The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Darkies!
Coming over here taking YOUR women and living in YOUR car and eating YOUR food and raping YOUR budgie.
Sending the money home!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!! Working hard to support a family miles away? Inconsiderate nignogs, how dare they.
Kevstar, you're a tool. And using the argument "backed by 93% of Sun Readers" is like saying a dog is clever because it's never failed an exam.
I'd like you, and anyone else thinking we're drowning in a tidal wave of brown-skinned lazy criminals, to give me an example of exactly how you have suffered as a result of millions upon millions of fuzzywuzzies sneaking into Britain please.
Because I'll be honest, to me the greater problem seems to be the rapidly rising levels of unwanted, feral kids roaming estates and committing mindless acts of boredom-induced vandalism whilst racing stolen hatchbacks. And guess what colour they are?
Coming over here taking YOUR women and living in YOUR car and eating YOUR food and raping YOUR budgie.
Sending the money home!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!! Working hard to support a family miles away? Inconsiderate nignogs, how dare they.
Kevstar, you're a tool. And using the argument "backed by 93% of Sun Readers" is like saying a dog is clever because it's never failed an exam.
I'd like you, and anyone else thinking we're drowning in a tidal wave of brown-skinned lazy criminals, to give me an example of exactly how you have suffered as a result of millions upon millions of fuzzywuzzies sneaking into Britain please.
Because I'll be honest, to me the greater problem seems to be the rapidly rising levels of unwanted, feral kids roaming estates and committing mindless acts of boredom-induced vandalism whilst racing stolen hatchbacks. And guess what colour they are?
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
> Assume all you like; you'll be wrong. I live in a council estate and
> have no private health plan. Funny really; the only way you seem
> capable of answering my arguments is to create a little fantasy world
> in order to allow your fairly ill-informed version of reality to
> survive.
>
> The reason for the 'overcrowding' (as I explained in the post you've
> just replied to, in the point that you cleverly ignored with your
> cunning argument of "blaaaaahhh"; which of us is
> shortsighted exactly?) is 30 years of underinvestment in public
> services. Yet you don't seem willing to admit that; you'd far rather
> point your finger at those nasty foreign types whilst ignoring
> completely what I and others have said about the lack of investment
> in public services and infrastructure.
So you do agree that there is overcrowding? Ok, thats good, So you also agree that there is a problem with our public services? Thats also good. Hey but wait, you agree to theese points but don't accept that the people who are coming into this country, no matter how many that may be (cos we don't actually know the figures do we)may actually strain our sevices more to the point of collapse?
>
>
> Bllaaahh, money has always been pumped into our services, if
> anything, it's the spending of the money whats gone to waste. Even
> if
> that is the case, Tony Blair has now had 8 years to sort the problem
> out, and has things got better? I think not.
>
> Mwahahahahahaaaa! Wow, you have a firm understanding of this, I can
> tell; "we've always pumped money into our services"? Okay
> then; why don't you use your vast knowledge of economics to explain
> to me just how the falling investment over the last 30 years has kept
> up to date with the increasing spending needs of the NHS and the
> Education sector? Could you then go on to tell me how the massive
> cuts in public spending over the course of the 80's (the money saved
> was used to fund tax cuts) constitutes "money being pumped
> in"?
Your right I dont't know the inns and out of economics nor am I supposed to. How did this come about then
[URL]http://society.guardian.co.uk/publicfinances/story/0,12671,870298,00.html[/URL]
>
> And as to your point about Tony Blair...well, as we've had 3
> authoritarian Home Secretaries in a row, I can't say as I'm surprised
> things haven't gotten better. That's rather my point you see; the
> governments of the country have screwed up on public spending and now
> they're blaming immigrants for their oversights. Do you see?
Ok, what when theese immigrants become old, then what? Bring more in? Then what etc, do you see?
>
> Perhaps, once you've finished writing "blahhh" in a p!ss
> poor attempt to avoid addressing much of the initial point due to a
> massive failure in intellect, you'd like to read this government
> archive document detailing the reduced public spending immediately
> after the 97 election;
>
> [URL]http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hmt/budget95/chap6.htm[/URL]
>
> Or perhaps, if you're through creating imaginary scenario's that
> still allow you to cling to your prejudices without bothering to
> question them, you can have a look at this review of long term
> spending and note that it points out how, in real terms, public
> spending has fallen.
> [URL]http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf[/URL]
>
> Then maybe you'd like to think a little.
>
> Iv'e give a link above which clearly states that spending will increase, whens your link from.
>
>
>
>
> I dont have a problem with this, what you'll find is that a lot of
> immigants are sending the money they earn back to the country's they
> came from, hows that good for the economy apart from the tax we take
> off them?
> Yes, I agree we may need more of them, but we must also know the
> point when our Country is at full capacity, and we don't.
>
> Oh really. And tell me, what are you basing this assumption
> on? Did a bloke tell you down the pub? Or do you have access to the
> mailing records of every immigrant that ever there was? Any evidence
> at all, or is this another petty prejudice on your part?
What are you saying it doesn't happen, i'm bassing that assumption on the fact that a lot of immigrants have family in the Country's there from. It
would also make sense to bring that money back to the family's as it goes further once they exchange the rate into there own currency.
>
> I'll repeat again, since you seem to have avoided the initial
> question by getting lost in some sort of bizarre "Ah, but you're
> the lord of your local manor" fantasy; where is your evidence
> that the country is overcrowded?
Below
>
>
> Yes, I do, and accept that people in need should be welcome, but it
> has to be done in the right way, and the way now is not working.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. What is "the right way"?
I don't know, which is true, but it's not the way we have now.
> 2. What is the way we have now? After all, you seem very sure it's
> not working so I presume you can tell me what it actually is. In your
> own time...
>
> [URL]http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/laws___policy.html?[/URL]
> Well your linking one topic with another and were not talking about
> the way they become refugees or asylum sekkers, were talking about
> what happens once they enter our shores.
>
> Ah, I see; so the fact that our country may be in part responsible
> for making them refugees; that's not our problem eh? The fact that
> the west has helped keep the standard of living low in developing
> nations; that's their issue to deal with, and we shouldn't have to
> take in any immigrants because of it eh?
> Why on earth do you think people become immigrants anyway?
I didn't say it wasn't our problem, but as I said before your going off the subject.
>
>
> Well if you take the rise in the Tory's have gained since making
> there immigration plans known thats a good indication, the 93%
> backing of Sun readers, a YouGov poll in the telegraph shows strong
> support for strickter controlls.
>
> So In other words, yes; it's based on scaremongering. I asked for
> evidence my dear boy. Hard facts. I didn't ask for you to confirm
> that the general public are fearful of and resistant to change of any
> kind. Nor did I deny that immigration is an issue to be discussed.
> Had you read much of what I said rather than rushing to ignore it,
> you might have noticed that.
And how is that scaremongering, As long as we don't know how many people are coming into our Country each year I have a right to be worried. If the goverment comes out and says "right, this is how many people's coming onto our shores, you don't need to worry about overcrowding untill we reach xx million people before it strains our services, this is how many we have now, so we don't need to worry yet", that would be fine. But it's not like that is it?
>
> Jesus Christ kevstar you really do take the proverbial. I've never
> seen such a pathetic attempt to overintellectualise a collection of
> petty prejudices since...well, since Belldandy.
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
> Assume all you like; you'll be wrong. I live in a council estate and
> have no private health plan. Funny really; the only way you seem
> capable of answering my arguments is to create a little fantasy world
> in order to allow your fairly ill-informed version of reality to
> survive.
>
> The reason for the 'overcrowding' (as I explained in the post you've
> just replied to, in the point that you cleverly ignored with your
> cunning argument of "blaaaaahhh"; which of us is
> shortsighted exactly?) is 30 years of underinvestment in public
> services. Yet you don't seem willing to admit that; you'd far rather
> point your finger at those nasty foreign types whilst ignoring
> completely what I and others have said about the lack of investment
> in public services and infrastructure.
So you do agree that there is overcrowding? Ok, thats good, So you also agree that there is a problem with our public services? Thats also good. Hey but wait, you agree to theese points but don't accept that the people who are coming into this country, no matter how many that may be (cos we don't actually know the figures do we)may actually strain our sevices more to the point of collapse?
>
>
> Bllaaahh, money has always been pumped into our services, if
> anything, it's the spending of the money whats gone to waste. Even
> if
> that is the case, Tony Blair has now had 8 years to sort the problem
> out, and has things got better? I think not.
>
> Mwahahahahahaaaa! Wow, you have a firm understanding of this, I can
> tell; "we've always pumped money into our services"? Okay
> then; why don't you use your vast knowledge of economics to explain
> to me just how the falling investment over the last 30 years has kept
> up to date with the increasing spending needs of the NHS and the
> Education sector? Could you then go on to tell me how the massive
> cuts in public spending over the course of the 80's (the money saved
> was used to fund tax cuts) constitutes "money being pumped
> in"?
Your right I dont't know the inns and out of economics nor am I supposed to. How did this come about then
[URL]http://society.guardian.co.uk/publicfinances/story/0,12671,870298,00.html[/URL]
>
> And as to your point about Tony Blair...well, as we've had 3
> authoritarian Home Secretaries in a row, I can't say as I'm surprised
> things haven't gotten better. That's rather my point you see; the
> governments of the country have screwed up on public spending and now
> they're blaming immigrants for their oversights. Do you see?
Ok, what when theese immigrants become old, then what? Bring more in? Then what etc, do you see?
>
> Perhaps, once you've finished writing "blahhh" in a p!ss
> poor attempt to avoid addressing much of the initial point due to a
> massive failure in intellect, you'd like to read this government
> archive document detailing the reduced public spending immediately
> after the 97 election;
>
> [URL]http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hmt/budget95/chap6.htm[/URL]
>
> Or perhaps, if you're through creating imaginary scenario's that
> still allow you to cling to your prejudices without bothering to
> question them, you can have a look at this review of long term
> spending and note that it points out how, in real terms, public
> spending has fallen.
> [URL]http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf[/URL]
>
> Then maybe you'd like to think a little.
>
> Iv'e give a link above which clearly states that spending will increase, whens your link from.
>
>
>
>
> I dont have a problem with this, what you'll find is that a lot of
> immigants are sending the money they earn back to the country's they
> came from, hows that good for the economy apart from the tax we take
> off them?
> Yes, I agree we may need more of them, but we must also know the
> point when our Country is at full capacity, and we don't.
>
> Oh really. And tell me, what are you basing this assumption
> on? Did a bloke tell you down the pub? Or do you have access to the
> mailing records of every immigrant that ever there was? Any evidence
> at all, or is this another petty prejudice on your part?
What are you saying it doesn't happen, i'm bassing that assumption on the fact that a lot of immigrants have family in the Country's there from. It
would also make sense to bring that money back to the family's as it goes further once they exchange the rate into there own currency.
>
> I'll repeat again, since you seem to have avoided the initial
> question by getting lost in some sort of bizarre "Ah, but you're
> the lord of your local manor" fantasy; where is your evidence
> that the country is overcrowded?
Below
>
>
> Yes, I do, and accept that people in need should be welcome, but it
> has to be done in the right way, and the way now is not working.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. What is "the right way"?
I don't know, which is true, but it's not the way we have now.
> 2. What is the way we have now? After all, you seem very sure it's
> not working so I presume you can tell me what it actually is. In your
> own time...
>
> [URL]http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/laws___policy.html?[/URL]
> Well your linking one topic with another and were not talking about
> the way they become refugees or asylum sekkers, were talking about
> what happens once they enter our shores.
>
> Ah, I see; so the fact that our country may be in part responsible
> for making them refugees; that's not our problem eh? The fact that
> the west has helped keep the standard of living low in developing
> nations; that's their issue to deal with, and we shouldn't have to
> take in any immigrants because of it eh?
> Why on earth do you think people become immigrants anyway?
I didn't say it wasn't our problem, but as I said before your going off the subject.
>
>
> Well if you take the rise in the Tory's have gained since making
> there immigration plans known thats a good indication, the 93%
> backing of Sun readers, a YouGov poll in the telegraph shows strong
> support for strickter controlls.
>
> So In other words, yes; it's based on scaremongering. I asked for
> evidence my dear boy. Hard facts. I didn't ask for you to confirm
> that the general public are fearful of and resistant to change of any
> kind. Nor did I deny that immigration is an issue to be discussed.
> Had you read much of what I said rather than rushing to ignore it,
> you might have noticed that.
And how is that scaremongering, As long as we don't know how many people are coming into our Country each year I have a right to be worried. If the goverment comes out and says "right, this is how many people's coming onto our shores, you don't need to worry about overcrowding untill we reach xx million people before it strains our services, this is how many we have now, so we don't need to worry yet", that would be fine. But it's not like that is it?
>
> Jesus Christ kevstar you really do take the proverbial. I've never
> seen such a pathetic attempt to overintellectualise a collection of
> petty prejudices since...well, since Belldandy.
Wow. A quite magnificent piece of petulance on your part there kevstar. Tell me, when you start losing arguments with people do you usually just repeat what they've said verbatim? Cos, y'know, this is exactly what Belldandy did just prior to wailing "You're all bullies" and running away at one point. Just thought you should know who's illustrious footsteps you're following in...
[edit] Ah. You explained it then? My apologies.
However, you haven't bothered replying to my post. You've done what all people who are losing arguments on this board do; replied solely to insults (the ones in Goatboys post) whilst avoiding the issues raised. Which makes you...well, cowardly.
[edit] Ah. You explained it then? My apologies.
However, you haven't bothered replying to my post. You've done what all people who are losing arguments on this board do; replied solely to insults (the ones in Goatboys post) whilst avoiding the issues raised. Which makes you...well, cowardly.
[edit]Fair do's, duplicate post explained.
Hey, calm down, I posted the post but there was a error so I went back and posted it again, this time it worked but it wiped everything I wrote, Anyway i've edited the post to what it should have looked like. Oh and Sheepy, at least say why you think I may be a tool instead of bieng a twit, cos for a notable, thats poor.
kevstar is a tool.
"Even today those 4 terrorists are being allowed back into the UK"
I take it by that you mean the people from Guantanamo bay?
And this isn't any kind of joke?
You utter, utter moron.
You may be interested in this wondeful article I read from the Star the other week. It showed pictures of the abuse victims in Iraq - one showing a guy wrapped up in netting, a pool of blood around his head, a soldier standing casually by, with the caption "One of the 'alleged' victims" - saying that they shouldn't be able to get compensation, because they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Sound about right?
These were all "alleged" attacks, "allegedly ", and dispite printing the worst of the pictures above, they stayed "alleged" throughout the "article"
Go team UK!
I take it by that you mean the people from Guantanamo bay?
And this isn't any kind of joke?
You utter, utter moron.
You may be interested in this wondeful article I read from the Star the other week. It showed pictures of the abuse victims in Iraq - one showing a guy wrapped up in netting, a pool of blood around his head, a soldier standing casually by, with the caption "One of the 'alleged' victims" - saying that they shouldn't be able to get compensation, because they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Sound about right?
These were all "alleged" attacks, "allegedly ", and dispite printing the worst of the pictures above, they stayed "alleged" throughout the "article"
Go team UK!
All immigrants should be shot, or made to go back to where they came from.
Its making life harder and more stressful for those who live already in the UK. More people = Less space, more competition for jobs, housing, less of our taxes spent for us but on them instead.
Its making life harder and more stressful for those who live already in the UK. More people = Less space, more competition for jobs, housing, less of our taxes spent for us but on them instead.
Shut up shut up shut up shut up SHHHUUUUUUT UPPPP
ShortyUK wrote:
> crap
Nah, sorry, can't be bothered to argue. Shorty, you're a nob who I wouldn 't be suprised to see braying in the next BNP rally.
> crap
Nah, sorry, can't be bothered to argue. Shorty, you're a nob who I wouldn 't be suprised to see braying in the next BNP rally.
Page: