Calling people out as racists, bigots and Naz!s just because they happen to disagree with your views on certain political themes is not respectful or positive and there has been a lot of it coming from the left; on here, in protest marches, in the media, from members of the government.
======
Disagree with this and honestly don't understand the logic behind these claims. You are trying to limit freedom of speech. Obviously some things are wrongly labeled sometimes but overall when I see something being labeled racist it's usually the case and an accurate description of what happened.
To me it seems like people want to get away with saying nasty stuff by playing the victim. If someone thinks you are racist or bigoted why don't our want to silence them?
comment by RB&W - Our representative on the pitch (U21434)
posted 53 minutes ago
Both ends of the argument arent bolux are they. Racism, xenophobia, unprovoked violence (kick the chite out of him cos hes a darkie FFS) tyranny, exclusion, fear, terror etc etc that you peddle is bolux.The otherside of peace, unity, diversity, inclusion, tollerance, respect, etc, you know all the wokey snowflake stuff thst you laugh at, is positive. And you know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify,
My reference is how the issues are presented at the extreme ends. Both typified by lies, misrepresentation and unfounded judgements.
It is as much a misleading statement to make that all immigrants are hamrful to this country as it is to state that someone is a racists simply because they believe that immigration policy needs changing. Both utterly bollox positions to take IMO
There are a ton of people in the middle of those extremes who are willing to explore the pros and cons without resorting to such extreme judgement/conclusions.
Hoody for example has compared me to the naazis and made a wildly incorrect statement about asylum seekers to support his further insults. Insulting, inaccurate and made up 'facts'. That's the extreme end of the left argument I am referring to. He hasnt simply expressed a view that he believes immigration causes no harmful impacts, he's gone on to attack anyone who doesnt share that view.
My reference is how the issues are presented at the extreme ends. Both typified by lies, misrepresentation and unfounded judgement
======
This just isn't true though, no matter how desperate you are fornut to be true. Of course there's lies in politics but it's not the same on both sides. Deluding yourself that it's the same is illogical. Your views have been expressed across multiple threads over the years. This new both sides angle you're now coming out with is actually hilarious.
There is no both sides.
comment by No Løve - Play stoopid games win stoopi... (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
Calling people out as racists, bigots and Naz!s just because they happen to disagree with your views on certain political themes is not respectful or positive and there has been a lot of it coming from the left; on here, in protest marches, in the media, from members of the government.
======
Disagree with this and honestly don't understand the logic behind these claims. You are trying to limit freedom of speech. Obviously some things are wrongly labeled sometimes but overall when I see something being labeled racist it's usually the case and an accurate description of what happened.
To me it seems like people want to get away with saying nasty stuff by playing the victim. If someone thinks you are racist or bigoted why don't our want to silence them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom of speech to go around calling anyone you fancy a racist, bigot, facist of naazi.
Youi want to call me any of those names I will challenge you why.
I asked you above, what opinions have i shared to reach those judgements on me?
and the reason why i ask this is because, unlike some who chuck such insults around like cheap confetti, I take those words seriously.
Hoody for example has compared me to the naazis and made a wildly incorrect statement about asylum seekers to support his further insults.
=====
Freedom of speech. If that's what he thinks then you cannot censor him. And you make incorrect statements to support your claims all the time too, so I don't know why you keep going on about that.
I would call this playing the victim but I am afraid you might get offended by that as well.
Freedom of speech to go around calling anyone you fancy a racist, bigot, facist of naazi.
=====
It's not just anyone. It's people who deserve it. If you don't want to to be compared to natzis then don't say things that are comparable to natzis.
If you do and someone thinks it's comparable then why you try to silence them by playing a victim?
Youi want to call me any of those names I will challenge you why
====
Of course. It's your right to challenge whatever you want, but you can't bring in censorship by claiming people's views are unfair to you or hurtful to you. If I think something is racist I want to be able to express that opinion freely.
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 seconds ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's just the last few days. I remember a debate I had with him where he defended Tommy Robinson for days.
*Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR is racist
There you have it Dev, the tolerant, respectful and inclusive members of the left on this forum think you're a massive naazi!
Bang to rights (excuse the pun!)
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.
The FACT is that the current policy here (& in most other countries) reflects that immigrants do not have the same rights as citizens. They have to earn them.
5 years. Labour increased that to 10 years. Reform increasing that to indefinite (it doesnt stop people for applying for citizenship!!!)
If it is racist to limit an immigrants rights, so they are treated different to natural citizens, then much of immigration policy is inherently racist.
How is Labours policy not racist? Surely they are persecuting immigrants by limiting their rights, right? and Reforms persecutes them even more!
I think current policy, or that proposed by Labour and Reforms isnt racist. They are all on the same spectrum of possible solutions to address the same perceived issue.
As stated I don't believe Reforms policy is fair or desirable. I also think Labours is too harsh, 10 years is a long time. I think there is a compromise in there somewhere to serve both the individual and the country's needs more fairly.
comment by No Løve - Play stoopid games win stoopi... (U1282)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 seconds ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's just the last few days. I remember a debate I had with him where he defended Tommy Robinson for days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never defended TR. Go back and read the London march thread. And when you find nothing to support your misinformation and lies, it will just prove my point that the propensity to BS at both ends of the argument is rife!
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 5 minutes ago
There you have it Dev, the tolerant, respectful and inclusive members of the left on this forum think you're a massive naazi!
Bang to rights (excuse the pun!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know. They just keep proving me right and don't even see it.
The closest i ever got to naazis was speaking with my grandad when i was a young lad about WW2. He was one of the first ally soldiers to enter Hitler's bunker. He had some amazing tales but didnt share much and i am sad that i couldnt have the same conversations with him as a grown up because it would have been fascinating. My G'ma said he was a very different person after the war, saw a lot of truly horrific things, never the same person he was b4. I feel i have a little bit of perspective when people start throwing around such claims so cheaply. Ignorant!
Dev
"Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.*
Correct, it shouldn't need explaining. You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?
Followed by paragraphs of whataboutery and word salad. Usual tactics from you. Reforms policy isn't comparable to Labours
Not the most self aware person are you?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
Dev
"Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.*
Correct, it shouldn't need explaining. You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?
Followed by paragraphs of whataboutery and word salad. Usual tactics from you. Reforms policy isn't comparable to Labours
Not the most self aware person are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Ive explained why.
How about you explain your position. If you can?
Racist? Why?
You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by No Løve - Play stoopid games win stoopi... (U1282)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 seconds ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's just the last few days. I remember a debate I had with him where he defended Tommy Robinson for days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never defended TR. Go back and read the London march thread. And when you find nothing to support your misinformation and lies, it will just prove my point that the propensity to BS at both ends of the argument is rife!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending days telling anyone reading that the majority on the TR march were just there with 'legitimate concerns' based off a few vox pops probably also doesn't help with how you're perceived on here.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
Dev
"Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.*
Correct, it shouldn't need explaining. You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?
Followed by paragraphs of whataboutery and word salad. Usual tactics from you. Reforms policy isn't comparable to Labours
Not the most self aware person are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Ive explained why.
How about you explain your position. If you can?
Racist? Why?
You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also claimed Reform aren't using force until I posted a quote of Zia Yusef saying that's exactly what they'd do.
I've also explained why I think its racist.
"You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer."
The amount of time you spend arguing semantics over something you claim not to be. No wonder people on here aren't convinced
Also interesting that you deem my view that even Labours policy goes too far as "word salad".
Genuine attempt to share my perspective on the proposed and possible solutions dismissed as "salad".
Also...mentioned before. Where in Reforms policy does it say they will be removed by force? You make it sound like a night club, which is probably the image you have in your head, a couple of Robinson's thugs dragging foreigners out by their ears and kicking them out of the doors of the country.
Only the second time I've posted this;
"Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf argued the changes would lead to "hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK".
"Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits," he said.
"Those that don't will be subject to immigration enforcement as part of our mass deportation programme."
Where does of say they'll be removed by force he says
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
Dev
"Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.*
Correct, it shouldn't need explaining. You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?
Followed by paragraphs of whataboutery and word salad. Usual tactics from you. Reforms policy isn't comparable to Labours
Not the most self aware person are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Ive explained why.
How about you explain your position. If you can?
Racist? Why?
You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also claimed Reform aren't using force until I posted a quote of Zia Yusef saying that's exactly what they'd do.
I've also explained why I think its racist.
"You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer."
The amount of time you spend arguing semantics over something you claim not to be. No wonder people on here aren't convinced
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. what link? Dont recall a link showing Yusef saying that they will "use force" to remove anyone.
2. and no. You havent explained why you believe its racist. You firstly said "shouldnt have to explained" and then said "You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?"
Neither are an explanation.
I have seen you refuse to answer when chllanged on many thing. Please explain to me. Think of it as educating this old racist immigrant hater if it makes yu feel any better.
If you dont, then fine I'll leave it at that. Not going down that rabbit hole with you again.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
Only the second time I've posted this;
"Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf argued the changes would lead to "hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK".
"Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits," he said.
"Those that don't will be subject to immigration enforcement as part of our mass deportation programme."
Where does of say they'll be removed by force he says
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you are reading "enforcement" as "by force".
If people not allowed to stay here now, say a failed asylum seeker, has to leave and they don't, they will be subject to immigration enforcement. Its just the terminology its not a threat of violence
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
Only the second time I've posted this;
"Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf argued the changes would lead to "hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK".
"Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits," he said.
"Those that don't will be subject to immigration enforcement as part of our mass deportation programme."
Where does of say they'll be removed by force he says
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you are reading "enforcement" as "by force".
If people not allowed to stay here now, say a failed asylum seeker, has to leave and they don't, they will be subject to immigration enforcement. Its just the terminology its not a threat of violence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did I mention violence?
Enforcement and mass deportation are words you're comfortable with. You're also comfortable with families being separated against their will? (if you prefer)
You will argue anything FFS.
Dev
I heard a guy on the radio the other day say 'It's become more offensive to call out racism than the actual racism itself'.
This is true, all propogated by whom? The Yaxley Lennon's and Farages of the RW spectrum. You keep aligning yourself with that then asking why people think you're racist
Sign in if you want to comment
Gary Neville
Page 34 of 50
35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39
posted 4 weeks ago
Calling people out as racists, bigots and Naz!s just because they happen to disagree with your views on certain political themes is not respectful or positive and there has been a lot of it coming from the left; on here, in protest marches, in the media, from members of the government.
======
Disagree with this and honestly don't understand the logic behind these claims. You are trying to limit freedom of speech. Obviously some things are wrongly labeled sometimes but overall when I see something being labeled racist it's usually the case and an accurate description of what happened.
To me it seems like people want to get away with saying nasty stuff by playing the victim. If someone thinks you are racist or bigoted why don't our want to silence them?
posted 4 weeks ago
*do you
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by RB&W - Our representative on the pitch (U21434)
posted 53 minutes ago
Both ends of the argument arent bolux are they. Racism, xenophobia, unprovoked violence (kick the chite out of him cos hes a darkie FFS) tyranny, exclusion, fear, terror etc etc that you peddle is bolux.The otherside of peace, unity, diversity, inclusion, tollerance, respect, etc, you know all the wokey snowflake stuff thst you laugh at, is positive. And you know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify,
My reference is how the issues are presented at the extreme ends. Both typified by lies, misrepresentation and unfounded judgements.
It is as much a misleading statement to make that all immigrants are hamrful to this country as it is to state that someone is a racists simply because they believe that immigration policy needs changing. Both utterly bollox positions to take IMO
There are a ton of people in the middle of those extremes who are willing to explore the pros and cons without resorting to such extreme judgement/conclusions.
Hoody for example has compared me to the naazis and made a wildly incorrect statement about asylum seekers to support his further insults. Insulting, inaccurate and made up 'facts'. That's the extreme end of the left argument I am referring to. He hasnt simply expressed a view that he believes immigration causes no harmful impacts, he's gone on to attack anyone who doesnt share that view.
posted 4 weeks ago
My reference is how the issues are presented at the extreme ends. Both typified by lies, misrepresentation and unfounded judgement
======
This just isn't true though, no matter how desperate you are fornut to be true. Of course there's lies in politics but it's not the same on both sides. Deluding yourself that it's the same is illogical. Your views have been expressed across multiple threads over the years. This new both sides angle you're now coming out with is actually hilarious.
There is no both sides.
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by No Løve - Play stoopid games win stoopi... (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
Calling people out as racists, bigots and Naz!s just because they happen to disagree with your views on certain political themes is not respectful or positive and there has been a lot of it coming from the left; on here, in protest marches, in the media, from members of the government.
======
Disagree with this and honestly don't understand the logic behind these claims. You are trying to limit freedom of speech. Obviously some things are wrongly labeled sometimes but overall when I see something being labeled racist it's usually the case and an accurate description of what happened.
To me it seems like people want to get away with saying nasty stuff by playing the victim. If someone thinks you are racist or bigoted why don't our want to silence them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom of speech to go around calling anyone you fancy a racist, bigot, facist of naazi.
Youi want to call me any of those names I will challenge you why.
I asked you above, what opinions have i shared to reach those judgements on me?
and the reason why i ask this is because, unlike some who chuck such insults around like cheap confetti, I take those words seriously.
posted 4 weeks ago
Hoody for example has compared me to the naazis and made a wildly incorrect statement about asylum seekers to support his further insults.
=====
Freedom of speech. If that's what he thinks then you cannot censor him. And you make incorrect statements to support your claims all the time too, so I don't know why you keep going on about that.
I would call this playing the victim but I am afraid you might get offended by that as well.
posted 4 weeks ago
Freedom of speech to go around calling anyone you fancy a racist, bigot, facist of naazi.
=====
It's not just anyone. It's people who deserve it. If you don't want to to be compared to natzis then don't say things that are comparable to natzis.
If you do and someone thinks it's comparable then why you try to silence them by playing a victim?
posted 4 weeks ago
Youi want to call me any of those names I will challenge you why
====
Of course. It's your right to challenge whatever you want, but you can't bring in censorship by claiming people's views are unfair to you or hurtful to you. If I think something is racist I want to be able to express that opinion freely.
posted 4 weeks ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 seconds ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's just the last few days. I remember a debate I had with him where he defended Tommy Robinson for days.
posted 4 weeks ago
*Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR is racist
posted 4 weeks ago
There you have it Dev, the tolerant, respectful and inclusive members of the left on this forum think you're a massive naazi!
Bang to rights (excuse the pun!)
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.
The FACT is that the current policy here (& in most other countries) reflects that immigrants do not have the same rights as citizens. They have to earn them.
5 years. Labour increased that to 10 years. Reform increasing that to indefinite (it doesnt stop people for applying for citizenship!!!)
If it is racist to limit an immigrants rights, so they are treated different to natural citizens, then much of immigration policy is inherently racist.
How is Labours policy not racist? Surely they are persecuting immigrants by limiting their rights, right? and Reforms persecutes them even more!
I think current policy, or that proposed by Labour and Reforms isnt racist. They are all on the same spectrum of possible solutions to address the same perceived issue.
As stated I don't believe Reforms policy is fair or desirable. I also think Labours is too harsh, 10 years is a long time. I think there is a compromise in there somewhere to serve both the individual and the country's needs more fairly.
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by No Løve - Play stoopid games win stoopi... (U1282)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 seconds ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's just the last few days. I remember a debate I had with him where he defended Tommy Robinson for days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never defended TR. Go back and read the London march thread. And when you find nothing to support your misinformation and lies, it will just prove my point that the propensity to BS at both ends of the argument is rife!
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 5 minutes ago
There you have it Dev, the tolerant, respectful and inclusive members of the left on this forum think you're a massive naazi!
Bang to rights (excuse the pun!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know. They just keep proving me right and don't even see it.
The closest i ever got to naazis was speaking with my grandad when i was a young lad about WW2. He was one of the first ally soldiers to enter Hitler's bunker. He had some amazing tales but didnt share much and i am sad that i couldnt have the same conversations with him as a grown up because it would have been fascinating. My G'ma said he was a very different person after the war, saw a lot of truly horrific things, never the same person he was b4. I feel i have a little bit of perspective when people start throwing around such claims so cheaply. Ignorant!
posted 4 weeks ago
Dev
"Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.*
Correct, it shouldn't need explaining. You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?
Followed by paragraphs of whataboutery and word salad. Usual tactics from you. Reforms policy isn't comparable to Labours
Not the most self aware person are you?
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
Dev
"Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.*
Correct, it shouldn't need explaining. You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?
Followed by paragraphs of whataboutery and word salad. Usual tactics from you. Reforms policy isn't comparable to Labours
Not the most self aware person are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Ive explained why.
How about you explain your position. If you can?
Racist? Why?
You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer.
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by No Løve - Play stoopid games win stoopi... (U1282)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 seconds ago
Dev
Saying you don't think Farage's, and Reforms, policy on ILR isn't racist and they haven't said they will force people to leave, when they blatantly have, doesn't help the way you're perceived on here. Neither does saying you agree with Trump on Sadiq Khan then having to walk back you not meaning the racist and blatantly false part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's just the last few days. I remember a debate I had with him where he defended Tommy Robinson for days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never defended TR. Go back and read the London march thread. And when you find nothing to support your misinformation and lies, it will just prove my point that the propensity to BS at both ends of the argument is rife!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending days telling anyone reading that the majority on the TR march were just there with 'legitimate concerns' based off a few vox pops probably also doesn't help with how you're perceived on here.
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
Dev
"Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.*
Correct, it shouldn't need explaining. You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?
Followed by paragraphs of whataboutery and word salad. Usual tactics from you. Reforms policy isn't comparable to Labours
Not the most self aware person are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Ive explained why.
How about you explain your position. If you can?
Racist? Why?
You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also claimed Reform aren't using force until I posted a quote of Zia Yusef saying that's exactly what they'd do.
I've also explained why I think its racist.
"You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer."
The amount of time you spend arguing semantics over something you claim not to be. No wonder people on here aren't convinced
posted 4 weeks ago
Also interesting that you deem my view that even Labours policy goes too far as "word salad".
Genuine attempt to share my perspective on the proposed and possible solutions dismissed as "salad".
Also...mentioned before. Where in Reforms policy does it say they will be removed by force? You make it sound like a night club, which is probably the image you have in your head, a couple of Robinson's thugs dragging foreigners out by their ears and kicking them out of the doors of the country.
posted 4 weeks ago
Only the second time I've posted this;
"Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf argued the changes would lead to "hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK".
"Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits," he said.
"Those that don't will be subject to immigration enforcement as part of our mass deportation programme."
Where does of say they'll be removed by force he says
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
Dev
"Firstly i asked you to explain why its racist...you didnt answer as usual. the usual "well if it needs explaining..." BS from you.*
Correct, it shouldn't need explaining. You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?
Followed by paragraphs of whataboutery and word salad. Usual tactics from you. Reforms policy isn't comparable to Labours
Not the most self aware person are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Ive explained why.
How about you explain your position. If you can?
Racist? Why?
You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also claimed Reform aren't using force until I posted a quote of Zia Yusef saying that's exactly what they'd do.
I've also explained why I think its racist.
"You know what racism is, right? Maybe google it first to inform the explanation of your position, that's if you break the habit of a life time and actually give an answer."
The amount of time you spend arguing semantics over something you claim not to be. No wonder people on here aren't convinced
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. what link? Dont recall a link showing Yusef saying that they will "use force" to remove anyone.
2. and no. You havent explained why you believe its racist. You firstly said "shouldnt have to explained" and then said "You really don't think removing people with existing ILR by force, if they don't meet Reforms revised criteria, is racist?"
Neither are an explanation.
I have seen you refuse to answer when chllanged on many thing. Please explain to me. Think of it as educating this old racist immigrant hater if it makes yu feel any better.
If you dont, then fine I'll leave it at that. Not going down that rabbit hole with you again.
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
Only the second time I've posted this;
"Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf argued the changes would lead to "hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK".
"Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits," he said.
"Those that don't will be subject to immigration enforcement as part of our mass deportation programme."
Where does of say they'll be removed by force he says
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you are reading "enforcement" as "by force".
If people not allowed to stay here now, say a failed asylum seeker, has to leave and they don't, they will be subject to immigration enforcement. Its just the terminology its not a threat of violence
posted 4 weeks ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
Only the second time I've posted this;
"Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf argued the changes would lead to "hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK".
"Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits," he said.
"Those that don't will be subject to immigration enforcement as part of our mass deportation programme."
Where does of say they'll be removed by force he says
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you are reading "enforcement" as "by force".
If people not allowed to stay here now, say a failed asylum seeker, has to leave and they don't, they will be subject to immigration enforcement. Its just the terminology its not a threat of violence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did I mention violence?
Enforcement and mass deportation are words you're comfortable with. You're also comfortable with families being separated against their will? (if you prefer)
You will argue anything FFS.
posted 4 weeks ago
Dev
I heard a guy on the radio the other day say 'It's become more offensive to call out racism than the actual racism itself'.
This is true, all propogated by whom? The Yaxley Lennon's and Farages of the RW spectrum. You keep aligning yourself with that then asking why people think you're racist
Page 34 of 50
35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39