The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Disgusting, it really is.
Original Message posted by ßulle†† Yesterday at 12.14PM Original Message
There are 27 replies
Drunk Illegal Immigrant, driving with no license or insurance, knocks down and kills a child and only gets..
8 weeks
And he's still in the Country, despite being here illegally.
Hurrah for justice.
After reading this post it made me want to know what you all think about illegal immigrants. I think it is wrong and because Britain used to be a strong dominating country should stand strong now and make sure no forign immigrants get into the UK. Look what what happens when they get in...
Original Message posted by ßulle†† Yesterday at 12.14PM Original Message
There are 27 replies
Drunk Illegal Immigrant, driving with no license or insurance, knocks down and kills a child and only gets..
8 weeks
And he's still in the Country, despite being here illegally.
Hurrah for justice.
After reading this post it made me want to know what you all think about illegal immigrants. I think it is wrong and because Britain used to be a strong dominating country should stand strong now and make sure no forign immigrants get into the UK. Look what what happens when they get in...
Page:
24...?
I worry for my future.
I worry for my future.
kevstar wrote:
> Well light, that may have something to do with the fact they met at
> University, you know the one of only a few places that mixed races
> actually get to mix.
Oh really? Presumably you've explained to her that you don't think her relationship with him is natural? Or are you too busy imagining yourself in bed with her to get the words out?
>
> Want to answer my question, why is there 250,000 failed asylum
> seekers not been deported back since Labour took over and why the
> cost of immigration has shot up 900% since 1997?
I haven't a clue quite frankly. Which is why there needs to be an open and honest debate where all of the evidence, pro and anti, needs to be examined critically.
Am I getting through to you there at all, or are you just going to wail "I'm RIGHT!" again whilst spouting more racist homophobic bigotry?
By the way, why do keep saying "all that 2 billion crap" when it was you who provided the link to the 2 billion figure? Self-loathing perhaps? Or just plain stupidity? Either way please; do explain...
> Well light, that may have something to do with the fact they met at
> University, you know the one of only a few places that mixed races
> actually get to mix.
Oh really? Presumably you've explained to her that you don't think her relationship with him is natural? Or are you too busy imagining yourself in bed with her to get the words out?
>
> Want to answer my question, why is there 250,000 failed asylum
> seekers not been deported back since Labour took over and why the
> cost of immigration has shot up 900% since 1997?
I haven't a clue quite frankly. Which is why there needs to be an open and honest debate where all of the evidence, pro and anti, needs to be examined critically.
Am I getting through to you there at all, or are you just going to wail "I'm RIGHT!" again whilst spouting more racist homophobic bigotry?
By the way, why do keep saying "all that 2 billion crap" when it was you who provided the link to the 2 billion figure? Self-loathing perhaps? Or just plain stupidity? Either way please; do explain...
kevstar wrote:
> Jim of Honor wrote:
> Jim of Honor wrote:
> Sorry Kevin, but you need to either:
>
> a.) explain the immigration system in your own words, or
> b.) explain why not doing so doesn't completely undermine your
> argument.
>
> Read particularly, "OWN WORDS", not copied and pasted
> because someone else has done some of the work for you.
>
> Why exactly, do you know it? then you tell me. If you don't know it
> then according to your logic it makes your arguments for immigration
> as pointless as mine doesn't it?
Look Kev, you keep missing the point. You said you came on here to show the system has failings. To do so you have to know what the system is, in order to show how it's failing to meet its targets, aims etc. But you haven't, so your points exist in some bigoted, ugly void. The point isn't whether I know the immigration system, I'm just trying to point out what a racist bloke you are and how you seem to get so much wrong on this subject.
And yes, I could indeed tell you my interpretation of the immigration system, and I'd be happy to once you've done so, as you were asked first.
> Jim of Honor wrote:
> Jim of Honor wrote:
> Sorry Kevin, but you need to either:
>
> a.) explain the immigration system in your own words, or
> b.) explain why not doing so doesn't completely undermine your
> argument.
>
> Read particularly, "OWN WORDS", not copied and pasted
> because someone else has done some of the work for you.
>
> Why exactly, do you know it? then you tell me. If you don't know it
> then according to your logic it makes your arguments for immigration
> as pointless as mine doesn't it?
Look Kev, you keep missing the point. You said you came on here to show the system has failings. To do so you have to know what the system is, in order to show how it's failing to meet its targets, aims etc. But you haven't, so your points exist in some bigoted, ugly void. The point isn't whether I know the immigration system, I'm just trying to point out what a racist bloke you are and how you seem to get so much wrong on this subject.
And yes, I could indeed tell you my interpretation of the immigration system, and I'd be happy to once you've done so, as you were asked first.
What so they were forced to go out with eachother?
You sister sucks black man every night, despite it being unnatural, just because they were at uni together?
Wow.
Another fine example of your logic.
You sister sucks black man every night, despite it being unnatural, just because they were at uni together?
Wow.
Another fine example of your logic.
Jim of Honor wrote:
> Jim of Honor wrote:
> Sorry Kevin, but you need to either:
>
> a.) explain the immigration system in your own words, or
> b.) explain why not doing so doesn't completely undermine your
> argument.
>
> Read particularly, "OWN WORDS", not copied and pasted
> because someone else has done some of the work for you.
Why exactly, do you know it? then you tell me. If you don't know it then according to your logic it makes your arguments for immigration as pointless as mine doesn't it?
> Jim of Honor wrote:
> Sorry Kevin, but you need to either:
>
> a.) explain the immigration system in your own words, or
> b.) explain why not doing so doesn't completely undermine your
> argument.
>
> Read particularly, "OWN WORDS", not copied and pasted
> because someone else has done some of the work for you.
Why exactly, do you know it? then you tell me. If you don't know it then according to your logic it makes your arguments for immigration as pointless as mine doesn't it?
kevstar wrote:
> Well light, that may have something to do with the fact they met at
> University, you know the one of only a few places that mixed races
> actually get to mix.
>
> Want to answer my question, why is there 250,000 failed asylum
> seekers not been deported back since Labour took over and why the
> cost of immigration has shot up 900% since 1997?
Easy there Kev, don't get ahead of yourself. Tell me what the system is first, then we'll get to your points.
> Well light, that may have something to do with the fact they met at
> University, you know the one of only a few places that mixed races
> actually get to mix.
>
> Want to answer my question, why is there 250,000 failed asylum
> seekers not been deported back since Labour took over and why the
> cost of immigration has shot up 900% since 1997?
Easy there Kev, don't get ahead of yourself. Tell me what the system is first, then we'll get to your points.
Well light, that may have something to do with the fact they met at University, you know the one of only a few places that mixed races actually get to mix.
Want to answer my question, why is there 250,000 failed asylum seekers not been deported back since Labour took over and why the cost of immigration has shot up 900% since 1997?
Want to answer my question, why is there 250,000 failed asylum seekers not been deported back since Labour took over and why the cost of immigration has shot up 900% since 1997?
> Jim of Honor wrote:
> Sorry Kevin, but you need to either:
>
> a.) explain the immigration system in your own words, or
> b.) explain why not doing so doesn't completely undermine your
> argument.
Read particularly, "OWN WORDS", not copied and pasted because someone else has done some of the work for you.
> Sorry Kevin, but you need to either:
>
> a.) explain the immigration system in your own words, or
> b.) explain why not doing so doesn't completely undermine your
> argument.
Read particularly, "OWN WORDS", not copied and pasted because someone else has done some of the work for you.
Jim of Honor wrote:
> Gah, you annoy me so Kev. I refuse to believe people can be as
> idiotic as you.
>
> You still haven't said what the system is (how do you know they're
> failing in the system if you can't show what it is? You've got
> nothnig to judge it upon other than your own opinion, which in the
> grand scheme of things, is worthless).
Is it? Well take a look at the links i've left. God i'm now tempted to show them all in one post just to proove a point already prooven.
>
> You still don't realise that just because one person said there no
> such thing as the £2 billion net profit doesn't mean that he's
> right.
>
> You still don't have a leg to stand on (actually, if you didn't have
> a leg to stand on, at least then you could claim benefits legally).
>
> Sorry Kevin, but you need to either:
>
> a.) explain the immigration system in your own words, or
> b.) explain why not doing so doesn't completely undermine your
> argument.
Well why don't you have a look at the links I provided, every link is a reason why the immigration system is not working, each one shows some sort of abuse in the system. So you see it shows in the link where the problems are and thats all I wanted to show. Saying the system in my own words is not only pointless, but time wasting. Why do I want to right about things in the system which has nothing to do with the points i'm making? Thats why i'm not going to right the system in my own words, cos, well, it's not neccessary is it.
> Gah, you annoy me so Kev. I refuse to believe people can be as
> idiotic as you.
>
> You still haven't said what the system is (how do you know they're
> failing in the system if you can't show what it is? You've got
> nothnig to judge it upon other than your own opinion, which in the
> grand scheme of things, is worthless).
Is it? Well take a look at the links i've left. God i'm now tempted to show them all in one post just to proove a point already prooven.
>
> You still don't realise that just because one person said there no
> such thing as the £2 billion net profit doesn't mean that he's
> right.
>
> You still don't have a leg to stand on (actually, if you didn't have
> a leg to stand on, at least then you could claim benefits legally).
>
> Sorry Kevin, but you need to either:
>
> a.) explain the immigration system in your own words, or
> b.) explain why not doing so doesn't completely undermine your
> argument.
Well why don't you have a look at the links I provided, every link is a reason why the immigration system is not working, each one shows some sort of abuse in the system. So you see it shows in the link where the problems are and thats all I wanted to show. Saying the system in my own words is not only pointless, but time wasting. Why do I want to right about things in the system which has nothing to do with the points i'm making? Thats why i'm not going to right the system in my own words, cos, well, it's not neccessary is it.
kevstar wrote:
> Ok, my spelling isn't as good as it should be, and?
Spell check in Word, maybe? Learn how to actually spell?
> Does that mean I
> don't know what i'm talking about? Didn't think so.
Glad to see you know what to when asking questions - answer them yourself! I'm aware of rhetorical questions, before you ask, but that sadly ain't one of them.
> I obviously know
> more than you lot do don't I, why, well the evidence in my favour.
Ah yes, the evidence... that you copied and pasted. If nothing else, those mouse-clicking fingers of yours are still at work, even if the rest of you can't be bothered. Sadly though Kevly, it proves nothing of your own intelligence, except that you appear to have none. (Unless you're being sarcastic, but I don't think you know what a word like that means)
> You do remember the whole point of me coming on here was to show why
> immigration isn't controlled, i've done that quite sufficiently.
No, you've made some points which others rebuffed, then claimed you won. Not quite proving your point, Kev - as has been said, you've convinced no-one since you arrived.
> Apart from the crap about £2 billion nnet profit, the only
> other link I remember was from the Gaurdian, hmmmmm and he talks
> about me and my right wing think tank!
So you couldn't be bothered to look at all the rest of the links provided? You really are a shabby person to debate with, because you're so useless. At least look at the evidence provided by the opposition before dismissing it. Then you can debate all the evidence, its relevance, and then come to a well-informed judgement, as opposed to your uninformed bigotry.
Oh, and you've still failed to explain what the immigration system actually is, or why not doing so doesn't make your points irrelevant.
> Ok, my spelling isn't as good as it should be, and?
Spell check in Word, maybe? Learn how to actually spell?
> Does that mean I
> don't know what i'm talking about? Didn't think so.
Glad to see you know what to when asking questions - answer them yourself! I'm aware of rhetorical questions, before you ask, but that sadly ain't one of them.
> I obviously know
> more than you lot do don't I, why, well the evidence in my favour.
Ah yes, the evidence... that you copied and pasted. If nothing else, those mouse-clicking fingers of yours are still at work, even if the rest of you can't be bothered. Sadly though Kevly, it proves nothing of your own intelligence, except that you appear to have none. (Unless you're being sarcastic, but I don't think you know what a word like that means)
> You do remember the whole point of me coming on here was to show why
> immigration isn't controlled, i've done that quite sufficiently.
No, you've made some points which others rebuffed, then claimed you won. Not quite proving your point, Kev - as has been said, you've convinced no-one since you arrived.
> Apart from the crap about £2 billion nnet profit, the only
> other link I remember was from the Gaurdian, hmmmmm and he talks
> about me and my right wing think tank!
So you couldn't be bothered to look at all the rest of the links provided? You really are a shabby person to debate with, because you're so useless. At least look at the evidence provided by the opposition before dismissing it. Then you can debate all the evidence, its relevance, and then come to a well-informed judgement, as opposed to your uninformed bigotry.
Oh, and you've still failed to explain what the immigration system actually is, or why not doing so doesn't make your points irrelevant.
Page: