The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hedfix wrote:
> I'm sensing a gap of around 20 years between the two main posters in
> this thread.
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'm sensing a gap of around 20 years between the two main posters in
> this thread.
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.
kevstar wrote:
> That will be the evidence this link controdicts, correct? You still
> didn't answer the question did you, what makes him so wrong in what
> he's saying? After all, all he's done is come up with differnet
> figures based on the same information the home office used, tell me
> how is this rubbish, cos if this is what your saying, then that would
> make what the home office is saying just as rubbish, wouldn't you
> agree? Well it's your logic i'm using here!
No dear boy; it's the logic of a man who doesn't understand logic.
What makes him wrong? Nothing. In exactly the same way as nothing makes the report that states we need immigration to maintain our economic development wrong. Both have provided facts and figures. Yet both contradict one another.
Which is why (and please; do pay attention) a debate is needed which looks objectively at the evidence of both sides to figure out exactly what the problem may be and what can be done to solve it.
What it doesn't need is a racist saying "He said immigration isn't working, so he must be right". Do you see?
Right; that's your question answered. Now then; do answer mine dear boy. Or are you too scared to do so?
> That will be the evidence this link controdicts, correct? You still
> didn't answer the question did you, what makes him so wrong in what
> he's saying? After all, all he's done is come up with differnet
> figures based on the same information the home office used, tell me
> how is this rubbish, cos if this is what your saying, then that would
> make what the home office is saying just as rubbish, wouldn't you
> agree? Well it's your logic i'm using here!
No dear boy; it's the logic of a man who doesn't understand logic.
What makes him wrong? Nothing. In exactly the same way as nothing makes the report that states we need immigration to maintain our economic development wrong. Both have provided facts and figures. Yet both contradict one another.
Which is why (and please; do pay attention) a debate is needed which looks objectively at the evidence of both sides to figure out exactly what the problem may be and what can be done to solve it.
What it doesn't need is a racist saying "He said immigration isn't working, so he must be right". Do you see?
Right; that's your question answered. Now then; do answer mine dear boy. Or are you too scared to do so?
I'm sensing a gap of around 20 years between the two main posters in this thread.
That's physical age not ideology on a time scale.
There would be 60 years between you if it was based upon ideology.
That's physical age not ideology on a time scale.
There would be 60 years between you if it was based upon ideology.
That will be the evidence this link controdicts, correct? You still didn't answer the question did you, what makes him so wrong in what he's saying? After all, all he's done is come up with differnet figures based on the same information the home office used, tell me how is this rubbish, cos if this is what your saying, then that would make what the home office is saying just as rubbish, wouldn't you agree? Well it's your logic i'm using here!
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.
- Why you said that a non-white person couldn't be a british citizen because "...just look at him"?
- What you think, in your own words, the current system of immigration into the UK actually is.
- 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.
- Why you're so deeply, meaningfully inferior to me in every conceivable way, y'great big ol' racist you.
Cos, you see, I asked you that last week and you still haven't answered. Y'great big cowardly homophobic racist fraudster.
.
>
> 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.
- Why you said that a non-white person couldn't be a british citizen because "...just look at him"?
- What you think, in your own words, the current system of immigration into the UK actually is.
- 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.
- Why you're so deeply, meaningfully inferior to me in every conceivable way, y'great big ol' racist you.
Cos, you see, I asked you that last week and you still haven't answered. Y'great big cowardly homophobic racist fraudster.
kevstar wrote:
> It's not the point though is it! The fact is this controdicts the one
> bit of evidence you had, not only controdicts it, but gives two
> different ways in how thoose figures can be changed using the same
> information provided. Don't you really think thats a good example of
> working out how much they contribute? I don't! And do you wan't to
> question the thing he said about the aging population, what happens
> when the immigrants who come in to cover the aging popullation age
> themselves? (a question i've asked before but got no reply). Is that
> the only thing you can say, that it's a anti immigrant think tank!
> Does that make him wrong? What was wrong in what he was saying? I
> thought it all made good sense to me.
And that, in a nutshell, is the whole problem with you kevstar; YOU think it makes good sense, because you're already anti immigration due to your immense racism and bigotry. However, clearly other people do not think it makes good sense. Which is why we need a debate to establish what the truth of the matter is. Do you see?
Look at it another way; the evidence I've provided (well...actually, it was evidence from links you initially posted, but you don't like to acknowledge that, do you?) contradicts what Civitas are saying and also gives reasons why this gentleman is downright wrong to say that our aging population is a myth. But you prefer what Civitas say and insist is is the only possible truth. Whereas everyone else would prefer a balanced debate looking at both points of view to discern the truth. You don't want that debate. Because of your immense racism and bigotry.
Incidentally, I've already questioned what he said about aging population being a myth, yet you seem to have failed to notice the link I posted. Which is another reason you're such a laughingstock; you just try to ignore anything that you don't agree with, and hope everyone else does. But they don't, and that is why your wailing is so amusing to everyone.
Oh, and you did get a response to your query about "what will happen when those immigrants age". You got it weeks ago, but you simply didn't like what was said. This is why I have such fun in humiliating you dear boy; you're hamstrung by your own bigotry.
> It's not the point though is it! The fact is this controdicts the one
> bit of evidence you had, not only controdicts it, but gives two
> different ways in how thoose figures can be changed using the same
> information provided. Don't you really think thats a good example of
> working out how much they contribute? I don't! And do you wan't to
> question the thing he said about the aging population, what happens
> when the immigrants who come in to cover the aging popullation age
> themselves? (a question i've asked before but got no reply). Is that
> the only thing you can say, that it's a anti immigrant think tank!
> Does that make him wrong? What was wrong in what he was saying? I
> thought it all made good sense to me.
And that, in a nutshell, is the whole problem with you kevstar; YOU think it makes good sense, because you're already anti immigration due to your immense racism and bigotry. However, clearly other people do not think it makes good sense. Which is why we need a debate to establish what the truth of the matter is. Do you see?
Look at it another way; the evidence I've provided (well...actually, it was evidence from links you initially posted, but you don't like to acknowledge that, do you?) contradicts what Civitas are saying and also gives reasons why this gentleman is downright wrong to say that our aging population is a myth. But you prefer what Civitas say and insist is is the only possible truth. Whereas everyone else would prefer a balanced debate looking at both points of view to discern the truth. You don't want that debate. Because of your immense racism and bigotry.
Incidentally, I've already questioned what he said about aging population being a myth, yet you seem to have failed to notice the link I posted. Which is another reason you're such a laughingstock; you just try to ignore anything that you don't agree with, and hope everyone else does. But they don't, and that is why your wailing is so amusing to everyone.
Oh, and you did get a response to your query about "what will happen when those immigrants age". You got it weeks ago, but you simply didn't like what was said. This is why I have such fun in humiliating you dear boy; you're hamstrung by your own bigotry.
kevstar wrote:
> Have you heard of ignorance?
I thought I had before I read your posts, but now I have first-hand experience of it. Thanks, Kev.
> Answer the question will you!
Done.
> Have you heard of ignorance?
I thought I had before I read your posts, but now I have first-hand experience of it. Thanks, Kev.
> Answer the question will you!
Done.
Jim of Honor wrote:
> Ah Kev - never heard of a thing called bias?
>
> No, you clearly haven't.
Have you heard of ignorance? Answer the question will you!
> Ah Kev - never heard of a thing called bias?
>
> No, you clearly haven't.
Have you heard of ignorance? Answer the question will you!
Ah Kev - never heard of a thing called bias?
No, you clearly haven't.
No, you clearly haven't.
It's not the point though is it! The fact is this controdicts the one bit of evidence you had, not only controdicts it, but gives two different ways in how thoose figures can be changed using the same information provided. Don't you really think thats a good example of working out how much they contribute? I don't! And do you wan't to question the thing he said about the aging population, what happens when the immigrants who come in to cover the aging popullation age themselves? (a question i've asked before but got no reply). Is that the only thing you can say, that it's a anti immigrant think tank! Does that make him wrong? What was wrong in what he was saying? I thought it all made good sense to me.
Page: