ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"Us"?TonkaToy said:
Who's that then, you and your alter-ego Nick Griffin?
You plum.
What is wrong with border controls?
- Thread starter SuburbanCasual
- Start date
Who's that then, you and your alter-ego Nick Griffin?
You plum.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Blagsta said:
That's a bit defamatory of cunts, you know.
ViolentPanda said:You really can't get it through your head, can you?
get what through my head? that instead of confronting/debating what you disagree with TB you instead throw insults around
Do yourself a favour take your bollocks out of your skull and your brain out of your scrotum, and switch 'em around.
gosh you are good at swearing
Go ahead.
as i said it is not worth my time ( seebelow)
For every example of me doing that I can find one of him doing the same to me.
game fking set and match .. i have never said TB does not on the occassion wind you up .. but thanks for admitting that you are always at it ..
Tell you what. You get your mate to make arguments that have some sort of basis beyond him (spuriously) claiming that his views represent those of "most people"
for right and wrong he is probaly right on that point .. isn't he?? which is NOT to say his argeuments are right, mind
and cure him of his aversion to any form of evidence that doesn't support his thesis. Then get him to stop using broad-vrush sweeping generalisations about the left, and then maybe we can all move on, but as long as tommy behaves like a turd
there you go again .. 'a turd' .. what is he a nazi? a troll? a tory? yet you are happy to call him a turd? for, and no more than any other posters, he makes arguements without using full Harvard bloody referencing etc
he can expect to be treated like one.
......
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Get through your head the clear explanation I gave all of about 5 posts after I mentioned Mosley as to why I had, which had nothing to do with "smearing" or "throwing insults around". That's what.durruti02 said:
Your stupidity is enough to make a nun swear, let alone me. What else except "stupidity" would you call your failure to grasp a simple argument after it's been explained to you at least a half a dozen times.
And yes, I am good at swearing. I'm halfway decent at most things to do with the English language.
For which we can read that actually you're either too lazy or you're bullshitting.
Actually my little dimbulb, I haven't admitted anything of the sort, and if you wish to interpret my saying that I tackle LIKE WITH LIKE as meaning that I'm "always at it", then you have to then accept the fact that your little mate is ALSO "always at it", rather than just "on occasion".
What's sauce for the goose and all that...
I call him a turd because the way he argues (if you can call it that) makes him look like a turd.
I don't want "full Harvard referencing" (whatever that is). What I'd like is for balders not to be two-faced. You see, he has this habit of being happy to supply evidence that suits his own argument, but adamantly opposed to any that doesn't.
That's not "arguement" (as you call it), that's bullshit and bluster.
Anyway, I await your reply with interest. It should be good for a laugh, at least.
ViolentPanda said:
Pathetic arguement revisited eh.....People accept utter made up shite as evidence or statistics.....GWB claims a certain number have died in Iraq, the Lancet comes up with another figure.....Some people trust 1 figure some the other and some of us dont trust either......But lots of people are preety guillible and trust all kinds of stats....I dont....
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
So because a methodology is incorrect or misused in a percentage of cases that makes all statistics useless does it?
Not if you know how to look behind the figures balders. Still, id you prefer to keep hold of your uninformed prejudices rather than educating yourself, who am I to argue?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You're implying it.tbaldwin said:
I'd suggest that you grow up, but that'd be a vain request, wouldn't it?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That's vain as in futile, knobchops.tbaldwin said:
You work it out yourself, Einstein.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
Did I work for Michael Howard?
No you moonstruck moron, I worked for the Home Office, as I (and others) have told you many many times.
As for being a moral example, nope, I've never claimed to be, so if you're pigshit thick enough to think that I am, then I believe you must be projecting your own sleazy intentions onto other people again, balders.
I think the biggest problem with Border controls is that they are often down to an individual and that isn’t right in my view.
I’ll give an example, there was a TV programme a few years ago that look at immigration officers at Heathrow airport, one of those hidden camera things, it showed 4 immigration officers deciding that they wouldn’t let anyone in that day who had red socks on, why?
I have also had problems at immigration myself despite having a “leave to remain” visa in my passport and I also know personally a number of people who have been refused entry to the UK despite being granted a visa by the British Embassy in Brazil.
I am all for border controls as long as they apply the same standards to everyone, the people who suffer from mass immigration are the working-class of the country people want to settle in and in the main the working-class are less able to deal with mass immigration as it drives wages down and rents and house prices up.
I’m interested in the concept of communities having the right to decide who lives in “their” community, how would this work? Who would police it? What would stop people in one area deciding they only wanted white people living in their community?
I’m not sure it is workable, can people who advocate it expand on it please?
I’ll give an example, there was a TV programme a few years ago that look at immigration officers at Heathrow airport, one of those hidden camera things, it showed 4 immigration officers deciding that they wouldn’t let anyone in that day who had red socks on, why?
I have also had problems at immigration myself despite having a “leave to remain” visa in my passport and I also know personally a number of people who have been refused entry to the UK despite being granted a visa by the British Embassy in Brazil.
I am all for border controls as long as they apply the same standards to everyone, the people who suffer from mass immigration are the working-class of the country people want to settle in and in the main the working-class are less able to deal with mass immigration as it drives wages down and rents and house prices up.
I’m interested in the concept of communities having the right to decide who lives in “their” community, how would this work? Who would police it? What would stop people in one area deciding they only wanted white people living in their community?
I’m not sure it is workable, can people who advocate it expand on it please?
Epicurus said:
I think that if politicians had to do what most people wanted when it came to immigration..That genuine refugees and people with strong familly connections would be allowed in...Most people are not rabidly racist or narrow minded....The establishment and their fellow travellers on the Liberal left might like to think they are, but there not.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yes, as well as working under two other home secretaries (Baker and Clarke).tbaldwin said:
tbaldwin said:
I've always loved that line. How precisely do you imagine anyone demonstrates themselves to be a "genuine" refugee? D'you reckon persecutory regimes issue people with certificates declaring that they want to kill them because they belong to a given social group?
This government claims to support "genuine" refugees, but I've seen 3 people from Darfur today whose claims have been refused, on the basis that they could always go and live long and happy lives in Khartoum. Obviously not "genuine" enough.
Pigeon said:I've always loved that line. How precisely do you imagine anyone demonstrates themselves to be a "genuine" refugee? D'you reckon persecutory regimes issue people with certificates declaring that they want to kill them because they belong to a given social group?
This government claims to support "genuine" refugees, but I've seen 3 people from Darfur today whose claims have been refused, on the basis that they could always go and live long and happy lives in Khartoum. Obviously not "genuine" enough.
I agree to a point its not always easy to say who is genuine...But im sure you know there are loads of people from Turkey who lie and say there Kurdish...Loads of Albanians who said they were Kosovan etc etc etc etc.
They are economic migrants.
Economic migration is accepted to a degree by govts,cos its hard to stop and the ruling classes are the ones who benefit most from it.
Similar threads
