|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 8, 2022 21:18:42 GMT
Calling other posters racist is not conducive to constructive debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 8, 2022 21:31:24 GMT
Calling other posters racist is not conducive to constructive debate. Is calling them of a left political views commies constructive to debate |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 8, 2022 21:44:42 GMT
Calling other posters racist is not conducive to constructive debate. Is calling them of a left political views commies constructive to debate No. It's always best to attack the argument not the person. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 8, 2022 22:04:49 GMT
And please quote where I've done either of those. I have less boring and unrewarding tasks to occupy my time than the brain numbing task of trawling all your posts for quotes. Faced with a choice between spending significant time wholly devoted to your inane mutterings, and shitting in my hands and clapping, I think shitty fingers would be the lesser evil. I have however pointed out the racist language of both Farage and Braverman and their racist actions. You ignore it and would probably defend both. Indeed one of them is such a hero of yours that you have chosen him to be the penis on your avatar. If it looks like a racist, acts like a racist and chooses a racist as an avatar, chances are it's a racist. So yet again, you're unable to evidence your scurrilous assertions. Although ironically, you have proved that you're a hate filled liar. And you continue to prove that with every post.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2022 22:16:49 GMT
I have less boring and unrewarding tasks to occupy my time than the brain numbing task of trawling all your posts for quotes. Faced with a choice between spending significant time wholly devoted to your inane mutterings, and shitting in my hands and clapping, I think shitty fingers would be the lesser evil. I have however pointed out the racist language of both Farage and Braverman and their racist actions. You ignore it and would probably defend both. Indeed one of them is such a hero of yours that you have chosen him to be the penis on your avatar. If it looks like a racist, acts like a racist and chooses a racist as an avatar, chances are it's a racist. Although ironically, you have proved that you're a hate filled liar. And you continue to prove that with every post. No insight at all into the irony of what you have just said. The hate filled person around here is you. But as always you are boring me now. So the last word is yours. I'll be astonished if it is in any way profound. I'm done. Goodnight |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 8, 2022 22:20:48 GMT
So when the Labour Party were proposing to send migrants back to Africa they were pandering to racists?.. Probably. Because they are in pursuit of power for its own sake and don't care how or where they get the votes from to achieve it. There is no principle the typical Labour centrist won't shed for ministerial office. They are probably concerned about the Tories bouncing back with the support of the racist vote and want to keep some of it onside for themselves. At least that wouldn't surprise me. Remember, unlike you or most others around here, I was actually in the party and saw up close how the typical Blairite centrist types act, think, and behave. I have shared acrimonious meetings with some of them. They have no strong convictions they won't trade for power. The only thing they will never do in pursuit of power is risk upsetting the current establishment. So populist left leaning policies that might undo aspects of the thatcherite order are a definite no no. The establishment would never stand for it. So you are saying that you were quite happy to be in a Party with racists and antisemites.. that doesn't say a lot for your judgement. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 9, 2022 0:08:40 GMT
I had nothing to offer foreign countries whose first language is not English, my foreign language skills are not good enough and quite frankly we do not teach foreign languages at an early enough age. By the time I studied French and Russian at school, I wasn't particularly great at either. And this lovely "right" that right cost Pawel Koseda his life. He came here with high hopes, ran out of money, ended up on the streets and was found dead in Kensington. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-homeless-man-was-found-impaled-on-a-spike-in-a-square-in-london-s-kensington-but-who-was-he-and-why-did-he-die-9981456.htmlCome down to Earth, in real life this system is hugely flawed. Points based immigration is better. People who have the skills to live and work in another country still can. Those who haven't aren't in danger of making the mistake. I cannot read that link without registering, which I am not prepared to do. But one foreign born homeless man dies on the street? Of itself it proves nothing. We have thousands of our own home grown homeless on the streets, some of whom die there. It is not an excuse to restrict their freedoms. It is more often an indictment of our welfare and housing system. And are you really trying to say that freedom of movement should be restricted to the affluent and educated? A bit of a snobbish view isn't it? Freedom not being for the plebs who should be restricted for their own good? You do not have to register to read the Independent, you only have to click "not right now". From a social point of view, free movement is dangerous and irresponsible and has resulted in people with no money and no skills desperately looking for work in countries whose languages they cannot speak, failing and falling into destitution. Some have died. It's not a good system. The Aussie points system is better, even if it inconveniences idealistic incompetent Europhiles. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 9, 2022 8:26:12 GMT
It really didn't take much working out they are illegal immigrants breaking the law which doesn't set much of an example for legal immigration. If they don't care for our law now they certainly won't care much about them further down the line, which in actual fact they have constantly shown to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 9, 2022 8:51:18 GMT
Just listened to this story on the news, incredible. What's the betting the government attempt to play this incident down, they don't understand the level of anger over the illegal invasion from France. I'd be surprised we didn't see more shocking incidents like this, people have had enough. That's your excuse for terrorism . I hope we don't see more of these terroist acts Yet a study of the past century shows the government ONLY bend to the will of those prepared to kill, maim and destroy to meet their political ends. Kill a few mainland Englishmen, burn down a few cottages and before you know it you’re collecting three times the average wage with your arse on a comfortable seat in a devolved assembly. In Ireland where they actually kill to get those seats they don’t even have to bother claiming them. The United Kingdom parliament still bends over backwards to take it up the shutter from both sides there. And it’s not terrorism. How many more times. It’s the deranged actions of the mentally disturbed. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 9, 2022 9:51:44 GMT
To talk of migrants as invaders is racist language. To talk of Romanians as disease carriers is racist language. And a policy of sending migrants back to Africa (Rwanda) is obvious pandering to racists. the evidence is inherent in the words and actions. And as for proving an opinion, can you prove I am wrong? Can you prove that Patel, Braverman, and Farage were not pandering to racists when their words and behaviour suggest otherwise? I'd like to see your evidence if you think you have any. I look forward in anticipation of comedy gold if you try. It's not a policy of "sending migrants back to Africa", its a policy of vetting asylum seekers overseas in Rwanda, to make it less appealing to bogus asylum seekers, legit ones have nothing to fear as they'd still be given asylum here. As much as we may wish it to be, it is not an ideal world. It is a world with criminals in it, criminals who will endanger the lives of other people, and for that matter, KILL other people, in order to make money. We have a duty of care, if people drown trying to get here, we've failed in that. If stopping people drowning requires us to upset and offend, as much as we may wish not to, it is our duty to take action that saves lives, not action that spares feelings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2022 10:14:48 GMT
It really didn't take much working out they are illegal immigrants breaking the law which doesn't set much of an example for legal immigration. If they don't care for our law now they certainly won't care much about them further down the line, which in actual fact they have constantly shown to be true. That firebombing came out of the blue, from a sad old man, who'd lost his son to the jab and lost his willy to cancer. From what you say we are importing a more dangerous time bomb which will impact the whole of society as the gangs take over the streets. Let's hope you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 9, 2022 10:45:06 GMT
It's not a policy of "sending migrants back to Africa", its a policy of vetting asylum seekers overseas in Rwanda, to make it less appealing to bogus asylum seekers, legit ones have nothing to fear as they'd still be given asylum here.
As much as we may wish it to be, it is not an ideal world.
It is a world with criminals in it, criminals who will endanger the lives of other people, and for that matter, KILL other people, in order to make money.
We have a duty of care, if people drown trying to get here, we've failed in that.
If stopping people drowning requires us to upset and offend, as much as we may wish not to, it is our duty to take action that saves lives, not action that spares feelings.
Vin, if you are going to talk in favour of the awful Rwanda policy, at least make sure you understand it first.
Your first paragraph is just factually wrong.
The rest is usual nonsense, but at least get the facts right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2022 11:17:32 GMT
Probably. Because they are in pursuit of power for its own sake and don't care how or where they get the votes from to achieve it. There is no principle the typical Labour centrist won't shed for ministerial office. They are probably concerned about the Tories bouncing back with the support of the racist vote and want to keep some of it onside for themselves. At least that wouldn't surprise me. Remember, unlike you or most others around here, I was actually in the party and saw up close how the typical Blairite centrist types act, think, and behave. I have shared acrimonious meetings with some of them. They have no strong convictions they won't trade for power. The only thing they will never do in pursuit of power is risk upsetting the current establishment. So populist left leaning policies that might undo aspects of the thatcherite order are a definite no no. The establishment would never stand for it. So you are saying that you were quite happy to be in a Party with racists and antisemites.. that doesn't say a lot for your judgement. I was trying to change things. You support a party that is full of them too. And Labour had a few antisemites - as does your lot - but the extent of it was grossly exaggerated in order to be weaponised against the left. And those willing to pander to racist elements the same as your lot do are mostly the Blairites and centrists and I always oppposed them even from within. I wasn't a member and didn't even vote Labour in 2005 and 2010. You see my principles matter more to me than loyalty to any party come what may. And these principles include an abhorrence of racism of any kind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2022 11:25:23 GMT
That's your excuse for terrorism . I hope we don't see more of these terroist acts And it’s not terrorism. How many more times. It’s the deranged actions of the mentally disturbed. But one clearly motivated by far right extremism, according to the police who have investigated. So clearly a terrorist act Had it been a mentally deranged muslim motivated by islamic extremism, you'd not be denying the inherent terrorism. So you are a hypocrite. The act itself was a terrorist act motivated by political extremism, however deranged the perpetrator. And however much you personally might sympathise with his particular brand of extremism. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 9, 2022 11:42:10 GMT
It was a terrorist act and the guy who did it is dead and can't do it again.
He was an idiot.
Now he's a dead idiot.
|
|
