• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

ALL NUFC and Sportwashing stuff in here. (Threads will be merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nukehasslefan said:
It's not a case of, I must because; it's a case of, I am a Newcastle fan and supporter, regardless.

It's about anyone who supports the PIF no matter how small and no matter the argument for reasons other than Newcastle.
If you have nothing to do with anything the PIF are part of then your morals may b e sound, assuming you don;t support something else that offer bad things to their people in whatever countries.
Can you categorically say you don't? If not you're basically a saint and if so,...well, do I need to spell it out?

Only time would tell on whether this would be the case and if you stood by your stance then do you think all of Sunderland would follow you?

Nope. Just putting a few things into perspective.

This moral issue in itself needs debating because it's a mixed case with people who believe they have them until something they're involved in is deemed immoral and yet it'll be argued as not.
Subjective.

Ok let's think about this.
Do the people of different countries...in this case, Saudi Arabia believe certain atrocities are morally correct for them?
I can go on and on and on about morals of countries that don't fit our ways.
So you still think they're not subjective?
The list is almost endless with arguments about people with so called morals who then have some kind of influence in other immoral stuff.


We are in the case of the argument that was levied against Newcastle fans being that. It then applies to all. Or it doesn't and it was said merely to incite argument.

Nobody's arguing morals not being important. They are massively important but are so subjective. One persons morals are another persons immorality.
Zak's Dad said:
Absolute rubbish.
I'm certainly not going to waste my time discussing whether "murder, rape and child abuse" are "subjective" with you.
In my worldview they're not.
Click to expand...
Morals are subjective. You clearly understand what I'm saying.
Zak's Dad said:
You're just equivocating everything and trying to take the discussion somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm simply saying morals are subjective.
Zak's Dad said:
Nothing ever 'lands' with you - every statement made is merely a springboard to continue the conversation and steer it away. I can see why you're a flat earther.
Click to expand...
I'm arguing a corner. Accept it as that and don't expect one way traffic.
Zak's Dad said:
I've stated my position and you've stated yours. You've eloquently told us that you have indeed no moral centre.
Click to expand...
And I've stated we all have none. It's subjective.
Zak's Dad said:
We're done.
Click to expand...
No problem.
 
Last edited:
OzzyMac said:
Wouldn't surprise me if he actually owns 20% of it still.

Interesting that the Reubens are major Bojo contributors, wonder if that had anything to do with getting it through
Click to expand...

Isn't there a story out there that someone lobbied Johnson to intervene in the deal and help push it through? Corruption is rife in his government so nothing would surprise me
Mackem2017 said:
:lol:
You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...

It would be more believable if Kate was a young man
 
Last edited:
janey said:
Yep they’ve a very very very long way to go before they even start to catch up.
Still at least Mike Ashley doesn’t own them any longer with his zero hours contracts, I mean no owners could be worse than that.
Click to expand...
But they aren’t chopping off heads in front of greys monument, throwing gay people off the roof of the shit tip, chopping off hands outside central station or stoning rape victims to death on the town moor so it doesn’t matter.
 
Father Jack Hackett said:
Who sent Wraith the Kit Kat then? He's not telling porkies is he?
Click to expand...
I hope he ate all of it. I know where it’s been :)
Super Mario said:
PDC was just an individual he wasn't guilty of any war crimes, he had right wing politics and probably some unspoken extreme views, it's not even comparable to being an active murderer and psychopath.

A few of my mag mates are just saying politics shouldn't come into it, but that's the whole reason they have been bought, they're a pawn in a much bigger play.

You have full control over who you continue to support as do we all, stop pretending you're a powerless cuck being forced to do anything.
Click to expand...
Yet they used politicians to get it through. Our PM made sure it happened. But it’s not political like. Morons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
riffraff said:
The cut off point is the active campaigning and you know it. Donald Duck enthusiasts didn’t actively campaign for the House of Saud to invest in Disney. Of course you’ll ignore this post as you do all of the ones that nail an element of your fans. You’re finished as a serious poster on here and have been since this nonsense started.
Click to expand...
I lost interest when he tried to convince folk the earth is flat.
 
riffraff said:
The cut off point is the active campaigning and you know it. Donald Duck enthusiasts didn’t actively campaign for the House of Saud to invest in Disney. Of course you’ll ignore this post as you do all of the ones that nail an element of your fans. You’re finished as a serious poster on here and have been since this nonsense started.
Click to expand...
I lost interest when he tried to convince folk the earth is flat.
Howard the Duck said:
‘Kate Stewart’s’ response to that is along the lines of ‘relax Adam, you seem nervy….’
Considering who it’s alleged to be is it just me that finds that (and the whole thing) a bit sinister.

This is who the Mags are now.
Click to expand...
They’ve gone all the way down the rabbit hole with this
OzzyMac said:
Wouldn't surprise me if he actually owns 20% of it still.

Interesting that the Reubens are major Bojo contributors, wonder if that had anything to do with getting it through
Click to expand...
It won’t have hurt.
Mackem2017 said:
You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
It would appear that the Saudis have caught thickasshititis from the mags.
Horace Cope said:
Isn't there a story out there that someone lobbied Johnson to intervene in the deal and help push it through? Corruption is rife in his government so nothing would surprise me


It would be more believable if Kate was a young man
Click to expand...
Princess nut nut needs new curtains so......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nukehasslefan said:
Nukehasslefan said:
This scenario is nothing to do with what I'm saying.
I have no control over who buys Newcastle United. It can be argued that I do if everyone follows me or I follow, along with everyone, someone else who decides to go against the regime. I'm talking about a city literally shutting down in order to effect this.
Chances?

You're in charge of that.

Enjoy your experiment.

I don't know...was it?

I'm powerless in terms of deciding who owns the club, not in terms of ability to walk away from it. I choose never to walk away from Newcastle United except for two reasons.
1. If they cease to be Newcastle United.

2. If they breakaway from the English league.

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

What about if the owners of your club round up all the gays at half time and trow them off the Tyne bridge. Then just before kick off round up any individual that may have disrespected the crown and behead them on the centre circle. Would that be ok and you would still support the club and it’s owner.
 
REDM1ST said:
What about if the owners of your club round up all the gays at half time and trow them off the Tyne bridge. Then just before kick off round up any individual that may have disrespected the crown and behead them on the centre circle. Would that be ok and you would still support the club and it’s owner.
Click to expand...
I’m absolutely certain a number of them would.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
That's not a ban and I certainly have nothing against this post.

No, that's not what I claim. I claim morals are subjective.
Some people think it's morally acceptable for lots of stuff that we do not..... and believe it or not our morals do not always stand up as moralistic to other countries. Do you agree?


The line is drawn throughout all of countries as to right and wrong. One persons right is another person's wrong, in many many cases.

I don't have any agenda other than being a fan of Newcastle United.


In your opinion which is not shared by everyone.

No. I argue the morals of people being subjective because they are.

Subjective morals.

Subjective morals.

That's out of my hands.

That's your mindset and you're welcome to it.

Good for you. If you feel that way then that's your way in life. I have no issues with what you choose.
Click to expand...


The agenda I talk of is the broad message your spewing from the geordienashun, a total lack of ability to be honest with yourselves when you look in the mirror. Its embarrassing behaviour, youd argue black was white and white was black. You lot are a joke. Whole thing just highlights it in black and white.

They picked the right club as your classic geordie heritage of being two faced, hypocritical, insincere, fallacious, false, misleading, untrue and having double standards is perfect to do what they want. To sportswash the Saudi name cos you lot come out with a load of guff about morals being subjective and to focus on the football.

But here’s the thing.... Deep down in some dark place inside you realise this to be the case, which is why you’ve come on your rivals forum to try and justify it. It’s why the fans have gone from celebrating the takeover to focusing on the footy. While at the same time as trying to deflect away by talking 11+ level philosophy.

If it wasn’t for the fact that them buying your club is just an attempt by them to ultimately get away with more/ take the spotlight away from the war crimes, crimes against humanity and oppression of minorities. If instead it was just a case of analysing the collective geordienashuns psychology it would be hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top