Unpopular Opinions.

Real Life · 17-08-2012 07:58PM

AllWasWell wrote: »

I hate Nicki Minaj..people always look at me like i'm crazy when i say that

and i hate GAA

surely a hatred for nicki minaj is not unpopular, shes like a cancer to the music industry

1ZRed · 17-08-2012 08:05PM

Colmustard wrote: »

10% of people who take drugs will develop a problem, this 10% have different brains then the rest of us.

Can't take your word for it, need to find out for myself

TeddyTedson · 17-08-2012 08:07PM

1ZRed wrote: »

Can't take your word for it, need to find out for myself

Drugs are bad, mmk.

1ZRed · 17-08-2012 08:13PM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Drugs are bad, mmk.

Why are you being such a buzz kill Ted?

Colmustard · 17-08-2012 08:13PM

1ZRed wrote: »

Can't take your word for it, need to find out for myself

And that would be the problem with a test to tell you you cant take drugs, you would still have to find out yourself.

I am probably with-in that 10%, I drink and go on the odd bender, but I can always stop, but I know I am dancing with the devil. I never took drugs not once, they just were never around me growing up and now I have no interest. I suppose I am lucky. Which is why I never judge a junkie, but I still don't like them.

AllWasWell · 17-08-2012 08:38PM

Real Life wrote: »

surely a hatred for nicki minaj is not unpopular, shes like a cancer to the music industry

Agreed but you'd be surprised the amount of people that worship the ground she walks on

end of the road · 17-08-2012 09:05PM

forget about pop music its trashy plastic fake cheep junk, rave music is the way to go, and i mean the underground music. its not as good now days as it was but it beats the likes of nicky s//tage any day.

Jimoslimos · 17-08-2012 09:06PM

average hero wrote: »

As a normal, young man I find that it is unpopular or 'uncool' to be conservative. I hold centre-right views so as long as I am not fighting 'the man', I'm part of the 'system' or I've been brainwashed. I wouldn't be as Socialist as the average Irishman either.

Unpopular amongst your peers, yes. Amongst the general population not so much. That said I hold a general wariness about young people who align themselves with mostly conservative or right-wing views. I'd rather an older person who started off left-wing and then gradually moved to the right as he/she gained more life experience.

average hero wrote: »

I hold a healthy respect for people in the military worldwide whatever their reasons for joining. In this day and age of uber-social climbing, consumerism and instant gratification, people tend to sneer at the military in this country.

Depends where you are, celebrating 'hero' soldiers is commonplace in the UK. Although why you respect them 'whatever' their reasons for joining is baffling. Soldiers pick their profession for the same reasons as everybody else, some find it exciting, some enjoy learning new skills, others prefer the organised structure, some can't find work at anything else AND yes some even do it to climb the social ladder. Certainly you enter the British army at a higher rank as a graduate. Princes William and Harry didn't start off as privates either - no class structure there I see.:rolleyes:

average hero wrote: »

I dislike Geordie/Jersey Shore, and any pre-packaged TV Show or music artist.

That's a popular opinion

end of the road · 17-08-2012 09:16PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

celebrating 'hero' soldiers is commonplace in the UK.

so is claiming that you care so much about the armed forces and that you are a supporter of the armed forces when actually you aren't and couldn't care a less about them. just saying

Jimoslimos · 17-08-2012 09:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

so is claiming that you care so much about the armed forces and that you are a supporter of the armed forces when actually you aren't and couldn't care a less about them. just saying

What are people supposed to do? Be seen to be fundraising for injured soldiers, holding welcome-back parades perhaps?

Personally I wouldn't be as gushing about soldiers or their 'heroic' deeds as others. However if these young men and women are sent by the government of the day to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc then it should be up to that same government to pay any associated costs for rehabilitation, etc.
It's the greatest trick pulled by those in charge to have the general public fuelled by patriotism paying through charity what they themselves should be funding through taxation.

Grimebox · 17-08-2012 09:41PM

I think a huge amount of sports in the Olympics hold no weight. If it is two teams or people competing head-to-head, it isn't impressive at all who gets the gold. They're only beating each other. This is football, hockey, basketball, boxing etc. I'm more interested in events where it is fixed in what the competitors have to do. Events where world records can be broken. The 100m sprint will always be the 100m and will never change. In boxing for example, you only have to beat your opponent which can be hugely variable in their performance. So the Irish medals don't mean much to me.

The King of Moo · 17-08-2012 09:50PM

Grimebox wrote: »

I think a huge amount of sports in the Olympics hold no weight. If it is two teams or people competing head-to-head, it isn't impressive at all who gets the gold. They're only beating each other. This is football, hockey, basketball, boxing etc. I'm more interested in events where it is fixed in what the competitors have to do. Events where world records can be broken. The 100m sprint will always be the 100m and will never change. In boxing for example, you only have to beat your opponent which can be hugely variable in their performance. So the Irish medals don't mean much to me.

Olympic athletes tend to be the cream of the crop. While there's naturally some variation in ability between competitors in a particular event every four years, if you've won an Olympic gold medal you can be sure you've beaten someone pretty damn good.
Saying some events hold no weight is a pretty strong statement.

Jimoslimos · 17-08-2012 09:53PM

Grimebox wrote: »

I think a huge amount of sports in the Olympics hold no weight. If it is two teams or people competing head-to-head, it isn't impressive at all who gets the gold. They're only beating each other. This is football, hockey, basketball, boxing etc. I'm more interested in events where it is fixed in what the competitors have to do. Events where world records can be broken. The 100m sprint will always be the 100m and will never change. In boxing for example, you only have to beat your opponent which can be hugely variable in their performance. So the Irish medals don't mean much to me.

I agree!

However you could make the point that the winner of the 100m in 1980 had the slowest time in 20 years. So that event doesn't always have the best competitors.

But yes, I prefer the concept of a first past the post sport as opposed to one where the decision is subjective.

Grimebox · 17-08-2012 09:59PM

And then add the fact that you cannot be professional to be compete in boxing! Laughable

end of the road · 17-08-2012 10:01PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

if these young men and women are sent by the government of the day to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc then it should be up to that same government to pay any associated costs for rehabilitation, etc.
It's the greatest trick pulled by those in charge to have the general public fuelled by patriotism paying through charity what they themselves should be funding through taxation.

i completely agree.

fasttalkerchat · 17-08-2012 10:11PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It's the greatest trick pulled by those in charge to have the general public fuelled by patriotism paying through charity what they themselves should be funding through taxation.

I live in the North and like most nationalists here it sickens me that my taxes are being used to fund wars and to pay the pension of the Parachute regiment and other soldiers who were in the North until not so long ago.

Jimoslimos · 17-08-2012 10:28PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I live in the North and like most nationalists here it sickens me that my taxes are being used to fund wars and to pay the pension of the Parachute regiment and other soldiers who were in the North until not so long ago.

I see your point. However I find it disingenuous for armed forces to be allowed to fundraise since it leads people to regard them in the same manner as charitable organisations, which they patently are not.

If people realised how much an army actually cost it might lead them to question them the same way all other public services are. By generating a notion of noble heroism and raising charity for soldiers it puts them beyond criticism - a dangerous position.

In terms of the North there is also the problem of conflict of interest where one half of the community funds the army disproportionately more than the other side. Armed forces shouldn't be allowed to fundraise.

Yamanoto · 17-08-2012 11:19PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I live in the North and like most nationalists here it sickens me that my taxes are being used to fund wars and to pay the pension of the Parachute regiment and other soldiers who were in the North until not so long ago.

I'd imagine it also sickens many in the UK that their taxes are used to finance 'inclusivity' programmes of dubious merit for ex-prisoners, given many of the same men made a habit of detonating bombs in their towns and cities.

fasttalkerchat · 17-08-2012 11:33PM

Yamanoto wrote: »

I'd imagine it also sickens many in the UK that their taxes are used to finance 'inclusivity' programmes of dubious merit for ex-prisoners, given many of the same men made a habit of detonating bombs in their towns and cities.

They created a situation that caused the division of the country and the division within the NI state. Inclusivity programs help to fix the problems that caused the conflict.

Yamanoto · 17-08-2012 11:55PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They created a situation that caused the division of the country and the division within the NI state.

That's for another day, undoubtedly all sides in the resolution have had to swallow some pretty unpalatable stuff.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Inclusivity programs help to fix the problems that caused the conflict.

Some more worthy than others imo.

twinytwo · 18-08-2012 12:01AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I see your point. However I find it disingenuous for armed forces to be allowed to fundraise since it leads people to regard them in the same manner as charitable organisations, which they patently are not.

If people realised how much an army actually cost it might lead them to question them the same way all other public services are. By generating a notion of noble heroism and raising charity for soldiers it puts them beyond criticism - a dangerous position.

In terms of the North there is also the problem of conflict of interest where one half of the community funds the army disproportionately more than the other side. Armed forces shouldn't be allowed to fundraise.

What choice do they have?? Its the same in every country never any problem spending billions on new toys and better ways to kill each other... Ask for a few bob to look after the injured soldiers and all of a sudden it costs too much.

retalivity · 18-08-2012 04:11AM

i think ive already posted it in this thread before, but i'd lick nicki minaj's hole, while fundraising for the TA, Parachute regiment, b specials, whatever.....

padd b1975 · 18-08-2012 08:21AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

However you could make the point that the winner of the 100m in 1980 had the slowest time in 20 years. So that event doesn't always have the best competitors.

This was because the Americans who dominated sprint events had boycotted the games.
Eastern block countries returned the compliment four years later making the LA games an even bigger farce.

Olympic games have always been used as a political football, especially by communist countries to portray an image of a healthy sport loving nation.
Obviously the reality is somewhat different.

mickydoomsux · 18-08-2012 10:03AM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I live in the North and like most nationalists here it sickens me that my taxes are being used to fund wars and to pay the pension of the Parachute regiment and other soldiers who were in the North until not so long ago.

So leave.

KenSwee · 18-08-2012 10:23AM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Eastern block countries returned the compliment four years later making the LA games an even bigger farce.

Making it a 99% drug free games!

MJ23 · 18-08-2012 10:26AM

I wouldn't say this is an unpopular opinion, i heard Ronan Keatings new song yesterday , and its crap, just like all of his stuff. Crap songs, sang by that boring git. Go away Ronan, no one cares. Just release that crap in Japan where they love it. Stop polluting the airwaves with your terrible songs and annoying stupid voice.

Cienciano · 18-08-2012 10:27AM

KenSwee wrote: »

Making it a 99% drug free games!

Yeah, if Rocky 4 thought me anything, the americans weren't on any sort of drugs. Only the dirty commies.

18-08-2012 11:22AM

MJ23 wrote: »

I wouldn't say this is an unpopular opinion, i heard Ronan Keatings new song yesterday , and its crap, just like all of his stuff. Crap songs, sang by that boring git. Go away Ronan, no one cares. Just release that crap in Japan where they love it. Stop polluting the airwaves with your terrible songs and annoying stupid voice.

The schmile on your faysh....

MJ23 · 18-08-2012 03:17PM

Rhianna is an awful looking yoke

Colmustard · 18-08-2012 03:44PM

Westlife were actually good, some nice covered chunes.

Unpopular Opinions.

Comments