D&J you have got it totally wrong in what you try to criticise about my comments, when i said you cannot take them seriously i meant they are a joke. when i said they need controlling it's their racist comments that have no other purpose than to stir up trouble i remember yourself moaning about Abu Hamsa stirring up things and should be stopped so what's the difference? or do you convieniently forget that! And the people who sympathise with the BNP are simple minded for falling for the speel from these cowards.
Immigration and the tories
- Thread starter kendor
- Start date
Sponsored Links
D
david and julie
Can you enlighten me? I don't remember what your talking about.
D
david and julie
Right kendor now you've changed the spelling, I think you are referring to the hook. I cannot remember us talking about him though. For the benefit of those who may not remember this is who kendor is talking about.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1319188,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1305496/posts
kendor I've had enough now, if you can't see the difference between a legitimate though dodgy political party, and this ,you have a real problem. God help this country if we ever get people like you in any positions of influence. What you need is a spell in Iraq to sort you out.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1319188,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1305496/posts
kendor I've had enough now, if you can't see the difference between a legitimate though dodgy political party, and this ,you have a real problem. God help this country if we ever get people like you in any positions of influence. What you need is a spell in Iraq to sort you out.
Sponsored Links
D
david and julie
Do you mean kendor calling me stupid? and then you later misquoting what was said richard?
Neither of you have really offered debate have you?
Neither of you have really offered debate have you?
Well I,ve just been back and this is what you said
splitting straws to say I misquoted you but if you feel that I have then I apologise. as for the debate I thought it was going well and was really enjoying it.
It's like Dave is saying. If people agree with the views of a political party, and it is in no way illegal, then it is legitimate.
I would most certainly not vote for the BNP in their current state. That is my choice. I choose not to vote for them. But I ask you to remember that there are plenty of people who would never have voted for old labour, but now vote for new labour. Obviously something changed that made them decide to vote for Tony's posse. So, you can't rule it out that one day either situation, reputation or policies will change in such a way that they are a mainstream party. Anyone who disagrees should look into the history of the Labour party and see how they started!
Now, assuming that the BNP will stay with their current policy of referring to Michael Howard as being "of immigrant stock" (that was in a press release where they claimed not to be at all racist!
), the fact that they have a certain fraction of the vote reflects a certain fraction of the public's opinion.
Remember that the country is widely varied depending on where you go. In a well-to-do area of Surrey people won't necessarily be bothered about immigration. When houses cost the best part of a million, even the most loonie lefty council won't be buying them for asylum stealers (although the prospect of such a party gaining power in a well-to-do area of Surrey is laudible!). So, it is all very well for someone living there to think all is well and that anyone who has a problem with it is a small-minded bigot.
But what about in an area where there ARE problems? What would you think if you had a recently widowed grandmother who was forced out of the house and into a tiny flat because the council needed to house immigrants in the house? What about if your child's school stopped teaching about Christmas because it offended the parents of the asylum seekers?
There are also other problems. For instance, in part of Middlesex a lot of Somali refugees were taken in. It was then found that they were fighting with other ethnic groups, mainly beating up black Brits. Now, any asylum seeker that has to be moved to certain areas to avoid violence is not worth it. They obviously aren't that bothered about being here if they aren't willing to put aside whatever prejudices they have.
I would most certainly not vote for the BNP in their current state. That is my choice. I choose not to vote for them. But I ask you to remember that there are plenty of people who would never have voted for old labour, but now vote for new labour. Obviously something changed that made them decide to vote for Tony's posse. So, you can't rule it out that one day either situation, reputation or policies will change in such a way that they are a mainstream party. Anyone who disagrees should look into the history of the Labour party and see how they started!
Now, assuming that the BNP will stay with their current policy of referring to Michael Howard as being "of immigrant stock" (that was in a press release where they claimed not to be at all racist!
), the fact that they have a certain fraction of the vote reflects a certain fraction of the public's opinion. Remember that the country is widely varied depending on where you go. In a well-to-do area of Surrey people won't necessarily be bothered about immigration. When houses cost the best part of a million, even the most loonie lefty council won't be buying them for asylum stealers (although the prospect of such a party gaining power in a well-to-do area of Surrey is laudible!). So, it is all very well for someone living there to think all is well and that anyone who has a problem with it is a small-minded bigot.
But what about in an area where there ARE problems? What would you think if you had a recently widowed grandmother who was forced out of the house and into a tiny flat because the council needed to house immigrants in the house? What about if your child's school stopped teaching about Christmas because it offended the parents of the asylum seekers?
There are also other problems. For instance, in part of Middlesex a lot of Somali refugees were taken in. It was then found that they were fighting with other ethnic groups, mainly beating up black Brits. Now, any asylum seeker that has to be moved to certain areas to avoid violence is not worth it. They obviously aren't that bothered about being here if they aren't willing to put aside whatever prejudices they have.
It would appear that the majority of 'asylum seekers' are not really the type of people who could threaten a govn to the extent that they require 'asylum', the ones I had met, in the main, were very ordinary, menial workers, who would never qualify for Australia for example.
Do not forget, criminals from certain countries, could be seen under the law, as being in need of asylum, to save them from the apparent disproportionate, (probably deserved) punishment they may recieve at home.... Were do they go ? Welcome to UK, crime capital of Euroland .
P
Do not forget, criminals from certain countries, could be seen under the law, as being in need of asylum, to save them from the apparent disproportionate, (probably deserved) punishment they may recieve at home.... Were do they go ? Welcome to UK, crime capital of Euroland .
P
Legitimate governments ---- or not ? Who decides ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3597450.stm
Just to note why we have not packed young Marko Thatch off to Equi' Guinea, I guess he is sort of an asylum seeker at present !!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3597450.stm
Just to note why we have not packed young Marko Thatch off to Equi' Guinea, I guess he is sort of an asylum seeker at present !!
D&J has finally shown his/her?? true colours and really isn't worth wasting time on, He/She?? obviously is only after trying to wind people up and not very successfully i must say! until He/She?? comes up with a valid argument then they'll get a reply otherwise it's not worth letting him/her?? get out of their pram
Adam you have fallen into the same trap as others by quoting a few headliners and then using it as an argument that all are the same. If that were the case then all english people are murderers , crooks , theives! see how ridiculous the argument becomes then.AdamW said:It's like Dave is saying. If people agree with the views of a political party, and it is in no way illegal, then it is legitimate.
I would most certainly not vote for the BNP in their current state. That is my choice. I choose not to vote for them. But I ask you to remember that there are plenty of people who would never have voted for old labour, but now vote for new labour. Obviously something changed that made them decide to vote for Tony's posse. So, you can't rule it out that one day either situation, reputation or policies will change in such a way that they are a mainstream party. Anyone who disagrees should look into the history of the Labour party and see how they started!
Now, assuming that the BNP will stay with their current policy of referring to Michael Howard as being "of immigrant stock" (that was in a press release where they claimed not to be at all racist!
Remember that the country is widely varied depending on where you go. In a well-to-do area of Surrey people won't necessarily be bothered about immigration. When houses cost the best part of a million, even the most loonie lefty council won't be buying them for asylum stealers (although the prospect of such a party gaining power in a well-to-do area of Surrey is laudible!). So, it is all very well for someone living there to think all is well and that anyone who has a problem with it is a small-minded bigot.
But what about in an area where there ARE problems? What would you think if you had a recently widowed grandmother who was forced out of the house and into a tiny flat because the council needed to house immigrants in the house? What about if your child's school stopped teaching about Christmas because it offended the parents of the asylum seekers?
There are also other problems. For instance, in part of Middlesex a lot of Somali refugees were taken in. It was then found that they were fighting with other ethnic groups, mainly beating up black Brits. Now, any asylum seeker that has to be moved to certain areas to avoid violence is not worth it. They obviously aren't that bothered about being here if they aren't willing to put aside whatever prejudices they have.
kendor said:D&J has finally shown his/her?? true colours and really isn't worth wasting time on, He/She?? obviously is only after trying to wind people up and not very successfully i must say! until He/She?? comes up with a valid argument then they'll get a reply otherwise it's not worth letting him/her?? get out of their pram
You felt it 'worth while' to type more than the usual.
I say this 'multi-culteralism' cannot properly work --- it is inherent in man to dominate ---- If a faction 'gives up' it's pre-eminence then tis against the laws of nature, and the punishment of subjugation will surely follow !!
The 'corners' of integration can, at some levels be rounded off, but the inherent abrasiveness will always be there -- the rule makers are too far from the grass roots -- and, these pushers of integral cohesiveness themselves seek to increase the divide twixt themselves and us ... They segregate, from their own kind, don't we all in one way or another ?
I would prefer to break both my legs than live in certain districts of Bristol, and I do not see many 'do-gooders' choosing to live there either !! Look at the 'Yardie' and other gang problems -- Who let them in ? Who was conned on entry ?
P
D
david and julie
Where have I shown my true colours? please quote one facist or racist comment in anything I have said. I didn't call you stupid or insult you did I kendor.
Sponsored Links
