The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
kevstar wrote:
> Ok, my spelling isn't as good as it should be, and? Does that mean I
> don't know what i'm talking about?
Nope, but the fact that you have to cut and paste arguments from anti-immigration sites does....
> Ok, my spelling isn't as good as it should be, and? Does that mean I
> don't know what i'm talking about?
Nope, but the fact that you have to cut and paste arguments from anti-immigration sites does....
kevstar wrote:
> Well that would be because real racists use anti immigration as a
> excuss to fuel there hatred for different races (and i'm not one of
> them)
So...because you're not a racist, your use of racist language...isn't racist? And so even though you think different races shouldn't mix, you're not racist? Ri-ight...
Might I re-introduce you to logic?
>
> - Why you said that a non-white person couldn't be a british citizen
> because "...just look at him"?
>
> Whats me saying look at him got anything to do with a non-white
> person who can't be a british citizen?
Because you said "just look at him". And the only thing that you could have meant was his ethnicity.
Unless you're trying to say that the colour of his eyes meant he couldn't have been a UK citizen...
>
> because "...just look at him"?
>
> I said that for one reason, because I thought he wasn't a British
> Citizen, I asked you to have another look at him in the link to see
> if I was correct or not, do you see.
Nope, that's what we call "a lie". You didn't say "Just look at the link". You said "Just look at him". Jesus, you even admit you said "just look at him" in this same post kevstar; do you often try to claim that you've said one thing, then the other? Oh...looking at this debate, yes. Yes you do.
> Same old junk, i've shown the failings in the system, thats all I
> need to show.
Mwahahahahaaaa! As JoH said, it's central to your ill-thought through argument that you explain what you feel the current system is. And STILL you try and slither out of that. Because, of course, you don't know what it is.
Tell me; how have you shown a system is failing when you don't know what that system is?
>
> Well, because this link was to show how the facts that the home
> office used, are incorrect, made to look good. One repeort, What
> about the Beverlly Hughes case? What about this link? And what about
> the expossed foriegn language courses where they found more illegal
> courses than legitimate ones. Plus you have the abusers who tormented
> the immigrants bieng detained. Wheres your evidence again? Ohh the
> £2 billion profit which has been controdicted, hmmm, good
> evidence.
No dear boy; I'm talking about the report that you said "had a graph" that showed immigration wasn't working. Not only wasn't that the case, but it actually came out in favour of immigration.
Illegal courses? So because some unscrupulous people are taking advantage of immigrants, that's the fault of the immigrants?
Beverley Hughes case? You mean the one that has been addressed by a cross party committee of MP's? That one?
My 'evidence' for? You keep talking about the 2 billion net profit kevstar, but it was you who introduced that report. Not me. Which is exactly why I'm asking you this; why do you have such a problem accepting that 2 billion figure, yet you cheerfully quote from that same report if you think it's anti-immigration?
Everything you say is, of course, evidence of problems with immigration. But when you try to say that anything in favour of immigration is "rubbish" you give away what you're trying to say. You racist.
> Still saying the same old lines are you, at least have the decency to
> mix your insults up will you. You do know that theres not one insult
> you have thats better than one of mine, is there Light.
Sure there isn't kevstar, sure there isn't. That's why every other contributor to this thread is laughing at you, and making a point of saying how pathetic you are. It must be because your insults are so good...
>
> Ohh but I have answered, have fun reading.
I did indeed. Note how I answer your queries straight away, yet it takes you a week to answer mine? I'll ask you another that you still haven't answered;
If it's not natural for different races to mix, how come your sister has a black boyfriend.
Please; do enjoy answering...
> Well that would be because real racists use anti immigration as a
> excuss to fuel there hatred for different races (and i'm not one of
> them)
So...because you're not a racist, your use of racist language...isn't racist? And so even though you think different races shouldn't mix, you're not racist? Ri-ight...
Might I re-introduce you to logic?
>
> - Why you said that a non-white person couldn't be a british citizen
> because "...just look at him"?
>
> Whats me saying look at him got anything to do with a non-white
> person who can't be a british citizen?
Because you said "just look at him". And the only thing that you could have meant was his ethnicity.
Unless you're trying to say that the colour of his eyes meant he couldn't have been a UK citizen...
>
> because "...just look at him"?
>
> I said that for one reason, because I thought he wasn't a British
> Citizen, I asked you to have another look at him in the link to see
> if I was correct or not, do you see.
Nope, that's what we call "a lie". You didn't say "Just look at the link". You said "Just look at him". Jesus, you even admit you said "just look at him" in this same post kevstar; do you often try to claim that you've said one thing, then the other? Oh...looking at this debate, yes. Yes you do.
> Same old junk, i've shown the failings in the system, thats all I
> need to show.
Mwahahahahaaaa! As JoH said, it's central to your ill-thought through argument that you explain what you feel the current system is. And STILL you try and slither out of that. Because, of course, you don't know what it is.
Tell me; how have you shown a system is failing when you don't know what that system is?
>
> Well, because this link was to show how the facts that the home
> office used, are incorrect, made to look good. One repeort, What
> about the Beverlly Hughes case? What about this link? And what about
> the expossed foriegn language courses where they found more illegal
> courses than legitimate ones. Plus you have the abusers who tormented
> the immigrants bieng detained. Wheres your evidence again? Ohh the
> £2 billion profit which has been controdicted, hmmm, good
> evidence.
No dear boy; I'm talking about the report that you said "had a graph" that showed immigration wasn't working. Not only wasn't that the case, but it actually came out in favour of immigration.
Illegal courses? So because some unscrupulous people are taking advantage of immigrants, that's the fault of the immigrants?
Beverley Hughes case? You mean the one that has been addressed by a cross party committee of MP's? That one?
My 'evidence' for? You keep talking about the 2 billion net profit kevstar, but it was you who introduced that report. Not me. Which is exactly why I'm asking you this; why do you have such a problem accepting that 2 billion figure, yet you cheerfully quote from that same report if you think it's anti-immigration?
Everything you say is, of course, evidence of problems with immigration. But when you try to say that anything in favour of immigration is "rubbish" you give away what you're trying to say. You racist.
> Still saying the same old lines are you, at least have the decency to
> mix your insults up will you. You do know that theres not one insult
> you have thats better than one of mine, is there Light.
Sure there isn't kevstar, sure there isn't. That's why every other contributor to this thread is laughing at you, and making a point of saying how pathetic you are. It must be because your insults are so good...
>
> Ohh but I have answered, have fun reading.
I did indeed. Note how I answer your queries straight away, yet it takes you a week to answer mine? I'll ask you another that you still haven't answered;
If it's not natural for different races to mix, how come your sister has a black boyfriend.
Please; do enjoy answering...
Ok, my spelling isn't as good as it should be, and? Does that mean I don't know what i'm talking about? Didn't think so. I obviously know more than you lot do don't I, why, well the evidence in my favour. 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.
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!
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!
Damn Kevstar, bleating on and on doesn't make you right. You've been proven wrong. Admit it and walk away a man.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALLAALAAAAAA" doesn't make you correct no matter how many times you do it.
Give it up. It's not often I feel embarrassment for numpties on these forums, but I feel it for you...............
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALLAALAAAAAA" doesn't make you correct no matter how many times you do it.
Give it up. It's not often I feel embarrassment for numpties on these forums, but I feel it for you...............
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).
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.
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).
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.
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> .
>
> Answer the question will you!
>
> Now that he's answered your question, would you care to answer;
>
> Could you explain to me;
>
> - Why your use of language (and I'm referring here to your insistence
> that it's not natural for people of different colours to mix) mirrors
> that of white supremecist organisations.
Well that would be because real racists use anti immigration as a excuss to fuel there hatred for different races (and i'm not one of them)
>
> - Why you said that a non-white person couldn't be a british citizen
> because "...just look at him"?
Whats me saying look at him got anything to do with a non-white person who can't be a british citizen?
> because "...just look at him"?
I said that for one reason, because I thought he wasn't a British Citizen, I asked you to have another look at him in the link to see if I was correct or not, do you see.
>
> - What you think, in your own words, the current system of
> immigration into the UK actually is.
Same old junk, i've shown the failings in the system, thats all I need to show.
>
> - Just why you feel that facts from one report are only true if they
> indicate there is a problem with immigration, yet facts from that
> same report are completely unreliable if they indicate there is no
> problem with immigration.
Well, because this link was to show how the facts that the home office used, are incorrect, made to look good. One repeort, What about the Beverlly Hughes case? What about this link? And what about the expossed foriegn language courses where they found more illegal courses than legitimate ones. Plus you have the abusers who tormented the immigrants bieng detained. Wheres your evidence again? Ohh the £2 billion profit which has been controdicted, hmmm, good evidence.
>
> - Why you're so deeply, meaningfully inferior to me in every
> conceivable way, y'great big ol' racist you.
Still saying the same old lines are you, at least have the decency to mix your insults up will you. You do know that theres not one insult you have thats better than one of mine, is there Light.
>
>
> Cos, you see, I asked you that last week and you still haven't
> answered. Y'great big cowardly homophobic racist fraudster.
Ohh but I have answered, have fun reading.
> kevstar wrote:
> .
>
> Answer the question will you!
>
> Now that he's answered your question, would you care to answer;
>
> Could you explain to me;
>
> - Why your use of language (and I'm referring here to your insistence
> that it's not natural for people of different colours to mix) mirrors
> that of white supremecist organisations.
Well that would be because real racists use anti immigration as a excuss to fuel there hatred for different races (and i'm not one of them)
>
> - Why you said that a non-white person couldn't be a british citizen
> because "...just look at him"?
Whats me saying look at him got anything to do with a non-white person who can't be a british citizen?
> because "...just look at him"?
I said that for one reason, because I thought he wasn't a British Citizen, I asked you to have another look at him in the link to see if I was correct or not, do you see.
>
> - What you think, in your own words, the current system of
> immigration into the UK actually is.
Same old junk, i've shown the failings in the system, thats all I need to show.
>
> - Just why you feel that facts from one report are only true if they
> indicate there is a problem with immigration, yet facts from that
> same report are completely unreliable if they indicate there is no
> problem with immigration.
Well, because this link was to show how the facts that the home office used, are incorrect, made to look good. One repeort, What about the Beverlly Hughes case? What about this link? And what about the expossed foriegn language courses where they found more illegal courses than legitimate ones. Plus you have the abusers who tormented the immigrants bieng detained. Wheres your evidence again? Ohh the £2 billion profit which has been controdicted, hmmm, good evidence.
>
> - Why you're so deeply, meaningfully inferior to me in every
> conceivable way, y'great big ol' racist you.
Still saying the same old lines are you, at least have the decency to mix your insults up will you. You do know that theres not one insult you have thats better than one of mine, is there Light.
>
>
> Cos, you see, I asked you that last week and you still haven't
> answered. Y'great big cowardly homophobic racist fraudster.
Ohh but I have answered, have fun reading.
Yes and in 1065 they both went into space and left plastic dummies behind.
My god the French are stupid.
My god the French are stupid.
Hedfix wrote:
> Speaking of past immigrants what exactly is kevstar's racial
> background? Anglo-Saxon perhaps?
It can't be.
Everyone knows different races don't mix, so the Angles and Saxons MUST have always kept to their own...
> Speaking of past immigrants what exactly is kevstar's racial
> background? Anglo-Saxon perhaps?
It can't be.
Everyone knows different races don't mix, so the Angles and Saxons MUST have always kept to their own...
Light wrote:
>
> According to the age he's put in his profile, a gap of only 5 years.
>
> Scary, innit? That someone can reach their mid twenties and still be
> a semi-retarded mouthbreather.
I blame the immigrant teachers.
Speaking of past immigrants what exactly is kevstar's racial background? Anglo-Saxon perhaps?
>
> According to the age he's put in his profile, a gap of only 5 years.
>
> Scary, innit? That someone can reach their mid twenties and still be
> a semi-retarded mouthbreather.
I blame the immigrant teachers.
Speaking of past immigrants what exactly is kevstar's racial background? Anglo-Saxon perhaps?
Oh, kevstar still is here.
After that American school shooting, I wasn't sure who was who.
After that American school shooting, I wasn't sure who was who.
Page: