|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 14:23:35 GMT
My questions remain. There must be an onus of people arriving in this country to try and adapt and integrate into the existing society? There have been integration problems caused by both the existing and arriving communities - but blaming people not wanting to integrate more on what happened a generation ago is just making excuses isn't it? the onus is on both sides if you ask me. yes, they have chosen to come here but a hell of a lot of them aid our economy and help services where there is a lack of British applicants (particualrly in the NHS) so we have to do our bit too. you have to remember though that most people who come over are intially housed by local authorities. they don't get to pick and choose where they live and they tend to be housed in areas where the community is largely an immigrant one anyway. it's hard to integrate when you're basically dumped amongst other immigrants in the first place and when there's a constant reminder in the media of how large sections of society don't want them coming in the first place (that may not be the way that people actually think or how parties like UKIP actually think but it's the way it's played out in the media). it can't be easy to come to another country and see posters on billboards telling us how Romanians are after OUR jobs and seeing tabloid articles talking about how our economy is crumbling under the weight of these immigrants and television is producing documentaries like "Illegal immigrant and proud" which will tar a lot of the immigrants with that same brush for a lot of the UK public out there......they're not exactly welcoming gestures really. there is a minority of immigrants that spoil it for everyone else with their fundamentalist ideas in the same way that there is a minority of the British public that don't want them here but until this is accurately portrayed in the media as both of those sides being a minority of the sub-sections rather than the general concensus then tensions will continue from both sides of the coin. God knows what planet you are on if you think it's only a minority who want any more immigrants entering this country. Do you have a TV or wireless ? You don't have to read the fucking Daily Mail to gauge opinions . You don't need to live in Fegg Hayes or Frodsham to hear what the vast majority of people are saying unless you like the sounds of your own voice or opions Try tuning in to traffic cops on the TV , get theesen up to Manchester Airport on a Frday night at 7 pm and tell me what you see.... That minority of immigrants that spoil it for everyone else is 1 million illegals...... I don't know anyone who is in favour of these staying in the country. ...from Conservative to Labour supporter. If this is only a minority , then we need to ask ourselves , "who,s fucking country is this now ?" Did you miss the local election results...? One last point ....I can assure you from personal experience that I have no doubt whatsoever that the sign was put up by immigrants. I know for a fact that many hate dogs and are terrified of them. I have seen this many many times personally and was threatened by a Mulsim gang for allowing my dogs to run off the lead. Needless to say I told them where to go if they didn't like it. I have never read such biased bigoted bullshit in my life. Is the world flat not round ? |
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 14:26:49 GMT
Did you miss the bits about the preu-warning and other pressing matters?! giving them a warning beforehand is hardly doing something is it? if the government were fully aware of the possible consequences and problems the immigrants would face and really wanted to do something constructive then why did it take another 15-20 years to bring in legislation banning racism etc.? just telling them before they get on a boat basically IS doing sod all in reality. ......and so you miss the bit about other pressing matters!!! The country still had food rationing FFS. Stop trying to apply todays liberal left mindset to the period immediately after the war. Spouting these views then would have seen you laughed out of town if you were lucky...... minus a few teeth if not :-). It certainly wouldn't have got you elected! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 14:29:40 GMT
the onus is on both sides if you ask me. yes, they have chosen to come here but a hell of a lot of them aid our economy and help services where there is a lack of British applicants (particualrly in the NHS) so we have to do our bit too. you have to remember though that most people who come over are intially housed by local authorities. they don't get to pick and choose where they live and they tend to be housed in areas where the community is largely an immigrant one anyway. it's hard to integrate when you're basically dumped amongst other immigrants in the first place and when there's a constant reminder in the media of how large sections of society don't want them coming in the first place (that may not be the way that people actually think or how parties like UKIP actually think but it's the way it's played out in the media). it can't be easy to come to another country and see posters on billboards telling us how Romanians are after OUR jobs and seeing tabloid articles talking about how our economy is crumbling under the weight of these immigrants and television is producing documentaries like "Illegal immigrant and proud" which will tar a lot of the immigrants with that same brush for a lot of the UK public out there......they're not exactly welcoming gestures really. there is a minority of immigrants that spoil it for everyone else with their fundamentalist ideas in the same way that there is a minority of the British public that don't want them here but until this is accurately portrayed in the media as both of those sides being a minority of the sub-sections rather than the general concensus then tensions will continue from both sides of the coin. God knows what planet you are on if you think it's only a minority who want any more immigrants entering this country. Do you have a TV or wireless ? You don't have to read the fucking Daily Mail to gauge opinions . You don't need to live in Fegg Hayes or Frodsham to hear what the vast majority of people are saying unless you like the sounds of your own voice or opions Try tuning in to traffic cops on the TV , get theesen up to Manchester Airport on a Frday night at 7 pm and tell me what you see.... That minority of immigrants that spoil it for everyone else is 1 million illegals...... I don't know anyone who is in favour of these staying in the country. ...from Conservative to Labour supporter. If this is only a minority , then we need to ask ourselves , "who,s fucking country is this now ?" Did you miss the local election results...? One last point ....I can assure you from personal experience that I have no doubt whatsoever that the sign was put up by immigrants. I know for a fact that many hate dogs and are terrified of them. I have seen this many many times personally and was threatened by a Mulsim gang for allowing my dogs to run off the lead. Needless to say I told them where to go if they didn't like it. I have never read such biased bigoted bullshit in my life. Is the world flat not round ? you may want to read your papers and listen to your wireless a bit more closely mumf.....pretty sure not even UKIP have said they don't want anymore immigrants mumf....most ( including UKIP) just want a limit set and for it to be controlled properly. that's a massively different thing to not wanting anymore at all!!! the minority i was referring to were those with fundamental beliefs who don't try to integrate into society (which is what we were discussing at the time). yes, there are 1 million illegal immigrants here...there are also just as many workshy English born dolescum who take far far more in terms of benefits and are far more of a drain on society and our economy than the immigrants are but i don't expect you to notice or care about that despite it being a fact given the fact you're a racist fucker at the best of times. i think you need to learn the difference between the abolition of immigration and the whole "Send 'em back" BNP philosophy that YOU hold and immigration control and not presume the rest of the UK all see it the same way as you do.....as UKIP supporters CONSTANTLY tell us, immigration control is a very different thing to immigration abolition! it's control and proper monitoring that most have called for, not a complete stop on immigration! and how the fuck have you worked out that me saying "It's a case of both parties working together" constitutes being bigotted you miserable old fucker????? no, the world isn't flat mumf..it's just that many have the perspective on life and how the world is nowadays not to have such a blinkered and black and white view of everything as you seem to have ingrained into yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 14:34:50 GMT
giving them a warning beforehand is hardly doing something is it? if the government were fully aware of the possible consequences and problems the immigrants would face and really wanted to do something constructive then why did it take another 15-20 years to bring in legislation banning racism etc.? just telling them before they get on a boat basically IS doing sod all in reality. ......and so you miss the bit about other pressing matters!!! The country still had food rationing FFS. Stop trying to apply todays liberal left mindset to the period immediately after the war. Spouting these views then would have seen you laughed out of town if you were lucky...... minus a few teeth if not :-). It certainly wouldn't have got you elected! i haven't ignored that bit at all....regardless of the reasons though you're basically agreeing that little was actually done, you're just saying they had justification for doing very little (i.e. rationing etc.) there may have been "justification" at the time yes but are you saying it was therefore fine for the UK to say "Yes feel free to come over and help us build the ships and munitions that WE need and labour your arses off for us please but be aware of the fact that we'll do fuck all for you in return because of the current situation"? that's all fair enough is it and we shouldn't feel pretty ashamed of those actions???? |
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 14:39:21 GMT
......and so you miss the bit about other pressing matters!!! The country still had food rationing FFS. Stop trying to apply todays liberal left mindset to the period immediately after the war. Spouting these views then would have seen you laughed out of town if you were lucky...... minus a few teeth if not :-). It certainly wouldn't have got you elected! i haven't ignored that bit at all....regardless of the reasons though you're basically agreeing that little was actually done, you're just saying they had justification for doing very little (i.e. rationing etc.) there may have been "justification" at the time yes but are you saying it was therefore fine for the UK to say "Yes feel free to come over and help us build the ships and munitions that WE need and labour your arses off for us please but be aware of the fact that we'll do fuck all for you in return because of the current situation"? that's all fair enough is it and we shouldn't feel pretty ashamed of those actions???? They were paid well and treated equally under the law. They were happy with it - why arn't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 14:40:40 GMT
i haven't ignored that bit at all....regardless of the reasons though you're basically agreeing that little was actually done, you're just saying they had justification for doing very little (i.e. rationing etc.) there may have been "justification" at the time yes but are you saying it was therefore fine for the UK to say "Yes feel free to come over and help us build the ships and munitions that WE need and labour your arses off for us please but be aware of the fact that we'll do fuck all for you in return because of the current situation"? that's all fair enough is it and we shouldn't feel pretty ashamed of those actions???? They were paid well and treated equally under the law. They were happy with it - why arn't you? who said they were happy with it out of interest? i haven't seen anyone say they were happy with being called "Blackie" or "Nigger" or being refused a pint in a pub, being told to get off public transport, being refused treatment in hospitals etc. or are you just presuming they were happy and life was dandy for them? feel free to rpove me wrong though |
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 14:42:01 GMT
my second article is from a socialist magazine that is biased against the tories but reading it they allude to the fact that abour were just as bad. mick its not enough to ban racism if you are not going to tackle the cause or actively persue perputrators. the media, tv, comedians etc were allowed to get away with racism so there is no hope to educate a population Sorry mate...... unlike your first link that was unreadable drivel. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 14:46:31 GMT
my second article is from a socialist magazine that is biased against the tories but reading it they allude to the fact that abour were just as bad. mick its not enough to ban racism if you are not going to tackle the cause or actively persue perputrators. the media, tv, comedians etc were allowed to get away with racism so there is no hope to educate a population Sorry mate...... unlike your first link that was unreadable drivel. ??? what was unreadable about it? or does it just go against your argument so you're just trying to sweep it under the carpet? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 14:49:31 GMT
I am TOTALLY NOT anti-Islamic. I am TOTALLY, TOTALLY opposed to Islamic 'law' and culture being allowed to influence how we behave in any wider sense like this. Besides it's only going to make non-Muslims even more hostile than they already are. Racist pig  |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 4, 2014 14:55:34 GMT
I am TOTALLY NOT anti-Islamic. I am TOTALLY, TOTALLY opposed to Islamic 'law' and culture being allowed to influence how we behave in any wider sense like this. Besides it's only going to make non-Muslims even more hostile than they already are. we are a country that has totally changed our culture through history due to ever moved/invaded here however i get your point xx :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 14:57:50 GMT
i think you need to learn the difference between the abolition of immigration and the whole "Send 'em back" BNP philosophy that YOU hold and immigration control and not presume the rest of the UK all see it the same way as you do.....as UKIP supporters CONSTANTLY tell us, immigration control is a very different thing to immigration abolition! Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/231271/islamic-ban-dog-walking-park?page=3#ixzz33gNNfqzWI think you need to retract this remark . I have no association or fondness of the BNP WHATSOEVER. It makes you look biased , bigoted and a liar . mumf |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:01:40 GMT
I was referring to the 1 million illegal immigrants that you called a 'minority'. As featured in the TV program you mentioned.
I'd send all this lot back....no problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:03:43 GMT
i think you need to learn the difference between the abolition of immigration and the whole "Send 'em back" BNP philosophy that YOU hold and immigration control and not presume the rest of the UK all see it the same way as you do.....as UKIP supporters CONSTANTLY tell us, immigration control is a very different thing to immigration abolition! Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/231271/islamic-ban-dog-walking-park?page=3#ixzz33gNNfqzWI think you need to retract this remark . I have no association or fondness of the BNP WHATSOEVER. It makes you look biased , bigoted and a liar . mumf well the BNP want to send them back and don't want anymore immigrants coming in...... YOU don't want anymore immigrants coming so it kinda ties in (sorry but i couldn't find another political party that want the complete abolition of immigration!). you were the one that decided the media are portraying the idea that people don't want ANY further immigration despite that just not being the case at all, the media have put forward the view of UKIP and a lot of the British public that they want more control of immigration...the 2 views are completely different and you seem to have decided that your view of no immigration is the same as immigration control...it just isn't! again, bigotted in what way exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:05:33 GMT
I was referring to the 1 million illegal immigrants that you called a 'minority'. As featured in the TV program you mentioned. I'd send all this lot back....no problem. 1) i never called the 1 million illegal immigrants a minority, in fact i even quantified what i meant by "Minority" (those with fundamental beliefs) 2) the TV programme i referred to wasn't referring to the minority i mentioned later in a completely different part of my post, in fact it was mentioned to point out that those programmes tar other immigrants with the same brush. i know that is actually perfectly straightforward and actually clearly explained by me in that post but why i thought i should credit you with the intelligence to notice that given your usual bullshit god only knows! not like you to selectively edit people's posts to come to your own conclusions when you have no reasoned comeback mumf...oh no hang on that's your MO isn't it!? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:19:01 GMT
well the BNP want to send them back and don't want anymore immigrants coming in......YOU don't want anymore immigrants coming so it kinda ties in (sorry but i couldn't find another political party that want the complete abolition of immigration!). you were the one that decided the media are portraying the idea that people don't want ANY further immigration despite that just not being the case at all, the media have put forward the view of UKIP and a lot of the British public that they want more control of immigration...the 2 views are completely different and you seem to have decided that your view of no immigration is the same as immigration control...it just isn't! again, bigotted in what way exactly? Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/231271/islamic-ban-dog-walking-park?page=3#ixzz33gRhIKCSBiased and biotted because you're wrong. I have never said I don't want anymore immigrants coming into the country. That's simply a bare faced lie. I think immigration is vital to the UK'S economy. I know it doesn't suit your agenda , but that's your problem not mine. I have said the same thing many many times on here infact . I believe in stricter controls. I have always believed in this this , but you seem to know what people are thinking before they've actually said it. So....There you go bigotted and I'll add liar to the the list too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:22:49 GMT
well the BNP want to send them back and don't want anymore immigrants coming in......YOU don't want anymore immigrants coming so it kinda ties in (sorry but i couldn't find another political party that want the complete abolition of immigration!). you were the one that decided the media are portraying the idea that people don't want ANY further immigration despite that just not being the case at all, the media have put forward the view of UKIP and a lot of the British public that they want more control of immigration...the 2 views are completely different and you seem to have decided that your view of no immigration is the same as immigration control...it just isn't! again, bigotted in what way exactly? Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/231271/islamic-ban-dog-walking-park?page=3#ixzz33gRhIKCSBiased and biotted because you're wrong. I have never said I don't want anymore immigrants coming into the country. That's simply a bare faced lie. I think immigration is vital to the UK'S economy. I know it doesn't suit your agenda , but that's your problem not mine. I have said the same thing many many times on here infact . I believe in stricter controls. I have always believed in this this , but you seem to know what people are thinking before they've actually said it. So....There you go bigotted and I'll add liar to the the list too. sorry you said i was wrong if i thought it was only a minority that didn't want anymore immigrants into the country (which was based on your lies about what the media apparently put across) given how passionate (and fucking rude) you were in that rant, i think it was justifiable for me to believe that was a view you also held. fine, call me a liar....as long as you don't mind me calling you a bigotted, generalising racist? |
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 15:35:48 GMT
They were paid well and treated equally under the law. They were happy with it - why arn't you? who said they were happy with it out of interest? i haven't seen anyone say they were happy with being called "Blackie" or "Nigger" or being refused a pint in a pub, being told to get off public transport, being refused treatment in hospitals etc. or are you just presuming they were happy and life was dandy for them? feel free to rpove me wrong though If they weren't happy they were free to return. I've not seen that they were routinely denied hospital treatment etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:40:51 GMT
who said they were happy with it out of interest? i haven't seen anyone say they were happy with being called "Blackie" or "Nigger" or being refused a pint in a pub, being told to get off public transport, being refused treatment in hospitals etc. or are you just presuming they were happy and life was dandy for them? feel free to rpove me wrong though If they weren't happy they were free to return. I've not seen that they were routinely denied hospital treatment etc. you say free to return and techinally yes that's true but the reality is that a lot of them came from British colonies (British Honduras, West Indies etc.) when they were "Recruited" during the war.....after the war there weren't any jobs in their own countries because the money had been sucked out of their economies for our war effort and all the funding was going into rebuilding Britain. they were basically left with no choice but to stay because they'd been brought here to help the UK and then found out after the war their own countries were basically screwed as they were tied into the commonwealth who's only focus was on Britain. |
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 15:42:12 GMT
well the BNP want to send them back and don't want anymore immigrants coming in......YOU don't want anymore immigrants coming so it kinda ties in (sorry but i couldn't find another political party that want the complete abolition of immigration!). you were the one that decided the media are portraying the idea that people don't want ANY further immigration despite that just not being the case at all, the media have put forward the view of UKIP and a lot of the British public that they want more control of immigration...the 2 views are completely different and you seem to have decided that your view of no immigration is the same as immigration control...it just isn't! again, bigotted in what way exactly? Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/231271/islamic-ban-dog-walking-park?page=3#ixzz33gRhIKCSBiased and biotted because you're wrong. I have never said I don't want anymore immigrants coming into the country. That's simply a bare faced lie. I think immigration is vital to the UK'S economy. I know it doesn't suit your agenda , but that's your problem not mine. I have said the same thing many many times on here infact . I believe in stricter controls. I have always believed in this this , but you seem to know what people are thinking before they've actually said it. So....There you go bigotted and I'll add liar to the the list too. sorry you said i was wrong if i thought it was only a minority that didn't want anymore immigrants into the country (which was based on your lies about what the media apparently put across) given how passionate (and fucking rude) you were in that rant, i think it was justifiable for me to believe that was a view you also held. fine, call me a liar....as long as you don't mind me calling you a bigotted, generalising racist? Sorry to butt in Mick but generalising and bigoted would accurately describe your views on people who happen to read the Daily Mail earlier in this very thread. Or isn't it so when YOU do it? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:50:28 GMT
sorry you said i was wrong if i thought it was only a minority that didn't want anymore immigrants into the country (which was based on your lies about what the media apparently put across) given how passionate (and fucking rude) you were in that rant, i think it was justifiable for me to believe that was a view you also held. fine, call me a liar....as long as you don't mind me calling you a bigotted, generalising racist? Sorry to butt in Mick but generalising and bigoted would accurately describe your views on people who happen to read the Daily Mail earlier in this very thread. Or isn't it so when YOU do it? jesus...one comment so you're agreeing that mumf's generalisation that it's not a minority of the British public that want NO more immigrants at all is what the media puts across and is what the general public agree with then? (as that was the point i was making) |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 4, 2014 15:53:41 GMT
How far back are we going then Mick? Most of the population of this country is descended from serfs/slaves at some point in our history! in terms of actual immigration and ethnic communities coming into the country from abroad in large numbers then that was basically when it began due to the slave trade. that was then the ethnic communities were rounded up together and treated as second class citizens which is what salop pointed out in his post. even if you want to just look at the 20th Century, it's certainly not true at all to say that all immigrants came over voluntarily...thousands were "Labour Recruited" from the commonwealth in the 40's (British Honduras, West Indies etc.) for tree felling, munition factories, merchant navy etc. etc. whilst others did come voluntarily. after the war the government actually tried to convince most to return home (and were offered incentives by the government to do so) but few opted to take that up and the Labour government actually used european workers and german prisoners for the rebuilding of Britain rather than "Recruit" any more immigrants to help out with rebuilding as it was thought that european workers would be more likely to return home after work was completed. it's also not true to say they had equal rights..it wasn't until the mid-60s that banning black people from pubs, busses or indeed any business premises or transport method came into force. up until then you could refuse entry/trade/transport to blacks or anyone of any ethnic minority. Your wasting your time Mick, The Count feels very strongly when it comes to defending bigots and Fascists ( remember his spirited defence of Paulo DiCanio's politics? ). |
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 16:06:01 GMT
Sorry to butt in Mick but generalising and bigoted would accurately describe your views on people who happen to read the Daily Mail earlier in this very thread. Or isn't it so when YOU do it? jesus...one comment so you're agreeing that mumf's generalisation that it's not a minority of the British public that want NO more immigrants at all is what the media puts across and is what the general public agree with then? (as that was the point i was making) I know it was one comment mate but I'm pretty sure you've made similar in the past. You appear to applying standards to other peoples comments that you don't adhere to yourself. Just an observation. Re: your spat with Mumf....... I'll leave you to it - I've got my own battles to fight :-) |
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 16:11:20 GMT
in terms of actual immigration and ethnic communities coming into the country from abroad in large numbers then that was basically when it began due to the slave trade. that was then the ethnic communities were rounded up together and treated as second class citizens which is what salop pointed out in his post. even if you want to just look at the 20th Century, it's certainly not true at all to say that all immigrants came over voluntarily...thousands were "Labour Recruited" from the commonwealth in the 40's (British Honduras, West Indies etc.) for tree felling, munition factories, merchant navy etc. etc. whilst others did come voluntarily. after the war the government actually tried to convince most to return home (and were offered incentives by the government to do so) but few opted to take that up and the Labour government actually used european workers and german prisoners for the rebuilding of Britain rather than "Recruit" any more immigrants to help out with rebuilding as it was thought that european workers would be more likely to return home after work was completed. it's also not true to say they had equal rights..it wasn't until the mid-60s that banning black people from pubs, busses or indeed any business premises or transport method came into force. up until then you could refuse entry/trade/transport to blacks or anyone of any ethnic minority. Your wasting your time Mick, The Count feels very strongly when it comes to defending bigots and Fascists ( remember his spirited defence of Paulo DiCanio's politics? ). Incorrect Iggy. I did not defend his views. I defended his right to hold a legal political view. To take the opposite position would be to behave like a totalitarian/ fascist. I'm comfortable with my position. You perhaps need to reconsider yours. |
|
|
|
Post by giboscfc on Jun 4, 2014 16:55:26 GMT
For the record I am opposed to sharia law either here or abroad, I am also opposed to all forms of religious extremism no matter which sky pixie they choose to shake bones and and dance around the fire to,
but what I WON'T do, is blame over a billion people for the actions of what is a tiny but nasty minority, because it's lazy thinking and is an attitude of ignorance and intolerance which is very similar to the ones some people claim to oppose.
And let's be honest here, there is no danger that a handful of beardy blokes in long frocks are ever going to change the way WE live in this country, I think some people should just get a grip.
|
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 4, 2014 17:07:34 GMT
Your wasting your time Mick, The Count feels very strongly when it comes to defending bigots and Fascists ( remember his spirited defence of Paulo DiCanio's politics? ). Incorrect Iggy. I did not defend his views. I defended his right to hold a legal political view. To take the opposite position would be to behave like a totalitarian/ fascist. I'm comfortable with my position. You perhaps need to reconsider yours. Still defending the rights of Fascists and bigots to deny immigrants and nay-sayers their human rights, I see.........no surprise there then. PS historical description, from Oxford Dictionaries, of Fascism for you.... "The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach" So yeah I'm really uncomfortable with my point of view its soooo unreasoned. |
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 17:59:36 GMT
Incorrect Iggy. I did not defend his views. I defended his right to hold a legal political view. To take the opposite position would be to behave like a totalitarian/ fascist. I'm comfortable with my position. You perhaps need to reconsider yours. Still defending the rights of Fascists and bigots to deny immigrants and nay-sayers their human rights, I see.........no surprise there then. PS historical description, from Oxford Dictionaries, of Fascism for you.... "The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach" So yeah I'm really uncomfortable with my point of view its soooo unreasoned. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's a duck. Just because your particular brand of totalitarian extremism is percieved to be on the left it does not make it any better. There was precious little difference living under Hitlers or Stalins boot. Your attitude towards those who you disagree with mark you out as being no different to those you purport to oppose. Ps........ as I remember you proved your credentials on the Di Canio thread. Denying someone employment because of their legal political beliefs is something IMO that most people in this country would disagree with. It smacks of extremism. You would also deny him his human right to hold his legal views and gain employment. If you can't see the hypocrisy in your position theres no fucking helping you. |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jun 4, 2014 18:04:43 GMT
Incorrect Iggy. I did not defend his views. I defended his right to hold a legal political view. To take the opposite position would be to behave like a totalitarian/ fascist. I'm comfortable with my position. You perhaps need to reconsider yours. Still defending the rights of Fascists and bigots to deny immigrants and nay-sayers their human rights, I see.........no surprise there then. PS historical description, from Oxford Dictionaries, of Fascism for you.... "The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach" So yeah I'm really uncomfortable with my point of view its soooo unreasoned. Don't Fascists, Communists, Nazis, et al have rights then? As long as they remain inside of the law? Even scum have rights. Without seeing what the Count has said before I don't see his position as unreasonable - I mean, defending free speech even if you don't like what the other person is saying is pretty fundamental isn't it? And the description of Fascism does seem to be pretty true as a description of the supposedly Communist North Korea? |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 4, 2014 18:10:21 GMT
Still defending the rights of Fascists and bigots to deny immigrants and nay-sayers their human rights, I see.........no surprise there then. PS historical description, from Oxford Dictionaries, of Fascism for you.... "The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach" So yeah I'm really uncomfortable with my point of view its soooo unreasoned. Don't Fascists, Communists, Nazis, et al have rights then? As long as they remain inside of the law? Even scum have rights. Without seeing what the Count has said before I don't see his position as unreasonable - I mean, defending free speech even if you don't like what the other person is saying is pretty fundamental isn't it? And the description of Fascism does seem to be pretty true as a description of the supposedly Communist North Korea? yes of course they have rights but the thing is that those philosophies deny everyone else their rights....so change Totalitarianism for Fascism and you have my point bang on....the specific reference to fascism was intended for The Count..... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 18:14:07 GMT
Everyone in their trenches again....wonder who will win? I'll be back next year to see how it ends Oops I forgot, they never end  |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jun 4, 2014 18:14:49 GMT
Don't Fascists, Communists, Nazis, et al have rights then? As long as they remain inside of the law? Even scum have rights. Without seeing what the Count has said before I don't see his position as unreasonable - I mean, defending free speech even if you don't like what the other person is saying is pretty fundamental isn't it? And the description of Fascism does seem to be pretty true as a description of the supposedly Communist North Korea? yes of course they have rights but the thing is that those philosophies deny everyone else their rights....so change Totalitarianism for Fascism and you have my point bang on....the specific reference to fascism was intended for The Count..... Hence my point about being within the law. I'm still failing to see what the Count has done wrong here? He seems to be defending freedom of speech not fascism? |
|
