The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Racism
Firstly define Racism for me? As I feel we’ve gone racism mad on everything, and have almost started going in the opposite way. From what I’ve read and heard over the past few months we, as a society, are taking things a step too far. In schools blackboards are now no longer allowed to be called blackboards but chalkboards, as otherwise it’s ‘claimed’ it’s racist towards Black people. How exactly does that work then, as quite simply it’s a board and it’s black…what’s racist about that?
On the other side of the board (boom boom – although no pun intended) white boards which are wipe clean and use a pen are allowed to be called white boards…which is in direct contrast to my point above!! I can’t really understand why people find issue with such things as we’re no different to one another and if the colour of an item is described as black or white that is because it is black or white. If the current trend carries on then it’ll surely lead to a banning of certain colours! No more Yellow lines on the road – Offensive to people of Asian decent and the Simpsons, no more white lines in the middle of roads - Offensive to white people, no more green grass – Offensive to the Poddington Peas, no more black suit and tie at funerals – Offensive to people of African decent. It’s utter lunacy. What about people that get sun tans or use sun beds too often (Dale Winton etc)? Is Tan Leather interior for cars going to be banned or made to change its name? Blimey at this rate even saying something transparent is going to be offensive to Jellyfish.
Have you ever seen any Def Jam comedy videos featuring the likes of Chris Rock, Bernie Mack, David Chapelle etc. If so you’ll notice that theres always the odd white person in the crowd that gets spotted and has the Mickey taken for being the only white guy/girl for several blocks. Ever seen a film such as Money Talks, Rush Hour or TV shows such as The Fresh Prince, Goodness Gracious Me (particularly the scene where they go for an English – Hilarious) etc – White and Chinese people are the butt of many a joke. But can you imagine what would happen to the career or someone like Lee Evans or Jack Dee if they made a joke about black people!
Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from the black community that it shuns them etc.
Sex Discrimination
It’s a case of wanting the best of both worlds which you can’t have in todays day and age. Moving on nicely, but still keeping with the idea of groups/events which segregate people. Not so long back there was a row that erupted over a Mens golfing tour. The issue was that Laura Davis, Britains No. 1 Golfer and for World Number 1, wanted to compete alongside the men. Now again I’ve got no problem with this as why shouldn’t a female be able to complete with men at a sport! However the Mens PGA wasn’t happy with this as they saw it as a mens only tour. Unsurprisingly there was a backlash from women golfers and eventually the Mens PGA backed down and Let Laura play. Not before however they raised the question…so can we let a man, say Tiger Woods, play on the Womans tour. I’ll let you guess the answer but I’ll give you a clue, it begins with an N and ends with an O. Needless to say Laura Davis came last, missed the cut and has decided not to request playing on a mens tour since!!
Across the country there are also several ‘Mens’ clubs and associations, which all forbid the joining of female members. It amazes me that the people that won’t let Females join this club are actually over the age of 10. As last time I checked it was only men under this age that didn’t like a females company.
There’s also always talk of Women earning less money than men for the same job. Personally I’d like to bring to the attention of those people (and I don’t disagree with you) Tony and Cherrie Blair….Shes a Lawyer and earns Circa £200k a year…He (tries to) runs the country and earns circa £110k!!
There’s currently a big debate in many schools and I remember having the debate with a few teachers when I was at school, and that is that boys are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, but girls are allowed to wear skirts. I found the only way to get around this was to either ask if it’s ok to wear a Kilt, or secondly, say you’re having a sexual identity crisis and could you wear a skirt…If they say no, ask them why they’re being homophobic!
Firstly define Racism for me? As I feel we’ve gone racism mad on everything, and have almost started going in the opposite way. From what I’ve read and heard over the past few months we, as a society, are taking things a step too far. In schools blackboards are now no longer allowed to be called blackboards but chalkboards, as otherwise it’s ‘claimed’ it’s racist towards Black people. How exactly does that work then, as quite simply it’s a board and it’s black…what’s racist about that?
On the other side of the board (boom boom – although no pun intended) white boards which are wipe clean and use a pen are allowed to be called white boards…which is in direct contrast to my point above!! I can’t really understand why people find issue with such things as we’re no different to one another and if the colour of an item is described as black or white that is because it is black or white. If the current trend carries on then it’ll surely lead to a banning of certain colours! No more Yellow lines on the road – Offensive to people of Asian decent and the Simpsons, no more white lines in the middle of roads - Offensive to white people, no more green grass – Offensive to the Poddington Peas, no more black suit and tie at funerals – Offensive to people of African decent. It’s utter lunacy. What about people that get sun tans or use sun beds too often (Dale Winton etc)? Is Tan Leather interior for cars going to be banned or made to change its name? Blimey at this rate even saying something transparent is going to be offensive to Jellyfish.
Have you ever seen any Def Jam comedy videos featuring the likes of Chris Rock, Bernie Mack, David Chapelle etc. If so you’ll notice that theres always the odd white person in the crowd that gets spotted and has the Mickey taken for being the only white guy/girl for several blocks. Ever seen a film such as Money Talks, Rush Hour or TV shows such as The Fresh Prince, Goodness Gracious Me (particularly the scene where they go for an English – Hilarious) etc – White and Chinese people are the butt of many a joke. But can you imagine what would happen to the career or someone like Lee Evans or Jack Dee if they made a joke about black people!
Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from the black community that it shuns them etc.
Sex Discrimination
It’s a case of wanting the best of both worlds which you can’t have in todays day and age. Moving on nicely, but still keeping with the idea of groups/events which segregate people. Not so long back there was a row that erupted over a Mens golfing tour. The issue was that Laura Davis, Britains No. 1 Golfer and for World Number 1, wanted to compete alongside the men. Now again I’ve got no problem with this as why shouldn’t a female be able to complete with men at a sport! However the Mens PGA wasn’t happy with this as they saw it as a mens only tour. Unsurprisingly there was a backlash from women golfers and eventually the Mens PGA backed down and Let Laura play. Not before however they raised the question…so can we let a man, say Tiger Woods, play on the Womans tour. I’ll let you guess the answer but I’ll give you a clue, it begins with an N and ends with an O. Needless to say Laura Davis came last, missed the cut and has decided not to request playing on a mens tour since!!
Across the country there are also several ‘Mens’ clubs and associations, which all forbid the joining of female members. It amazes me that the people that won’t let Females join this club are actually over the age of 10. As last time I checked it was only men under this age that didn’t like a females company.
There’s also always talk of Women earning less money than men for the same job. Personally I’d like to bring to the attention of those people (and I don’t disagree with you) Tony and Cherrie Blair….Shes a Lawyer and earns Circa £200k a year…He (tries to) runs the country and earns circa £110k!!
There’s currently a big debate in many schools and I remember having the debate with a few teachers when I was at school, and that is that boys are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, but girls are allowed to wear skirts. I found the only way to get around this was to either ask if it’s ok to wear a Kilt, or secondly, say you’re having a sexual identity crisis and could you wear a skirt…If they say no, ask them why they’re being homophobic!
Page:
Cyclone wrote:
> (why's he been
> warned, may I ask?)
Swearing, and it's justified to be honest; I may have suggested in quite graphic terms that Tanoy was the sort of person to [make love) to handfuls of [canine excrement].
Well, I was in a bit of a mood last night...
> (why's he been
> warned, may I ask?)
Swearing, and it's justified to be honest; I may have suggested in quite graphic terms that Tanoy was the sort of person to [make love) to handfuls of [canine excrement].
Well, I was in a bit of a mood last night...
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
> >Another example of your ignorance yes, an excuse no, a fact yes.
> And the ones who are genuine and in need of help will no doubt be
> given refugee status and the help needed to get on with thier lives.
> As I mentioned in my earlier post, the old camp at the channel
> tunnel
> was a prime example of people crossing other ports of call just to
> enter Britain. It is also one of many examples of people entering
> the
> country illegally, just like the cockle pickers who were swept away
> by the sea. Which leads me on to there employers, taking advantage
> of
> illegal immigrants, and are they looking to claim asylum status?
> Instead take jobs from the economy as i'm sure they wont be paying
> taxes.
>
> Heh. Amazing how any post not agreeing with you is simply
> ignorance...
> I don't actually see your point. First you say that "we're
> talking about people fleeing for their lives". Then you seem to
> think that these people fleeing should simply stop at the very first
> port of call, and if they don't do that then they should simply be
> sent back to face death or torture. Is that right? If not, please do
> explain exactly what you mean because at the moment your argument has
> no logical structure beyond a callous disregard for human life.
>
> The cockle pickers were smuggled in by Triads; the whole thing was
> part of an organised criminal ring. Organised crime isn't noted for
> it's willingness to pay taxes. And what you're suggesting is that the
> people who've paid out all of their money to get here, and who are
> willing to work for a pittance, should just be sent straight back to
> China? You don't...you don't think that their willingness to work is
> something that we desperately need in this country? And that if they
> were given economic migrant status and a minimum wage job, they
> wouldn't show a gratitude and love for this country that is missing
> from 90% of population who were actually born here?
>
> Oh so we give the people who come in a job on the minimum wage just because it's not right in your mind to send them back? Or would you rather have someone enter our country following the correct system where they pick the best qualified people for example nurses, dentists etc? The fact is we can't let every single person into Britain, even Mr Howard agreed that they needed to be a cap on immigrants and asylum seekers entring our shores. So to pick the best is in my opinion the next best thing by putting a limit on the amount we take.
>
>
>
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our
> gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
> Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
>
> Well no, not really; our economy has been in this state for years.
> It's the normal state of affairs, not exceptional. Tell me; do you
> realise that in the 50's, we had an even worse economy and so
> encouraged mass immigration to combat it? It worked then; why won't
> it work now?
The popullation of Britain has increased since the 50's, the main reson we needed imigrants then, was because of the tragic loss of workers due to the war, correct? If we let the same ammount of people in now we wouldn't be able to cope, how? It's because the same problem would re-occur in another 50 years and we'll be in the same situation as we are now, but with a much bigger population of old people who as you say yourself would need replaced.
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are
> safe"
> points I've commented on?
>
>
> So...nothing to say about this at all then? Cool; nice to know you
> can't actually defend some of the key points of this policy. Doesn't
> really bode well, does it?
>
If the UN fail to do a job then that a problem for the UN to make it safe.
>
> Not answering the question; I asked about people who are already in
> and who bypassed the system. Lots of them currently apply for asylum
> or immigrant status once in. You're saying that they should be
> deported the instant they do so. So what about them please?
>
> As It said, asylum claims will not countenanced if submitted later,
> or away from the point of entry.
>
> I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there
> have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in, and
> THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become
> good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want immigrants
> to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants
> will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK then".
> They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if they're
> already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how
> many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
>
> Not that it matters because, you see, UKIP aren't going to get within
> sniffing distance of government.
>
> Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted
> how?
>
> Well, the article where he stated Arabs are worthless was one
> clue...
>
> Oh, and do you know what Mammon refers to?
Yes
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
> >Another example of your ignorance yes, an excuse no, a fact yes.
> And the ones who are genuine and in need of help will no doubt be
> given refugee status and the help needed to get on with thier lives.
> As I mentioned in my earlier post, the old camp at the channel
> tunnel
> was a prime example of people crossing other ports of call just to
> enter Britain. It is also one of many examples of people entering
> the
> country illegally, just like the cockle pickers who were swept away
> by the sea. Which leads me on to there employers, taking advantage
> of
> illegal immigrants, and are they looking to claim asylum status?
> Instead take jobs from the economy as i'm sure they wont be paying
> taxes.
>
> Heh. Amazing how any post not agreeing with you is simply
> ignorance...
> I don't actually see your point. First you say that "we're
> talking about people fleeing for their lives". Then you seem to
> think that these people fleeing should simply stop at the very first
> port of call, and if they don't do that then they should simply be
> sent back to face death or torture. Is that right? If not, please do
> explain exactly what you mean because at the moment your argument has
> no logical structure beyond a callous disregard for human life.
>
> The cockle pickers were smuggled in by Triads; the whole thing was
> part of an organised criminal ring. Organised crime isn't noted for
> it's willingness to pay taxes. And what you're suggesting is that the
> people who've paid out all of their money to get here, and who are
> willing to work for a pittance, should just be sent straight back to
> China? You don't...you don't think that their willingness to work is
> something that we desperately need in this country? And that if they
> were given economic migrant status and a minimum wage job, they
> wouldn't show a gratitude and love for this country that is missing
> from 90% of population who were actually born here?
>
> Oh so we give the people who come in a job on the minimum wage just because it's not right in your mind to send them back? Or would you rather have someone enter our country following the correct system where they pick the best qualified people for example nurses, dentists etc? The fact is we can't let every single person into Britain, even Mr Howard agreed that they needed to be a cap on immigrants and asylum seekers entring our shores. So to pick the best is in my opinion the next best thing by putting a limit on the amount we take.
>
>
>
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our
> gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
> Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
>
> Well no, not really; our economy has been in this state for years.
> It's the normal state of affairs, not exceptional. Tell me; do you
> realise that in the 50's, we had an even worse economy and so
> encouraged mass immigration to combat it? It worked then; why won't
> it work now?
The popullation of Britain has increased since the 50's, the main reson we needed imigrants then, was because of the tragic loss of workers due to the war, correct? If we let the same ammount of people in now we wouldn't be able to cope, how? It's because the same problem would re-occur in another 50 years and we'll be in the same situation as we are now, but with a much bigger population of old people who as you say yourself would need replaced.
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are
> safe"
> points I've commented on?
>
>
> So...nothing to say about this at all then? Cool; nice to know you
> can't actually defend some of the key points of this policy. Doesn't
> really bode well, does it?
>
If the UN fail to do a job then that a problem for the UN to make it safe.
>
> Not answering the question; I asked about people who are already in
> and who bypassed the system. Lots of them currently apply for asylum
> or immigrant status once in. You're saying that they should be
> deported the instant they do so. So what about them please?
>
> As It said, asylum claims will not countenanced if submitted later,
> or away from the point of entry.
>
> I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there
> have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in, and
> THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become
> good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want immigrants
> to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants
> will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK then".
> They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if they're
> already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how
> many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
>
> Not that it matters because, you see, UKIP aren't going to get within
> sniffing distance of government.
>
> Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted
> how?
>
> Well, the article where he stated Arabs are worthless was one
> clue...
>
> Oh, and do you know what Mammon refers to?
Yes
kevstar wrote:
>
> Oh so we give the people who come in a job on the minimum wage just
> because it's not right in your mind to send them back? Or would you
> rather have someone enter our country following the correct system
> where they pick the best qualified people for example nurses,
> dentists etc? The fact is we can't let every single person into
> Britain, even Mr Howard agreed that they needed to be a cap on
> immigrants and asylum seekers entring our shores. So to pick the best
> is in my opinion the next best thing by putting a limit on the amount
> we take.
No, we give them the job because if they're willing to work all hours for 3p an hour, they'll work all hours for the minimum wage, thus making our economy stronger. My apologies if you don't like the idea of our nations economy relying on damn dirty foreigners, but the simple fact is that it does and always has done; look back through UK History and you will not find one point where we haven't benefited from an influx of people from overseas.
We do pick the best qualified people for nursing and other area's of the medical profession. However, the people who are trained in this country have an annoying habit of going to work overseas. It's what you may have heard referred to as "the brain drain". The only way UKIP's policy has the remotest chance of working is by banning people from leaving the country to work overseas. And I believe that a place where people are not allowed in or out is what we call "prison".
I'm not saying we should or can let in every single person, and I find it very telling that in order to try and defend this indefensible policy you have to misrepresent what I'm saying. Pick the best? So someone willing to work incredibly hard...that's not the best is it? And what exactly is the best anyway? Did I miss a few years, and do we now no longer require people to do unskilled jobs? And do we no longer need anyone to do jobs of a practical nature? Because y'know, last time I looked we had a massive shortage of builders, carpenters, electricians and so forth. At least with an immigrant who's travelled 100's or 1000's of miles to get here, you know damn well he or she is going to be grateful for any training in these area's and they're gonna stay in the country for a few years at the very least, thus boosting our economy.
So anyway, all that aside; are you going to answer the accusation about your total disregard for the life of anyone genuinely fleeing death or torture? Or, like all the points about economic migrants, the UK Economy, the loathsomeness of UKIP's poster boy, the impracticality of simply deporting anyone who doesn't apply for citizenship or refugee statusor immigrant status at point of entry, and so-called democracies (i'll get to your answer about the UN in just a moment), are you just going to pretend that those questions don't exist?
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are
> safe"
> points I've commented on?
>
>
> So...nothing to say about this at all then? Cool; nice to know you
> can't actually defend some of the key points of this policy. Doesn't
> really bode well, does it?
>
> If the UN fail to do a job then that a problem for the UN to make it
> safe.
Ah, I see...so this does indeed come back to a callous disregard for human life then? Just a simple, straightforward "I don't want any foreigners in my country and I don't care if the alternative for them is a gruesome death"? So even if one knows the UN aren't able to keep the peace somewhere, we should just send them to die? Interesting...
I'm glad I've had this conversation with you. It confirms my deeply held belief that the UKIP is nothing more than the acceptibly middle class face of bigotry.
>
> I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there
> have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in,
> and
> THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become
> good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want
> immigrants
> to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants
> will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK
> then".
> They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if
> they're
> already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how
> many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
>
> Not that it matters because, you see, UKIP aren't going to get
> within
> sniffing distance of government.
>
> Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted
> how?
>
> Well, the article where he stated Arabs are worthless was one
> clue...
>
> Oh, and do you know what Mammon refers to?
>
> Yes
And the word Mammon (or God Mammon) refers to m....?
Y'know, if you don't actually know what it refers to, there's absolutely no shame in saying so and asking. Contrary to popular belief, I won't take the proverbial out of you for doing so.
>
> Oh so we give the people who come in a job on the minimum wage just
> because it's not right in your mind to send them back? Or would you
> rather have someone enter our country following the correct system
> where they pick the best qualified people for example nurses,
> dentists etc? The fact is we can't let every single person into
> Britain, even Mr Howard agreed that they needed to be a cap on
> immigrants and asylum seekers entring our shores. So to pick the best
> is in my opinion the next best thing by putting a limit on the amount
> we take.
No, we give them the job because if they're willing to work all hours for 3p an hour, they'll work all hours for the minimum wage, thus making our economy stronger. My apologies if you don't like the idea of our nations economy relying on damn dirty foreigners, but the simple fact is that it does and always has done; look back through UK History and you will not find one point where we haven't benefited from an influx of people from overseas.
We do pick the best qualified people for nursing and other area's of the medical profession. However, the people who are trained in this country have an annoying habit of going to work overseas. It's what you may have heard referred to as "the brain drain". The only way UKIP's policy has the remotest chance of working is by banning people from leaving the country to work overseas. And I believe that a place where people are not allowed in or out is what we call "prison".
I'm not saying we should or can let in every single person, and I find it very telling that in order to try and defend this indefensible policy you have to misrepresent what I'm saying. Pick the best? So someone willing to work incredibly hard...that's not the best is it? And what exactly is the best anyway? Did I miss a few years, and do we now no longer require people to do unskilled jobs? And do we no longer need anyone to do jobs of a practical nature? Because y'know, last time I looked we had a massive shortage of builders, carpenters, electricians and so forth. At least with an immigrant who's travelled 100's or 1000's of miles to get here, you know damn well he or she is going to be grateful for any training in these area's and they're gonna stay in the country for a few years at the very least, thus boosting our economy.
So anyway, all that aside; are you going to answer the accusation about your total disregard for the life of anyone genuinely fleeing death or torture? Or, like all the points about economic migrants, the UK Economy, the loathsomeness of UKIP's poster boy, the impracticality of simply deporting anyone who doesn't apply for citizenship or refugee statusor immigrant status at point of entry, and so-called democracies (i'll get to your answer about the UN in just a moment), are you just going to pretend that those questions don't exist?
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are
> safe"
> points I've commented on?
>
>
> So...nothing to say about this at all then? Cool; nice to know you
> can't actually defend some of the key points of this policy. Doesn't
> really bode well, does it?
>
> If the UN fail to do a job then that a problem for the UN to make it
> safe.
Ah, I see...so this does indeed come back to a callous disregard for human life then? Just a simple, straightforward "I don't want any foreigners in my country and I don't care if the alternative for them is a gruesome death"? So even if one knows the UN aren't able to keep the peace somewhere, we should just send them to die? Interesting...
I'm glad I've had this conversation with you. It confirms my deeply held belief that the UKIP is nothing more than the acceptibly middle class face of bigotry.
>
> I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there
> have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in,
> and
> THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become
> good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want
> immigrants
> to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants
> will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK
> then".
> They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if
> they're
> already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how
> many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
>
> Not that it matters because, you see, UKIP aren't going to get
> within
> sniffing distance of government.
>
> Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted
> how?
>
> Well, the article where he stated Arabs are worthless was one
> clue...
>
> Oh, and do you know what Mammon refers to?
>
> Yes
And the word Mammon (or God Mammon) refers to m....?
Y'know, if you don't actually know what it refers to, there's absolutely no shame in saying so and asking. Contrary to popular belief, I won't take the proverbial out of you for doing so.
I always think that when people say 'there are too many peopl "here" already', that someone should stop them making any more mini-bigots-to-be.
I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I think that for every immigrant that comes to this country, we should send a bigot to that immigrants country of origin. I'd cheerfully swap a durty forrin for a pig-ignorant mingeswamp.
Apologies for the randomness, but why were you warned Light?
Becuase he argues with you. Why else?!!
Light wrote:
> Swearing, and it's justified to be honest; I may have suggested in
> quite graphic terms that Tanoy was the sort of person to [make love)
> to handfuls of [canine excrement].
>
> Well, I was in a bit of a mood last night...
> Swearing, and it's justified to be honest; I may have suggested in
> quite graphic terms that Tanoy was the sort of person to [make love)
> to handfuls of [canine excrement].
>
> Well, I was in a bit of a mood last night...
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh so we give the people who come in a job on the minimum wage just
> because it's not right in your mind to send them back? Or would you
> rather have someone enter our country following the correct system
> where they pick the best qualified people for example nurses,
> dentists etc? The fact is we can't let every single person into
> Britain, even Mr Howard agreed that they needed to be a cap on
> immigrants and asylum seekers entring our shores. So to pick the
> best
> is in my opinion the next best thing by putting a limit on the
> amount
> we take.
>
> No, we give them the job because if they're willing to work all hours
> for 3p an hour, they'll work all hours for the minimum wage, thus
> making our economy stronger. My apologies if you don't like the idea
> of our nations economy relying on damn dirty foreigners, but the
> simple fact is that it does and always has done; look back through UK
> History and you will not find one point where we haven't benefited
> from an influx of people from overseas.
>
> We do pick the best qualified people for nursing and other area's of
> the medical profession. However, the people who are trained in this
> country have an annoying habit of going to work overseas. It's what
> you may have heard referred to as "the brain drain". The
> only way UKIP's policy has the remotest chance of working is by
> banning people from leaving the country to work overseas. And I
> believe that a place where people are not allowed in or out is what
> we call "prison".
>
> I'm not saying we should or can let in every single person, and I
> find it very telling that in order to try and defend this
> indefensible policy you have to misrepresent what I'm saying. Pick
> the best? So someone willing to work incredibly hard...that's not the
> best is it? And what exactly is the best anyway? Did I miss a few
> years, and do we now no longer require people to do unskilled jobs?
> And do we no longer need anyone to do jobs of a practical nature?
> Because y'know, last time I looked we had a massive shortage of
> builders, carpenters, electricians and so forth. At least with an
> immigrant who's travelled 100's or 1000's of miles to get here, you
> know damn well he or she is going to be grateful for any training in
> these area's and they're gonna stay in the country for a few years at
> the very least, thus boosting our economy.
>
Yes we do need people to do unskilled jobs, but in my opinion we have enough people in this country to do that anyway e.g the people on the dole, the next generation of workers, people been made redundant, even people on community service. Now yes, we may need theese topped up by immigrants but not by thoose who know before they come here are breaking the law. And yes, we do need workers, and I also accept they will be greatfull of training, but so will most of the popullation in countries worse off than us, should we take them in too if they tried to come over? You talk as if you can let everyone in yet at the same time acknowledge the simple fact we cant.
> So anyway, all that aside; are you going to answer the accusation
> about your total disregard for the life of anyone genuinely fleeing
> death or torture? Or, like all the points about economic migrants,
> the UK Economy, the loathsomeness of UKIP's poster boy, the
> impracticality of simply deporting anyone who doesn't apply for
> citizenship or refugee statusor immigrant status at point of entry,
> and so-called democracies (i'll get to your answer about the UN in
> just a moment), are you just going to pretend that those questions
> don't exist?
>
>
>
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are
> safe"
> points I've commented on?
>
>
> So...nothing to say about this at all then? Cool; nice to know you
> can't actually defend some of the key points of this policy. Doesn't
> really bode well, does it?
>
> If the UN fail to do a job then that a problem for the UN to make it
> safe.
>
> Ah, I see...so this does indeed come back to a callous disregard for
> human life then? Just a simple, straightforward "I don't want
> any foreigners in my country and I don't care if the alternative for
> them is a gruesome death"? So even if one knows the UN aren't
> able to keep the peace somewhere, we should just send them to die?
> Interesting...
>
> I'm glad I've had this conversation with you. It confirms my deeply
> held belief that the UKIP is nothing more than the acceptibly middle
> class face of bigotry.
>
> I have every regard for human life and to say otherwise is a insult itself, and I dont represent the UKIP I just agree on this policy. The fact is there trying to make suggestion on how to stop Britain becoming overcrowded, at least there putting ideas down on paper. And never mind me not answering questions where I find it hard to comment on because I dont know the full siuation, but going by your reckoning they'll proberbly have to make exceptions such as UN safe zones, does that satisfy you.
>
> I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there
> have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in,
> and
> THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become
> good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want
> immigrants
> to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants
> will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK
> then".
> They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if
> they're
> already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how
> many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
>
> Not that it matters because, you see, UKIP aren't going to get
> within
> sniffing distance of government.
>
> Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted
> how?
>
> Well, the article where he stated Arabs are worthless was one
> clue...
>
> Oh, and do you know what Mammon refers to?
>
> Yes
>
> And the word Mammon (or God Mammon) refers to m....?
>
> Y'know, if you don't actually know what it refers to, there's
> absolutely no shame in saying so and asking. Contrary to popular
> belief, I won't take the proverbial out of you for doing so.
Again this is you bieng stupid, dont you think I just needed to have a flick in the dictionary to find this word out before I posted the word yes? Or did it not occur to you I was bieng sarcastic, I was going to say it was you, but I thought that was going to far. As it happened I was aware of the word before you asked. As far as I was aware it was devilish.
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh so we give the people who come in a job on the minimum wage just
> because it's not right in your mind to send them back? Or would you
> rather have someone enter our country following the correct system
> where they pick the best qualified people for example nurses,
> dentists etc? The fact is we can't let every single person into
> Britain, even Mr Howard agreed that they needed to be a cap on
> immigrants and asylum seekers entring our shores. So to pick the
> best
> is in my opinion the next best thing by putting a limit on the
> amount
> we take.
>
> No, we give them the job because if they're willing to work all hours
> for 3p an hour, they'll work all hours for the minimum wage, thus
> making our economy stronger. My apologies if you don't like the idea
> of our nations economy relying on damn dirty foreigners, but the
> simple fact is that it does and always has done; look back through UK
> History and you will not find one point where we haven't benefited
> from an influx of people from overseas.
>
> We do pick the best qualified people for nursing and other area's of
> the medical profession. However, the people who are trained in this
> country have an annoying habit of going to work overseas. It's what
> you may have heard referred to as "the brain drain". The
> only way UKIP's policy has the remotest chance of working is by
> banning people from leaving the country to work overseas. And I
> believe that a place where people are not allowed in or out is what
> we call "prison".
>
> I'm not saying we should or can let in every single person, and I
> find it very telling that in order to try and defend this
> indefensible policy you have to misrepresent what I'm saying. Pick
> the best? So someone willing to work incredibly hard...that's not the
> best is it? And what exactly is the best anyway? Did I miss a few
> years, and do we now no longer require people to do unskilled jobs?
> And do we no longer need anyone to do jobs of a practical nature?
> Because y'know, last time I looked we had a massive shortage of
> builders, carpenters, electricians and so forth. At least with an
> immigrant who's travelled 100's or 1000's of miles to get here, you
> know damn well he or she is going to be grateful for any training in
> these area's and they're gonna stay in the country for a few years at
> the very least, thus boosting our economy.
>
Yes we do need people to do unskilled jobs, but in my opinion we have enough people in this country to do that anyway e.g the people on the dole, the next generation of workers, people been made redundant, even people on community service. Now yes, we may need theese topped up by immigrants but not by thoose who know before they come here are breaking the law. And yes, we do need workers, and I also accept they will be greatfull of training, but so will most of the popullation in countries worse off than us, should we take them in too if they tried to come over? You talk as if you can let everyone in yet at the same time acknowledge the simple fact we cant.
> So anyway, all that aside; are you going to answer the accusation
> about your total disregard for the life of anyone genuinely fleeing
> death or torture? Or, like all the points about economic migrants,
> the UK Economy, the loathsomeness of UKIP's poster boy, the
> impracticality of simply deporting anyone who doesn't apply for
> citizenship or refugee statusor immigrant status at point of entry,
> and so-called democracies (i'll get to your answer about the UN in
> just a moment), are you just going to pretend that those questions
> don't exist?
>
>
>
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are
> safe"
> points I've commented on?
>
>
> So...nothing to say about this at all then? Cool; nice to know you
> can't actually defend some of the key points of this policy. Doesn't
> really bode well, does it?
>
> If the UN fail to do a job then that a problem for the UN to make it
> safe.
>
> Ah, I see...so this does indeed come back to a callous disregard for
> human life then? Just a simple, straightforward "I don't want
> any foreigners in my country and I don't care if the alternative for
> them is a gruesome death"? So even if one knows the UN aren't
> able to keep the peace somewhere, we should just send them to die?
> Interesting...
>
> I'm glad I've had this conversation with you. It confirms my deeply
> held belief that the UKIP is nothing more than the acceptibly middle
> class face of bigotry.
>
> I have every regard for human life and to say otherwise is a insult itself, and I dont represent the UKIP I just agree on this policy. The fact is there trying to make suggestion on how to stop Britain becoming overcrowded, at least there putting ideas down on paper. And never mind me not answering questions where I find it hard to comment on because I dont know the full siuation, but going by your reckoning they'll proberbly have to make exceptions such as UN safe zones, does that satisfy you.
>
> I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there
> have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in,
> and
> THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become
> good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want
> immigrants
> to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants
> will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK
> then".
> They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if
> they're
> already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how
> many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
>
> Not that it matters because, you see, UKIP aren't going to get
> within
> sniffing distance of government.
>
> Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted
> how?
>
> Well, the article where he stated Arabs are worthless was one
> clue...
>
> Oh, and do you know what Mammon refers to?
>
> Yes
>
> And the word Mammon (or God Mammon) refers to m....?
>
> Y'know, if you don't actually know what it refers to, there's
> absolutely no shame in saying so and asking. Contrary to popular
> belief, I won't take the proverbial out of you for doing so.
Again this is you bieng stupid, dont you think I just needed to have a flick in the dictionary to find this word out before I posted the word yes? Or did it not occur to you I was bieng sarcastic, I was going to say it was you, but I thought that was going to far. As it happened I was aware of the word before you asked. As far as I was aware it was devilish.
kevstar wrote:
> No, we give them the job because if they're willing to work all
> hours
> for 3p an hour, they'll work all hours for the minimum wage, thus
> making our economy stronger. My apologies if you don't like the idea
> of our nations economy relying on damn dirty foreigners, but the
> simple fact is that it does and always has done; look back through
> UK
> History and you will not find one point where we haven't benefited
> from an influx of people from overseas.
No answer to this one? Funny; I often find that the "Keep them there nasty foreign types out" brigade are rather blind to this fact and like to pretend it doesn't exist.
>
> I'm not saying we should or can let in every single person, and I
> find it very telling that in order to try and defend this
> indefensible policy you have to misrepresent what I'm saying. Pick
> the best? So someone willing to work incredibly hard...that's not
> the
> best is it? And what exactly is the best anyway? Did I miss a few
> years, and do we now no longer require people to do unskilled jobs?
> And do we no longer need anyone to do jobs of a practical nature?
> Because y'know, last time I looked we had a massive shortage of
> builders, carpenters, electricians and so forth. At least with an
> immigrant who's travelled 100's or 1000's of miles to get here, you
> know damn well he or she is going to be grateful for any training in
> these area's and they're gonna stay in the country for a few years
> at
> the very least, thus boosting our economy.
>
>
> Yes we do need people to do unskilled jobs, but in my opinion we have
> enough people in this country to do that anyway e.g the people on the
> dole, the next generation of workers, people been made redundant,
> even people on community service.
I see. And yet, many of those jobs remain unfilled. We may have enough people, but we don't seem to have enough people willing to perform these jobs. Tell me, how are you going to persuade those people to take up those jobs? Are you going to force them? Is forced labour another cornerstone of UKIP policy, or is this yet another part of this ill-thought out and bigoted policy that hasn't been thought through?
> Now yes, we may need theese topped
> up by immigrants but not by thoose who know before they come here
> are breaking the law. And yes, we do need workers, and I also accept
> they will be greatfull of training, but so will most of the
> popullation in countries worse off than us, should we take them in
> too if they tried to come over? You talk as if you can let everyone
> in yet at the same time acknowledge the simple fact we cant.
No, because you see, I believe I said "I'm not saying we should or can let in every single person". Now that I come to look at it again, I find that I also said "...and I find it very telling that in order to defend this indefensible policy you have to misrepresent what I'm saying". Look, there it is up there; I've left it in this post so you can see it. So nothing has changed between that post and this; you're still lying through your teeth and trying to make out that I'm saying something I'm not. So I'll repeat it as it seems like you're unwilling or unable to understand this point; I'm not saying we should let everyone in. I'm saying we should have border controls. And I'm saying that by granting economic migrant status to refugee's who will work, we're helping the country.
YOU make it sound as if the whole world is trying to get into the country. Immigration figures have actually been falling over the last couple of years. But hey, let's not let such silly things as facts get in the way of a good piece of xenophobia, eh?
>
>
> So anyway, all that aside; are you going to answer the accusation
> about your total disregard for the life of anyone genuinely fleeing
> death or torture? Or, like all the points about economic migrants,
> the UK Economy, the loathsomeness of UKIP's poster boy, the
> impracticality of simply deporting anyone who doesn't apply for
> citizenship or refugee statusor immigrant status at point of entry,
> and so-called democracies (i'll get to your answer about the UN in
> just a moment), are you just going to pretend that those questions
> don't exist?
You're going to pretend they don't exist then? Yeah, that's about the standard of debate I usually get from flag waving xenophobe.
>
> I have every regard for human life and to say otherwise is a insult
> itself, and I dont represent the UKIP I just agree on this policy.
> The fact is there trying to make suggestion on how to stop Britain
> becoming overcrowded, at least there putting ideas down on paper. And
> never mind me not answering questions where I find it hard to comment
> on because I dont know the full siuation, but going by your reckoning
> they'll proberbly have to make exceptions such as UN safe zones, does
> that satisfy you.
If you have such high regard for human life, why you are you saying that you believe people should be sent back to danger zones, and if the UN aren't in control then that's not your problem? Or if they're a democracy then they must be alright? If it's an insult, I apologise but bearing in mind that you keep saying that we should simply send people back to face torture and death even if they are genuine asylum seekers then you can see why it seems like you don't care what happens to them.
And you do realise that under those two conditions, absolutely no-one from Nigeria would ever be refused entry? It's a democracy (allegedly) and there are no UN peacekeepers there. And yet, people who actually work in immigration have stated that Nigerian's are absolutely the worst nationality for bogus immigration papers and faked passports? Tell me, how would they be dealt with? By saying that they missed other ports of call? And just how are you going to prove that they could have caught another flight, or got across the border? And just what will you do with those immigrants whilst you try to gather the evidence to prove it? Send them back? Or house them somewhere? So far, this shiny new policy of UKIP sounds exactly like the current policy. Not exactly putting new idea's on paper, are they?
Britain is overcrowded? Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! What an absolute steaming pile. Got any evidence for it being overcrowded? Is there too little food to go around? Are people starving in their thousands due to famine? No? C'mon; you've made a statement of what you believe to be fact. Let's hear your evidence to prove this fact true.
If you don't know the full situation, is it really so difficult to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know"? Rather than simply trying to ignore the point? Believe it or not, I'm simply trying to make you think about this policy, and think about it terms beyond "Bloody darkies, coming to our country and stealing our wimmin!"
They're 'probably' need to make exceptions for UN safe zones? But doesn't that defeat the whole object of the "No-one can come in if UN Peacekeepers are in their home nation"? After all, the peacekeepers wouldn't be there if it didn't need to be made into a UN safe zone would they?
>
>
>
>
> I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there
> have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in,
> and
> THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become
> good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want
> immigrants
> to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants
> will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK
> then".
> They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if
> they're
> already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how
> many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
Any response here? No? Not even to say I'm stupid?
>
> Again this is you bieng stupid, dont you think I just needed to have
> a flick in the dictionary to find this word out before I posted the
> word yes? Or did it not occur to you I was bieng sarcastic, I was
> going to say it was you, but I thought that was going to far. As it
> happened I was aware of the word before you asked. As far as I was
> aware it was devilish.
Heh. My, we really don't like having our intellect questioned do we? If you're so aware of the word, how come you got the wrong meaning? Did your dictionary let you down? Y'know, if you want to keep calling people stupid, I'd advise you to do two things;
1. Make sure you correctly answer the stupid question the stupid man asked you.
2. Don't make any typo's in the same sentence you accuse someone of being stupid. It makes you look stupid.
I mean Jesus, look at yourself; you say you're trying to debate a political point and yet here you are, trilling "You're a nasty stupidhead" at someone who dares to disagree with you whilst completely failing to even acknowledge the points that show the flaws in this ridiculously underthought policy designed to appeal to people too afraid to vote BNP.
Okay, it refers to Money in this context. Worship of Mammon is a euphamism for being in love with Money. Y'know, like RKS is. Incidentally, did you enjoy watching him cause a civil war in UKIP for no reason beyond his own vanity and desire to be the glorious leader who gets all the credit? In that sense, you're right; he is a devilish chap.
> No, we give them the job because if they're willing to work all
> hours
> for 3p an hour, they'll work all hours for the minimum wage, thus
> making our economy stronger. My apologies if you don't like the idea
> of our nations economy relying on damn dirty foreigners, but the
> simple fact is that it does and always has done; look back through
> UK
> History and you will not find one point where we haven't benefited
> from an influx of people from overseas.
No answer to this one? Funny; I often find that the "Keep them there nasty foreign types out" brigade are rather blind to this fact and like to pretend it doesn't exist.
>
> I'm not saying we should or can let in every single person, and I
> find it very telling that in order to try and defend this
> indefensible policy you have to misrepresent what I'm saying. Pick
> the best? So someone willing to work incredibly hard...that's not
> the
> best is it? And what exactly is the best anyway? Did I miss a few
> years, and do we now no longer require people to do unskilled jobs?
> And do we no longer need anyone to do jobs of a practical nature?
> Because y'know, last time I looked we had a massive shortage of
> builders, carpenters, electricians and so forth. At least with an
> immigrant who's travelled 100's or 1000's of miles to get here, you
> know damn well he or she is going to be grateful for any training in
> these area's and they're gonna stay in the country for a few years
> at
> the very least, thus boosting our economy.
>
>
> Yes we do need people to do unskilled jobs, but in my opinion we have
> enough people in this country to do that anyway e.g the people on the
> dole, the next generation of workers, people been made redundant,
> even people on community service.
I see. And yet, many of those jobs remain unfilled. We may have enough people, but we don't seem to have enough people willing to perform these jobs. Tell me, how are you going to persuade those people to take up those jobs? Are you going to force them? Is forced labour another cornerstone of UKIP policy, or is this yet another part of this ill-thought out and bigoted policy that hasn't been thought through?
> Now yes, we may need theese topped
> up by immigrants but not by thoose who know before they come here
> are breaking the law. And yes, we do need workers, and I also accept
> they will be greatfull of training, but so will most of the
> popullation in countries worse off than us, should we take them in
> too if they tried to come over? You talk as if you can let everyone
> in yet at the same time acknowledge the simple fact we cant.
No, because you see, I believe I said "I'm not saying we should or can let in every single person". Now that I come to look at it again, I find that I also said "...and I find it very telling that in order to defend this indefensible policy you have to misrepresent what I'm saying". Look, there it is up there; I've left it in this post so you can see it. So nothing has changed between that post and this; you're still lying through your teeth and trying to make out that I'm saying something I'm not. So I'll repeat it as it seems like you're unwilling or unable to understand this point; I'm not saying we should let everyone in. I'm saying we should have border controls. And I'm saying that by granting economic migrant status to refugee's who will work, we're helping the country.
YOU make it sound as if the whole world is trying to get into the country. Immigration figures have actually been falling over the last couple of years. But hey, let's not let such silly things as facts get in the way of a good piece of xenophobia, eh?
>
>
> So anyway, all that aside; are you going to answer the accusation
> about your total disregard for the life of anyone genuinely fleeing
> death or torture? Or, like all the points about economic migrants,
> the UK Economy, the loathsomeness of UKIP's poster boy, the
> impracticality of simply deporting anyone who doesn't apply for
> citizenship or refugee statusor immigrant status at point of entry,
> and so-called democracies (i'll get to your answer about the UN in
> just a moment), are you just going to pretend that those questions
> don't exist?
You're going to pretend they don't exist then? Yeah, that's about the standard of debate I usually get from flag waving xenophobe.
>
> I have every regard for human life and to say otherwise is a insult
> itself, and I dont represent the UKIP I just agree on this policy.
> The fact is there trying to make suggestion on how to stop Britain
> becoming overcrowded, at least there putting ideas down on paper. And
> never mind me not answering questions where I find it hard to comment
> on because I dont know the full siuation, but going by your reckoning
> they'll proberbly have to make exceptions such as UN safe zones, does
> that satisfy you.
If you have such high regard for human life, why you are you saying that you believe people should be sent back to danger zones, and if the UN aren't in control then that's not your problem? Or if they're a democracy then they must be alright? If it's an insult, I apologise but bearing in mind that you keep saying that we should simply send people back to face torture and death even if they are genuine asylum seekers then you can see why it seems like you don't care what happens to them.
And you do realise that under those two conditions, absolutely no-one from Nigeria would ever be refused entry? It's a democracy (allegedly) and there are no UN peacekeepers there. And yet, people who actually work in immigration have stated that Nigerian's are absolutely the worst nationality for bogus immigration papers and faked passports? Tell me, how would they be dealt with? By saying that they missed other ports of call? And just how are you going to prove that they could have caught another flight, or got across the border? And just what will you do with those immigrants whilst you try to gather the evidence to prove it? Send them back? Or house them somewhere? So far, this shiny new policy of UKIP sounds exactly like the current policy. Not exactly putting new idea's on paper, are they?
Britain is overcrowded? Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! What an absolute steaming pile. Got any evidence for it being overcrowded? Is there too little food to go around? Are people starving in their thousands due to famine? No? C'mon; you've made a statement of what you believe to be fact. Let's hear your evidence to prove this fact true.
If you don't know the full situation, is it really so difficult to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know"? Rather than simply trying to ignore the point? Believe it or not, I'm simply trying to make you think about this policy, and think about it terms beyond "Bloody darkies, coming to our country and stealing our wimmin!"
They're 'probably' need to make exceptions for UN safe zones? But doesn't that defeat the whole object of the "No-one can come in if UN Peacekeepers are in their home nation"? After all, the peacekeepers wouldn't be there if it didn't need to be made into a UN safe zone would they?
>
>
>
>
> I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there
> have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in,
> and
> THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become
> good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want
> immigrants
> to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants
> will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK
> then".
> They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if
> they're
> already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how
> many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
Any response here? No? Not even to say I'm stupid?
>
> Again this is you bieng stupid, dont you think I just needed to have
> a flick in the dictionary to find this word out before I posted the
> word yes? Or did it not occur to you I was bieng sarcastic, I was
> going to say it was you, but I thought that was going to far. As it
> happened I was aware of the word before you asked. As far as I was
> aware it was devilish.
Heh. My, we really don't like having our intellect questioned do we? If you're so aware of the word, how come you got the wrong meaning? Did your dictionary let you down? Y'know, if you want to keep calling people stupid, I'd advise you to do two things;
1. Make sure you correctly answer the stupid question the stupid man asked you.
2. Don't make any typo's in the same sentence you accuse someone of being stupid. It makes you look stupid.
I mean Jesus, look at yourself; you say you're trying to debate a political point and yet here you are, trilling "You're a nasty stupidhead" at someone who dares to disagree with you whilst completely failing to even acknowledge the points that show the flaws in this ridiculously underthought policy designed to appeal to people too afraid to vote BNP.
Okay, it refers to Money in this context. Worship of Mammon is a euphamism for being in love with Money. Y'know, like RKS is. Incidentally, did you enjoy watching him cause a civil war in UKIP for no reason beyond his own vanity and desire to be the glorious leader who gets all the credit? In that sense, you're right; he is a devilish chap.
Page: