Messages

So Sunday was Liverpool's biggest ever win over Man Utd.  What was the biggest ever win in the other direction?  Google is too crowded out with today's result for me to find it.

It doesn't matter. It's not bigger than our top 2 or 3 wins over them. So you can chalk that one off for debating point as we hold the upper hand on that one as well.

Cry more manc bastards

Manc tramps hammered and put back in line by their masters. All their fans have already scuttled back under their rocks, it doesn't take much, but I'll have a pint of trailers tears nonetheless, and MR2's as well. Sure he doesn't support United

[I stress nationalist, not Republican in any way]

About 6 police and 5 prison officers in my estate, only is about 60 houses too.

Least your estate will be safe enough and they only ever patrol their own houses from what I've seen. I live in a Nationalist area, I stress nationalist, not Republican in any way, only time Police are seen is on days of parades, how is Nationalist confidence in them ever supposed to grow when they make it so clear they're only here to keep us in line

I stress, it's the same thing.

Migration will only continue, stopping it is impossible, Ireland got away with it for so long, was probably seen as a poor country and up north an internal war going on didn't make it look appealing.

Piling people into 'hotels' camps and other places isn't the answer either short term or long term, that's just creating ghettos and tensions, mistrust and leads to the far rights people thinking they are being taken over.. Currently in Ireland its made up of 94.5 white Irish, you'll be fine if you ever come home

I really think you should check that figure of 94.5% again; it's way off.

Also, migration is not inevitable. Japan doesn't allow any large-scale immigration, and the same is true of some central European countries. Stopping it is possible if the will to do it is there. After all, look at the lengths they went to to control covid, and the money that was spent on that.

I know you're not one of the mad-cap, anti-fa types who thinks anyone and everyone should be allowed in. But just say, hypothetically, that three million of these hard working Pakistanis you cited wanted to rock up here. Would that be fine by you? We're talking about a massive change in demographics and culture. And, let's be honest, they wouldn't want to be 'like us', and nor would they want to integrate. They, ideally, would like their own culture to be the dominant one, would want the best things for THEIR children. Why shouldn't we want the same for ours?

Japan has 125 million people living in it, it 4 times bigger than Ireland which only has 5 million.. I'm not surprised they don't have immigration

I personally couldn't care less how people live their lives, those on the Shankill and Falls for many decades didn't  integrate

As for 'them' being dominant it won't happen same way it won't happen in Britain

"Currently, Ireland has a majority of "White Irish," as 94.1% of the population. There are other sizable populations of Black citizens from African countries, such as Nigeria and Mauritius, plus Asian citizens with the majority from China, India, and some from Hong Kong"

Ireland has about 6.8 million.

Good to see the cookstown team of ringers getting a hammering. Justice done in the end. Fair play Omagh

Is ulster schools football u19?

U19 1/2

Then why is a certain player coming 20 in the next few weeks. Hopefully omagh win as FermGael rightly says

It is actually mad that people build any building in earth quake areas. If you think of natural disasters from years ago people just abandoned the towns and cities. Pompeii. But that's a discussion for another day. Today you just hope and pray that as many people as possible are found alive.

Yea the fault lines which house billions of people around the world should've been left as wasteland and not built on
Jesus Christ what a statement that is

Not Billions but a lot

About 143 million people live and work in areas with some potential for damaging shaking, a level that could at least lead to damage in structures.

Yes, billions. The entire west coast of north, central and South America sits on a fault line. India/south Asia and the Middle East is surrounded by a fault line. That's several billion already not even talking about the rest.
According to trailer that should all be uninhabited wasteland 

That is not what I meant.

What else could you possibly mean?
Congrats on being the author of probably the stupidest statement I think I've ever read.

It is actually mad that people build any building in earth quake areas. If you think of natural disasters from years ago people just abandoned the towns and cities. Pompeii. But that's a discussion for another day. Today you just hope and pray that as many people as possible are found alive.

Yea the fault lines which house billions of people around the world should've been left as wasteland and not built on
Jesus Christ what a statement that is

Not Billions but a lot

About 143 million people live and work in areas with some potential for damaging shaking, a level that could at least lead to damage in structures.

Yes, billions. The entire west coast of north, central and South America sits on a fault line. India/south Asia and the Middle East is surrounded by a fault line. That's several billion already not even talking about the rest.
According to trailer that should all be uninhabited wasteland 

It is actually mad that people build any building in earth quake areas. If you think of natural disasters from years ago people just abandoned the towns and cities. Pompeii. But that's a discussion for another day. Today you just hope and pray that as many people as possible are found alive.

Yea the fault lines which house billions of people around the world should've been left as wasteland and not built on
Jesus Christ what a statement that is

They don't hold the record for points margin as I said, Liverpool do, they were crowned champions when 23 points clear after city dropped points to Chelsea, that's neither here nor there though, we know Liverpool are a big club. 

No bother, I will digress by saying a club with 8 major trophies in 115 years pre oil era is pretty embarrassing and plastic, and there's nothing you can say that will make me change my opinion on that.
Have a good evening👍🏼

[the facts proved otherwise]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

Well it wasn't, that's why it was questioned as the facts proved otherwise.
Yes correct , you would be wrong if you deduced that, because they won several other major honours in that time frame whilst still carrying the stature of being a big club.
Citeh on the other hand haven't been a force since oil money, because they won next to nothing in their entire history before it, simple really.

Jesus you're tedious. Counting only top flight league and major cup competitions, domestic or European, City have featured, either winner or runners up 18 times pre oil money.

Not quite, nobody cares about runners up by the way so not sure why you've counted that.
2 leagues, 4 fa cups and 2 league cups in their entire history pre oil money. 8 major trophies in about 115 years
And before you mention it, because I know it's coming, the cup winners cup is not a major. Feyenoord won Big Ears that year, not Citeh.

Cup winners cup certainly is and at least you're acknowledging facts now, not the imagined 5 trophies you previously quoted.

Runners up is certainly relevant, winning leagues and coming 2nd shows that you are a force in your competition and one of the bigger players.

Sure hasn't this Liverpool team been lauded as the greatest PL team of all time by many despite their 1 trophy. Seems runners up carries more weight for some more than others. Maybe it was the fact they ran City so close.

No it isn't. It was the equivalent of 3rd tier football for teams that won domestic cup competitions to give them a taste of European football, and has been since discontinued so it's not even close to being a major. I also said "about 5 trophies".
Big clubs don't count runner up, let's deal in the facts, 8 majors pre oil money is laughable and backs up my point.
No I'd say it's more the fact they won the league by the biggest points margin and at the earliest point in the season, that's probably why.

[the facts proved otherwise]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

Well it wasn't, that's why it was questioned as the facts proved otherwise.
Yes correct , you would be wrong if you deduced that, because they won several other major honours in that time frame whilst still carrying the stature of being a big club.
Citeh on the other hand haven't been a force since oil money, because they won next to nothing in their entire history before it, simple really.

Jesus you're tedious. Counting only top flight league and major cup competitions, domestic or European, City have featured, either winner or runners up 18 times pre oil money.

Not quite, nobody cares about runners up by the way so not sure why you've counted that.
2 leagues, 4 fa cups and 2 league cups in their entire history pre oil money. 8 major trophies in about 115 years
And before you mention it, because I know it's coming, the cup winners cup is not a major. Feyenoord won Big Ears that year, not Citeh.

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

Well it wasn't, that's why it was questioned as the facts proved otherwise.
Yes correct, you would be wrong if you deduced that, because they won several other major honours in that time frame whilst still carrying the stature of being a big club.
Citeh on the other hand haven't been a force since oil money, because they won next to nothing in their entire history before it, simple really.

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though