The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
gerrid wrote:
> Ahh, kevstar you gem. "gerrid hasn't said anything that Light
> hasn't already said". You JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU? You didn't
> respond to Light the first time, so I brought the stuff up so that
> you could reply. But you still haven't. There are also points in that
> list which Light never mentioned.
>
> The reason that you're not responding to the list isn't because you
> already have (you haven't), but because you don't have any answers
> beyond "I think you're wrong but I don't know why".
>
> And you STILL haven't explained how a quota on immigration would help
> matters, or how tightening border controls would LOWER border control
> costs.
Why, because it limits the amount thats coming in, so that we know what the figures are, as light says thatsa something we need to know.
>
> And stop referring to illegal immigrants and trying to pretend that
> you've been talking about them all along. You clearly weren't.
> EVERYONE thinks that illegal immigrants should be stopped from
> entering, because they're ILLEGAL.
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.
>
> And you are constantly referring to migrants who come in and sponge
> off the state, but I really really would like you to tell me WHY you
> think there are so many of them. Just tell me why you think that
> there are so many migrants who come in and sponge off the state that
> it is a big problem. That is one question that I really would like
> you to answer.
Would you, and I will for the 110th time, the reason I think this, is because the system is open to abuse, and like anything open to abuse, you never get just the odd few. I'll ask you, what makes you think it's just the odd few?
> Ahh, kevstar you gem. "gerrid hasn't said anything that Light
> hasn't already said". You JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU? You didn't
> respond to Light the first time, so I brought the stuff up so that
> you could reply. But you still haven't. There are also points in that
> list which Light never mentioned.
>
> The reason that you're not responding to the list isn't because you
> already have (you haven't), but because you don't have any answers
> beyond "I think you're wrong but I don't know why".
>
> And you STILL haven't explained how a quota on immigration would help
> matters, or how tightening border controls would LOWER border control
> costs.
Why, because it limits the amount thats coming in, so that we know what the figures are, as light says thatsa something we need to know.
>
> And stop referring to illegal immigrants and trying to pretend that
> you've been talking about them all along. You clearly weren't.
> EVERYONE thinks that illegal immigrants should be stopped from
> entering, because they're ILLEGAL.
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.
>
> And you are constantly referring to migrants who come in and sponge
> off the state, but I really really would like you to tell me WHY you
> think there are so many of them. Just tell me why you think that
> there are so many migrants who come in and sponge off the state that
> it is a big problem. That is one question that I really would like
> you to answer.
Would you, and I will for the 110th time, the reason I think this, is because the system is open to abuse, and like anything open to abuse, you never get just the odd few. I'll ask you, what makes you think it's just the odd few?
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> light says
>
>
> but, but, but, but, what if, if only, its all buts with you isn't
> it,
> your right I don't know, and if given the choice , that you don't
> know how many immigrants are coming in, you do nothing cos hey,
> there
> making a profit. Or, because you don't know how many's coming in, we
> put proposals in place to make it harder for people to get in and
> abuse our system.
>
>
> Yes, far better to go "Well, we're not sure but I think we
> should keep out the darkies", eh kevstar? I'm saying the issue
> needs properly examining before we leap to conclusions. You're saying
> "Don't debate it; just keep them out because they're DEFINITELY
> causing a problem".
>
> It's good fun; you say "You can't say you're right because the
> figures aren't available". I say "I know; but you can't say
> you're right for the same reason". At which point you reply
> "But I can; I have concerns therefore I'm right".
>
>
> yeahh, is that the available evidence with inaccurate figures?
>
> 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.
>
> And even that doesn't address why you think there is DEFINITELY a
> problem based on nothing more than your own prejudice, does it?
>
> At what stage did I say this? Whats there to debate about, the fact
> is they don't know the figures of the people coming in, theres no
> debate whats going to hide that fact. Thats a flaw in the system,
> everyone knows that.
>
> Well, firstly you said it yesterday. Your exact words were;
>
> And whats there to debate about, cos everything thats been done
> regarding immigration has already been done without debate, so
> according to you logic that makes the current system a joke cos it's
> never been debated yet.
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.
>
> Then you just said it immediately after denying you've said it. The
> debate we need is a debate on exactly how many immigrants are coming
> in, and what they contribute.
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.
We need to find out exactly what
> problems there are with our system,
We already know some of the problems with our system.
and we need to find out how to
> make sure immigration is working.
And how exactly are we going to do this?
And to debate this, we'll need
> facts. Incontrovertable facts.
Which will take years to do.
I don't want a debate to hide
> anything. A debate will give utter clarity and proper, clear facts.
> And they will, I hope, prove what an utter bigoted racist you're
> being.
I'm not racist
>
> And no, not everyone does know there is a flaw. You're just
> determined there is,
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?
and you've not given a shred of evidence to back
> you up. You've given no reason for your belief beyond "I think
> there is a problem". Which makes you... a bigot.
Well tell me how then, cos this is one question you've failed to answer?
>
>
>
> Yeahh, well it's a good job I know myself better than what you do.
>
> Alas, I don't think you do. Because, you see, if you did, then you'd
> realise why everyone is calling you an ignorant racist.
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.
Why do I think Naz Hammed was the best boxer in my generation, so to with Lennox lewis?
Why do I live in a Jewish community?
Yeahh, this is why I call you a bigot.
>
>
> >1. I am right about your views and bigotry
>
> Thats a bigot
>
> ~sigh~ According to the dictionary, a bigot is;
>
> a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that
> anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong
Yeahh, thats you thinking i'm a racist, making you a bigot.
>
> Well, you've not given any reasons for your belief, and you're
> accusing everyone else of being wrong...Yup, that's a bigot.
No, because unlike you, i'll accept i'm wrong if prooven.
>
> As to me...well, I've given reasons for my belief that you're a
> bigot, and I'm open to be proved wrong. But you've just...well,
> ignored any chance you had to do so. And repeated your bigoted
> views.
>
> I think the word you're looking for in connection to me is
> "arrogant".
>
> 2. I'm better than you in every conceivable way.
>
> You may be better at spelling and maybee law, but nothing else. I'm
> a
> master at WW2 history, and what I would say little bit good at
> everything else.
>
> No; I'm better than you. Spiritually, emotionally, intellectually,
> physically...everything. That's not saying much of course; there is
> mould in my kitchen sink that is better than you. In fact, I'm
> thinking of having medals minted that read "At Least I'm Better
> Than Kevstar", and handing them out to Tramps, asylum inmates,
> sex offenders...
Yeahh, but at least I don't have anything hanging from my forehead do I light.
>
> Christ, your vaunted WW2 knowledge rather fell down when you
> demonstrated an ignorance of post WW2 immigration, didn't it?
Thats after WW2 you idiot.
You'd
> say "a little bit good" would you? Heh; sort of proves my
> point about how overwhelmingly worthless you are.
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.
> kevstar wrote:
> light says
>
>
> but, but, but, but, what if, if only, its all buts with you isn't
> it,
> your right I don't know, and if given the choice , that you don't
> know how many immigrants are coming in, you do nothing cos hey,
> there
> making a profit. Or, because you don't know how many's coming in, we
> put proposals in place to make it harder for people to get in and
> abuse our system.
>
>
> Yes, far better to go "Well, we're not sure but I think we
> should keep out the darkies", eh kevstar? I'm saying the issue
> needs properly examining before we leap to conclusions. You're saying
> "Don't debate it; just keep them out because they're DEFINITELY
> causing a problem".
>
> It's good fun; you say "You can't say you're right because the
> figures aren't available". I say "I know; but you can't say
> you're right for the same reason". At which point you reply
> "But I can; I have concerns therefore I'm right".
>
>
> yeahh, is that the available evidence with inaccurate figures?
>
> 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.
>
> And even that doesn't address why you think there is DEFINITELY a
> problem based on nothing more than your own prejudice, does it?
>
> At what stage did I say this? Whats there to debate about, the fact
> is they don't know the figures of the people coming in, theres no
> debate whats going to hide that fact. Thats a flaw in the system,
> everyone knows that.
>
> Well, firstly you said it yesterday. Your exact words were;
>
> And whats there to debate about, cos everything thats been done
> regarding immigration has already been done without debate, so
> according to you logic that makes the current system a joke cos it's
> never been debated yet.
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.
>
> Then you just said it immediately after denying you've said it. The
> debate we need is a debate on exactly how many immigrants are coming
> in, and what they contribute.
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.
We need to find out exactly what
> problems there are with our system,
We already know some of the problems with our system.
and we need to find out how to
> make sure immigration is working.
And how exactly are we going to do this?
And to debate this, we'll need
> facts. Incontrovertable facts.
Which will take years to do.
I don't want a debate to hide
> anything. A debate will give utter clarity and proper, clear facts.
> And they will, I hope, prove what an utter bigoted racist you're
> being.
I'm not racist
>
> And no, not everyone does know there is a flaw. You're just
> determined there is,
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?
and you've not given a shred of evidence to back
> you up. You've given no reason for your belief beyond "I think
> there is a problem". Which makes you... a bigot.
Well tell me how then, cos this is one question you've failed to answer?
>
>
>
> Yeahh, well it's a good job I know myself better than what you do.
>
> Alas, I don't think you do. Because, you see, if you did, then you'd
> realise why everyone is calling you an ignorant racist.
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.
Why do I think Naz Hammed was the best boxer in my generation, so to with Lennox lewis?
Why do I live in a Jewish community?
Yeahh, this is why I call you a bigot.
>
>
> >1. I am right about your views and bigotry
>
> Thats a bigot
>
> ~sigh~ According to the dictionary, a bigot is;
>
> a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that
> anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong
Yeahh, thats you thinking i'm a racist, making you a bigot.
>
> Well, you've not given any reasons for your belief, and you're
> accusing everyone else of being wrong...Yup, that's a bigot.
No, because unlike you, i'll accept i'm wrong if prooven.
>
> As to me...well, I've given reasons for my belief that you're a
> bigot, and I'm open to be proved wrong. But you've just...well,
> ignored any chance you had to do so. And repeated your bigoted
> views.
>
> I think the word you're looking for in connection to me is
> "arrogant".
>
> 2. I'm better than you in every conceivable way.
>
> You may be better at spelling and maybee law, but nothing else. I'm
> a
> master at WW2 history, and what I would say little bit good at
> everything else.
>
> No; I'm better than you. Spiritually, emotionally, intellectually,
> physically...everything. That's not saying much of course; there is
> mould in my kitchen sink that is better than you. In fact, I'm
> thinking of having medals minted that read "At Least I'm Better
> Than Kevstar", and handing them out to Tramps, asylum inmates,
> sex offenders...
Yeahh, but at least I don't have anything hanging from my forehead do I light.
>
> Christ, your vaunted WW2 knowledge rather fell down when you
> demonstrated an ignorance of post WW2 immigration, didn't it?
Thats after WW2 you idiot.
You'd
> say "a little bit good" would you? Heh; sort of proves my
> point about how overwhelmingly worthless you are.
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.
gerrid wrote:
> >
> And you are constantly referring to migrants who come in and sponge
> off the state, but I really really would like you to tell me WHY you
> think there are so many of them. Just tell me why you think that
> there are so many migrants who come in and sponge off the state that
> it is a big problem. That is one question that I really would like
> you to answer.
He has, many times. 'Because the politicians and lots of people says so'.
Just it's the most pathetic excuse for a reason in an argument I know.
> >
> And you are constantly referring to migrants who come in and sponge
> off the state, but I really really would like you to tell me WHY you
> think there are so many of them. Just tell me why you think that
> there are so many migrants who come in and sponge off the state that
> it is a big problem. That is one question that I really would like
> you to answer.
He has, many times. 'Because the politicians and lots of people says so'.
Just it's the most pathetic excuse for a reason in an argument I know.
Ahh, kevstar you gem. "gerrid hasn't said anything that Light hasn't already said". You JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU? You didn't respond to Light the first time, so I brought the stuff up so that you could reply. But you still haven't. There are also points in that list which Light never mentioned.
The reason that you're not responding to the list isn't because you already have (you haven't), but because you don't have any answers beyond "I think you're wrong but I don't know why".
And you STILL haven't explained how a quota on immigration would help matters, or how tightening border controls would LOWER border control costs.
And stop referring to illegal immigrants and trying to pretend that you've been talking about them all along. You clearly weren't. EVERYONE thinks that illegal immigrants should be stopped from entering, because they're ILLEGAL.
And you are constantly referring to migrants who come in and sponge off the state, but I really really would like you to tell me WHY you think there are so many of them. Just tell me why you think that there are so many migrants who come in and sponge off the state that it is a big problem. That is one question that I really would like you to answer.
The reason that you're not responding to the list isn't because you already have (you haven't), but because you don't have any answers beyond "I think you're wrong but I don't know why".
And you STILL haven't explained how a quota on immigration would help matters, or how tightening border controls would LOWER border control costs.
And stop referring to illegal immigrants and trying to pretend that you've been talking about them all along. You clearly weren't. EVERYONE thinks that illegal immigrants should be stopped from entering, because they're ILLEGAL.
And you are constantly referring to migrants who come in and sponge off the state, but I really really would like you to tell me WHY you think there are so many of them. Just tell me why you think that there are so many migrants who come in and sponge off the state that it is a big problem. That is one question that I really would like you to answer.
kevstar wrote:
> light says
>
>
> but, but, but, but, what if, if only, its all buts with you isn't it,
> your right I don't know, and if given the choice , that you don't
> know how many immigrants are coming in, you do nothing cos hey, there
> making a profit. Or, because you don't know how many's coming in, we
> put proposals in place to make it harder for people to get in and
> abuse our system.
Yes, far better to go "Well, we're not sure but I think we should keep out the darkies", eh kevstar? I'm saying the issue needs properly examining before we leap to conclusions. You're saying "Don't debate it; just keep them out because they're DEFINITELY causing a problem".
It's good fun; you say "You can't say you're right because the figures aren't available". I say "I know; but you can't say you're right for the same reason". At which point you reply "But I can; I have concerns therefore I'm right".
>
> yeahh, is that the available evidence with inaccurate figures?
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.
And even that doesn't address why you think there is DEFINITELY a problem based on nothing more than your own prejudice, does it?
> At what stage did I say this? Whats there to debate about, the fact
> is they don't know the figures of the people coming in, theres no
> debate whats going to hide that fact. Thats a flaw in the system,
> everyone knows that.
Well, firstly you said it yesterday. Your exact words were;
> And whats there to debate about, cos everything thats been done
> regarding immigration has already been done without debate, so
> according to you logic that makes the current system a joke cos it's
> never been debated yet.
Then you just said it immediately after denying you've said it. The debate we need is a debate on exactly how many immigrants are coming in, and what they contribute. We need to find out exactly what problems there are with our system, and we need to find out how to make sure immigration is working. And to debate this, we'll need facts. Incontrovertable facts. I don't want a debate to hide anything. A debate will give utter clarity and proper, clear facts. And they will, I hope, prove what an utter bigoted racist you're being.
And no, not everyone does know there is a flaw. You're just determined there is, and you've not given a shred of evidence to back you up. You've given no reason for your belief beyond "I think there is a problem". Which makes you... a bigot.
>
> Yeahh, well it's a good job I know myself better than what you do.
Alas, I don't think you do. Because, you see, if you did, then you'd realise why everyone is calling you an ignorant racist.
>
>
> >1. I am right about your views and bigotry
>
> Thats a bigot
~sigh~ According to the dictionary, a bigot is;
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong
Well, you've not given any reasons for your belief, and you're accusing everyone else of being wrong...Yup, that's a bigot.
As to me...well, I've given reasons for my belief that you're a bigot, and I'm open to be proved wrong. But you've just...well, ignored any chance you had to do so. And repeated your bigoted views.
I think the word you're looking for in connection to me is "arrogant".
>
> 2. I'm better than you in every conceivable way.
>
> You may be better at spelling and maybee law, but nothing else. I'm a
> master at WW2 history, and what I would say little bit good at
> everything else.
No; I'm better than you. Spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, physically...everything. That's not saying much of course; there is mould in my kitchen sink that is better than you. In fact, I'm thinking of having medals minted that read "At Least I'm Better Than Kevstar", and handing them out to Tramps, asylum inmates, sex offenders...
Christ, your vaunted WW2 knowledge rather fell down when you demonstrated an ignorance of post WW2 immigration, didn't it? You'd say "a little bit good" would you? Heh; sort of proves my point about how overwhelmingly worthless you are.
> light says
>
>
> but, but, but, but, what if, if only, its all buts with you isn't it,
> your right I don't know, and if given the choice , that you don't
> know how many immigrants are coming in, you do nothing cos hey, there
> making a profit. Or, because you don't know how many's coming in, we
> put proposals in place to make it harder for people to get in and
> abuse our system.
Yes, far better to go "Well, we're not sure but I think we should keep out the darkies", eh kevstar? I'm saying the issue needs properly examining before we leap to conclusions. You're saying "Don't debate it; just keep them out because they're DEFINITELY causing a problem".
It's good fun; you say "You can't say you're right because the figures aren't available". I say "I know; but you can't say you're right for the same reason". At which point you reply "But I can; I have concerns therefore I'm right".
>
> yeahh, is that the available evidence with inaccurate figures?
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.
And even that doesn't address why you think there is DEFINITELY a problem based on nothing more than your own prejudice, does it?
> At what stage did I say this? Whats there to debate about, the fact
> is they don't know the figures of the people coming in, theres no
> debate whats going to hide that fact. Thats a flaw in the system,
> everyone knows that.
Well, firstly you said it yesterday. Your exact words were;
> And whats there to debate about, cos everything thats been done
> regarding immigration has already been done without debate, so
> according to you logic that makes the current system a joke cos it's
> never been debated yet.
Then you just said it immediately after denying you've said it. The debate we need is a debate on exactly how many immigrants are coming in, and what they contribute. We need to find out exactly what problems there are with our system, and we need to find out how to make sure immigration is working. And to debate this, we'll need facts. Incontrovertable facts. I don't want a debate to hide anything. A debate will give utter clarity and proper, clear facts. And they will, I hope, prove what an utter bigoted racist you're being.
And no, not everyone does know there is a flaw. You're just determined there is, and you've not given a shred of evidence to back you up. You've given no reason for your belief beyond "I think there is a problem". Which makes you... a bigot.
>
> Yeahh, well it's a good job I know myself better than what you do.
Alas, I don't think you do. Because, you see, if you did, then you'd realise why everyone is calling you an ignorant racist.
>
>
> >1. I am right about your views and bigotry
>
> Thats a bigot
~sigh~ According to the dictionary, a bigot is;
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong
Well, you've not given any reasons for your belief, and you're accusing everyone else of being wrong...Yup, that's a bigot.
As to me...well, I've given reasons for my belief that you're a bigot, and I'm open to be proved wrong. But you've just...well, ignored any chance you had to do so. And repeated your bigoted views.
I think the word you're looking for in connection to me is "arrogant".
>
> 2. I'm better than you in every conceivable way.
>
> You may be better at spelling and maybee law, but nothing else. I'm a
> master at WW2 history, and what I would say little bit good at
> everything else.
No; I'm better than you. Spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, physically...everything. That's not saying much of course; there is mould in my kitchen sink that is better than you. In fact, I'm thinking of having medals minted that read "At Least I'm Better Than Kevstar", and handing them out to Tramps, asylum inmates, sex offenders...
Christ, your vaunted WW2 knowledge rather fell down when you demonstrated an ignorance of post WW2 immigration, didn't it? You'd say "a little bit good" would you? Heh; sort of proves my point about how overwhelmingly worthless you are.
Not all brown people are immigrants either.
Some of them are just really dirty.
Some of them are just really dirty.
gerrid wrote:
> Without immigration we'd all be pagan druid worshippers.
Those damn immigrants.
I've always wanted to be a pagan.
> Without immigration we'd all be pagan druid worshippers.
Those damn immigrants.
I've always wanted to be a pagan.
Ahahahaa.
A master at WW2 history, yet you sound eerily familiar to a certain political party in the 1930s that blamed Germany's failings on immigrants, jews & gypsies.
Irony?
Irony?
Kevstar, I'd give up.
You're embarrassing yourself more and more as you go on.
You're embarrassing yourself more and more as you go on.
Page: