I believe that your continuous stream of bile and offense should be seen and heard. All I do is cast a light on your words and comments that show you up for what you are, and you don't like. You chaps have said and defended the most disgusting things on here, that completely contradict the virtue signalling you do as you accidently reveal the reality of your rather unpleasant views. You have never pointed out a lie I have said, so I am quite comfortable that I am not the one talking rubbish. The fact that you guys are the more abusive and least open to discussion of ideas they disagree with is very telling, as are your constant efforts to get me banned, or to pile on when I make a comment you don't like. In my opinion, you are everything that is wrong with the world, when you get on this thread. I don't believe for a moment that any of you are as unpleasant in real life as you portray yourselves on here. Is this the second or third time (in the last twent four hours) you have tried to rally the troops to get me chucked off the forum? You are such a defeatist. If your views stood up to scrutiny, you wouldn't have to try to get me shut up. But I do understand why you have to give in so easily. Try saying something to me without adding an insult. You know you will get a civil answer.
Yep. Put him on ignore, let him yell into the abyss. There's no honesty or rational discussion to be had. All it does is derail threads with nonsense.
Sounds very much like a rebuttal to me. Do I feel they can't defend themselves? Absolutely not. Do I want to call out behaviour which I feel is wrong? Absolutely. You'd argue with a brick wall with an arrow pointing left painted on it. So which is it HenryHypocrite? Are you against the division of people or for it? It's not so much that I was unable to do so, it's more that I believe it's more complex than that - there are countries that are ravaged by war, but there are also countries where things are deeper, countries with bad human rights records where people can be persecuted for their beliefs. Both need help, despite your attempts at division that you claim to be so against. Please provide me evidence where I've ever said that. I'll await your apology. I never said that you said people should be treated contrary to the law. I did however say that you didn't know the laws around immigration which you had proved with your false beliefs around safe countries and the belief that migrants should claim asylum before coming here - which simply isn't possible to do within our current legal setup. HenryHypocrite at it again, everything you claim to be and everything you say are often complete opposites, the lack of self-awareness is staggering.
That is because you don't know what you are talking about, and clearly do not know what rebuttal is. See what I mean about arguing with people who don't know what they are talking about. Yes, but perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the facts before doing so. Would you ever call East African Asians c***s? Or defend a person who said such a thing? That is the major thing I am referring to when I say about their extreme views, that were previously considered right wing. And you would refuse life saving medical aid if the Doctor's name was Boris. Do you see how pathetic and reactionary you are being? Are you starting to understand why I don't take you seriously? That is about as non-sequitor as it is possible to get. If you accused me of anything I had actually said, then I would do my best to respond. But the misheva above is beyond comprehension. So again, I'll return to the original issue, in which you compared my comments to treating people differently under law, and I'll ask you to respond to my unanswered question again. Where have I suggested people be treated outside of the law? You make a point later that you never said this, but it is the only inference that can be taken from the argument you make. If you are saying that your moral outlook trumps the law, then I'll say the same for mine. It is not an argument, it is an accusation that the law will not be applied evenly because people like me can't be trusted. I am not going to apologise to you for something I said to Moose now, am I? Do your research. Check your sources. See what I mean about arguing with people who don't know what they are talking about. Very much looking forward to receiving your apology ReidsHypocrite. This is a false representation of everything I said, as well as a denial of some very pertinent facts regarding the matter. A person passing illegally through a safe country may lawfully be returned to that country for prosecution. International and national law both require any person, migrant, refugee or holiday maker, to present themselves to officials forthwith after entering a friendly country, and if they do not, they may be returned to that country for prosecution. A person who initiates an asylum request is required to remain in the custody of that country until either accepted or rejected, and if they move on to another country, it is required that they be returned to their original port of call. I do not recall at any time saying that a person could claim asylum in the UK before coming here. Show me where if you are so sure and I will respond. What I did say for certain, repeatedly, which you were unable to process, was that once they were legally in another country, they could apply to come to the UK, which is a fact I am aware of because I have helped family members of friends of mine do exactly that. I linked to this evidence. You being ignorant of it is no excuse for you telling me I am wrong, when the law I quoted agreed with my point of view. Effectively, the opinion I stated was a quotation of the law. Your behaviour, in doing such a thing, was about as uncivil and rude as you can get on a discussion forum. ReidsHypocrite at it again. As I say, treat me civilly, and I will treat you civilly. You have not treated me civilly, so it is hypocrtical of you to expect such from me. Your post has proven how uncivil, how poorly researched, and how hypocritical you are. Once you find out what a rebuttal is, I look forward to hearing from you again. This is a real shame. You obviously put a lot of work into your football analysis. Your treatment of political subjects, however, cast an unfortunate shadow on your methodology. Do you think I should take you more seriously after all that?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rebuttal - "a statement that says that something is not true" I would say Moose saying that he's never held right wing views matches that definition does it not? Of course not - but where did Moose say such things? I am not saying my moral outlook trumps the law - I am saying the law doesn't discriminate between refugees + other asylum seekers, whilst there is a difference between refugees and migrants coming from other countries for different circumstances (persecution etc), both are equally allowed to claim asylum, whereas you claimed here: https://wfcforums.com/index.php?thr...o-be-sent-to-rwanda.59268/page-4#post-3122440 that people from Iran and Iraq were coming here for economic reasons - when both countries have a recent record of persecution and so it would be indeed be fair for their asylum claims to be listened to. This bit is complex - however it's proven in a UK court of law that people coming from safe countries may legally claim asylum here - provided they haven't already claimed asylum elsewhere. I guess when you spout so much nonsense it's easy to forget what you've said, but here's the receipt. I was unable to process it because it makes no sense. Why would you apply for asylum in another country and then apply to move to the UK when you could simply just legally apply for asylum in the UK? If anything it would actually hinder the UK application as you've claimed asylum elsewhere. You don't treat anyone that holds an opposing viewpoint to you civilly, that's been shown time and time again, despite your fake holier than thou claims. Consider this my final exchange with you, like the others I have grown tired of your tone, condescending nature and outright lies and misinformation. You've been blocked for months but I can't help but seeing what nonsense you keep coming back to spout, I've now realised this was a mistake and won't be engaging again.
He made no rebuttle of the things I described, he simply said he had never held right wing views, which is simply a gainsaying only of my conclusion, and not my reasoning. He did not say "I did not defend GoBE", he did not say "I do not support the exploitation of the lowest paid EU workers through the use of freedom of movement to mitigate the weaknesses of the Euro". He did not make a statement that denied those things, and thus made no attempt to rebutt them. You must have missed it. He did not say the c word with regard to East African Asians, but he did attempt to get me banned from the forum for calling the orginal poster a **** for saying such a racist thing on this forum (because I hate racism), he has described non UK members of the commonwealth as black and brown, he has defended CRT (the very definition of racism and an extention of nazi doctrines) against my cirticisms, he has described Malaysia as a third world country, with all the old fashioned derogatory connotations of what a third world country is (for which the term is now all but unused). I am afraid that, to me, that is the epitomy of an old fashioned gammon. You may not agree. Right, so you agree with me then, what is your problem? The only difference is that you consider actions to discourage enonomic migrants to be persecution, and I don't, and you think that everyone coming illegally through friendly countries that will give them asylum is as innocent as the undriven snow. We agree that the law is the law, you just think that breaking the law is OK and we shouldn't be bothered about identifying who is doing it. If people from Iran and Iraq are illegally crossing the channel to escape from France because France is persecuting them, then they should absolutely by given asylum. If they are illegally crossing the channel because they fancy the UK more than they like France, then they are ecomomic migrants, and if they come here having broken International and EU laws, then they should expect to be returned to France. You may wish to waive the laws to accomodate them, but there are many that do not think that such an approach if either practical or appropriate. Yes, I quoted that law too, and I described the circumstances in which that is a perfectly reasonable situation for a person to find themselves in. You just ignored my post on the subject, and have since acted as if I never said it, as your above comment makes abundantly clear. Are you going to apologise for that lack of civility? No you are not ReidsHypocrite. So where is your apology for accusing me of saying something about you that I actually said about Moose? Be the big man Reids. If a person has the where withall to travel legally between countries, it is up to them where they claim asylum. How many times do I have to say that. But according to international law, which I also quoted, people without the where withall to legally travel must present themselves to the authorities in any friendly country they arrive in at the first opportunity. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? You make a valid point here. It was miss-said, but the intent was to say that they can apply to come here from a safe country, which is clear from the context of the comment. Asylum can only be claimed in the country or place that it is being asked from or else it is not asylum. I was incorrect in the words I used. So, after your actual valid point, you then go on to demonstrate you do not have a clue what you are talking about again. I am exclusively talking about people who have illegally entered and then departed a safe country (be it France, or a number of other EU countries), meaning they are no longer refugees, but illegal, or improper, migrants, by definition, because they are not escaping a country that is persecuting them. The whole point of legally claiming asylum in a friendly country, and then applying for residency in the UK, is that they would be doing it legally, and, if they have family or some other imperative, or even work skills that would be welcomed here, they will almost certainly be accepted. Asylum is not granted for people who just want to go to another country. Your argument is simply a rejection of International and national law in favour of dangerous illegal immigration where individuals put themselves and on occasions their families at rixk. If they have passports and are travelling legally, they are travellers, and may claim asylum when they arrive here. Do you not understand that? Do you understand that I have absolutely no problem with people arriving in such a manner? These people are not the people I am concerned with. Please acknowledge that this is something I have said repeatedly, but has not, until hopefully this moment, sunk in to your conciousness. It is people in this situation that the UK courts recognised, and rightfully so. But if they have travelled illegally through friendly countries, we are entitled, as an internationally utilised method of discouragement for illegal economic migrancy, to return them to the countries they came from, or, under laws that are similar in all manner of countries including the EU, we can take whatever steps we deem fit to ensure they end up somewhere that is safe for them to live. Tell you what. Try treating me civilly, and see what kind of reaction you get. Just, please, do not interpret disagreement as a lack of civility, and start Reidsplaining how I am an abusive idiot because I don't see the world the same way you do.
*Pop* That’s the sound of Special Counsel Durham’s balloon bursting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-sussmann-trial-durham-verdict/ https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/31/sussmann-acquitted-trump-special-counsel-00036033 I’m sure he’s got some more Clintonite spies to charge soon though… right? Someone has to keep Fox News and the NY Post in shouty headlines.
The jury's decision is there's to make. You know what happened, you know the game being played. Democracy dies in darkness. And you are celebrating the fact, whether you believe the Republicans would have done the same thing or not. But how long do you think the Clintons and the establishment can maintain their illusion? I suspect, and hope, that their bubble is about to burst, and the easily led sheep, from both sides, who believe that this kind of s***e is acceptable will soon find themselves exposed for tragic userpers of democracy that they are. This establishment is on its way out, with people such as yourself cheering them on. Let's hope the next establishement takes more heed of the people. Remeber your position in a few years when people discuss this historically as an obscene assault on democracy. Remember what you said at the time.
Americans and their guns. A thread. https://twitter.com/johnson__joey/status/1530499953944055814?s=21&t=YdFVpynLfRk99t8CLeVDQQ
Kellyanne Conway was a guest on last night's Daily Show. She was like a robot churning out dog whistles and apolgia for trump even under Trevor Noah's gentle, yet targetted, questions. Well worth searching for online (I won't post links as I always manage to find geo-locked links which are fine for me).
Something that chilled me to the bone - when the latest atrocity was announced someone pointed out that the there had been more school shootings this year than days...
Not school shootings, but mass shootings. I mentioned it on here recently, perhaps it was me you were thinking of when you said someone told you. There is a very good reason why you are not hearing about them, and that is because they do not fit the Democrat/establishment/media narative. So it seems likely you wouldn't want to hear about them anyway. Good to see you are a little bit more woke to it.
In the US, the right do it with guns, the left do it with children. Again, you only complain about one side, like with mass shootings. I am not saying you support it, only that you are selective with what you criticise. Still awaiting your appologies for the uncivil treatment and lies you used about me. Are you a genuine person, or just reidshypocrite? To put it in the language you were using against me.
The US senator of Connecticut, Chris Murphy (who was a congressman for the district in which the Sandy Hook massacre took place and is a very active proponent of gun controls) was on last night's Daily Show stated that there had been 18 mass shootings since the atrocity at Ulvade (24/05/22) but had not had widespread media coverage as they had "...less than 10 or 12 victims..."
Yes, it appears to be so normalised now that only the most shocking are considered news worthy. Four people being shot dead in a hospital is no longer considered headline news now: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61669873
So glad you guys are catching up with me on this. I mentioned this weeks ago, but you only discuss it now because you have been issued your political spin on it. And no, you are not ignoring me. As I have explained before, the reasons you are not hearing about these dreadful events is not the numbers, but their politically inconvenient nature. Mental health appears to be the primary cause, even in the black supremacist attacks, but to say that is to loose the 'white supremacist' argument, and even when there is a white supremacist element to it, the guy only went on to state that he was a left wing authoritarian white supremacist. Which seems to be why the argument has switched from white supremacy to gun control, despite the mental health elephant in the room. There are black and white supremacists, Chinese supremacists, haters of sex workers, disaffected school kids, ati-Semites (from Manchester) etc., and they don't all use guns on their sprees; but the only thing that joins them all in union is there madness. But to call it mental health is racist, according to Democrats who cannot bring themselves to agree with or credit the ideas of anyone that disagrees with them. You see it on here an awful lot. There are many things I have agreed with you guys on, but you lot will ignore or deny reality to avoid agreeing with me...
The US justice department has charged five people with seditious conspiracy, including the leader of the Proud Boys. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/poli...ged-seditious-conspiracy-january-6/index.html
Does that include Enrique Tarrio, the black Hispanic white supremacist FBI informer? So, out of over 800 charges levelled against the 'insurrectionists', after a year and a half of investigation, what is it? 12 charges of sedition? And the one person they pick out from the Proud Boys by name just happens to be an FBI informer who couldn't be there on the day, and is one of the least convincing white supremacist leaders of what has been likened to the new KKK. I'm thinking that these guys "don' need no steeengking badgees" to point out just how dispicably evil they are.
Vaguely related news: on another parish I frequent there's a fairly lengthy thread entitled "Cultural ephemera of recent years now forgotten" and I was just about to post the name of a certain XRW shyte-flinger but I was just catching up with latest POPBITCH when déj* vu reared its ugly head (again):
Trump accused of attempted coup in Congressional Inquiry. And there was an audible gasp in the committee room as Ms Cheney read an account that claimed Mr Trump, when told the rioters were chanting for Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged for refusing to block the election results, suggested that he "deserves it". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61753870
Nancy Pelosi is as senile as Biden. Her gormless comments about the Northern Ireland Protocol prove that. Surely most Americans want to put what happened on Jan 6 behind them now?
31 alt right white supremacists arrested after plans to storm a Pride event... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61773358
Excellent. Put them away, should they prove to have done something illegal. Patriot Front are a group that has been criticised and condemned by everyone else on the right, for their unpleasantly extremist language, and they are strongly considered to be a Fed false flag group, having been given very gracious police assistance at some of the events where they raised their ugly heads, and the lack of information about them.
So day 2 of the Jan 6th committee is supposed to focus on Trumps dereliction of duty. Should be fun seeing him blow up on his social platform later.
The hearings are so ridiculously partisan I'm amazed anyone is paying any attention to them. They're just yet another vehicle for the Democrats to throw sh1t at the Republicans in a desperate attempt to head off a trouncing in the mid-terms later this year.
I see. So had Jeremy Corbyn directed an angry mob at Parliament in an attempt to overturn the 2019 election and that mob had led to five deaths, we’d probably just say no more about it? No inquiry or anything?
Yes, but I wouldn't fill the committee investigating a Corbyn-led mob attack on Parliament (if only!) with known Corbyn haters. And I'd focus the enquiry on how a bunch of hillbillies were able to get through parliamentary security - not just dragging Corbyn through the dirt once again.
