Why the UKIP will never work....
Discussion
BGARK said:
King said:
Please explain why one hundred years ago - when there were very few black people in the UK - there was so much demand for 'minstrel music' that white people used to 'black up'.
I will explain, you are wrong.King said:
steveT350C said:
black
this should keep you amused http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2850927/...
Do you disapprove of people sunbathing as well?this should keep you amused http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2850927/...
Edited by steveT350C on Friday 28th November 16:02
King said:
steveT350C said:
You were the one who started the whole black thing. Why?
Sorry, do you have a problem talking about black people?You must think being black is relevant, why?
Edited by steveT350C on Friday 28th November 19:30
NicD said:
King said:
NicD said:
King said:
Will you also explain why people from different races seem to enjoy having sex together?
what part of that don't YOU understand?XJ Flyer said:
The point being that socialist confusion which thinks that the definition of the word 'culture',in the case of immigration policy, is something different from the definition of the word 'society'.In which case as I've said multi cultural 'also' means multi societal.Which then just leaves the question of how big and influential do we allow those foreign immigrant cultures/societies to grow.Not lets let in as many as who wish to come here and then integrate them into the indigenous culture/society.That is the issue which the pro immigration socialist/cheap labour alliance needs to get its head around.
The logical conclusion of which,as I've shown previously,is the correct policy which the US government decided to impose in regards to the immigration issue with the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 which recognised and understood all of those issues.
Unlike the present failed PC pro immigration agenda which just keeps adding more and more to the numbers based on the flawed ideology that it is all about 'integration'.
Now you'll have to forgive me here but I find XJ hard to understand, mainly because he doesn't accept standard definitions of words - he says so himself. Anyway, one interpretation of what he said might mean that he doesn't like people from different societies mixing. It's hard to tell because I haven't a clue exactly what he means by 'society'. But anyway, one interpretation of not liking societies mixing is that he doesn't like the Ferrari Club mixing with the Fiat Club, another interpretation might be that he doesn't like black people mixing with white people. You can't tell because whatever his definition of society is it isn't clear. Rather than ask him his definition of society I decided it'd be easier to ask an exemplary question because I didn't want to get more of his internal dialogue. And I think that's the point when you saw the word black and started acting like a startled social worker from Lambeth.The logical conclusion of which,as I've shown previously,is the correct policy which the US government decided to impose in regards to the immigration issue with the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 which recognised and understood all of those issues.
Unlike the present failed PC pro immigration agenda which just keeps adding more and more to the numbers based on the flawed ideology that it is all about 'integration'.
Seeing as you're so interested, maybe you'd like to explain what he meant? One thing is for sure, whatever you think he said, he'll disagree with you.
Sweyn Forkbeard's son said:
Seeing as you're so interested, maybe you'd like to explain what he meant? One thing is for sure, whatever you think he said, he'll disagree with you.
You've not been around here long, but I see you're getting the measure of some posters ETA - no bloody machine auto-censors my posts unless I want it to
King said:
BGARK said:
King said:
Please explain why one hundred years ago - when there were very few black people in the UK - there was so much demand for 'minstrel music' that white people used to 'black up'.
I will explain, you are wrong.Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 28th November 23:09
King said:
NicD said:
King said:
NicD said:
King said:
Will you also explain why people from different races seem to enjoy having sex together?
what part of that don't YOU understand?XJ Flyer said:
The point being that socialist confusion which thinks that the definition of the word 'culture',in the case of immigration policy, is something different from the definition of the word 'society'.In which case as I've said multi cultural 'also' means multi societal.Which then just leaves the question of how big and influential do we allow those foreign immigrant cultures/societies to grow.Not lets let in as many as who wish to come here and then integrate them into the indigenous culture/society.That is the issue which the pro immigration socialist/cheap labour alliance needs to get its head around.
The logical conclusion of which,as I've shown previously,is the correct policy which the US government decided to impose in regards to the immigration issue with the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 which recognised and understood all of those issues.
Unlike the present failed PC pro immigration agenda which just keeps adding more and more to the numbers based on the flawed ideology that it is all about 'integration'.
Now you'll have to forgive me here but I find XJ hard to understand, mainly because he doesn't accept standard definitions of words - he says so himself. Anyway, one interpretation of what he said might mean that he doesn't like people from different societies mixing. It's hard to tell because I haven't a clue exactly what he means by 'society'. But anyway, one interpretation of not liking societies mixing is that he doesn't like the Ferrari Club mixing with the Fiat Club, another interpretation might be that he doesn't like black people mixing with white people. You can't tell because whatever his definition of society is it isn't clear. Rather than ask him his definition of society I decided it'd be easier to ask an exemplary question because I didn't want to get more of his internal dialogue. And I think that's the point when you saw the word black and started acting like a startled social worker from Lambeth.The logical conclusion of which,as I've shown previously,is the correct policy which the US government decided to impose in regards to the immigration issue with the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 which recognised and understood all of those issues.
Unlike the present failed PC pro immigration agenda which just keeps adding more and more to the numbers based on the flawed ideology that it is all about 'integration'.
Seeing as you're so interested, maybe you'd like to explain what he meant? One thing is for sure, whatever you think he said, he'll disagree with you.
As for the issue of not accepting the socialist definition of 'culture',because it conveniently counts out 'society' as being a part of that definition,I'd suggest that says more about the socialist agenda than mine.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 28th November 23:00
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 28th November 23:02
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 28th November 23:19
Foppo said:
I wonder how the yanks would have reacted if a twelve year old white kid was shot by two black cops.
Or when a jury had to decide about a case like the 18 year old kid who got shot was white where all black.
Don't blame it on all the blacks they have their backs against the wall.
More socialist propaganda.The colour issue was all 'supposed' to be done and over with in modern day America in which case it wouldn't make any difference to anyone what colour the law or the shot person was.But obviously,conveniently,not when it suits the issue of the police of whatever colour doing there job.Or when a jury had to decide about a case like the 18 year old kid who got shot was white where all black.
Don't blame it on all the blacks they have their backs against the wall.
In this case the answer would obviously be I wonder what would have happened in the case of a black person of whatever age waving a gun getting shot by a black copper.Let me guess you'll now say it would never happen because a black copper would never open fire on his own race.IE typical socialist reverse racism.
XJ Flyer said:
The issues in American society and to an extent here show that colour issues are mostly all in the minds of the black community.IE they seem to be the ones who keep referring to the 'issues' of 'white' policing of 'black' communities.Which the idea of segregation would of course fix.
Why is a segregated society with black people / black police and white people / white police the option you choose, rather than.. I dunno.. getting some of the apalling racists out of the police force?There's a good documentary on Netflix called The House I Live In. You should watch it.
CamMoreRon said:
XJ Flyer said:
The issues in American society and to an extent here show that colour issues are mostly all in the minds of the black community.IE they seem to be the ones who keep referring to the 'issues' of 'white' policing of 'black' communities.Which the idea of segregation would of course fix.
Why is a segregated society with black people / black police and white people / white police the option you choose, rather than.. I dunno.. getting some of the apalling racists out of the police force?There's a good documentary on Netflix called The House I Live In. You should watch it.
The way I see it it is the black community that is making all the issues about it being a colour motivated shooting.The kid was pointing a replica gun at people and not surprisingly,considering the society,got shot.What difference does colour make in that case.Assuming the 'black' community has 'issues' in that regard then black policing of black segretated areas is the obvious answer and sooner or later will inevitably have to be the chosen method used to deal with it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff