Why the UKIP will never work....
Discussion
FiF said:
King 
said:
said:FiF said:
King said:
said: There are respectable British women (and sheep) awaiting your decision with baited breath...
Perhaps they should consider investing in a bottle or two of Listerine or other similar product. Btw it's bated breath, as in short for abated.
Of course you may mean baited, hence the reference to Listerine. HTH.
Thanks for the correction. Would you care to comment on the punctuation below?
FiF said:
Jesus I skim read and it was patently obvious even reading it while shaving, drinking a coffee and negotiating the M25* that the comment referred to the USA.
It ain't scuffers who looked stupid there. Perhaps it was just another oik along looking to create an argument over nothing which is a distinct possibility.
See I didn't quote anybody and it should be rather clear to what is being referenced.
Bated breath and all that...It ain't scuffers who looked stupid there. Perhaps it was just another oik along looking to create an argument over nothing which is a distinct possibility.
See I didn't quote anybody and it should be rather clear to what is being referenced.
- *Some of this may not be true. Hyperbole matters for the giggle.
King said:
said:mrpurple said:
And there was me thinking these forums were for people wanting sensible debates.
Don't worry your shiny little purple head, it's called banter.Do you think it's 'sensible' to quote US crime stats when discussing the UK and UKIP?
If you do think US stats are relevant, please explain why.
mrpurple said:
I'd say that was a 'whoosh parrot'. But if it is, it's a dead parrot and somebody had to throw the poor little bugger.King said:
said:FiF said:
King said:
said:FiF said:
King said:
said: There are respectable British women (and sheep) awaiting your decision with baited breath...
Perhaps they should consider investing in a bottle or two of Listerine or other similar product. Btw it's bated breath, as in short for abated.
Of course you may mean baited, hence the reference to Listerine. HTH.
Hence thin ice with me.
HTH.
FiF said:
You're on thin ice when you've made an obnoxious comment to someone, another poster tries to lighten the mood with a little joke, and you retort with what could, by some, be interpreted as a threat.
Hence thin ice with me.
HTH.
You think someone might interpret something I said as a threat?Hence thin ice with me.
HTH.
Ok.
1) Please explain the threat.
2) If it was a threat, why prevaricate? You either think what I said was a threat or you didn't. If you think what I said was threat then say so, don't dodge behind imaginary friends who might (or might not) be offended.
3) If you truly believe it was a threat, report it to the mods. If you believe I'm threatening people you have an obligation to inform the mods as a matter of principle.
If I'm on thin ice, you're standing next to me with lead weights in your pockets and no snorkel.
King said:
said:mrpurple said:
I'd say that was a 'whoosh parrot'. But if it is, it's a dead parrot and somebody had to throw the poor little bugger.
CamMoreRon said:
XJ Flyer said:
Just like the similar issues we've had here 'targeted' in this case means 'police',regardless of their colour,targeting 'criminals' who just happen to be black.
No, there is a difference between targeting and policing. Stop & search = targeting, search on response to a call-out = policing. A lot of these "criminals" are non-violent minor drug offenders (a bag of weed / a joint) who have been targeted specifically for fitting a certain profile.XJ Flyer said:
It is obviously the so called black communities who then want to turn that into a colour issue to suit their own agenda. Which in this case is the contradictory idea that they want to 'integrate' with the so called 'white' community but they still live in enclaves..
Do they have a choice? Ghettos & projects were created specifically to house black people. The white middle+ classes all fled city centres for the suburbs while the black lower class had to stay behind - the enclaves were created for them. These "enclaves" were rife with poverty by definition, as they were created to house people who couldn't afford to live anywhere else, and with poverty often comes drugs & crime. XJ Flyer said:
..and they don't want to be policed by 'white' coppers who I'm sure given the choice don't want to police the black community and are quite happy with the idea of enclaves which reflect the two different cultures too.
Yes, you're quite right! Many white American policemen are racists too.XJ Flyer said:
In which case the answer is obvious. Integration doesn't work segregation does which just then leaves the question of black policing of black areas to keep everyone happy. Just as the fact that there is a historically large Irish police representation in certain parts of America where there were/are large Irish enclaves is no coincidence.
Wrong. Segregation is what has CAUSED the problems. It cannot also be the solution.XJ Flyer said:
As for me I know exactly what socialist ideology means in terms of its ethnic integrationist agenda because I was one before I knew better.
You mean you were white middle class and moved to an area with a strong Indian population? Well guess what.. I was too. I grew up in a very white middle class town and moved to an area where there are a lot of 2nd/3rd/etc gen Pakistani immigrants. On a couple of occasions I experienced first hand some anti "indegenous" attitudes and pretty intense (and at the time quite scary) racism. However, that didn't make me thing the country was being overrun with white-hating immigrants / sons of immigrants, it just made me think those particular people were aholes. If we were to take all British Pakistanis and segregate them - as per your desire - I don't quite think that will solve the problem.As for your idea of thinking that the solution is all about more integration not less good luck with that.Especially if you intend to start calling anyone amongst the indigenous population who decides to move out when large scale immigration moves in and/or those immigrant populations who ( rightly ) want to keep to their own cultures and ethnic groups racist a
holes.Everything which you've said there shows why the integrationists are the problem and who the real racists are.As for so called Ghettoes they are actually just a reflection of the type of society which goes with the territory of the ethnic African culture.Going by your logic you seem to be saying lets take the integrationist agenda a step further by making white flight a race hate crime.As opposed to calling it as it is in being just a reflection of the natural order of human nature in the form of ethnic segregation.
IE the ethnic African community can shout as as much as it likes about 'integration' with the ethnic white European cultures but nothing on this earth will make that any more acceptable to those other communities.Wether they be Polish/Slavic,Irish or English for just three examples bearing in mind that they also all prefer the idea of segregation even amongst themselves let alone the ethnic African population.
You can then add to that the obvious issues of the ethnic African population not really knowing wether it wants integration or segregation,certainly in the case of policing,and the Asian population to which the idea of ethnic integration is ( rightly ) generally just as abhorrent as it is to the ethnic European cultures.
The fact is you're trying to sell a failed socialist ideology and unfortunately you've got human nature and history against you.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/983191...
www.datacenterresearch.org/pre-katrina/tertiary/wh...
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 30th November 16:08
vonuber said:
There's a difference between clearing drains and dredging a river. For what it is worth, everything I design is generally on the basis that maintenance won't be undertaken as it generally never is - therefore I like to be more conservative in design and allow for that little bit extra.
Oh and to answer your other question - Civil Engineering (Bachelors) & Water Engineering (Masters) - both from University of Birmingham over a decade ago.
Thanks for the answer.Oh and to answer your other question - Civil Engineering (Bachelors) & Water Engineering (Masters) - both from University of Birmingham over a decade ago.
After the floods I noticed that you, and several others who were clearly knowledgeable, were saying the same thing.
I looked at a couple of University web sites, and noticed that the hydrology courses all incorporated three EU directives. I cannot find these pages now, but I suspect that young students are being brainwashed about the benefits of these directives. As most of the jobs in hydrology are with the EA. the universities have no choice in the matter.
Anyway, we better get back on topic before FiF gives us another telling off!
What makes you think that current UKIP policies would have prevented your grandparents moving here?
XJ Flyer said:
As for your idea of thinking that the solution is all about more integration not less good luck with that.Especially if you intend to start calling anyone amongst the indigenous population who decides to move out when large scale immigration moves in and/or those immigrant populations who ( rightly ) want to keep to their own cultures and ethnic groups racist aholes.Everything which you've said there shows why the integrationists are the problem and who the real racists are.
So I'm racist against white British people who want racial segregation, and think those who have "taken over" some small areas of the country (mostly run-down s**tholes that WMC people refuse to live in anyway) should be walled in or shipped "home"? If the definition of racism is someone who thinks a certain type of people are below them, then yes - I am racist against bigoted morons who peddle xenophobic garbage. holes.Everything which you've said there shows why the integrationists are the problem and who the real racists are.XJ Flyer said:
As for so called Ghettoes they are actually just a reflection of the type of society which goes with the territory of the ethnic African culture.Going by your logic you seem to be saying lets take the integrationist agenda a step further by making white flight a race hate crime.As opposed to calling it as it is in being just a reflection of the natural order of human nature in the form of ethnic segregation.
No, you're talking rubbish again. You are seeing an effect and defining it as the cause. Your last sentence is especially offensive: I don't know if you have ever denied being a racist, but that right there is a blatant admission of prejudice if I ever saw one.CamMoreRon said:
XJ Flyer said:
As for your idea of thinking that the solution is all about more integration not less good luck with that.Especially if you intend to start calling anyone amongst the indigenous population who decides to move out when large scale immigration moves in and/or those immigrant populations who ( rightly ) want to keep to their own cultures and ethnic groups racist aholes.Everything which you've said there shows why the integrationists are the problem and who the real racists are.
So I'm racist against white British people who want racial segregation, and think those who have "taken over" some small areas of the country (mostly run-down s**tholes that WMC people refuse to live in anyway) should be walled in or shipped "home"? If the definition of racism is someone who thinks a certain type of people are below them, then yes - I am racist against bigoted morons who peddle xenophobic garbage. holes.Everything which you've said there shows why the integrationists are the problem and who the real racists are.XJ Flyer said:
As for so called Ghettoes they are actually just a reflection of the type of society which goes with the territory of the ethnic African culture.Going by your logic you seem to be saying lets take the integrationist agenda a step further by making white flight a race hate crime.As opposed to calling it as it is in being just a reflection of the natural order of human nature in the form of ethnic segregation.
No, you're talking rubbish again. You are seeing an effect and defining it as the cause. Your last sentence is especially offensive: I don't know if you have ever denied being a racist, but that right there is a blatant admission of prejudice if I ever saw one.If you think that I'm confusing cause and effect then go ahead try to finish your obviously integrationist agenda by the logical conclusion of stopping anyone living in,or moving out of,or into,an area,based on ethnic demographics being that you obviously consider such movement as 'racist'.
As I said it will be interesting to see what happens if/when you obviously start that process in the inter ethnic mix of the USA and that's just trying to integrate examples like the Polish communities with the Irish ones let alone the Polish with the African American for example.On that note I'd suggest you read the articles which I posted.
XJ Flyer said:
If you think that I'm confusing cause and effect then go ahead try to finish your obviously integrationist agenda by the logical conclusion of stopping anyone living in,or moving out of,or into,an area,based on ethnic demographics being that you obviously consider such movement as 'racist'.
Natural movement of people is not racism; trying to suggest that "white areas" and "coloured areas" is the only way that different races / cultures can coexist is.XJ Flyer said:
As I said it will be interesting to see what happens if/when you obviously start that process in the inter ethnic mix of the USA and that's just trying to integrate examples like the Polish communities with the Irish ones let alone the Polish with the African American for example.On that note I'd suggest you read the articles which I posted.
Would those articles be the "I feel like a stranger in my own town" sensationalist scare stories of people who don't like the number of new faces appearing around them? If so, I'd rather save my blood pressure: nothing positive will come of reading such garbage.CamMoreRon said:
XJ Flyer said:
If you think that I'm confusing cause and effect then go ahead try to finish your obviously integrationist agenda by the logical conclusion of stopping anyone living in,or moving out of,or into,an area,based on ethnic demographics being that you obviously consider such movement as 'racist'.
Natural movement of people is not racism; trying to suggest that "white areas" and "coloured areas" is the only way that different races / cultures can coexist is.XJ Flyer said:
As I said it will be interesting to see what happens if/when you obviously start that process in the inter ethnic mix of the USA and that's just trying to integrate examples like the Polish communities with the Irish ones let alone the Polish with the African American for example.On that note I'd suggest you read the articles which I posted.
Would those articles be the "I feel like a stranger in my own town" sensationalist scare stories of people who don't like the number of new faces appearing around them? If so, I'd rather save my blood pressure: nothing positive will come of reading such garbage.Your answer to the articles as provided seems like a case of the same.IE someone telling you that they've made their choices based on ethnic demographic lines is an unacceptable statement therefore must be ignored because it is too inconvenient to your agenda.
So I'll ask again assuming someone states that they choose to base where they live and/or the choice of moving in,or moving out of,an area,in large part along ethnic lines,are you saying that they should be denied that choice and freedom of movement.On the grounds of it being considered that anything which goes against the idea of ethnic integration is to be considered as racist.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 30th November 22:36
XJ Flyer said:
So you've avoided the issue by trying to suggest that 'white flight' and all the other examples of demographics based on ethnic lines is just natural movement of people which conveniently for your agenda has nothing to do with natural ethnic segregation.
No, I've just pointed out that it isn't because of an influx of immigrants that WMC's (your "indigenous population") leave certain areas, it is for other reasons. Often because they become s**tholes and / or the work moves elsewhere. Once that happens, property value falls and the cheap accomodation goes to those that seek such things.XJ Flyer said:
So I'll ask again assuming someone states that they choose to base where they live and/or the choice of moving in,or moving out of,an area,in large part along ethnic lines,are you saying that they should be denied that choice and freedom of movement.On the grounds of it being considered that anything which goes against the idea of ethnic integration is to be considered as racist.
I haven't said anyone should be denied a choice, so I don't know where you got that from. I will say categorically that someone who leaves an area because of a rising population of unfamiliar faces is a xenophobe at best. Whether or not they are racist depends on other factors, but is not unreasonable to consider it par for the course.CamMoreRon said:
XJ Flyer said:
So you've avoided the issue by trying to suggest that 'white flight' and all the other examples of demographics based on ethnic lines is just natural movement of people which conveniently for your agenda has nothing to do with natural ethnic segregation.
No, I've just pointed out that it isn't because of an influx of immigrants that WMC's (your "indigenous population") leave certain areas, it is for other reasons. Often because they become s**tholes and / or the work moves elsewhere. Once that happens, property value falls and the cheap accomodation goes to those that seek such things.XJ Flyer said:
So I'll ask again assuming someone states that they choose to base where they live and/or the choice of moving in,or moving out of,an area,in large part along ethnic lines,are you saying that they should be denied that choice and freedom of movement.On the grounds of it being considered that anything which goes against the idea of ethnic integration is to be considered as racist.
I haven't said anyone should be denied a choice, so I don't know where you got that from. I will say categorically that someone who leaves an area because of a rising population of unfamiliar faces is a xenophobe at best. Whether or not they are racist depends on other factors, but is not unreasonable to consider it par for the course.As opposed to the natural order of each to their own based on ethnic lines and on the idea of the nation state or its emigrant ex pat populations and communities/societies.
The difference being that under the latter view,as in my case,I certainly wouldn't want to live in those ethnically different parts of the country.Just as all those differently ethnic parts of the US are different for a reason.Which as I've said is the real definition of multi cultural/multi societal being that 'society' can't be seperated from 'culture' because they are both the same thing.
While your answer would be to integrate all those different cultures/societies and if they show any resistance based on ethnic lines call them xenophobes at best or racist a
holes depending on other abitrary factors.Which seems to sum up everything that is wrong about the integrationist/socialist mindset. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff