B.Toomer wrote:Kingswood stated that Cahill playing for Australia was not as ridiculous as Hargreaves playing for England. By blood lines, he's proven wrong, as Hargreaves has English blood, but Cahill has no Australian blood at all. In fact, Cahill has spent very little time in Australia, the majority has been spent in England. Yes, the only true "Australian" is an Aborigine, but if your ancestors arrived on the 1st fleet or not long after, it would be fair to call yourself "Australian". If a man & his pregnant wife were flying to America on a holiday & during a brief stopover in China, the wife gave birth prematurely , would the child be Chinese? Given that the Australian couple were able to trace their roots back to the 1st fleet, the child had no Chinese blood at all, obviously didn't look Chinese, probably never speak Chinese, but in your mind, he is still Chinese??? I don't think so. In the world the way it is now, & more so in the future, national teams will have more & more players of mixed blood and birth places.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. You're either trolling really poorly or you're an idiot.
Anyone is Australian if they can prove it and choose to. Anyone who believes that people need to provide evidence of their blood line to prove they deserve a place in a certain society can go back to the 40's with the White Australia policy and old mate Adolf.
Brian the Postman wrote:Jeez that was a bit of a slip up from the Hawkster.
Not really.
As I said about Cahill, I have no issue with Schwarzer playing for australia due to his place of birth. He was entitled to an australian passport at birth, however - he's German.
We all know what he meant by affinity. It can just be meant in a number of ways. Grosso chose one, you have chosen the other.
God is an Englishman wrote:
I think we know what he meant.
At no point ever do I have any clue what Grosso is talking about.
But the fact you are attempting to clarify his statement is a big concern.
The concern for me is that you struggle to understand him. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but I can understand him.
It's not like he's JD.
I'm shocked that you left yourself so open. Your statement is so presumptuous.
Comparing him to JD doesn't get you off the hook. Compare anyone to JD and they look like a genius.
It's like saying that a convicted car thief isn't that bad a person because they aren't as bad as Stalin.
Stuckey wrote:I'm shocked that you left yourself so open. Your statement is so presumptuous.
Comparing him to JD doesn't get you off the hook. Compare anyone to JD and they look like a genius.
It's like saying that a convicted car thief isn't that bad a person because they aren't as bad as Stalin.
I struggle to understand your point here.
Did I say he was a genius?
I only said that I could understand him and was surprised you couldn't or did you struggle to understand that as well.
For the record, I think JD might be the most intelligent person on this forum. He spouts the same crap every day and some fools still react and fall for it.
Stuckey wrote:I'm shocked that you left yourself so open. Your statement is so presumptuous.
Comparing him to JD doesn't get you off the hook. Compare anyone to JD and they look like a genius.
It's like saying that a convicted car thief isn't that bad a person because they aren't as bad as Stalin.
I struggle to understand your point here.
Did I say he was a genius?
I only said that I could understand him and was surprised you couldn't or did you struggle to understand that as well.
For the record, I think JD might be the most intelligent person on this forum. He spouts the same crap every day and some fools still react and fall for it.
My point is that you are presuming what Grosso said about affinity being nationality.
I agree with your point on JD although I think its more a reflection on the people that reply not JD.
B.Toomer wrote:Kingswood stated that Cahill playing for Australia was not as ridiculous as Hargreaves playing for England. By blood lines, he's proven wrong, as Hargreaves has English blood, but Cahill has no Australian blood at all. In fact, Cahill has spent very little time in Australia, the majority has been spent in England. Yes, the only true "Australian" is an Aborigine, but if your ancestors arrived on the 1st fleet or not long after, it would be fair to call yourself "Australian". If a man & his pregnant wife were flying to America on a holiday & during a brief stopover in China, the wife gave birth prematurely , would the child be Chinese? Given that the Australian couple were able to trace their roots back to the 1st fleet, the child had no Chinese blood at all, obviously didn't look Chinese, probably never speak Chinese, but in your mind, he is still Chinese??? I don't think so. In the world the way it is now, & more so in the future, national teams will have more & more players of mixed blood and birth places.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. You're either trolling really poorly or you're an idiot.
Anyone is Australian if they can prove it and choose to. Anyone who believes that people need to provide evidence of their blood line to prove they deserve a place in a certain society can go back to the 40's with the White Australia policy and old mate Adolf.
When did he say they need to prove it to get a place in society.
I am not australian, I am not a citizen. If there ever becomes a decent reason to become one then I might but I won't go against my moral standards at this stage.
He never once said he doesn't deserve a place in society. He never once said he can't live in australia. However, a person born with a german father and a german mother is pretty obviously german.
Stuckey wrote:I'm shocked that you left yourself so open. Your statement is so presumptuous.
Comparing him to JD doesn't get you off the hook. Compare anyone to JD and they look like a genius.
It's like saying that a convicted car thief isn't that bad a person because they aren't as bad as Stalin.
I struggle to understand your point here.
Did I say he was a genius?
I only said that I could understand him and was surprised you couldn't or did you struggle to understand that as well.
For the record, I think JD might be the most intelligent person on this forum. He spouts the same crap every day and some fools still react and fall for it.
My point is that you are presuming what Grosso said about affinity being nationality.
I agree with your point on JD although I think its more a reflection on the people that reply not JD.
Stuckey wrote: Australia's most capped player has no affinity for their country. Comedy gold from old mate Grosso.
Is nationality decided by how many caps you have now?
German Mum, German Dad. Sounds pretty German to me.
Indeed. He's completely German and has no interest nor obligation to want to play in the A-league.
He'll remain in England or Europe where his heart is.
International football was just a job and an experience as he'd have no chance of getting into the German side who've had great goalkeepers (until recently if second half of Slovakia Germany is anything to go by)
God is an Englishman wrote:
I struggle to understand your point here.
Did I say he was a genius?
I only said that I could understand him and was surprised you couldn't or did you struggle to understand that as well.
For the record, I think JD might be the most intelligent person on this forum. He spouts the same crap every day and some fools still react and fall for it.
My point is that you are presuming what Grosso said about affinity being nationality.
I agree with your point on JD although I think its more a reflection on the people that reply not JD.
You are "assuming" it's isn't about nationality.
Where did I say it's not? You're being presumptuous again. I simply said he never mentioned nationality in his original post.
God is an Englishman wrote:You assumed it wasn't when you made the comment laughing at Grossi for saying he has no affinity with Australia.
With your assumption he's wrong, with mine he's right. Therefore, my assumption makes sense.
Your problem is that you think you are always right and everyone else is wrong - which is wrong because you do not even begin to understand the notion of nationality.
If you are born in a country and hold a passport advising you are a citizen of that country then your nationality is of that country.
It does not matter what country your parents come from.
Mark Schwartzer was born in Australia, holds an Australian passport that identifies him as a citizen of Australia therefore he is an Australian Citizen - if you still doubt it contact your local federal MP and they will set you right on the whole citizenship/nationality situation..