus Christ into his heart is going to be rewarded with a lifetime in paradise. This to me seems completely at odds with any concept of justice. Even if one were to accept that I deserve to be damned, surely an ETERNITY of torment is ridiculously excessive. And what exactly is the heinous crime I have committed? I have not worshipped and "feared" god. Now remember this is the same god who has endowed me with my intellect and reason and knew how I would employ them before I was even born. I am to be punished because I employed these gifts that he gave me and came to the conclusion that he did not exist based on the total lack of evidence. That is not malicious, that was simply me using the gifts he has given me and coming to an erroneous conclusion, a conclusion he could have had me avoid by revealing himself to me. Seriously like, what sort of a lunatic and ego maniac is this guy? If he was truly loving and compassionate he would forgive all sinners and admit everyone to heaven, including those of us who do no worship and actively separate ourselves from him, it is within his power as he is all powerful but he chooses not to.
2) Original Sin
We live in world with horrible illness, war, suffering, etc because of Original Sin. We are all born sinners. Examples have been given of children dying of cancer as a consequence of living in a fallen world. North Korea employs a similar system though not as harsh. If you are seen as an enemy of the regime not only are you punished but 3 previous generations are punished. They have nothing on god, who allows young children and other innocents to suffer because of the sins of Adam and Eve. What sort of morality is that? If one of my parents commits a crime I presume the vast majority of people would find it outrageous if I was sent to jail because of their actions. Yet this is exactly the policy that god follows.
There is one caveat though. God sent his only son (who is also himself) to earth to die a horrible gruesome death to redeem our sins once we accept Jesus Christ (who once again is his own father!) into our hearts as our lord and saviour. Now this doesn't remove our sins, the world is still fallen and human beings are still sinful but a human sacrifice heals all. So even though the world hasn't been made any better by this horrific sacrifice, it is evidence of god's mercy and god's love for us. All this despite it being within god's power to simply just forgive us our sins. For some reason he chooses the human sacrifice by way of being tortured to death route and salvation is only for those who see this as a good thing and believe that this person is the son of god.
I'd like to know what happens to those who were born before Jesus came to save us all? They all have the stain or Original Sin too except they had no human sacrifice committed on their behalf to save them from the hellfire. Did god simply not care about these people? I like a line of thought Christopher Hitchens uses. Say human beings have existed at the lower end of the estimated scale for approximately 100,000 years. That means that for 98,000 years god stands idly by, arms folded watching humanity's suffering and the suffering it inflicts upon itself. Then around 2,000 years he decides to himself, this won't do and sends himself in the guise of his only son to Earth to spread the good news and redeem all of our sins. Where does he choose to this? Not Rome or China or other sophisticated, literate societies. No he chooses the deserts of the Middle East and reveals himself to shepherds and fishermen. Sure they'll let the rest of the world know the good news in no time at all. Seems perfectly legit to me! It just took the lads living in the Americas another 1500 years to hear it, at the tip of a Spanish sword.
There is lots more horrendous and crazy stuff in this cult.