Ah, the old ChristainSmith argument that you must be a racist to see through the FA's unfettered witch-trial of Suarez, or the 1001 inconsistencies and downright provable lies by Evra (do you want me to print the paragraph where Evra says he couldn't bear to use the word 'ni**er" and the Youtube vid together again?). Would be funny if that childish thinking wasn't the qualification for sitting on the FA's 'independent' panel.
How come the United board is the only one that doesn't ban twats like this? Seriously fk'ing fed up of this turd turning up all the time and producing the same ******ed "justifications" and excuses to prove Suarez is innocent (by comparison if nothing else). He was boring a ****ing year ago.
I was sort of invited, dude. Someone posted and copied what I'd written on the Liverpool board and put it on here. Don't lose your rag because I'm right (again).
Luis Suarez is a ****ing racist piece of **** and a proven one, which incurred an eight game ban. Twice as much as Terry because, well let's face it, he's a ****ing hateful ****. Now, again, **** the ****ing **** off you tedious arsewipe.
Hahahahaha!!!! Given up on any reasoned argument now, as your 'facts' have been easily destroyed. So, the logic is that Rio can't be racist as he wasn't banned (although I hope your not still claiming that he wasn't found guilty of the same charge), and terry is less guilty than Suarez as he only got 4 games. There's another expaination - the FA, in its glorious attempts to be prove itself anti-racist and anti-discriminatory used discrimination and racism against Suarez to have a convenient head-on-a-stick to appease the single-issue mob baying for Terry's blood. They set the standard, and some of us will constantly remind them of need for them to stay consistent to it.
By they way Rusholme, it was you that 'brought' me onto your board, and into this thread. Well, I've clearly outstayed my welcome - but at least you're better educated about this subject now. If you're stuck again just copy my posts, put them on here and I'll happily correct your ignorance again. Cheerio.
No, I ain't leaving it. You weren't 'invited' anywhere, I quoted what an obsessive ****ing idiot you are and you followed. You have throughout this whole saga tried to justify Suarez's racist abuse by attempting to smear his victim as the guilty party. Your club joined in until the perpetrator was thankfully dismissed. Having failed in your smear campaign you turned your attention on Ferdinand, again in trying to make him a racist when he quoted what someone had said. Defending a racist abuser while accusing one who isn't, you nasty hypocrite. His BROTHER had been called a ****ing black ****. Yet you call him a racist. Again, just trying to deflect attention away from the one who IS guilty in all this. Thankfully, the FA do not agree and so didn't ban Ferdinand. Instead he got a fine for use of insulting words which had reference to colour. Which is NOT the same as racist abuse. Obviously. To anyone with a brain, this is OBVIOUS. The only person convinced by your 'proof' is you. Just you. I suggest you move on or your clearly already sad existence will be consumed by this even more and you'll go mad. Get yourself a life.
So you then admit that LFC's argument that "Suarez can't be a racist cos he has a black grandfather" is a complete crock of ****. In your book at least. Then am I to take it this will be the last time you trot out that tired old argument? To quote your own sources: ""Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand has been fined £45,000 after an independent regulatory commission found proven a charge of improper conduct" "An Independent Regulatory Commission has today [Tuesday 20 December 2011] found a charge of misconduct against Luis Suarez proven, and have issued a suspension for a period of eight matches as well as fining him £40,000" Improper conduct = "Not suited to circumstances or needs; unsuitable" - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/improper Misconduct = "Deliberate wrongdoing" - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misconduct QED Wow, "sort of invited"? I guess that means Evra would be a guest of honour on the Liverpool board, given how many times you lot have posted his comments, statements, pictures and videos. Laughing at someone for being sad and wrong does not equal "sort of" inviting them...
You trying to move the goalposts AGAIN? Suarez got done for misconduct too, rule E3, and with additional for reference to race and colour - exactly what Rio did. Point is, if this PFA six-point malarkey comes in, Rio is just as liable to be sacked as Suarez and Terry. But let's not move away too quickly from the fact that you denied the FA had made any charge due to Rio referring to race and colur, then you denied the evidence by saying it was just the Daily Mail. You were WRONG. And as for the argument that you get too much of me on this board - then why go and copy what I said on the \liverpool board and post it here? You're as consistent as evra, I'll give you that.
Sort of negates the nonsensical argument that I should be banned from your board though when your posters copy my threads from other boards and put them on here. And shame on you for letting Rusholme make a tit of himself (especially over that Mail thing, that was sweet ). You and UIR went to battle over this one back in August when Rio was done and were completely hosed. You knew the FA had cited his reference to colour and race - and you left him there with his rather small dick in his hand. Did you secretly enjoy that?
Again, as you don't get the last word you prick. Suarez was done for racial abuse of another player. Ferdinand wasn't. Not the same, never will be. Under the same very ambiguous rule, yes. The same thing, no.
Not really. We used to copy KPR's posts and take the piss out of him all the time even after he was banned three times. He then ended up getting banned from the Liverpool board. Congratulations, you have reached the same level as KPR Ah, the "Mail thing". The one where Ruff argues that E3(2) is nothing to do with racism, and you provide an article that says nothing about E3(2) or racism. Yeah, that was sweeeeeet Bet Steve Evans would be pretty ****ing shocked that according to you he is now a racist... http://www.itv.com/sport/football/article/2012-09-10/evans-hit-with-six-match-ban/ Besides which, the sanction for E3(2) is to double the sanction for the breach of E3(1), which is two games. The fact Suarez had his ban quadrupled, whilst Rio didn't get banned at all, tells you all you need to know about the severity of the respective offences.
Ah, the "Mail thing". The one where Ruff argues that E3(2) is nothing to do with racism, and you provide an article that says nothing about E3(2) or racism. Yeah, that was sweeeeeet Dogshit! He said Rio had nothing to do with racism, I proved he did with the Mail post, he said it was nthe Mail and it wasn't to be believed, I posted EIGHT threads saying the same thing. Now the two of you are off on some semantic drivel that doesn't fool anyone, even yourselves, if truth be told. Rio was found guilty of misconduct and cited for using racial references. the reason he wasn't banned was entirely political. You may as well ask why Suarez got double what Terry did - according to Triesman it was because Chelsea reacted differently than Liverpool. But how does that work - the FA DO base their penalties on political considerations rather than individual evidence and conduct. All's that's true is that two former England captains received half the ban combined than the greasy Dago who could barely speak English, and against whom there was the least, corroborative independent evidence. That's the racism and discrimination of the FA at work though...
