There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

orion · October 4, 2009, 2:57pm

[quote]TQB wrote:
Sifu wrote:
TQB wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.

Objection:

I would take great umbrage if my American children were denied the choice to move to the US if they so wanted, despite the being born in Spain and Sweden respectively. You may wish to note that your logic would exclude many children of American servicemen as well.

Now you usually make sense, even when I don’t agree with you, so I rather think this was a slip of the pen.

TQB

Here I will make it clearer for you. It is perfectly reasonable that a people have the right to set guidlines as to who is part of their group and who gets to live in their homeland. Without that small populations could easily be overrun and dominated by the large ones.

OK Sifu, time for the crunch question.

Do you consider that UK citizen of a different ethnicity than yours form part of the “people” you are referring to? Say, someone whose parents immigrated from the West Indies or India in the Sixties? Or Cockney’s kids, for that matter.

If not, you are a common or garden racist.
[/quote]

What about the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish?

The Irish are particularly interesting because there two or three collectivist ideas clash, namely religion, British and Irish nationalism.

Uncle_Gabby · October 4, 2009, 7:05pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.

If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.

All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.

I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

So you are against collectivist “Marxism” but fore collectivist “nationalism”.

There is nothing inherently “collectivist” about nationalism, and there is nothing nationalistic about saying that the people of a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. But I think you’re coming from the point of view of someone who wants to live in on a border-less “free market” planet. That sounds like another hellish utopia, so I’ll leave you to it.

There is nothing inherently collectivist in nationalism?

Really?

You make it sound like a nation is a hive of bees, with no autonomy, no process for change. For it to be “collectivist” it would have to be a fixed and permanent and enforced from the top down. In reality most nations aren’t Nazi Germany. The idea of what a nation stands for is always in flux, constantly being amended by it’s citizens, who have many different ideas of what their country and it’s laws should be. The fact that a nation is made up of millions, and no two citizens would ever agree point by point means that a nation can only have the loosest of collective identities.

But if you want to label what I’m talking about “collectivist nationalism” in order to make it sound bad, go ahead. It still beats that anarchist shithole of an alternate reality you propose in the Polanski thread.

Reading comprehension-

Work on it.

And then, when we got rid of one sort of collectivist drivel we immediately had the next one, namely nationalism and when that stopped to work to incite wars we had fascism and socialism.

So, not only is your idea of a nation less than 300 years old it also caters to the same tribal instincts as the collectivist ideologies mentioned above
[/quote]

My reading comprehension is good enough to see through your bullshit. In order to win an argument, you have to try to manipulate language in order to paint your opponent as the boogie man, which is as transparent as it is pathetic.

You claim that since I don’t want completely open borders that I support “nationalism, socialism” and other “collectivist drivel” that was designed to incite wars. The reality is, you are the extremist. You believe in a borderless, lawless, free market utopia that has never existed and appeals to no one who lives outside of the highest extremes of the ivory tower, and you’re angry that no one else wants to live with you in your dystopic shithole.

Cockney_Blue · October 4, 2009, 3:24pm

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.

If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.

All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.

I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.
[/quote]

I believe that arbitrarily drawn lines on maps are a bit ridiculous. I understand that they are at the moment a necessary evil however the way to deal with immigration is not to shut the doors tight and hope the problem goes away it is to work out what the force is that is driving the movement of people and work on the issue at its source.

Also given that your ancestors rocked up a couple of hundred years ago uninvited and turfed the incumbent population off the land do you not think your comments are a little hypocritical?

orion · October 4, 2009, 3:22pm

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.

If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.

All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.

I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

So you are against collectivist “Marxism” but fore collectivist “nationalism”.

There is nothing inherently “collectivist” about nationalism, and there is nothing nationalistic about saying that the people of a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. But I think you’re coming from the point of view of someone who wants to live in on a border-less “free market” planet. That sounds like another hellish utopia, so I’ll leave you to it.

There is nothing inherently collectivist in nationalism?

Really?

You make it sound like a nation is a hive of bees, with no autonomy, no process for change. For it to be “collectivist” it would have to be a fixed and permanent and enforced from the top down. In reality most nations aren’t Nazi Germany. The idea of what a nation stands for is always in flux, constantly being amended by it’s citizens, who have many different ideas of what their country and it’s laws should be. The fact that a nation is made up of millions, and no two citizens would ever agree point by point means that a nation can only have the loosest of collective identities.

But if you want to label what I’m talking about “collectivist nationalism” in order to make it sound bad, go ahead. It still beats that anarchist shithole of an alternate reality you propose in the Polanski thread.

Reading comprehension-

Work on it.

And then, when we got rid of one sort of collectivist drivel we immediately had the next one, namely nationalism and when that stopped to work to incite wars we had fascism and socialism.

So, not only is your idea of a nation less than 300 years old it also caters to the same tribal instincts as the collectivist ideologies mentioned above

My reading comprehension is good enough to see through your bullshit. In order to win an argument, you have to try to manipulate language in order to paint your opponent as the boogie man, which is as transparent as it is pathetic.

You claim that since I don’t want completely open borders that I support “nationalism, socialism” and other “collectivist drivel” that was designed to incite wars. The reality is, you are the extremist. You believe in a borderless, lawless, free market utopia that has never existed and appeals to no one who lives outside of the highest extremes of the ivory tower, and you’re angry that no one else wants to live with you in your dystopic shithole.[/quote]

See, you confuse me again with LM.

So, not only is your reading comprehension obviously not good enough to “see through my BS” it is not even good enough to discern my BS from other peoples BS.

Reading comprehension.

Work on it.

orion · October 4, 2009, 3:24pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.

If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.

All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.

I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

I believe that arbitrarily drawn lines on maps are a bit ridiculous. I understand that they are at the moment a necessary evil however the way to deal with immigration is not to shut the doors tight and hope the problem goes away it is to work out what the force is that is driving the movement of people and work on the issue at its source.[/quote]

Let us say that they live in countries I might call “medieval shitholes”.

How is that “our” problem and why should we deal with ideas that made their countries medieval shitholes?

Cockney_Blue · October 4, 2009, 3:29pm

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Obviously at the moment in many countries this is Islam. Islam is a slam dunk easy target. ‘They’ flew planes into the twin towers and put bombs on buses and the tube.

So it WASN’T a bunch of self-proclaimed Muslims that did all that in the name of Islam?

Damn!

Fooled by the Buddhists again!

Actually, I can see how their doctrine of compassion and tolerance could lead to that sort of behavior; not like the case with the “peaceful religion.” [/quote]

OK quick lesson in set theory for you. All oranges are fruit does not mean that all fruit are oranges.

Cockney_Blue · October 4, 2009, 3:32pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Title seven covers discrimination against employees in the workplace. The woman who filed the complaint was not an employee of the B&B. Therefore she was not in her place of work so she did not suffer a case of workplace discrimination. [/quote]

At no point did I say Title Seven was the relevent law in this case. I was asked to list some laws from the US that relate to hate speach, the implication being that there were none. I listed 3.

Now you have dived in wihout reading the context and started whaling away making a pointless argument (for a change.)

Cockney_Blue · October 4, 2009, 3:36pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.

He hasn’t said anything racist, he just doesn’t like immigration. He has a right to not like immigration.

Thank you and WTF ?

Because i don’t want English people to be a minority in their OWN COUNTRY i’m racist ???

You sure your from Manchester ???

If you were i dunno how your not AGREEING with me…

I work and hang with people who are not of English descent, that doesn’t mean i still cannot be proud of my country and wish to have it not turned into so politically correct we can’t even celebrate Christmas without being hounded for it.

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

What the ???

No based on where they were born. That’s the MAIN reason for the rise of BNP in Manchester, families are being pushed off the housing list to give them to asylum seekers and others, due to goverment bylaws.

So to re-iterate ENGLISH born people are NOT GETTING HOMES so they can be given to NON- ENGLISH people because of our idiotic governments non existent immigration policies and roll out the red carpet to bend over for the idiotic EU.

If thats racist then mate your logic is severely screwy. Since when is it racist to look after your OWN countrymen first, guests second ???

Your last statement is the very definition of racism, treating people differently based on where they are from.

Cock your statement is the very definition of stupidity. It is your stupid attitude that is causing all the trouble in Britain. Your views are contradictory of one another. You are a hypocrite who picks and chooses ideology to suit your purpose and you think we are to stupid to see what you are doing.

When it suits your purpose we are all individuals and should be treated as such. But when it doesn’t suit your purpose it’s wrong to treat people differently because they are all the same.

ie A few pages back we discussed the Pakistani tube bombers. Then you indignantly chastised me that your mates back at Uni were Pakistanis who were perfectly wonderful blokes and it is wrong to treast Pakistanis as being all the same. Now you want to go after above300 and chastise him that is is wrong to not treat people as being all the same. [/quote]

Your love of revising history explains why you side with the holocaust deniers.

You stated that all Pakistanis should be thrown out of Britain because they are terrorists who hate Britain. I pointed out how stupid your argument was.

Cockney_Blue · October 4, 2009, 3:42pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Yep look what they did in Northern Ireland, even when the Catholics were outnumbering the Protestants they still managed to get enough of them in to swing the vote.

Cockney seriously you are NOT seeing what people who live in the UK see.

Already there are skin head people popping up and asian nutter groups. Police are ruunning out of ways to deal with all the freaking nutter clerics telling US IN THE UK we are all going to die WHILE GETTING AID FROM THE UK.

We won’t need any 9/11 it’s already starting to pop and crackle over here with all the heat in the air. All it needs now is a spark and there will be mass riots going on.

You have just as much access to info as Sifu I FREAKING LIVE HERE. Right in the middle of North Manchester i think i have a better idea to be quite honest !

Where abouts in North Manchester? I used to live in Fallowfield so I know all about racial tensions in Manchester from walking through Rusholme during Eid.

If you think the racial tension is anything new just look at the Oldham Riots in 2001 or the Brixton Riots in 1981. Christ, you want to talk rioting in the Manchester area you can go back to the Peterloo riots in 1819.

I don’t want anyone to think that I believe the UK is some kind of utopia of racial harmony however the reason that we have boiling tensions at the moment is far more to do with higher levels of unemployment than anything else.

This is a classic case of Cock rationalizing to support his cognitive dissonance. What is happening today in Britain is a lot more than just people being pissed off over the economy. They had good reasons to be angry even before the economy tanked. The collapse of the economy has merely laid bare all that has been going on ever since Labour got back in power.

Back in 1981 I had friends who participated in the riots. What is going on today is not the same.

So your friends were as easily manipulated by the NF and BNP stirring up shit as you are. Figures.

The BNP was founded in 1982 after the riots. My friends from the youth center were white and black. After the riot some of them came into the youth center wearing multiple watches that they aquired in the riot and were looking to sell. I got the distinct impression that they were not motivated by politics but by the opportunity for some ultra-violence and looting.[/quote]

I misread your post, I thought you were referring to the Oldham riots. And of course the people taking place in riots are mainly motivated by a chance to kick heads an nick things.

Cockney_Blue · October 4, 2009, 4:00pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)

Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.

I have met the local BNP MP

He is sound out being right wing is going to draw alot of nut jobs, but for me i’d rather put one of them in than put some fucking wanker who only comes to Manchester during voting week.

It’s not just the un-employed that are voting for them, Manchester is seriously losing it’s identity. So they want what the normal English people want.

Less Johnny Foreigner PLEASE.

As my dad says, i never knew when i sent aid to Somalia, they’d come all the way to the UK to thank me and stay here permanently

OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.

Fuck you and your calling people racists. Who the hell are you to be judging people? You buggered off to a staunch Roman Catholic, Christian country where you don’t have to worry about being stuck in a sharia state. You have no right to be calling people racists just because they don’t want to their family to have to live under sharia law.

There is no other people on this planet who would be happy to have massive numbers of foreigners move into their homeland that their family has lived in for generations and displace them.

NuLabour has flooded areas like Manchester with immigrants while acting like the people who have lived there for generations don’t exist. It is not racist for people who are being displaced like that to say “hey what about us”.

I hardly ran off to Mexico to get away from Islam. I moved here because there were good economic opportunities and I could create a good life for my family here.

It hardly matters why you went there. What matters is you are now safely far away from Britain living a new life in a country that is staunchly Roman Catholic, populated by people who remember their ancestors conquest by the Conquistadors who are quite unlikely to surrender to Islam without a fight. Your wife and daughter are safely away from Britain, if it becomes a sharia state they won’t be affected.

300andabove is living right in the middle of it all. If Britain does become islamist he is fucked. Despite that you have the unmitigated gall to call him a racist just because he doesn’t want to have to leave his home to find a place where he isn’t an outsider and the majority of people share his values and beliefs.

Cock you are a complete hypocrate calling a man a racist because he doesn’t want to live in a situation that you yourself don’t have to live in. Britain is full of hypocrates like you. A lot of them are politicians and some of them are my relatives.

They live in lilly white affluent communities where the limited contact they do have with immigrants is either their Indian doctor or the kabob shop on the high street. When they briefly venture outside the gates of their estate they think how wonderfully multi-cultural their comunity is.

You and they are living lives that are far removed from the great unwashed like 300andabove who are living in the “enrichment” zones, but that does not stop you from casting derision on those who have to suffer the real life consequences of all your idealism. [/quote]

Minor point Sifu but most of the people here in Mexico are more closely related to the Conquistadors than the Native populations.

Also, you have a funny idea of the kind of places I lived in the UK. I lived in Fallowfield Manchester right in the corner between Rusholme and Moss Side. And in London I lived in Croydon, then spent a number of years living in Turnpike Lane (which is a mainly Turkish Community).

Uncle_Gabby · October 4, 2009, 3:48pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.

If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.

All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.

I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

I believe that arbitrarily drawn lines on maps are a bit ridiculous. I understand that they are at the moment a necessary evil however the way to deal with immigration is not to shut the doors tight and hope the problem goes away it is to work out what the force is that is driving the movement of people and work on the issue at its source.[/quote]

I’m not against immigration per se. Nations create laws to establish a system in which people who will add value are allowed in and assimilated, and people who will only be a burden or even a danger can be kept out. As far as the problems that drive the movement of people, these are as old as time itself: Crop failures, depletion of mineral wealth, despotic regimes. We can only make marginal lands more productive through technology (the green revolution) but that can have negative consequences as well. You can’t put back mineral wealth, and trying to replace despotic regimes from without usually ends in disaster. You limeys have a much longer history with Iraq that we do, so you should know better than I.

People will always breed in numbers that meet or exceed their ablity to provide, and it isn’t my moral obligation to share what I produce with them, nor to spend my blood and treasure to replace the despots they have chosen to rule over them. They need to work that out for themselves.

Uncle_Gabby · October 4, 2009, 3:50pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.

If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.

All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.

I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

So you are against collectivist “Marxism” but fore collectivist “nationalism”.

There is nothing inherently “collectivist” about nationalism, and there is nothing nationalistic about saying that the people of a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. But I think you’re coming from the point of view of someone who wants to live in on a border-less “free market” planet. That sounds like another hellish utopia, so I’ll leave you to it.

There is nothing inherently collectivist in nationalism?

Really?

You make it sound like a nation is a hive of bees, with no autonomy, no process for change. For it to be “collectivist” it would have to be a fixed and permanent and enforced from the top down. In reality most nations aren’t Nazi Germany. The idea of what a nation stands for is always in flux, constantly being amended by it’s citizens, who have many different ideas of what their country and it’s laws should be. The fact that a nation is made up of millions, and no two citizens would ever agree point by point means that a nation can only have the loosest of collective identities.

But if you want to label what I’m talking about “collectivist nationalism” in order to make it sound bad, go ahead. It still beats that anarchist shithole of an alternate reality you propose in the Polanski thread.

Reading comprehension-

Work on it.

And then, when we got rid of one sort of collectivist drivel we immediately had the next one, namely nationalism and when that stopped to work to incite wars we had fascism and socialism.

So, not only is your idea of a nation less than 300 years old it also caters to the same tribal instincts as the collectivist ideologies mentioned above

My reading comprehension is good enough to see through your bullshit. In order to win an argument, you have to try to manipulate language in order to paint your opponent as the boogie man, which is as transparent as it is pathetic.

You claim that since I don’t want completely open borders that I support “nationalism, socialism” and other “collectivist drivel” that was designed to incite wars. The reality is, you are the extremist. You believe in a borderless, lawless, free market utopia that has never existed and appeals to no one who lives outside of the highest extremes of the ivory tower, and you’re angry that no one else wants to live with you in your dystopic shithole.

See, you confuse me again with LM.

So, not only is your reading comprehension obviously not good enough to “see through my BS” it is not even good enough to discern my BS from other peoples BS.

Reading comprehension.

Work on it.[/quote]

You stated that Polanski made restitution with his victim and that should be enough.

Short term memory.

Work on it.

Uncle_Gabby · October 4, 2009, 3:52pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.

If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.

If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.

All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.

I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

I believe that arbitrarily drawn lines on maps are a bit ridiculous. I understand that they are at the moment a necessary evil however the way to deal with immigration is not to shut the doors tight and hope the problem goes away it is to work out what the force is that is driving the movement of people and work on the issue at its source.

Also given that your ancestors rocked up a couple of hundred years ago uninvited and turfed the incumbent population off the land do you not think your comments are a little hypocritical?[/quote]

You think your ancestors didn’t do the same thing a few hundred years before that? And I used to think my public schools did a lousy job of teaching history.

Cockney_Blue · October 4, 2009, 3:54pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote: