The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I was reading in New Statesman Magazine... The recon that nearly 1/3 of the White British Population in the next General Election will vote either BNP or UKIP, as they believe that New Labour have given very little to the British People... instead more money goes to imigrants. Even today those 4 terrorists are being allowed back into the UK.. SCREW THAT... should have left them at Cuba. I'm not a facist, but I can see their point about controlling imigration, you have not got the slightest clue who the hell the people are coming in; they might bomb a school (like what happened in Russia), or commit acts of evil things against the British citizens.
Page:
Oi, I contributed too.
I DESERVE RECOGNITION!
I DESERVE RECOGNITION!
kevstar wrote:
> Well thats because I was on about the amount of people sponging of
> our benefits, and I have been talking about illegal immigrants, what
> do you think i'm talking about when saying we don't know how many's
> coming in.
You're so clearly confused. You talk about people abusing the system - you're talking about illegal immigrants. Introducing a quota won't stop illegal immigrants. They'll still come to the country and just stay here, like they do now. They're not part of the econimic migrant system - they're not economic migrants. They aren't the people that the government is aiming its reforms at. You weren't calling for reforms to how we deal with illegal immigrants, you were calling for reforms on how we deal with legal immigrants.
The points system that the government is introducing doesn't apply to people who just come here unnancounced and stay, taking money, cash in hand, and not paying taxes, does it? Does it? It has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
kevstar here is the whole argument in simpleton terms for you to understand
kevstar: there are too many immigrants coming to the country, they are stretching our services and taking our money, we shouldn't let any more in.
light: how do you know there are too many? how do you know the are stretching the services? how do you know they're taking our money?
kevstar: i don't KNOW but I just assume that they MUST be doing that, because they CAN
light: yes but there is no evidence to suggest that any of this is occuring, so you're just making things up, probably because you're scared of foreigners
kevstar: im not making it up look here is a graph that says that immigrants take benefits
light: that graph says that more immigrants pay taxes than take benefits, so they cover themselves and give the country extra money on top.
kevstar: yer but they stretch our services
light: you have no evidence to suggest this whatsoever, you're just assuming that it's true.
gerrid: old people stretch our services far more than immigrants, shouldn't they be dealt with first?
kevstar: but but but that graph says that there are immigrants! they must be abusing our benefits system they must be they must be they must be!
light: why must they be? the report says that they cover themselves so we don't lose anything by having them here
kevstar: but illegal immigrants come here and use our benefits and stretch our services
gerrid: no one is talking about illegal immigrants. they're illegal for a reason. you were talking about stopping legal migrants coming into the country
kevstar: yes but they are using our services etc etc
and so on. See how ridiculou you are?
> Well thats because I was on about the amount of people sponging of
> our benefits, and I have been talking about illegal immigrants, what
> do you think i'm talking about when saying we don't know how many's
> coming in.
You're so clearly confused. You talk about people abusing the system - you're talking about illegal immigrants. Introducing a quota won't stop illegal immigrants. They'll still come to the country and just stay here, like they do now. They're not part of the econimic migrant system - they're not economic migrants. They aren't the people that the government is aiming its reforms at. You weren't calling for reforms to how we deal with illegal immigrants, you were calling for reforms on how we deal with legal immigrants.
The points system that the government is introducing doesn't apply to people who just come here unnancounced and stay, taking money, cash in hand, and not paying taxes, does it? Does it? It has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
kevstar here is the whole argument in simpleton terms for you to understand
kevstar: there are too many immigrants coming to the country, they are stretching our services and taking our money, we shouldn't let any more in.
light: how do you know there are too many? how do you know the are stretching the services? how do you know they're taking our money?
kevstar: i don't KNOW but I just assume that they MUST be doing that, because they CAN
light: yes but there is no evidence to suggest that any of this is occuring, so you're just making things up, probably because you're scared of foreigners
kevstar: im not making it up look here is a graph that says that immigrants take benefits
light: that graph says that more immigrants pay taxes than take benefits, so they cover themselves and give the country extra money on top.
kevstar: yer but they stretch our services
light: you have no evidence to suggest this whatsoever, you're just assuming that it's true.
gerrid: old people stretch our services far more than immigrants, shouldn't they be dealt with first?
kevstar: but but but that graph says that there are immigrants! they must be abusing our benefits system they must be they must be they must be!
light: why must they be? the report says that they cover themselves so we don't lose anything by having them here
kevstar: but illegal immigrants come here and use our benefits and stretch our services
gerrid: no one is talking about illegal immigrants. they're illegal for a reason. you were talking about stopping legal migrants coming into the country
kevstar: yes but they are using our services etc etc
and so on. See how ridiculou you are?
That report is very eye opening, although it only concerns asylum seekers rather than economic migrants.
Heh. You know me; I like to dismantle an argument systematically...
It did.
I want all people arguing using newspapers as their bibles to have a read and digest.
An independant think tank founded by Lords is a bit more reliable than newspapers in my opinion.
But I'm sure there are some that will dismiss out of hand
*shrugs*
It beats immense posts filled with nothing but rubbish
I want all people arguing using newspapers as their bibles to have a read and digest.
An independant think tank founded by Lords is a bit more reliable than newspapers in my opinion.
But I'm sure there are some that will dismiss out of hand
*shrugs*
It beats immense posts filled with nothing but rubbish
But Goaty, that can't be right; it should have taken YEARS to get that report together...
[URL]http://www.ippr.org.uk/publications/files/AsylumFactFile.pdf[/URL]
Read it.
Read it.
kevstar wrote:
>
> Inaccurate to whom? Says who? Maybe they are; that's why more debate
> is needed. But the only reason you think they're inaccurate is
> because they don't support your intense bigotry.
I notice you've ignored the above question. You cowardly little bigot.
>
> Is that saying that there doesn't need to be a debate, no, whats it's
> saying is exactly what I said, whats there to debate about? Why did I
> say this, well what are they going to find by debating, nothing that
> they don't already know. You see, it's figures we need, figures which
> they don't have, figures no one has. And your not going to get theese
> figures by debating. So i'll ask you this, where you going to get
> theese figures you need so much to find if they is a problem from?
> And where are we going to get theese facts from, do you think they'll
> just turn up once the debate starts. So you see, it's not that I
> don't think we should have a debate, I just think this so called
> debate of yours will show nothing new.
So...you're not saying a debate shouldn't happen. You're just saying that it's pointless because you personally don't think we'll learn anything new? Ri-ight...and what are you basing that on? Where will we get the facts from? Well, we can always research them. That's what clever people do when they don't have hard facts; they try to acquire them. As opposed to your approach of running screaming from any facts, and prefering to stick with your baseless prejudice.
As to where we get them...well, the home office report you linked to had a fair few figures in it (shame you misunderstood them, but what can one expect from someone quite so stupid?), so I'd guess that we can use a mixture of already compiled statistics, and if any figures are missing that one side or other of the debate feel are necessary, they can be acquired over the course of a couple of months.
I'm both amused and slightly worried by your approach to debate; it seems to be "Well, we don't have the facts. And because they might not agree with my opinion, I don't want anyone to look for those facts. Instead we should just accept that I'm right, because I don't want to have to think about anything. Ever." You're very clearly not interested in learning anything new. All you want to do is spastically repeat your prejudice over and over again.
> As I said above where are theese figures going to come from, you do
> realise that to get theese accurate figures it will take years to
> actually do.
The figures will come from the home office, from independant groups with an interest in the debate, and from groups like Gallup.
You're saying it'll take years; how do you know? Do you work in an environment we're you're gathering stats for reports on a regular basis? Personally, I don't know how long it would take. I'm guessing a matter of a few months, but I'd need to check. Yet here you are, saying it will DEFINITELY take years. What is your evidence to back that up? Because it sounds to me like you're just saying it to try and dismiss the need for debate out of hand. You ignorant bigot.
>
> We already know some of the problems with our system.
Do we really? According to what you're espousing, this "knowledge" of the problems comes from being told by The Sun that there is a problem. You don't actually know what the problems are. I mean, you keep bleating about "they're spongers!" yet you constantly pretend that you haven't read the point in the report you linked to about that being a myth. Which is why I take pleasure in pointing out what a lying coward you are.
>
> and we need to find out how to
> make sure immigration is working.
>
>
> And how exactly are we going to do this?
Well, that why I say "Find out how to make sure it's working". I'm not sure and I'm guessing by the ignorance on show in the tabloids that many others don't either. You see, you seem to think that it's definitely not working. I'm saying we need to find out. If you know for a fact it's definitely not working (and you seem to think you do) presumably you know how it SHOULD be working. Of course, it's painfully obvious to all that you know no such thing. You're in fact basing everything you say on a vague desire to stop dirty foreigners coming into the country.
>
> Which will take years to do.
Says you. However, as you have no evidence to support that view, I'll dismiss it as the bleatings of a man frightened of darkies who will go to any lengths to keep 'em away from him. Please; feel free to produce something to prove it'll take years.
>
> I'm not racist
Yes my dear boy; you are. Your increasingly unrealistic arguments against immigration, or even discussing it in any terms other than "We need to keep 'em out", coupled with your cowardly refusal to address certain facts, proves pretty much beyond doubt that you're a squalid minded little racist.
> Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, thats the biggest laugh i've had
> in days, seriously. Are you saying that by not knowing how many we
> have coming in, is not a flaw, you did didn't you. This shows you
> ignorance. Tell me how exactly, how not knowing how many's coming in,
> is not a flaw?
Well, I will do just as soon as you tell me how you can say that 180,000 per year are coming in when, in this paragraph, you're saying that you don't know how many are coming in. C'mon; do tell. Cos you seem to be saying that you know all the facts that oppose immigration, yet when facts are deployed against you, you claim that there are no facts.
I do enjoy watching you contradict yourself with every post; sorta proves that you're not only a coward and a racist, but a stupid one too.
>
> Well tell me how then, cos this is one question you've failed to
> answer?
How are you a bigot? Well, you've stated from the start that "There are a fair few immigrants sponging off the state". You've continued to say this despite;
1. The report you linked to stating that this is a myth
2. The figures you initially tried to use being misunderstood by yourself.
You then lied and made up some figures claiming that "There are more immigrants on benefit than english people". This is despite Grix posting figures showing that less than 10% of our benefits bill in this country is made up of immigrants.
And you STILL say they're sponging, only now you say "I've already told you" when asked to give evidence for this.
So; according to the definition of bigot, you're a bigot.
>
> Ok if you know me and think i'm a ignorant racist, tell me why...
>
> Chopra who plays for the toon is someone i'm waiiting to come back to
> the squad as he's on loan now, he's Asian, yet I think he's class.
>
> Why do I like Dyer if i'm racist.
A chap who ran for the BNP in the local elections used to drink at the pub I worked at. His favourite player of all time for Newcastle was Les Ferdinand. But he HATES blacks and asians. I'm not saying there is any logic to your or his views. I'm saying you're both so stupid that you're incapable of maintaining your racism when a black or asian person plays well for the team you support.
>
> Why do I think Naz Hammed was the best boxer in my generation, so to
> with Lennox lewis?
Well, firstly because they were. And secondly, there aren't really many white boxers. If you follow boxing, you've gotta look fairly closely to find a successful white boxer.
>
> Why do I live in a Jewish community?
So did Hitler in the 20's. And I note you don't say anything about actually liking your Jewish neighbours...
>
> Yeahh, this is why I call you a bigot.
And yet, you still don't seem to understand the definition; I'm giving reasons for my views. You're giving none for yours except "this is what I think". Therefore, I'm arrogant, whilst you're a bigot.
>
> Yeahh, thats you thinking i'm a racist, making you a bigot.
Sure I am kevstar, sure I am. That's why this thread is littered with people calling you a racist and a bigot whilst none of them accuse me of the same thing...
> No, because unlike you, i'll accept i'm wrong if prooven.
Now that, my dear boy, is rather a blatant lie isn't it? Because you've ignored everything that does show you may well be wrong, and dismissed whatever you didn't ignore.
Tell me; if you're so sure you'd accept you're wrong if proven, how would one prove you wrong about immigration?
>
>
> Yeahh, but at least I don't have anything hanging from my forehead do
> I light.
Hmmm....seems I'm much better at insults than you are too. I mean look at this; a rather sad, schoolboy attempt to call someone a d!ckhead it what you imagine to be a clever way. Where's the venom in that? And yet, if I were to suggest to you that you're an ugly anal carbuncle on the s***-smeared sphincter that is Gateshead, that would immediate be a better insult than yours. If I were to follow up by stating, quite clearly and unashamedly, that I think the main reason for your racism is that you're jealous of your sister's black boyfriend because you always hoped you'd been the one to sweatily bump and grind away her virginity, but because of him you've had to settle for sticking your piggly-wiggly little manhood into a jar of warm dog faeces, that would make it painfully clear how much better I am than you at insulting someone.
>
> Says the punk who thinks it's exactlly the same situation as we have
> now when compared to the war, even though there wern't nowhere near
> as much people then. The fact that we have much more pensioners than
> we had then, less houses then, better services then, no overcrowding
> problems then, yeahh it's exactly the same situation isn't it light,
> you idiot.
Better services then? Really? So...rationing, that was a better service?
No overcrowding problems? Have you read Road to Wigan Pier, where it talks of the overcrowding in the slums? Clearly you haven't.
So yes; being as how we have a severely reduced workforce now just as we did then, and seeing how we have approximately the same housing situation in terms of houses to people, I'd say we are in the same situation. A shame that your rebuttal of that consists of saying "No we aren't", isn' it?
You know something? Playing a few games of Medal of Honour doesn't make you an expert on WW2. Though your obvious admiration for the nazi policies of the 30's just might...
I notice you've avoided answering Gerrid again. You truly are a rancid little coward aren't you? Is there any way we can swap you for an immigrant? Maybe send you to wherever they came from? I'd like that.
>
> Inaccurate to whom? Says who? Maybe they are; that's why more debate
> is needed. But the only reason you think they're inaccurate is
> because they don't support your intense bigotry.
I notice you've ignored the above question. You cowardly little bigot.
>
> Is that saying that there doesn't need to be a debate, no, whats it's
> saying is exactly what I said, whats there to debate about? Why did I
> say this, well what are they going to find by debating, nothing that
> they don't already know. You see, it's figures we need, figures which
> they don't have, figures no one has. And your not going to get theese
> figures by debating. So i'll ask you this, where you going to get
> theese figures you need so much to find if they is a problem from?
> And where are we going to get theese facts from, do you think they'll
> just turn up once the debate starts. So you see, it's not that I
> don't think we should have a debate, I just think this so called
> debate of yours will show nothing new.
So...you're not saying a debate shouldn't happen. You're just saying that it's pointless because you personally don't think we'll learn anything new? Ri-ight...and what are you basing that on? Where will we get the facts from? Well, we can always research them. That's what clever people do when they don't have hard facts; they try to acquire them. As opposed to your approach of running screaming from any facts, and prefering to stick with your baseless prejudice.
As to where we get them...well, the home office report you linked to had a fair few figures in it (shame you misunderstood them, but what can one expect from someone quite so stupid?), so I'd guess that we can use a mixture of already compiled statistics, and if any figures are missing that one side or other of the debate feel are necessary, they can be acquired over the course of a couple of months.
I'm both amused and slightly worried by your approach to debate; it seems to be "Well, we don't have the facts. And because they might not agree with my opinion, I don't want anyone to look for those facts. Instead we should just accept that I'm right, because I don't want to have to think about anything. Ever." You're very clearly not interested in learning anything new. All you want to do is spastically repeat your prejudice over and over again.
> As I said above where are theese figures going to come from, you do
> realise that to get theese accurate figures it will take years to
> actually do.
The figures will come from the home office, from independant groups with an interest in the debate, and from groups like Gallup.
You're saying it'll take years; how do you know? Do you work in an environment we're you're gathering stats for reports on a regular basis? Personally, I don't know how long it would take. I'm guessing a matter of a few months, but I'd need to check. Yet here you are, saying it will DEFINITELY take years. What is your evidence to back that up? Because it sounds to me like you're just saying it to try and dismiss the need for debate out of hand. You ignorant bigot.
>
> We already know some of the problems with our system.
Do we really? According to what you're espousing, this "knowledge" of the problems comes from being told by The Sun that there is a problem. You don't actually know what the problems are. I mean, you keep bleating about "they're spongers!" yet you constantly pretend that you haven't read the point in the report you linked to about that being a myth. Which is why I take pleasure in pointing out what a lying coward you are.
>
> and we need to find out how to
> make sure immigration is working.
>
>
> And how exactly are we going to do this?
Well, that why I say "Find out how to make sure it's working". I'm not sure and I'm guessing by the ignorance on show in the tabloids that many others don't either. You see, you seem to think that it's definitely not working. I'm saying we need to find out. If you know for a fact it's definitely not working (and you seem to think you do) presumably you know how it SHOULD be working. Of course, it's painfully obvious to all that you know no such thing. You're in fact basing everything you say on a vague desire to stop dirty foreigners coming into the country.
>
> Which will take years to do.
Says you. However, as you have no evidence to support that view, I'll dismiss it as the bleatings of a man frightened of darkies who will go to any lengths to keep 'em away from him. Please; feel free to produce something to prove it'll take years.
>
> I'm not racist
Yes my dear boy; you are. Your increasingly unrealistic arguments against immigration, or even discussing it in any terms other than "We need to keep 'em out", coupled with your cowardly refusal to address certain facts, proves pretty much beyond doubt that you're a squalid minded little racist.
> Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, thats the biggest laugh i've had
> in days, seriously. Are you saying that by not knowing how many we
> have coming in, is not a flaw, you did didn't you. This shows you
> ignorance. Tell me how exactly, how not knowing how many's coming in,
> is not a flaw?
Well, I will do just as soon as you tell me how you can say that 180,000 per year are coming in when, in this paragraph, you're saying that you don't know how many are coming in. C'mon; do tell. Cos you seem to be saying that you know all the facts that oppose immigration, yet when facts are deployed against you, you claim that there are no facts.
I do enjoy watching you contradict yourself with every post; sorta proves that you're not only a coward and a racist, but a stupid one too.
>
> Well tell me how then, cos this is one question you've failed to
> answer?
How are you a bigot? Well, you've stated from the start that "There are a fair few immigrants sponging off the state". You've continued to say this despite;
1. The report you linked to stating that this is a myth
2. The figures you initially tried to use being misunderstood by yourself.
You then lied and made up some figures claiming that "There are more immigrants on benefit than english people". This is despite Grix posting figures showing that less than 10% of our benefits bill in this country is made up of immigrants.
And you STILL say they're sponging, only now you say "I've already told you" when asked to give evidence for this.
So; according to the definition of bigot, you're a bigot.
>
> Ok if you know me and think i'm a ignorant racist, tell me why...
>
> Chopra who plays for the toon is someone i'm waiiting to come back to
> the squad as he's on loan now, he's Asian, yet I think he's class.
>
> Why do I like Dyer if i'm racist.
A chap who ran for the BNP in the local elections used to drink at the pub I worked at. His favourite player of all time for Newcastle was Les Ferdinand. But he HATES blacks and asians. I'm not saying there is any logic to your or his views. I'm saying you're both so stupid that you're incapable of maintaining your racism when a black or asian person plays well for the team you support.
>
> Why do I think Naz Hammed was the best boxer in my generation, so to
> with Lennox lewis?
Well, firstly because they were. And secondly, there aren't really many white boxers. If you follow boxing, you've gotta look fairly closely to find a successful white boxer.
>
> Why do I live in a Jewish community?
So did Hitler in the 20's. And I note you don't say anything about actually liking your Jewish neighbours...
>
> Yeahh, this is why I call you a bigot.
And yet, you still don't seem to understand the definition; I'm giving reasons for my views. You're giving none for yours except "this is what I think". Therefore, I'm arrogant, whilst you're a bigot.
>
> Yeahh, thats you thinking i'm a racist, making you a bigot.
Sure I am kevstar, sure I am. That's why this thread is littered with people calling you a racist and a bigot whilst none of them accuse me of the same thing...
> No, because unlike you, i'll accept i'm wrong if prooven.
Now that, my dear boy, is rather a blatant lie isn't it? Because you've ignored everything that does show you may well be wrong, and dismissed whatever you didn't ignore.
Tell me; if you're so sure you'd accept you're wrong if proven, how would one prove you wrong about immigration?
>
>
> Yeahh, but at least I don't have anything hanging from my forehead do
> I light.
Hmmm....seems I'm much better at insults than you are too. I mean look at this; a rather sad, schoolboy attempt to call someone a d!ckhead it what you imagine to be a clever way. Where's the venom in that? And yet, if I were to suggest to you that you're an ugly anal carbuncle on the s***-smeared sphincter that is Gateshead, that would immediate be a better insult than yours. If I were to follow up by stating, quite clearly and unashamedly, that I think the main reason for your racism is that you're jealous of your sister's black boyfriend because you always hoped you'd been the one to sweatily bump and grind away her virginity, but because of him you've had to settle for sticking your piggly-wiggly little manhood into a jar of warm dog faeces, that would make it painfully clear how much better I am than you at insulting someone.
>
> Says the punk who thinks it's exactlly the same situation as we have
> now when compared to the war, even though there wern't nowhere near
> as much people then. The fact that we have much more pensioners than
> we had then, less houses then, better services then, no overcrowding
> problems then, yeahh it's exactly the same situation isn't it light,
> you idiot.
Better services then? Really? So...rationing, that was a better service?
No overcrowding problems? Have you read Road to Wigan Pier, where it talks of the overcrowding in the slums? Clearly you haven't.
So yes; being as how we have a severely reduced workforce now just as we did then, and seeing how we have approximately the same housing situation in terms of houses to people, I'd say we are in the same situation. A shame that your rebuttal of that consists of saying "No we aren't", isn' it?
You know something? Playing a few games of Medal of Honour doesn't make you an expert on WW2. Though your obvious admiration for the nazi policies of the 30's just might...
I notice you've avoided answering Gerrid again. You truly are a rancid little coward aren't you? Is there any way we can swap you for an immigrant? Maybe send you to wherever they came from? I'd like that.
Why do you presume they come straight to England?
You are aware that other countries have asylum seekers as well aren't you?
You are aware that other countries have asylum seekers as well aren't you?
One question about Asylum Seekers:
Surely, if they are being persecuted so badly in their homeland, they would be happy to stop off at the first safe country they got to.
How the hell are we the first safe county they would get to!?
Surely, if they are being persecuted so badly in their homeland, they would be happy to stop off at the first safe country they got to.
How the hell are we the first safe county they would get to!?
Page: