I notice you don't try to deny it.
Are you inventing some new argument? Do you think other countries don't have immigrants?
Hey Amir I got in to England illegally it was worth it !!!!
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Are you inventing some new argument? Do you think other countries don't have immigrants?
Sponsored Links
Why do you have to fall over yourself to support migrants? Such zeal usually indicates a position that needs additional support.
It's called balance or parity. When a member makes it his quest to show the bad side of immigration, with equal zeal and falling over, you will always have posters to counter that.
It's the main reason I post on here. To right wrongs.
My two favourites are "why are ALL immigrants coming to Britain" and "why can't Muslim nations take some of them in".
I suppose if you get your facts from either left or right wing biased sources, then you are going to get inaccuracies. It's only the gullible or the naïve that go on to post it on here without actually researching the truth.
Last edited:
Well, I don't know where you get your information from then, it certainly isn't from research.
My opinions and views are supported by 'random quotes off the internet.'
Your views and opinions are supported by .................jock, fender, mitch et al....
So to offer 'suffice to say' is hardly sufficient validation, is it really?
What you really mean is 'IMO' and your opinion is based on urban mythology and little else.
Sponsored Links
Yes, you are correct.
In relation to my comments, don't need to Google things, then quote it and provide a link as some sort of self validation, or to show others my googling prowes.
On the otherhand, it seems like that's where your information is coming from. And that is why it is selective, and inaccurate in context.
What utter nonsense!
You are suggesting that EU countries willfully dissuade refugees from registering in their country and tell them to continue on to UK. What utter nonsense.
I gave you a little more credit for your intellectual capacity than that, Brig.
As you may have noticed, an awful lot of refugees have at least a smattering of english, not french, not german, not dutch, etc. but english. Apart from illustrating the kind of education that the refugees have received, you'll probably have some experience of how even just a little of the native language gives a slight advantage and confidence when in a foreign land.
My guess is that the vast majority would prefer to continue on to USA, etc, if it were possible.
So you are suggesting that your views are correct, although not supported by research, but you're confident you have a good grasp of international affairs.
So, please explain how you formulated your opinions.
Then you suggest that my views are formulated and supported by research, but my views are incorrect.
You astound me!
At this rate you ought to be Prime Minister, gifted as you are with such insight.
Last edited:
Are you ok with these make believe asylum seekers coming here and when is enough enough ?
Hmmm ,, that'll be why thousands are stuck at Calais then. Because they weren't encouraged to make their way to the channel. They just thought they'd make for the UK and sod the benefits they could have claimed in Greece, Austria, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy etc, etc. Yeah, they'd sooner starve themselves than accept benefits in other EU countries.
So you are suggesting that your views are correct, although not supported by research, but you're confident you have a good grasp of international affairs.
So, please explain how you formulated your opinions.
Then you suggest that my views are formulated and supported by research, but my views are incorrect.
You astound me!
At this rate you ought to be Prime Minister, gifted as you are with such insight.
If you have no involvement with this issue, then you would have to research it instead, and regurgitate what you read, wont you. But that leads to only reading and quoting what supports your point of view, and not including all the information, all the contrary information.
I am confident that what I know is correct. And I would suggest it has to be a higher confidence than you could have in googling around for third hand information.
So you trust your limited 'experiences' and perception of those 'experiences' and your memory of those 'experiences' over and above the general view of reality.So you are suggesting that your views are correct, although not supported by research, but you're confident you have a good grasp of international affairs.
So, please explain how you formulated your opinions.
Then you suggest that my views are formulated and supported by research, but my views are incorrect.
You astound me!
At this rate you ought to be Prime Minister, gifted as you are with such insight.
If you have no involvement with this issue, then you would have to research it instead, and regurgitate what you read, wont you. But that leads to only reading and quoting what supports your point of view, and not including all the information, all the contrary information.
I am confident that what I know is correct. And I would suggest it has to be a higher confidence than you could have in googling around for third hand information.
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of prejudice. You obviously have no idea of its affects.
The knowledge gained by secondary (not third hand) is invariably wider, more in-depth and more reliable than primary research simply because the breadth and depth of available secondary sourced material far surpasses that of the availability of primary sourced material. The secondary research is also usually free of prejudicial and temporal interpretation.
To suggest that your primary sourced material is better than the wealth of secondary sourced material is so egotistical to be beyond belief.
Last edited:
I have been occasionally.... and I've been honest enough to admit it.Egotistical?. So what are you then?
You're a funny guy Himmy. You're really never wrong are you.......
How about you?
Sponsored Links