The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Light wrote:
> This;
>
> [URL]http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm[/URL]
>
> Is the perfect description of Kevstar.
>
Of course, candour compels me to admit that this
[URL]http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm[/URL] is as good a description of me on the net as I've ever read...
> This;
>
> [URL]http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm[/URL]
>
> Is the perfect description of Kevstar.
>
Of course, candour compels me to admit that this
[URL]http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm[/URL] is as good a description of me on the net as I've ever read...
kevstar wrote:
> You are The only genius with an IQ of 60,
> I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works, care to give
> any tips to light.
.........Speechless..........
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Best laugh I've had all day. you see Kevstar, you know the grand total of Nothing about me, whereas I know you're a semi-literate (at best) Gateshead bigot.
> Insults I love, but the favour has to be returned you do know that
> don't you. I mean brains aren't everything, In fact in your case
> they're nothing. He knows he has a face like a Saint - A Saint
> Bernard, and thats bieng kind. Come on light, you don't know how far
> I can go with theese do you? Yeah thats you your wife and your ugly
> mother who's so ugly they push her face into dough to make cookies.
> Thats a rap!
Damn, reading that paragraph was like reading a child with a mobile. "kvstr s mssve fckwt"
I'd also suggest kevstar, that your "insults" are twee to the point of listening a scuffed kneed little boy saying "poo" and tittering before running away, snot flowing freely over a cleft palette.
> You are The only genius with an IQ of 60,
> I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works, care to give
> any tips to light.
.........Speechless..........
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Best laugh I've had all day. you see Kevstar, you know the grand total of Nothing about me, whereas I know you're a semi-literate (at best) Gateshead bigot.
> Insults I love, but the favour has to be returned you do know that
> don't you. I mean brains aren't everything, In fact in your case
> they're nothing. He knows he has a face like a Saint - A Saint
> Bernard, and thats bieng kind. Come on light, you don't know how far
> I can go with theese do you? Yeah thats you your wife and your ugly
> mother who's so ugly they push her face into dough to make cookies.
> Thats a rap!
Damn, reading that paragraph was like reading a child with a mobile. "kvstr s mssve fckwt"
I'd also suggest kevstar, that your "insults" are twee to the point of listening a scuffed kneed little boy saying "poo" and tittering before running away, snot flowing freely over a cleft palette.
kevstar wrote:
> Should be a bit better now, Pandermoanalot, did you know that your
> the sweat of lights armpit? You are The only genius with an IQ of 60,
> I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works, care to give
> any tips to light.
Jesus, this is embarrassing. It's like watching a gibbon trying to teach geography...
> Should be a bit better now, Pandermoanalot, did you know that your
> the sweat of lights armpit? You are The only genius with an IQ of 60,
> I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works, care to give
> any tips to light.
Jesus, this is embarrassing. It's like watching a gibbon trying to teach geography...
kevstar wrote:
>
> Well, hears the problems which cause most concern, you know the fake
> figures they show...
>
>
> [URL]http://www.negotiation.biz/artman/publish/article_10.shtml[/URL]
So...in answer to my question "how is a link to a pro-tory website supposed to show objective figures?" you post a link to a site that quotes the Times? Which is the sister paper of The Sun? And is unashamedly anti-immigration?
You really are a simple little man aren't you? Tell me; do you understand what "objective" means? Because as far as I can tell, you assume any figures that show any problems with immigration are true, and anything that states otherwise if false. Of course, you're doing so because you're a xenophobe who doesn't want any brown faces in his country; that much is obvious. But watching you try to justify yourself as "objective" with increasingly convoluted arguments supported solely by anti-immigration media and selective picking of facts is proving my point far better than I could.
> No point in answering here as you asked the same thing further down
> you twit.
Well...no, you're not. You keep saying "I'd like an honest debate as it will prove I'm right". In other words, you've already decided that, no matter what the outcome, you'll still keep wailing about immigration. Do you see?
> Rubbish, you do talk absolute bull , you are the winnet that hangs
> down from pandamoanalots bum. You don't even have a clue do you, are
> you stupid? He's not stupid; he's possessed by a retarded ghost. I'd
> like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my
> head that far up my ass.
Mwahahahahahaaaa! What a very balanced answer. So lets see if I've got this straight; you're quoting from the News of the World, and your only response is a rather bizarre little attack on Pandaemonium? I'd say that pretty much proves that you know your "facts" are utter 'tardbait. It also proves the truth of what I've said about you from the start; your only response when being completely and utterly owned in a debate is to say "rubbish".
If I have my head up my ass, that's A-Ok with me; my ass clearly possesses a wider range of information than you, armed with your News of the World MiseryFacts, can muster. The best you can manage is second rate insults and hearsay.
> I do, the fact that the figures are doctered to make them sound good
So, you do know about the system? Okay then; why don't you explain to everyone the following;
1. The Public Interest, Public Health, and Security Issue exceptions to the Governments obligations to Immigrants.
2. Exactly which figures are doctored, by whom, and why
3. How the current system deals with economic migrants, and what changes you'd like to see.
If you can answer any of them, I'll be astonished; to my knowledge the News of the World hasn't told you what to think about these topics yet.
Incidentally, you're also proving further still what a bigot you are; by saying that the figures you don't like are doctored, whilst maintaining anything reported by your favourite anti-immigration rag is pure and unvarnished truth, you're giving away the simple fact that nothing will change your mind about immigration. Whereas I await some sort of proof (by which I mean tangible evidence rather than a scaremongering story in the papers) of immigration being a problem, and will accept any such proof accordingly. Shame that you're so dumb you can't provide any, isn't it?
> The facts that were wrong boy are the facts about the amount of
> people coming in, did you get that fact, cos thats what it is.
Heheheheheheh. Excellent; so you're now admitting that the report you linked to didn't actually support what you're saying? So why did you post the link to it kevstar? Was it because you selectively picked the sentences from it that seemed to support you? Did you, in fact, deliberately pick and choose what you said from the report so as to make it seem like it said immigration was a problem? Have you basically done what I've accused you of from the start and simply selectively picked your facts, much like all anti-immigration xenophobes do?
So it's wrong about the amount of people coming in? And how do you know this? Would you like to provide your evidence for the report being incorrect in this respect? Do go ahead; I'm intrigued to see what sort of lobespew you've got lined up to answer this.
> Work it out it's not that hard, God, Some day you will find yourself
> - and wish you hadn't.
So you don't want to answer the question? Well I tell you what; I'll work it out myself. But obviously, I'll need to do so using the same figures and methodology you did to work it out, so we can definitively say we used the same figures and there'll be no room for argument. So if you can just let me know where you got the figures from, and what methods you used to work out the overall cost for making changes to the immigration system, and what those changes actually are, I'll give you my working out.
> Rubbish, it's just the evidence I present you blame on years of
> underinvestment.
Well...seeing as the "evidence" you present is;
- A Home office report that supports my view and states clearly that your view is a myth
- A pro-tory website
- A report from the Times
- A few selectively quoted lines from the House of Lords report
- You repeatedly saying "everyone knows I'm right"
then you can see why I'm asking for something a little more concrete from you. Meanwhile, I gave you a home office report that clearly stated that the problems with public services are to do with lack of investment. Of course, you didn't read it because you didn't want your racist little brain polluted with anything that might make clear that your painstakingly read opinions have all the value of a small white dogturd.
> Have you, where cos I havn't seen it.
D'you want me to repost the links kevstar? They're further down the thread, but I'm happy to post them again so that you can ignore them. Just say the word, I'll repost 'em.
> Maybee thats because i'm worried, I can't see it not happening, why
> wouldn't it? Your going off the evidence with figures that are so
> inacurate it's not only impossible, but stupid to go off as there
> missing figures which should be included.
You can't see what not happening? Illegal immigrants being the same as economic immigrants? Well...that's because you're a plebian scrotal mite who desperately wants to preserve his ignorant prejudice. How exactly are you saying that they are one and the same?
I'm going off evidence that...well, yeah it may be wrong. But you've provided nothing to show that it is. All you've done is responded with selective quotes that have then been thoroughly discredited. If you did what any debator is supposed to do and concentrate on finding facts to disprove me, you wouldn't be sat at your semen-smeared keyboard typing angry ProleHate in between looking at internet porn in order to numb the pain of your pointless existence, would you?
Incidentally, your sentence structure and grammar is deteriorating. Can't you type through the tears, or is this your appalling lack of basic education showing through again?
> Well the fact that she got pushed out when she told the truth, look
> in the link, you are living proof that man can live without a brain!
What, the pro-tory website link, the link from the Times, or the link to the report that discredited everything you've said? Basically, you're trying to say that an anti-immigration website has given sketchy details of one particular case, and you're saying that proves that there are too many immigrants? Or are you just saying that, because she agreed with you, she MUST be telling the truth?
>
> I'm all for a debate, it won't do any harm will it, so yeahh.
Heh. In other words "I'm all for a debate, because it won't change what I think, and if it concludes that there is no need to put quota's on numbers of immigrants, or that our country benefits from them, I'll just say the figures have been doctored". How very big of you...
>
> Fully agreed with, listen you twit, I fully opposed the war with Iraq
> before you or any of your boyfriends said anything, why do you think
> I have Rumsfelds time is up for as my tagline? And there foriegners,
> so according to your logic and my so called racism, I shouldn't be
> saying anything, but I do don't I. Can you tell me why that is if
> i'm racist?
I think you have Rumsfelds time is up as your tagline either because
-you think it'll ingratiate yourself with people.
- Or, it's something you've been told to think by the Tory Central Office.
I certainly don't think it's got anything to do with deep seated convictions as to the war itself.
As to your deeply amusing claim that "You hated the iraq war before anyone else"....well, you just sound like a rather sad "indier-than-thou" teenager who insists that he was into a band waaaay before they were mainstream.
Finally, huge numbers of BNP opposed the war too as they felt it was helping out foreigners. So that covers your racism rather neatly, doesn't it?
Mind you, you still haven't addressed the initial point; how can you dismiss anyone who criticises you as left wing when the majority of opposition to the Iraq War was made up of left wingers?
> Actually, we do. The problem is that they're then selectively
> reported by the Tories, the Sun, Kilroy...y'know; all your heroes.
>
>
> Rubbish, tell me, Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd
> had enough oxygen at birth? Look in the link you gimp.
Yup, I've had a look. And it's anti-immigration stuff spouted from an anti-immigration newspaper. In other words, stuff that is selectively reported. Just as I've already said. What makes you say that it's objective?
By the way, are you planning on expanding your repertoire of insults beyond "You're so stupid"? Because at the moment I feel like I'm having an argument with a retarded toddler.
> I'm not a tory, never will, even though I like some of there
> pollicy's on immigration.
Heh. So you'll not call yourself a tory, but you'll support their policies? Wow...a hypocrite as well as a coward, racist, xenophobe, and colossal cockwit.
> Insults I love, but the favour has to be returned you do know that
> don't you. I mean brains aren't everything, In fact in your case
> they're nothing. He knows he has a face like a Saint - A Saint
> Bernard, and thats bieng kind. Come on light, you don't know how far
> I can go with theese do you? Yeah thats you your wife and your ugly
> mother who's so ugly they push her face into dough to make cookies.
> Thats a rap!
Bwahahahahaaaa! Pandaemonium; do you want to tell him about just how appallingly I get on with my mother, or shall I? Is that the best you can muster to insult her? Where are the spiteful points about how her chebs scrape her knees whenever she goes running? Or how she has the clawed hands of a spiteful witch punching a child in the face? Tch; just not good enough, are you kevstar. I mean, you're actually saying "I can go further with these"? Be my guest; you're embarrassing yourself quite spectacularly so I have no wish to see you stop.
Anyway, I suppose I should "return the favour" as you say, and point out that as well as your insults being of low quality, your knowledge of history being based on a few computer games, your opinions being spoon fed into your brain like marmite into a pigs @rse, and your brain condition being by far and away the most likeable thing about you, you've generally conducted yourself in this debate with the same level of dignity as the time your parents caught you with your pants round your ankles chasing your sobbing sister round the sofa and begging her to let you be her black boy.
>
> Well, hears the problems which cause most concern, you know the fake
> figures they show...
>
>
> [URL]http://www.negotiation.biz/artman/publish/article_10.shtml[/URL]
So...in answer to my question "how is a link to a pro-tory website supposed to show objective figures?" you post a link to a site that quotes the Times? Which is the sister paper of The Sun? And is unashamedly anti-immigration?
You really are a simple little man aren't you? Tell me; do you understand what "objective" means? Because as far as I can tell, you assume any figures that show any problems with immigration are true, and anything that states otherwise if false. Of course, you're doing so because you're a xenophobe who doesn't want any brown faces in his country; that much is obvious. But watching you try to justify yourself as "objective" with increasingly convoluted arguments supported solely by anti-immigration media and selective picking of facts is proving my point far better than I could.
> No point in answering here as you asked the same thing further down
> you twit.
Well...no, you're not. You keep saying "I'd like an honest debate as it will prove I'm right". In other words, you've already decided that, no matter what the outcome, you'll still keep wailing about immigration. Do you see?
> Rubbish, you do talk absolute bull , you are the winnet that hangs
> down from pandamoanalots bum. You don't even have a clue do you, are
> you stupid? He's not stupid; he's possessed by a retarded ghost. I'd
> like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my
> head that far up my ass.
Mwahahahahahaaaa! What a very balanced answer. So lets see if I've got this straight; you're quoting from the News of the World, and your only response is a rather bizarre little attack on Pandaemonium? I'd say that pretty much proves that you know your "facts" are utter 'tardbait. It also proves the truth of what I've said about you from the start; your only response when being completely and utterly owned in a debate is to say "rubbish".
If I have my head up my ass, that's A-Ok with me; my ass clearly possesses a wider range of information than you, armed with your News of the World MiseryFacts, can muster. The best you can manage is second rate insults and hearsay.
> I do, the fact that the figures are doctered to make them sound good
So, you do know about the system? Okay then; why don't you explain to everyone the following;
1. The Public Interest, Public Health, and Security Issue exceptions to the Governments obligations to Immigrants.
2. Exactly which figures are doctored, by whom, and why
3. How the current system deals with economic migrants, and what changes you'd like to see.
If you can answer any of them, I'll be astonished; to my knowledge the News of the World hasn't told you what to think about these topics yet.
Incidentally, you're also proving further still what a bigot you are; by saying that the figures you don't like are doctored, whilst maintaining anything reported by your favourite anti-immigration rag is pure and unvarnished truth, you're giving away the simple fact that nothing will change your mind about immigration. Whereas I await some sort of proof (by which I mean tangible evidence rather than a scaremongering story in the papers) of immigration being a problem, and will accept any such proof accordingly. Shame that you're so dumb you can't provide any, isn't it?
> The facts that were wrong boy are the facts about the amount of
> people coming in, did you get that fact, cos thats what it is.
Heheheheheheh. Excellent; so you're now admitting that the report you linked to didn't actually support what you're saying? So why did you post the link to it kevstar? Was it because you selectively picked the sentences from it that seemed to support you? Did you, in fact, deliberately pick and choose what you said from the report so as to make it seem like it said immigration was a problem? Have you basically done what I've accused you of from the start and simply selectively picked your facts, much like all anti-immigration xenophobes do?
So it's wrong about the amount of people coming in? And how do you know this? Would you like to provide your evidence for the report being incorrect in this respect? Do go ahead; I'm intrigued to see what sort of lobespew you've got lined up to answer this.
> Work it out it's not that hard, God, Some day you will find yourself
> - and wish you hadn't.
So you don't want to answer the question? Well I tell you what; I'll work it out myself. But obviously, I'll need to do so using the same figures and methodology you did to work it out, so we can definitively say we used the same figures and there'll be no room for argument. So if you can just let me know where you got the figures from, and what methods you used to work out the overall cost for making changes to the immigration system, and what those changes actually are, I'll give you my working out.
> Rubbish, it's just the evidence I present you blame on years of
> underinvestment.
Well...seeing as the "evidence" you present is;
- A Home office report that supports my view and states clearly that your view is a myth
- A pro-tory website
- A report from the Times
- A few selectively quoted lines from the House of Lords report
- You repeatedly saying "everyone knows I'm right"
then you can see why I'm asking for something a little more concrete from you. Meanwhile, I gave you a home office report that clearly stated that the problems with public services are to do with lack of investment. Of course, you didn't read it because you didn't want your racist little brain polluted with anything that might make clear that your painstakingly read opinions have all the value of a small white dogturd.
> Have you, where cos I havn't seen it.
D'you want me to repost the links kevstar? They're further down the thread, but I'm happy to post them again so that you can ignore them. Just say the word, I'll repost 'em.
> Maybee thats because i'm worried, I can't see it not happening, why
> wouldn't it? Your going off the evidence with figures that are so
> inacurate it's not only impossible, but stupid to go off as there
> missing figures which should be included.
You can't see what not happening? Illegal immigrants being the same as economic immigrants? Well...that's because you're a plebian scrotal mite who desperately wants to preserve his ignorant prejudice. How exactly are you saying that they are one and the same?
I'm going off evidence that...well, yeah it may be wrong. But you've provided nothing to show that it is. All you've done is responded with selective quotes that have then been thoroughly discredited. If you did what any debator is supposed to do and concentrate on finding facts to disprove me, you wouldn't be sat at your semen-smeared keyboard typing angry ProleHate in between looking at internet porn in order to numb the pain of your pointless existence, would you?
Incidentally, your sentence structure and grammar is deteriorating. Can't you type through the tears, or is this your appalling lack of basic education showing through again?
> Well the fact that she got pushed out when she told the truth, look
> in the link, you are living proof that man can live without a brain!
What, the pro-tory website link, the link from the Times, or the link to the report that discredited everything you've said? Basically, you're trying to say that an anti-immigration website has given sketchy details of one particular case, and you're saying that proves that there are too many immigrants? Or are you just saying that, because she agreed with you, she MUST be telling the truth?
>
> I'm all for a debate, it won't do any harm will it, so yeahh.
Heh. In other words "I'm all for a debate, because it won't change what I think, and if it concludes that there is no need to put quota's on numbers of immigrants, or that our country benefits from them, I'll just say the figures have been doctored". How very big of you...
>
> Fully agreed with, listen you twit, I fully opposed the war with Iraq
> before you or any of your boyfriends said anything, why do you think
> I have Rumsfelds time is up for as my tagline? And there foriegners,
> so according to your logic and my so called racism, I shouldn't be
> saying anything, but I do don't I. Can you tell me why that is if
> i'm racist?
I think you have Rumsfelds time is up as your tagline either because
-you think it'll ingratiate yourself with people.
- Or, it's something you've been told to think by the Tory Central Office.
I certainly don't think it's got anything to do with deep seated convictions as to the war itself.
As to your deeply amusing claim that "You hated the iraq war before anyone else"....well, you just sound like a rather sad "indier-than-thou" teenager who insists that he was into a band waaaay before they were mainstream.
Finally, huge numbers of BNP opposed the war too as they felt it was helping out foreigners. So that covers your racism rather neatly, doesn't it?
Mind you, you still haven't addressed the initial point; how can you dismiss anyone who criticises you as left wing when the majority of opposition to the Iraq War was made up of left wingers?
> Actually, we do. The problem is that they're then selectively
> reported by the Tories, the Sun, Kilroy...y'know; all your heroes.
>
>
> Rubbish, tell me, Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd
> had enough oxygen at birth? Look in the link you gimp.
Yup, I've had a look. And it's anti-immigration stuff spouted from an anti-immigration newspaper. In other words, stuff that is selectively reported. Just as I've already said. What makes you say that it's objective?
By the way, are you planning on expanding your repertoire of insults beyond "You're so stupid"? Because at the moment I feel like I'm having an argument with a retarded toddler.
> I'm not a tory, never will, even though I like some of there
> pollicy's on immigration.
Heh. So you'll not call yourself a tory, but you'll support their policies? Wow...a hypocrite as well as a coward, racist, xenophobe, and colossal cockwit.
> Insults I love, but the favour has to be returned you do know that
> don't you. I mean brains aren't everything, In fact in your case
> they're nothing. He knows he has a face like a Saint - A Saint
> Bernard, and thats bieng kind. Come on light, you don't know how far
> I can go with theese do you? Yeah thats you your wife and your ugly
> mother who's so ugly they push her face into dough to make cookies.
> Thats a rap!
Bwahahahahaaaa! Pandaemonium; do you want to tell him about just how appallingly I get on with my mother, or shall I? Is that the best you can muster to insult her? Where are the spiteful points about how her chebs scrape her knees whenever she goes running? Or how she has the clawed hands of a spiteful witch punching a child in the face? Tch; just not good enough, are you kevstar. I mean, you're actually saying "I can go further with these"? Be my guest; you're embarrassing yourself quite spectacularly so I have no wish to see you stop.
Anyway, I suppose I should "return the favour" as you say, and point out that as well as your insults being of low quality, your knowledge of history being based on a few computer games, your opinions being spoon fed into your brain like marmite into a pigs @rse, and your brain condition being by far and away the most likeable thing about you, you've generally conducted yourself in this debate with the same level of dignity as the time your parents caught you with your pants round your ankles chasing your sobbing sister round the sofa and begging her to let you be her black boy.
SHEEPY wrote:
> I might actually read these replies if they weren't 2000 words long
> with >>>>>>>>>>EVERYWHERE.
Should be a bit better now, Pandermoanalot, did you know that your the sweat of lights armpit? You are The only genius with an IQ of 60, I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works, care to give any tips to light.
> I might actually read these replies if they weren't 2000 words long
> with >>>>>>>>>>EVERYWHERE.
Should be a bit better now, Pandermoanalot, did you know that your the sweat of lights armpit? You are The only genius with an IQ of 60, I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works, care to give any tips to light.
I might actually read these replies if they weren't 2000 words long with >>> >>>>>> > >>>> EVERYWHERE.
kevstar wrote:
> Rubbish, you do talk absolute bull , you are the winnet that hangs
> down from pandamoanalots bum. You don't even have a clue do you, are
> you stupid? He's not stupid; he's possessed by a retarded ghost. I'd
> like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my
> head that far up my ass.
Hey, dum-dum, you may want to click [URL]http://www.lepconnie.com/pics/other/gremlin06.jpg[/URL] and [URL]http://www.icslearn.co.uk/course.asp?courseID=2184[/URL]
"As an ICS home learning student" Great news, you don't even have to get off your fat ass! :D
> Rubbish, you do talk absolute bull , you are the winnet that hangs
> down from pandamoanalots bum. You don't even have a clue do you, are
> you stupid? He's not stupid; he's possessed by a retarded ghost. I'd
> like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my
> head that far up my ass.
Hey, dum-dum, you may want to click [URL]http://www.lepconnie.com/pics/other/gremlin06.jpg[/URL] and [URL]http://www.icslearn.co.uk/course.asp?courseID=2184[/URL]
"As an ICS home learning student" Great news, you don't even have to get off your fat ass! :D
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
> [URL]http://democraticdeficit.org.uk/immigration_main.html[/URL]
>
> Yes? And? You've posted a link to a pro-tory and anti-Blair lobbying
> website. Your point being? Are you trying to say that, because their
> views agree with yours, they MUST be objective?
Well, hears the problems which cause most concern, you know the fake figures they show...
[URL]http://www.negotiation.biz/artman/publish/article_10.shtml[/URL]
> and
> that we therefore need an honest debate about it rather than
> watching
> the dimwitted words painstakingly typed by a fat-fingered moron from
> the safety of his wretched prole-hole?
> Still avoiding answering about the honest debate? Deary me, your
> cowardice is almost as excessive as your protests about your
> virility.
No point in answering here as you asked the same thing further down you twit.
>
> Ahh, I see; you're getting your "facts" from stories in the
> papers! You're actually quoting me the News of the World (the paper
> that printed a mans picture, named him as a paedo, then the following
> week had to apologise for printing the wrong picture) as a legitimate
> source? Bwahahahahahaaaa! I'm amazed you managed to stop gawping at
> whichever talentless muppet had her chebs on display to a telescopic
> lense long enough to read their "Immigrants are EVIL!"
> nonsense.
Rubbish, you do talk absolute bull , you are the winnet that hangs down from pandamoanalots bum. You don't even have a clue do you, are you stupid? He's not stupid; he's possessed by a retarded ghost. I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.
>
> Still, I now have it confirmed; your "concerns" are based
> solely on what you've been told to think by The Sun and the News of
> the World. And as such, are laughable. And baseless.
>
> ...the system that you admit you don't actually know about? Tell me,
> how can you know what the problem is when you don't actually know
> what the system is?
I do, the fact that the figures are doctered to make them sound good.
> Really? So why did you spend about 3 days trying to claim that the
> report you linked to backed your story up entirely, yet at the same
> time you mindlessly "muuhh"-ed your way through an amusing
> claim that the report was simultaneously untrustworthy when it came
> to the facts you didn't like? Sounds very much to me like you were
> doing exactly that; listing the ones you liked.
The facts that were wrong boy are the facts about the amount of people coming in, did you get that fact, cos thats what it is.
> You feel it'd cost the most? On what basis?
Work it out it's not that hard, God, Some day you will find yourself - and wish you hadn't.
And if it is gonna cost
> the most, how are we going to pay for it? They cover all our services
> in one? Don't talk brainsmeg; you keep saying "they're
> stretching our services!" and then providing NO evidence in
> support of that,
Rubbish, it's just the evidence I present you blame on years of underinvestment.
whereas I have thus far deluged you with info
> stating that immigrants are not the problem with services.
Have you, where cos I havn't seen it.
>
> And you're, once again, trying to link Illegal immigrants with
> Economic immigrants. They're not the same thing, as you should know
> by now.
> Look, just because the limit of your tiny little rat-boy imagination
> is exactly what the Sun ragepisses into your brain every day, that
> doesn't mean that it's anyones problem but yours. I'm going off
> figures that...well, you're saying they're innacurate. How do you
> know?
Well the fact that she got pushed out when she told the truth, look in the link, you are living proof that man can live without a brain!
On what basis are they innaccurate? And as for the missing
> figures...well, had you anything closely resembling an IQ above
> absolute zero, you might have noticed that I've been saying, from the
> very start, that we need debate about it. I've NOT been saying
> "there definitely isn't a problem". I've been trying to get
> you to justify your firm belief that there is, and it's the fault of
> foreigners. Something you've failed to do so.
>
> Also, how are we to get the figures when you're so opposed to an open
> debate about immigration?
I'm all for a debate, it won't do any harm will it, so yeahh.
>
> Plus, you'll notice how EVERYONE in this thread is calling you a
> racist. Do you see Kev? Or are you getting distracted by todays
> edition of Trisha?
>
> Left wingers.
>
> Ahh, I see; so whenever anyone points out what a vacuous cretin you
> are, you dismiss them as "left wingers". Are these the same
> left wingers you fully agreed with about the Iraq war kevstar? Or are
> these different left wingers?
Fully agreed with, listen you twit, I fully opposed the war with Iraq before you or any of your boyfriends said anything, why do you think I have Rumsfelds time is up for as my tagline? And there foriegners, so according to your logic and my so called racism, I shouldn't be saying anything, but I do don't I. Can you tell me why that is if i'm racist?
>
> I've not seen such a lack of self awareness since Belldandy left...
>
> And you haven't answered the question, my increasingly frightened
> pleb-plaything; do you accept the need for an open and honest debate
> about immigration.
>
>
> Yes I would, as long as it means we agree to get all the
> figures on people coming in. Thats what my main problem is, because
> we don't have theese figures it's impossible if it's working or not.
>
> Actually, we do. The problem is that they're then selectively
> reported by the Tories, the Sun, Kilroy...y'know; all your heroes.
Rubbish, tell me, Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth? Look in the link you gimp.
>
> Incidentally, as you seem to be the only Tory in Gateshead, does that
> make you an endangered species?
I'm not a tory, never will, even though I like some of there pollicy's on immigration.
>
>
> I didn't just try dear boy; I succeeded. Admirably. Although
> admittedly, I didn't make you look as much of a moron as you yourself
> do. And your insults were funny for one reason; they made you look
> like a squalling little human jizzjar who was desperate for people to
> think he was the epitome of laddishness. Have a glance down the
> thread. Go on. I'll wait for you...
>
> Finished? See just how many people are laughing at you kevstar? How
> many people are shaking their heads in disbelief at just what a
> pathetic creature you are? It's quite impressive isn't it? Everyone
> thinks that you're a loser, that your views are racist, and that your
> personal hygiene is worse than that of a leprous wolfcock.
> Okay...maybe it's just me who thinks the latter, but you get the
> idea.
Insults I love, but the favour has to be returned you do know that don't you. I mean brains aren't everything, In fact in your case they're nothing. He knows he has a face like a Saint - A Saint Bernard, and thats bieng kind. Come on light, you don't know how far I can go with theese do you? Yeah thats you your wife and your ugly mother who's so ugly they push her face into dough to make cookies. Thats a rap!
> kevstar wrote:
>
> [URL]http://democraticdeficit.org.uk/immigration_main.html[/URL]
>
> Yes? And? You've posted a link to a pro-tory and anti-Blair lobbying
> website. Your point being? Are you trying to say that, because their
> views agree with yours, they MUST be objective?
Well, hears the problems which cause most concern, you know the fake figures they show...
[URL]http://www.negotiation.biz/artman/publish/article_10.shtml[/URL]
> and
> that we therefore need an honest debate about it rather than
> watching
> the dimwitted words painstakingly typed by a fat-fingered moron from
> the safety of his wretched prole-hole?
> Still avoiding answering about the honest debate? Deary me, your
> cowardice is almost as excessive as your protests about your
> virility.
No point in answering here as you asked the same thing further down you twit.
>
> Ahh, I see; you're getting your "facts" from stories in the
> papers! You're actually quoting me the News of the World (the paper
> that printed a mans picture, named him as a paedo, then the following
> week had to apologise for printing the wrong picture) as a legitimate
> source? Bwahahahahahaaaa! I'm amazed you managed to stop gawping at
> whichever talentless muppet had her chebs on display to a telescopic
> lense long enough to read their "Immigrants are EVIL!"
> nonsense.
Rubbish, you do talk absolute bull , you are the winnet that hangs down from pandamoanalots bum. You don't even have a clue do you, are you stupid? He's not stupid; he's possessed by a retarded ghost. I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.
>
> Still, I now have it confirmed; your "concerns" are based
> solely on what you've been told to think by The Sun and the News of
> the World. And as such, are laughable. And baseless.
>
> ...the system that you admit you don't actually know about? Tell me,
> how can you know what the problem is when you don't actually know
> what the system is?
I do, the fact that the figures are doctered to make them sound good.
> Really? So why did you spend about 3 days trying to claim that the
> report you linked to backed your story up entirely, yet at the same
> time you mindlessly "muuhh"-ed your way through an amusing
> claim that the report was simultaneously untrustworthy when it came
> to the facts you didn't like? Sounds very much to me like you were
> doing exactly that; listing the ones you liked.
The facts that were wrong boy are the facts about the amount of people coming in, did you get that fact, cos thats what it is.
> You feel it'd cost the most? On what basis?
Work it out it's not that hard, God, Some day you will find yourself - and wish you hadn't.
And if it is gonna cost
> the most, how are we going to pay for it? They cover all our services
> in one? Don't talk brainsmeg; you keep saying "they're
> stretching our services!" and then providing NO evidence in
> support of that,
Rubbish, it's just the evidence I present you blame on years of underinvestment.
whereas I have thus far deluged you with info
> stating that immigrants are not the problem with services.
Have you, where cos I havn't seen it.
>
> And you're, once again, trying to link Illegal immigrants with
> Economic immigrants. They're not the same thing, as you should know
> by now.
> Look, just because the limit of your tiny little rat-boy imagination
> is exactly what the Sun ragepisses into your brain every day, that
> doesn't mean that it's anyones problem but yours. I'm going off
> figures that...well, you're saying they're innacurate. How do you
> know?
Well the fact that she got pushed out when she told the truth, look in the link, you are living proof that man can live without a brain!
On what basis are they innaccurate? And as for the missing
> figures...well, had you anything closely resembling an IQ above
> absolute zero, you might have noticed that I've been saying, from the
> very start, that we need debate about it. I've NOT been saying
> "there definitely isn't a problem". I've been trying to get
> you to justify your firm belief that there is, and it's the fault of
> foreigners. Something you've failed to do so.
>
> Also, how are we to get the figures when you're so opposed to an open
> debate about immigration?
I'm all for a debate, it won't do any harm will it, so yeahh.
>
> Plus, you'll notice how EVERYONE in this thread is calling you a
> racist. Do you see Kev? Or are you getting distracted by todays
> edition of Trisha?
>
> Left wingers.
>
> Ahh, I see; so whenever anyone points out what a vacuous cretin you
> are, you dismiss them as "left wingers". Are these the same
> left wingers you fully agreed with about the Iraq war kevstar? Or are
> these different left wingers?
Fully agreed with, listen you twit, I fully opposed the war with Iraq before you or any of your boyfriends said anything, why do you think I have Rumsfelds time is up for as my tagline? And there foriegners, so according to your logic and my so called racism, I shouldn't be saying anything, but I do don't I. Can you tell me why that is if i'm racist?
>
> I've not seen such a lack of self awareness since Belldandy left...
>
> And you haven't answered the question, my increasingly frightened
> pleb-plaything; do you accept the need for an open and honest debate
> about immigration.
>
>
> Yes I would, as long as it means we agree to get all the
> figures on people coming in. Thats what my main problem is, because
> we don't have theese figures it's impossible if it's working or not.
>
> Actually, we do. The problem is that they're then selectively
> reported by the Tories, the Sun, Kilroy...y'know; all your heroes.
Rubbish, tell me, Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth? Look in the link you gimp.
>
> Incidentally, as you seem to be the only Tory in Gateshead, does that
> make you an endangered species?
I'm not a tory, never will, even though I like some of there pollicy's on immigration.
>
>
> I didn't just try dear boy; I succeeded. Admirably. Although
> admittedly, I didn't make you look as much of a moron as you yourself
> do. And your insults were funny for one reason; they made you look
> like a squalling little human jizzjar who was desperate for people to
> think he was the epitome of laddishness. Have a glance down the
> thread. Go on. I'll wait for you...
>
> Finished? See just how many people are laughing at you kevstar? How
> many people are shaking their heads in disbelief at just what a
> pathetic creature you are? It's quite impressive isn't it? Everyone
> thinks that you're a loser, that your views are racist, and that your
> personal hygiene is worse than that of a leprous wolfcock.
> Okay...maybe it's just me who thinks the latter, but you get the
> idea.
Insults I love, but the favour has to be returned you do know that don't you. I mean brains aren't everything, In fact in your case they're nothing. He knows he has a face like a Saint - A Saint Bernard, and thats bieng kind. Come on light, you don't know how far I can go with theese do you? Yeah thats you your wife and your ugly mother who's so ugly they push her face into dough to make cookies. Thats a rap!
Shelljed wrote:
>
> but what do they contribute to the country
> once they are here?
Um...3 billion quid net profit?
> some probably do help but its the few who dont
> that give them all a bad name.
Alas, it's those few (or otherwise) that the Sun bases it's entire news coverage on.
>
> but what do they contribute to the country
> once they are here?
Um...3 billion quid net profit?
> some probably do help but its the few who dont
> that give them all a bad name.
Alas, it's those few (or otherwise) that the Sun bases it's entire news coverage on.
I think that I would not vote for any of those option that are on offer, I will stick with what we have. All political parties promise the earth before they are elected! and none can deliver the goods once they are in. Under this present Goverment I have managed to bring up my two kids and buy my home, under the last Goverment motgate rates were so High I had to sell my first home!
As to imigrants! well am sure there are far to many of them in the country and its a sad reflection on the rest of the world that they actually think UK is a good place to live, I suppose its better than where they are leaving but what do they contribute to the country once they are here? some probably do help but its the few who dont that give them all a bad name.
As to imigrants! well am sure there are far to many of them in the country and its a sad reflection on the rest of the world that they actually think UK is a good place to live, I suppose its better than where they are leaving but what do they contribute to the country once they are here? some probably do help but its the few who dont that give them all a bad name.
Page: