The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Okay, so lets go back a while. Back in the days when Britain was probably the most powerful nation around. Hmm, well how exactly did we become the most powerful around? Well, we ruled over about a third of the world's land and had the strongest Navy around to keep our trading routes intact and kick anyone's buttocks who dared to oppose us.
So, what did a third of the worlds land just let us come and exploit them? No no. We got some of our soldiers to go over there. Now, you may think that, based on what we expect today in the UK that these soldiers would learn the local culture, learn the language, go through a proper process to gain lawful entry to the country. Did they? Hell no. They went, slaughtered some natives just to make the others get the point, and proceeded to start raping the lands of their natural resources. Hell, when we got to Australia we decided to ship all our thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. over there. I'm sure the natives really loved that.
So what's my point? Well, the reason we're one of the worlds richest nation now is that we spent a hefty portion of the past exploiting other nations. Yeah, it's all in the past now, but it does seem a little rich for us to come out saying immigrants are exploiting our country when we systematically did it to so many other countries for so long.
Point two. People always get up in arms saying this or that is / isn't racist. Surely all countries are inherently racist. Countries all seek to get the best benefits for their citizens. Look at the EU. Politicians are always ranting on about how they will get the best deal for Britain... Surely if we weren't being racist we'd be trying to get the best deal for everyone? Nah, don't be so naive... With the Tsunami, we pledged however much, but we don't pay it all upfront, oh no. Politicians will probably wait until it's all calmed down a bit, the public have moved onto something else, maybe gypsies, then they'll quietly pay out a fraction of what was pledged. Surely that is racist? If a disaster was on British soil we'd be fuming if countries pledged us money then didn't pay it all. So how come we (or those running our country) are less willing to help foreigners?
In short, countries are little more than gangs of people trying to get the best deal for themselves on the international scene. This is inherently racist. We care not for the poor countries whom are exploited to for cheap labour, if politicians did care so much they could impose taxes or trading barriers against corporation who use (for example) labour which they pay a rate below the poverty line. Incidentally, those making huge profits aren't all that racist. They're happy to exploit anyone, regardless of race religion, ethnicity...
Finally, immigration into our country. With immigration, when we look at who is or isn't suitable to come here, we look at what benefits they can bring us. If someone has a skill we need, we're more than happy to take them. On the other hand if they only have basic skills we don't want them, because hell, we don't want people coming here who can't fill a gap in the jobs market. Fact is we're just poaching skills from other countries. While we may have the NHS in a bit of a state, it's nothing compared with poorer countries, whose doctors come over here for the greater pay. Just another example of us exploiting poorer countries to get what we need, only this time it's human resources.
And while you may argue, well it's the individuals decision whether or not they want to move to the UK for greater pay, why does that sound hypocritical? Well, because when someone has a job we don't have a shortage of and they come over looking for better pay and better opportunities, we are more than happy to send them back from whence they came. Basically, if we want the most skilled from any country to come work for us, why should we expect the others in that country to sit back and watch while their nation falls further as they are lacking in skilled jobs? We shouldn't be able to pick and choose who we see fit for becoming part of our nation. All that amounts to is us choosing those who will give us greatest benefit. If we want to poach talent from other nations, perhaps we should be willing to pay the nation we took those skills away from as reparations for stealing their benefits.
End of rant, I await the replies of incredulous anti-immigration zealots with baited breath.
So, what did a third of the worlds land just let us come and exploit them? No no. We got some of our soldiers to go over there. Now, you may think that, based on what we expect today in the UK that these soldiers would learn the local culture, learn the language, go through a proper process to gain lawful entry to the country. Did they? Hell no. They went, slaughtered some natives just to make the others get the point, and proceeded to start raping the lands of their natural resources. Hell, when we got to Australia we decided to ship all our thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. over there. I'm sure the natives really loved that.
So what's my point? Well, the reason we're one of the worlds richest nation now is that we spent a hefty portion of the past exploiting other nations. Yeah, it's all in the past now, but it does seem a little rich for us to come out saying immigrants are exploiting our country when we systematically did it to so many other countries for so long.
Point two. People always get up in arms saying this or that is / isn't racist. Surely all countries are inherently racist. Countries all seek to get the best benefits for their citizens. Look at the EU. Politicians are always ranting on about how they will get the best deal for Britain... Surely if we weren't being racist we'd be trying to get the best deal for everyone? Nah, don't be so naive... With the Tsunami, we pledged however much, but we don't pay it all upfront, oh no. Politicians will probably wait until it's all calmed down a bit, the public have moved onto something else, maybe gypsies, then they'll quietly pay out a fraction of what was pledged. Surely that is racist? If a disaster was on British soil we'd be fuming if countries pledged us money then didn't pay it all. So how come we (or those running our country) are less willing to help foreigners?
In short, countries are little more than gangs of people trying to get the best deal for themselves on the international scene. This is inherently racist. We care not for the poor countries whom are exploited to for cheap labour, if politicians did care so much they could impose taxes or trading barriers against corporation who use (for example) labour which they pay a rate below the poverty line. Incidentally, those making huge profits aren't all that racist. They're happy to exploit anyone, regardless of race religion, ethnicity...
Finally, immigration into our country. With immigration, when we look at who is or isn't suitable to come here, we look at what benefits they can bring us. If someone has a skill we need, we're more than happy to take them. On the other hand if they only have basic skills we don't want them, because hell, we don't want people coming here who can't fill a gap in the jobs market. Fact is we're just poaching skills from other countries. While we may have the NHS in a bit of a state, it's nothing compared with poorer countries, whose doctors come over here for the greater pay. Just another example of us exploiting poorer countries to get what we need, only this time it's human resources.
And while you may argue, well it's the individuals decision whether or not they want to move to the UK for greater pay, why does that sound hypocritical? Well, because when someone has a job we don't have a shortage of and they come over looking for better pay and better opportunities, we are more than happy to send them back from whence they came. Basically, if we want the most skilled from any country to come work for us, why should we expect the others in that country to sit back and watch while their nation falls further as they are lacking in skilled jobs? We shouldn't be able to pick and choose who we see fit for becoming part of our nation. All that amounts to is us choosing those who will give us greatest benefit. If we want to poach talent from other nations, perhaps we should be willing to pay the nation we took those skills away from as reparations for stealing their benefits.
End of rant, I await the replies of incredulous anti-immigration zealots with baited breath.
Page:
Why trust them? They are still politicians. They still have a vested interest in the situation in that if people vote for them, they get into power. I can very easily say there are abuses in the current immigration system. That doesn't mean I can even begin to explain how we limit these. Infact, it doesn't even suggest that I want to limit them. If you discover what policies Veritas actually has to stop abuses in the immigration system without comprimising our responsibilities to asylum seekers, legal immigrants, etc. then fair enough. But thus far all you have said is that Veritas recognise there is a problem. You have consistently said yourself that it is obvious that there are abuses... So what then are Veritas doing other than stating the obvious?
How do I know, well the fact that I know there as sick as me in the way theres so many ways the system is open to abuse. You can even go down to commet and get documents for around £600 normally £1200! If thats not a failure in the system, just like the foriegn passport case or the Beverly Hughes case(look up Ken Sutton, he's the one who investigated the case, and he acknowledged that they were major failing in the system)I don't know what is. It's all about what they think is happening, and if a party can see theese problems, and say they is abuses going on that must be stopped or limited, dam right i'm going to trust them. On the other hand, if you get a party crying out about immigration just before a general election, i'd be more inclined not to trust them.
kevstar wrote:
> Ahh, but I do know where the system is failing, and for me, thats all
> I need to know. The links show exactly where the failings are, so any
> logical person with ideas on how to sort those failings out are
> probably the party i'll vote for. It just shows Light, you don't have
> to know the entire system to know where the problems lie, do you.
The thing is, you continue with this logic that you're going to vote for the party who say these problems exist, and that all you need to know is that there are problems... But how do you know any of the 'fixes' this party (I assume Veritas) propose are going to solve the (percieved) problems? If all you understand are the problems themselves and nothing about the rest of the immigration system, you have no concept of how, why or if the things proposed by Veritas will solve these problems. So, in essecne, you're just entrusting yourself to another politician, who, as you have stated previously, pretty much all decieve us to get what they want.
> Ahh, but I do know where the system is failing, and for me, thats all
> I need to know. The links show exactly where the failings are, so any
> logical person with ideas on how to sort those failings out are
> probably the party i'll vote for. It just shows Light, you don't have
> to know the entire system to know where the problems lie, do you.
The thing is, you continue with this logic that you're going to vote for the party who say these problems exist, and that all you need to know is that there are problems... But how do you know any of the 'fixes' this party (I assume Veritas) propose are going to solve the (percieved) problems? If all you understand are the problems themselves and nothing about the rest of the immigration system, you have no concept of how, why or if the things proposed by Veritas will solve these problems. So, in essecne, you're just entrusting yourself to another politician, who, as you have stated previously, pretty much all decieve us to get what they want.
kevstar wrote:
> What on earth are you rambling on about.
He's insulting your lack of intelligence. Alas, you're too stupid to understand the joke; you.
> What on earth are you rambling on about.
He's insulting your lack of intelligence. Alas, you're too stupid to understand the joke; you.
kevstar wrote:
> What on earth are you rambling on about.
> What on earth are you rambling on about.
What on earth are you rambling on about.
kevstar wrote:
> you don't have to know the entire system to know where the problems
> lie, do you.
...are you wearing blinkers like a horse? Do you go down the street oblivious to what may be happening parallel to you?
> you don't have to know the entire system to know where the problems
> lie, do you.
...are you wearing blinkers like a horse? Do you go down the street oblivious to what may be happening parallel to you?
Ahh, but I do know where the system is failing, and for me, thats all I need to know. The links show exactly where the failings are, so any logical person with ideas on how to sort those failings out are probably the party i'll vote for. It just shows Light, you don't have to know the entire system to know where the problems lie, do you.
Despite the fact you don't know what the system is, thus meaning your only measurement of "control" is "keeping the darkies out"?
That's what I said dear boy. Sorry; should I have used smaller words for your benefit?
That's what I said dear boy. Sorry; should I have used smaller words for your benefit?
Naaa, but I will vote for someone who can actually get the system under control.
Page: