Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: IC1967 on May 20, 2015, 10:51:51 am
-
We will vote to leave the EU.
There are only 3 caveats. The 4 million Europeans already here (4 million!!! I know it's ridiculous) and the other 100's of thousands that come before the referendum can't vote in it. The voting age can't be reduced and the amount of money each side has to spend is the same. No doubt Brussels will want to pump billions into the no campaign.
Now given my incredible powers of prediction you'd be daft to ignore what I'm saying. Those of you in business now have more time to prepare.
Just remember. Who was the only person in the country predicting a Tory majority? Who was the only person years ago predicting deflation for the UK and the Eurozone? That's right it was me.
You know I'll be right again.
-
Dear god what an idiot,the only UKIPPER that thinks Cameron will negotiate Britain out of EU
-
Dear god what an idiot,the only UKIPPER that thinks Cameron will negotiate Britain out of EU
Excuse me. It's not up to Dave, it's up to the great British public whether we stay in or not. The case for pulling out is overwhelming. Dave will only get modest changes that go nowhere near far enough for the majority of the British public.
For example. It's not my major beef with the EU but it seems to be most people's that want out - immigration. There is no way Dave is going get a stop put to freedom of movement of people. That is the only way for us to be able to control the numbers coming here. All he'll get is some modest changes to benefits entitlements. He'll try and dress it up as a major control on immigration. We won't be fooled. A tiny number of immigrants come for our benefits. The number is so small that is is totally irrelevant. It is ludicrous to suggest that tightening up on benefits will control immigration. Those of you that fall for it need to cop yourselves on.
The major parties always dress up making benefits harder to claim as the solution to mass immigration. It isn't and people need to stop falling for it. Unless freedom of movement is ditched we will not be able to control our borders. The overwhelming majority of immigrants come here to work. Nearly all of them get a job. Those that don't tend to go home.
The only way to control our borders is to leave.
I'll be outlining the case for our withdrawal over the coming weeks. By the time I'm finished this won't just be a right wing forum it will be an out of Europe forum as well.
-
I'll just leave this here... :whistle:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Br7kKrGIEAA89wW.jpg:large)
-
Dear god what an idiot,the only UKIPPER that thinks Cameron will negotiate Britain out of EU
Excuse me. It's not up to Dave, it's up to the great British public whether we stay in or not.
Do you know we had an election recently where only a tiny % voted for an anti EU party?Cameron will get only modest changes but they will be enough for him with the aid of all but the loonies on Cameron's right.The then referendum will go through
-
Dear god what an idiot,the only UKIPPER that thinks Cameron will negotiate Britain out of EU
Excuse me. It's not up to Dave, it's up to the great British public whether we stay in or not.
Do you know we had an election recently where only a tiny % voted for an anti EU party?Cameron will get only modest changes but they will be enough for him with the aid of all but the loonies on Cameron's right.The then referendum will go through
Excuse me. There are plenty of people that want out of the EU in all parties. We shall prevail.
You need to do some research as to why we should pull out as you obviously haven't got a clue what you're on about. People like you should not be allowed to vote as you are clueless about the issues involved.
-
I'll just leave this here... :whistle:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Br7kKrGIEAA89wW.jpg:large)
What a load of leftie claptrap. Left to you the people smugglers will make a fortune (and pass on half their profits to ISIS). Many people will die.
At least with my solution of a leaflet drop and a few sunk boats the trade in human misery would soon stop saving countless lives.
Where is your compassion man?
-
Is this the navy of the European Countries whose Union, according to you, we are are about to leave who will stop these boats? Or you and your private navy?
-
He's going to scare them with his words and they'll just stay, apparently. Apparently one leaflet drop and they'll happily condemn themselves to misery and death.
Having read some of Mick's words, I am seriously thinking of moving over there myself. So - who knows? - it might just work. :)
-
He's going to scare them with his words and they'll just stay, apparently. Apparently one leaflet drop and they'll happily condemn themselves to misery and death.
Having read some of Mick's words, I am seriously thinking of moving over there myself. So - who knows? - it might just work. :)
Don't forget the key part of the strategy. A few sunk boats. That would end the misery and death. You want it to carry on with the people traffickers becoming incredibly wealthy and ISIS gaining more funds for their reprehensible activities.
What kind of a human being are you? Why do you want these people to live such miserable lives? Why do you support the people traffickers and ISIS? Why do you want unlimited millions to come here?
Answers man not meaningless platitudes. Get on with it or get an abject apology sorted pronto.
-
Is this the navy of the European Countries whose Union, according to you, we are are about to leave who will stop these boats? Or you and your private navy?
There isn't a navy of the European countries. I don't have a private army.
What are you blathering on about?
-
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
-
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
-
Does anyone know the name of this awful disease Mick seems to have developed? I've become really quite concerned by the increasingly large number of times he seems to be replying to his own posts. Have a look: the incidence of Mick posting to himself is now of stupid proportions.
I suppose it could be that he's so ill disciplined that he can't write all that crap in one post - so it comes out in two. Sort of stream of consciousness type crap you know? Or it could be that his brain is so dreadfully limited that it can't cope with more than a very few thoughts in the space of 20 minutes or so.
Or it could be he's an idiot. What do you reckon?
My money's on the last.
Mick: our Resident Idiot.
Cheers
Bobg
-
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
-
Does anyone know the name of this awful disease Mick seems to have developed? I've become really quite concerned by the increasingly large number of times he seems to be replying to his own posts. Have a look: the incidence of Mick posting to himself is now of stupid proportions.
I suppose it could be that he's so ill disciplined that he can't write all that crap in one post - so it comes out in two. Sort of stream of consciousness type crap you know? Or it could be that his brain is so dreadfully limited that it can't cope with more than a very few thoughts in the space of 20 minutes or so.
Or it could be he's an idiot. What do you reckon?
My money's on the last.
Mick: our Resident Idiot.
Cheers
Bobg
It's called answering every question ever thrown at me. Something you could learn from.
IC1967
-
Poor old Mick. Tied up in knots. Again.
But then, our Resident Idiot has proven, beyond any shadow of doubt, that he's incapable of grasping even a relatively simple concept.
BobG
-
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
How on earth do you come up with that? Your reasoning process is seriously flawed. Look. It's very simple. Until we are out of the EU we have to play by the rules. If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis and let those countries where they land deal with the problem.
Until that day we need to do our bit by sinking a few boats. That's if the EU ever comes around to my way of thinking.
-
Mick shut the feck up and please would those forum users that insist on feeding this knobjockey desist please. :headbang:
-
Do you actually mean sink a few boats with people on them?
-
Do you actually mean sink a few boats with people on them?
And presumably machinegun the survivors. That'd tell 'em. As if those wanting to escape wherever they're trying to get away from would ever find out about what's happening. Or that it would deter them from escaping the sh*t they're already in.
I bet Mick thinks that doing all this in International Waters to ships and boats registered to other countries is a mere technicality as well. Me, I'd be just be waiting for the first inevitable cock-up when the wrong boat is torpedoed and innocent non-refugees are blasted to smithereens.
-
And, of course, he's totally ignoring the fact that the people who are leaving are doing so because they don't actually care whether they live or die. They assume that if they stay then the chances of death are significant, so risking death at sea - with a small chance of surviving - is a chance worth taking.
But a leaflet campaign will resolve this... As ideas go, it's pretty leaky.
-
Do you actually mean sink a few boats with people on them?
Let me summarise the plan for you.
We do a leaflet drop over the affected countries and use whatever media there is to let the immigrants know the following:
You are not welcome in Europe particularly the UK as we are already full and are having to cope with unlimited immigration from the EU already. Last year we had to cope with 300,000 immigrants and it's playing havoc with our public services. Go to another country that is nearer to you in Africa/the Middle East. There you will find that your neighbours are likely to be culturally similar and once the war is over you would have a far better chance of returning home. If you don't do that then it is obvious you are an economic migrant. What you are doing is lining the pockets of unscrupulous people traffickers who are giving half their profits to ISIS. You are also allowing ISIS to smuggle terrorists into Europe via your boats.
If you ignore this excellent advice we will sink your boats until you get the message. We do not want to kill you. It's up to you to do the right thing.
Now there will probably be some people that think we're bluffing and the boat trips will start up soon after the leaflet drop. In these circumstances we need to show we are not bluffing and sink them. There would be a small loss of life but the message would get home. The boats would stop coming and over the medium to long term there would be a lot less loss of life than there would be carrying on as we are. Sometimes you've just got to be cruel to be kind.
Sorted.
-
And further alienate a culture that mistrust' the west already. Good plan.
-
Do you actually mean sink a few boats with people on them?
Let me summarise the plan for you.
We do a leaflet drop over the affected countries and use whatever media there is to let the immigrants know the following:
You are not welcome in Europe particularly the UK as we are already full and are having to cope with unlimited immigration from the EU already. Last year we had to cope with 300,000 immigrants and it's playing havoc with our public services. Go to another country that is nearer to you in Africa/the Middle East. There you will find that your neighbours are likely to be culturally similar and once the war is over you would have a far better chance of returning home. If you don't do that then it is obvious you are an economic migrant. What you are doing is lining the pockets of unscrupulous people traffickers who are giving half their profits to ISIS. You are also allowing ISIS to smuggle terrorists into Europe via your boats.
If you ignore this excellent advice we will sink your boats until you get the message. We do not want to kill you. It's up to you to do the right thing.
Now there will probably be some people that think we're bluffing and the boat trips will start up soon after the leaflet drop. In these circumstances we need to show we are not bluffing and sink them. There would be a small loss of life but the message would get home. The boats would stop coming and over the medium to long term there would be a lot less loss of life than there would be carrying on as we are. Sometimes you've just got to be cruel to be kind.
Sorted.
Erm...how many (and which) affected countries are these? How many different languages would these leaflets need to be printed in? How many would need to be printed to cover the whole of these countries?
And one very big question...what happens when one or more of the leaflet-dropping planes are shot down for invading another country's airspace?
-
Do you actually mean sink a few boats with people on them?
Let me summarise the plan for you.
We do a leaflet drop over the affected countries and use whatever media there is to let the immigrants know the following:
You are not welcome in Europe particularly the UK as we are already full and are having to cope with unlimited immigration from the EU already. Last year we had to cope with 300,000 immigrants and it's playing havoc with our public services. Go to another country that is nearer to you in Africa/the Middle East. There you will find that your neighbours are likely to be culturally similar and once the war is over you would have a far better chance of returning home. If you don't do that then it is obvious you are an economic migrant. What you are doing is lining the pockets of unscrupulous people traffickers who are giving half their profits to ISIS. You are also allowing ISIS to smuggle terrorists into Europe via your boats.
If you ignore this excellent advice we will sink your boats until you get the message. We do not want to kill you. It's up to you to do the right thing.
Now there will probably be some people that think we're bluffing and the boat trips will start up soon after the leaflet drop. In these circumstances we need to show we are not bluffing and sink them. There would be a small loss of life but the message would get home. The boats would stop coming and over the medium to long term there would be a lot less loss of life than there would be carrying on as we are. Sometimes you've just got to be cruel to be kind.
Sorted.
Erm...how many (and which) affected countries are these? How many different languages would these leaflets need to be printed in? How many would need to be printed to cover the whole of these countries?
And one very big question...what happens when one or more of the leaflet-dropping planes are shot down for invading another country's airspace?
What a lot of silly questions. These are minor details that are easily sorted out. You are obviously someone that can't see the wood for the trees. You should try being a big picture sort of person like what I am. I'm a problem solver. You just like to look for problems that aren't there.
Look. It's very simple. My plan would work. No ifs and buts. There would be far less misery and loss of life implementing my plan than letting things carry on as they are.
I notice you lefties haven't come up with a workable plan. Seems like you're quite happy for people to carry on dieing and for the people traffickers to carry on getting richer and for ISIS to benefit financially as well as having a way of getting their terrorists into Europe.
Have you seen the immigration figures this morning? 318,000 increase in the last 12 months. That doesn't take account of the illegal immigrants. That would boost the number considerably. WE ARE FULL.
You lefties need to get a grip and come into the real world.
-
And further alienate a culture that mistrust' the west already. Good plan.
If they are as alienated as you say then why on earth do they want to come here? Why don't they want to go to a neighbouring country where they don't feel alienated?
At least you think its a good plan.
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
Which option would you choose if our plane was shot down then? That was the original question, which you have still run scared from answering.
100%? Pfffft.
-
Is this the navy of the European Countries whose Union, according to you, we are are about to leave who will stop these boats? Or you and your private navy?
There isn't a navy of the European countries. I don't have a private army.
What are you blathering on about?
There is a European Union mission monitoring pirate activities in the Indian Ocean off the Horn of Africa, in essence a European Navy
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
Which option would you choose if our plane was shot down then? That was the original question, which you have still run scared from answering.
100%? Pfffft.
You need to be more specific. It all depends who shot it down and under what circumstances. There's no one general answer that will cover all eventualities which is why your question was deemed silly in the first pace.
100% record still intact.
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
Which option would you choose if our plane was shot down then? That was the original question, which you have still run scared from answering.
100%? Pfffft.
You need to be more specific. It all depends who shot it down and under what circumstances. There's no one general answer that will cover all eventualities which is why your question was deemed silly in the first pace.
100% record still intact.
OK then. It is shot down by the armed forces of the country whose air space our plane is in to deliver your leaflets. They say they shot it down because the plane was not authorised to be in their air space.
There you go.
-
I would presume this plane would have been shot down by the armed forces of the country whose unarmed citizens it was machine gunning - which is not only an act of war but a war crime.
-
Should we purchase the printer cartridges for these leaflets from cartridge world or should we stick with OEM cartridges?
-
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
How on earth do you come up with that? Your reasoning process is seriously flawed. Look. It's very simple. Until we are out of the EU we have to play by the rules. If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis and let those countries where they land deal with the problem.
Until that day we need to do our bit by sinking a few boats. That's if the EU ever comes around to my way of thinking.
No we don't. We are fully entitled to take whatever action we regard as being in our own national interest, as in the Falklands. Therefore by pure deduction, if you say you want us to persuade the EU to intervene, you want us to be in the EU! And you clearly don't know 'the rules'.
Get it. Got it. Good!
And how do you work out that
If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis
are UKIP planning on stopping all ferry, rail and air services with Europe then?
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
Which option would you choose if our plane was shot down then? That was the original question, which you have still run scared from answering.
100%? Pfffft.
You need to be more specific. It all depends who shot it down and under what circumstances. There's no one general answer that will cover all eventualities which is why your question was deemed silly in the first pace.
100% record still intact.
OK then. It is shot down by the armed forces of the country whose air space our plane is in to deliver your leaflets. They say they shot it down because the plane was not authorised to be in their air space.
There you go.
What a silly statement. Obviously you get permission for the leaflet drop first.
Sorted.
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
Which option would you choose if our plane was shot down then? That was the original question, which you have still run scared from answering.
100%? Pfffft.
You need to be more specific. It all depends who shot it down and under what circumstances. There's no one general answer that will cover all eventualities which is why your question was deemed silly in the first pace.
100% record still intact.
OK then. It is shot down by the armed forces of the country whose air space our plane is in to deliver your leaflets. They say they shot it down because the plane was not authorised to be in their air space.
There you go.
What a silly statement. Obviously you get permission for the leaflet drop first.
Sorted.
You',re a right little Houdini aren't you Mick ? As soon as someone pisses on your argument(s) you deem them silly, daft, not up to your intellectual standard etc.
Just hold your hands up occasionally when your arguments no longer hold any water.
No-one will think any less of you than they do already! If you come on here to debate ...then do just that and be prepared to lose as well as win arguments.
You have become a bore...
-
Hoola mate. You've REALLY got to stop being so liberal. You're working on the premise that the person you are speaking to is amenable to rational discussion.
He's not. He's barking mad. Here's the proof.
If he genuinely believes what he writes, then he is barking mad.
If he's been deliberately WUM-ing for 4 years, through (at least) 3 different personas and he genuinely thinks it is side-splittingly funny, he is barking mad.
Conclusion: he is barking mad.
You're not going to appeal to a sensible better nature. You can either get your jollies by kicking the cat, or you can ignore him. Just don't try to appeal to logical discussion with him.
-
I did suggest once we send him to Coventry. Maybe the time has come to revisit that?
Bob
-
Should we purchase the printer cartridges for these leaflets from cartridge world or should we stick with OEM cartridges?
About the ink, is it OEM or cartridge world?
The print run is ready and waiting :-)
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
Which option would you choose if our plane was shot down then? That was the original question, which you have still run scared from answering.
100%? Pfffft.
You need to be more specific. It all depends who shot it down and under what circumstances. There's no one general answer that will cover all eventualities which is why your question was deemed silly in the first pace.
100% record still intact.
OK then. It is shot down by the armed forces of the country whose air space our plane is in to deliver your leaflets. They say they shot it down because the plane was not authorised to be in their air space.
There you go.
What a silly statement. Obviously you get permission for the leaflet drop first.
Sorted.
PMSL. And you expect anyone to take you and your masterplan seriously? :silly:
-
Should we purchase the printer cartridges for these leaflets from cartridge world or should we stick with OEM cartridges?
About the ink, is it OEM or cartridge world?
The print run is ready and waiting :-)
I'm assuming 'cartridge world' is cheap ink so it would be got from there. I would want to minimise costs as we've already had to borrow money to pay for our ongoing commitments to this crisis.
I'd just like to say thank you Filo for coming onboard with this plan but you've shot the gun a bit. We still need EU approval. Let's hope we get it soon so your efforts at designing the leaflets won't go to waste. :thumbsup:
-
I would presume this plane would have been shot down by the armed forces of the country whose unarmed citizens it was machine gunning - which is not only an act of war but a war crime.
Also what Mick is conveniently forgetting is that what he is proposing is that the UK unilaterally sink boats (registered in other countries) that have not committed any crime, containing people (who are citizens of other countries) that have not committed any crime, in International Waters. And he thinks we would be able to get away with mass murder of innocent people because every other country on Earth will just look the other way. What a prat.
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
Which option would you choose if our plane was shot down then? That was the original question, which you have still run scared from answering.
100%? Pfffft.
You need to be more specific. It all depends who shot it down and under what circumstances. There's no one general answer that will cover all eventualities which is why your question was deemed silly in the first pace.
100% record still intact.
OK then. It is shot down by the armed forces of the country whose air space our plane is in to deliver your leaflets. They say they shot it down because the plane was not authorised to be in their air space.
There you go.
What a silly statement. Obviously you get permission for the leaflet drop first.
Sorted.
PMSL. And you expect anyone to take you and your masterplan seriously? :silly:
PMSL. Look. I've got to be honest. I've been playing around with you a bit on the 'shot down plane' issue. Hopefully once I've cleared up this bit of the plan you'll take it more seriously.
We don't used manned planes you fool. Haven't you heard of drones? Obviously not.
Watch the video below to see how it could be done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98BIu9dpwHU
Now either get onboard with the plan (like Filo) or come up with your own workable plan.
Get on with it man.
-
I did suggest once we send him to Coventry. Maybe the time has come to revisit that?
Bob
Look daft Bob. You're the one that suggested this before with hardly any support. You're the one pushing this plan but you're one of the prolific posters that responds to nearly every one of my posts even though you don't read them!
You couldn't make it up.
Send me to Coventry daft Bob. If others want to engage in intelligent debate that is far too much for your intellect let them get on with it.
Just because you are out of your depth doesn't mean others should suffer.
May I refer you to the 'Should I Stay Or Should I Go Thread'. There was overwhelming support for me to stay. I even got Yougov to do an internal poll for me which showed that there were many readers of the forum that aren't registered to post that wanted me to stay. 91% to 9%.
At least you've now stopped with all the homo erotic nonsense. Thank goodness people are far more tolerant these days of that kind of thing. I'd just ask you not to keep shoving it under the noses of those of us that are straight.
IC1967
-
What a lot of silly questions.
No they aren't, they're extremely pertinent. You're only calling them silly because you haven't got any answers for them and you want to maintain your fantasyland 100% 'record'.
Any other time, one of our planes being shot down would be reason enough to start a war. Yet you maintain that wanting to know what you would do in the same circumstance is somehow deemed by you to be 'silly'. Sorry, but your attempt to dismiss an awkward but extremely important question by this pathetic tactic has unequivocally shown you up for what you are.
No it wouldn't. There has to be a sense of proportionality. If someone shot down one of our planes then there are many other options open to us other than starting a full scale war.
As well as silly questions you are also now making silly statements.
Now where's your plan? If you don't like mine then the least you can do is come up with a workable alternative.
100% record still intact.
Get on with it man.
Which option would you choose if our plane was shot down then? That was the original question, which you have still run scared from answering.
100%? Pfffft.
You need to be more specific. It all depends who shot it down and under what circumstances. There's no one general answer that will cover all eventualities which is why your question was deemed silly in the first pace.
100% record still intact.
OK then. It is shot down by the armed forces of the country whose air space our plane is in to deliver your leaflets. They say they shot it down because the plane was not authorised to be in their air space.
There you go.
What a silly statement. Obviously you get permission for the leaflet drop first.
Sorted.
You',re a right little Houdini aren't you Mick ? As soon as someone pisses on your argument(s) you deem them silly, daft, not up to your intellectual standard etc.
Just hold your hands up occasionally when your arguments no longer hold any water.
No-one will think any less of you than they do already! If you come on here to debate ...then do just that and be prepared to lose as well as win arguments.
You have become a bore...
Look. I was having a laugh with the plane thing (see my previous post). Of course I knew how this part of the plan was going to work.
Anyway back to you. Where is the abject apology for saying that UKIP voters were made up of 2 million ex LibDems. Just admit you got that one wildly wrong with no evidence and we'll say no more about it. I always issue an abject apology when I'm in the wrong. Just ask Jucyberry.
Get on with it man. You know you should.
-
Should we purchase the printer cartridges for these leaflets from cartridge world or should we stick with OEM cartridges?
About the ink, is it OEM or cartridge world?
The print run is ready and waiting :-)
I'm assuming 'cartridge world' is cheap ink so it would be got from there. I would want to minimise costs as we've already had to borrow money to pay for our ongoing commitments to this crisis.
I'd just like to say thank you Filo for coming onboard with this plan but you've shot the gun a bit. We still need EU approval. Let's hope we get it soon so your efforts at designing the leaflets won't go to waste. :thumbsup:
I just thought I'd ask a silly question thats all......
.... And you andwered it lol! :)
-
Hoola mate. You've REALLY got to stop being so liberal. You're working on the premise that the person you are speaking to is amenable to rational discussion.
He's not. He's barking mad. Here's the proof.
If he genuinely believes what he writes, then he is barking mad.
If he's been deliberately WUM-ing for 4 years, through (at least) 3 different personas and he genuinely thinks it is side-splittingly funny, he is barking mad.
Conclusion: he is barking mad.
You're not going to appeal to a sensible better nature. You can either get your jollies by kicking the cat, or you can ignore him. Just don't try to appeal to logical discussion with him.
You're just sore that I've battered you in every debate I've ever had with you. You're particularly annoyed that I've turned this from a hardcore left wing den of iniquity into a moderate right wing forum.
Unlike daft Bob you know when you are beaten. Please send him a PM asking him to stop responding to my posts even though he hasn't read them. I thought you were his mate. With friends like you who needs enemies.
-
Should we purchase the printer cartridges for these leaflets from cartridge world or should we stick with OEM cartridges?
About the ink, is it OEM or cartridge world?
The print run is ready and waiting :-)
I'm assuming 'cartridge world' is cheap ink so it would be got from there. I would want to minimise costs as we've already had to borrow money to pay for our ongoing commitments to this crisis.
I'd just like to say thank you Filo for coming onboard with this plan but you've shot the gun a bit. We still need EU approval. Let's hope we get it soon so your efforts at designing the leaflets won't go to waste. :thumbsup:
I just thought I'd ask a silly question thats all......
.... And you andwered it lol! :)
100% record still intact. I do even answer some silly questions. At least there are one or two of us in this debate with a senses of humour. ;)
-
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
How on earth do you come up with that? Your reasoning process is seriously flawed. Look. It's very simple. Until we are out of the EU we have to play by the rules. If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis and let those countries where they land deal with the problem.
Until that day we need to do our bit by sinking a few boats. That's if the EU ever comes around to my way of thinking.
No we don't. We are fully entitled to take whatever action we regard as being in our own national interest, as in the Falklands. Therefore by pure deduction, if you say you want us to persuade the EU to intervene, you want us to be in the EU! And you clearly don't know 'the rules'.
Get it. Got it. Good!
And how do you work out that
If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis
are UKIP planning on stopping all ferry, rail and air services with Europe then?
Silly question but I'll answer it. No.
-
I would presume this plane would have been shot down by the armed forces of the country whose unarmed citizens it was machine gunning - which is not only an act of war but a war crime.
Also what Mick is conveniently forgetting is that what he is proposing is that the UK unilaterally sink boats (registered in other countries) that have not committed any crime, containing people (who are citizens of other countries) that have not committed any crime, in International Waters. And he thinks we would be able to get away with mass murder of innocent people because every other country on Earth will just look the other way. What a prat.
I'll just repeat myself.
-
I would presume this plane would have been shot down by the armed forces of the country whose unarmed citizens it was machine gunning - which is not only an act of war but a war crime.
Also what Mick is conveniently forgetting is that what he is proposing is that the UK unilaterally sink boats (registered in other countries) that have not committed any crime, containing people (who are citizens of other countries) that have not committed any crime, in International Waters. And he thinks we would be able to get away with mass murder of innocent people because every other country on Earth will just look the other way. What a prat.
I'll just repeat myself.
Excuse me. Where have I proposed unilateral action? All I've done is come up with the broad outline of a plan that would work. Surely if we can get authorisation from the UN to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people and totally destabalise the Middle East then it should be quite easy to get permission to sink a few boats.
Sorted.
-
I would presume this plane would have been shot down by the armed forces of the country whose unarmed citizens it was machine gunning - which is not only an act of war but a war crime.
Also what Mick is conveniently forgetting is that what he is proposing is that the UK unilaterally sink boats (registered in other countries) that have not committed any crime, containing people (who are citizens of other countries) that have not committed any crime, in International Waters. And he thinks we would be able to get away with mass murder of innocent people because every other country on Earth will just look the other way. What a prat.
I'll just repeat myself.
Excuse me. Where have I proposed unilateral action? All I've done is come up with the broad outline of a plan that would work. Surely if we can get authorisation from the UN to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people and totally destabalise the Middle East then it should be quite easy to get permission to sink a few boats.
Sorted.
Seeing as your broad outline tramples all over every Human Rights legislation everywhere you wouldn't get 'authorisation' from anybody - and especially not the UN - for your cockeyed halfwitticism.
-
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
How on earth do you come up with that? Your reasoning process is seriously flawed. Look. It's very simple. Until we are out of the EU we have to play by the rules. If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis and let those countries where they land deal with the problem.
Until that day we need to do our bit by sinking a few boats. That's if the EU ever comes around to my way of thinking.
No we don't. We are fully entitled to take whatever action we regard as being in our own national interest, as in the Falklands. Therefore by pure deduction, if you say you want us to persuade the EU to intervene, you want us to be in the EU! And you clearly don't know 'the rules'.
Get it. Got it. Good!
And how do you work out that
If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis
are UKIP planning on stopping all ferry, rail and air services with Europe then?
Silly question but I'll answer it. No.
Then why would us leaving the EU be of relevance to the African migrant crisis - as highlighted in your quote above?
-
Should we purchase the printer cartridges for these leaflets from cartridge world or should we stick with OEM cartridges?
About the ink, is it OEM or cartridge world?
The print run is ready and waiting :-)
I'm assuming 'cartridge world' is cheap ink so it would be got from there. I would want to minimise costs as we've already had to borrow money to pay for our ongoing commitments to this crisis.
I'd just like to say thank you Filo for coming onboard with this plan but you've shot the gun a bit. We still need EU approval. Let's hope we get it soon so your efforts at designing the leaflets won't go to waste. :thumbsup:
I just thought I'd ask a silly question thats all......
.... And you andwered it lol! :)
100% record still intact. I do even answer some silly questions. At least there are one or two of us in this debate with a senses of humour. ;)
Mmmm, hilarious topic isn't it?
-
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
You have neglected to tell us where the ships who are going to sink the migrant boats are going to come from. A pretty essential part of you plan I would have thought?
There isn't a navy of the European Countries.....but the European Countries in the area of the Mediterrean where the migrant boats are arriving all have navies. Apologies if that was too difficult for you to understand, I forgot I had to keep things very simple for you.
You're the one that said there was a navy of the European countries. I'm glad you are now backtracking on this ridiculous statement.
Look. It's very simple. While we are part of the EU then agreement needs to be reached in Brussels before my excellent plan can be implemented. The boats could then be sunk by each country's navies so the cost could be shared around.
Sorted.
So you want us to be part of the EU then?
How on earth do you come up with that? Your reasoning process is seriously flawed. Look. It's very simple. Until we are out of the EU we have to play by the rules. If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis and let those countries where they land deal with the problem.
Until that day we need to do our bit by sinking a few boats. That's if the EU ever comes around to my way of thinking.
No we don't. We are fully entitled to take whatever action we regard as being in our own national interest, as in the Falklands. Therefore by pure deduction, if you say you want us to persuade the EU to intervene, you want us to be in the EU! And you clearly don't know 'the rules'.
Get it. Got it. Good!
And how do you work out that
If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis
are UKIP planning on stopping all ferry, rail and air services with Europe then?
Silly question but I'll answer it. No.
Then why would us leaving the EU be of relevance to the African migrant crisis - as highlighted in your quote above?
I think I've answered more than enough of your silly questions. I'm not answering any more.
Now I'd be grateful if you could answer just one (yes just one) of my questions. What is your workable solution to the problem? All your leftie mates can help you out as you need all the help you can get.
-
Should we purchase the printer cartridges for these leaflets from cartridge world or should we stick with OEM cartridges?
About the ink, is it OEM or cartridge world?
The print run is ready and waiting :-)
I'm assuming 'cartridge world' is cheap ink so it would be got from there. I would want to minimise costs as we've already had to borrow money to pay for our ongoing commitments to this crisis.
I'd just like to say thank you Filo for coming onboard with this plan but you've shot the gun a bit. We still need EU approval. Let's hope we get it soon so your efforts at designing the leaflets won't go to waste. :thumbsup:
I just thought I'd ask a silly question thats all......
.... And you andwered it lol! :)
100% record still intact. I do even answer some silly questions. At least there are one or two of us in this debate with a senses of humour. ;)
Mmmm, hilarious topic isn't it?
I'm glad you think so. It's about time you lightened up a bit. :woohoo:
-
I think I've answered more than enough of your silly questions. I'm not answering any more.
Now I'd be grateful if you could answer just one (yes just one) of my questions. What is your workable solution to the problem? All your leftie mates can help you out as you need all the help you can get.
I know you wont, because you can't. Once again when asked to justify fatuous comments you are unable to reply and wish to change the subject. Because once again I have used my superior intellect to show how contradictory you are - and how much of what you say is false and untrue. Go on someone help him out. This is what he wrote:
How on earth do you come up with that? Your reasoning process is seriously flawed. Look. It's very simple. Until we are out of the EU we have to play by the rules. If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis and let those countries where they land deal with the problem.
and I have asked him to explain this bit:
If we were out we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis
or - how would us leaving the EU mean we could forget about illegal immigration of people from Africa? (the answer isn't gunboats off Gibraltar by the way)
I gave you the answer to that question in the other thread you started- go and read it. I don't require anyone else to help, my answer is the same as that given by Captain Gerry Northwood, the former Commander of the UK Counter-Piracy Task Group and Head of Communications for Operation Atalanta, who may or may not be a leftie but will certainly know a lot more about stopping the migrant boats than you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32428500
-
Here's what Gerry said:
But Gerry Northwood, Atalanta's former head of operations, says destroying boats would have "limited value"
Boats are "cheap and plentiful" and easily replaced, he told the BBC
Is that it? Is that your solution? I'm on about sinking boats with people on them to ram the message home in the leaflets. Gerry is on about sinking boats before people are on them. Bit of a difference there if you don't mind me saying. I'm prepared to kill a few hundred people. Gerry is not.
It may seem a bit harsh to a leftie but my solution would result in far fewer deaths than yours would.
Where is your compassion? Why do you want hundreds of thousands to keep on dieing and for their money to keep on funding ISIS and the people smugglers?
You may want to be portrayed as a nice person at all costs but sometimes you have to be realistic.
It is a fact that long term my solution would result in far less deaths than yours.
You really make my piss boil that you would place being seen as a nice person on this forum over the huge loss of life that your approach would have over mine.
Get a f**king grip and come into the real world ffs.
I've got news for you. It is me that is the nice person because I'm prepared to countenance the tough decisions no matter what lefties think of me.
All you're bothered about is what will all your leftie mates think of you no matter how many innocent lives are lost. You couldn't give a f**k how many die.
Well I care. I want to minimise loss of life. My solution works. Yours is pie in the sky.
Get over it and come into the real world ffs.
-
It makes my piss boil when people are too lazy to read the whole of an article - or deliberately misquote from it:
Gerry Northwood says countries will need to co-operate with each other, as well as with the commercial shipping sector, to be successful.
"There is value in these patrols, in terms of maintaining law and order on the high seas," he said.
However, the only real solution to the problem is to improve conditions ashore, while ensuring the criminal networks "do not have any targets", he added.
For pirates off the Somali coast, this means protecting vulnerable ships. But in the Mediterranean it means working to stop the flow of migrants.
"Anything you do at sea is effectively a sticking plaster," he said.
"Until you actually stop the migrants coming off, or being able to come off in the first place, you are limited in the degree to which you can solve this problem.
-
I would suggest that our meddling in the middle east has played a massive part in this IS catastrophe.
Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi more or less kept their house in order before western greed for oil toppled them. This paved the way for IS as these countries are now completely lawless.
Blowing little boats out of the water and leaflet dropping won't stop this mess. This is heading for WW3 and it need the west and countries like Iran, Saudi and UAE to unite to defeat IS. It will take at least 1 million soldiers on the ground to crush IS. If and when this can be done, then the migrants might have some hope of living peacefully in their own country.
But I fear that ancient religious thinking will do away with any hope of stabilising the middle east. They need to come out of the dark age and medieval mindset of an eye for eye to move forward. It won't happen!
-
It makes my piss boil when people are too lazy to read the whole of an article - or deliberately misquote from it:
Gerry Northwood says countries will need to co-operate with each other, as well as with the commercial shipping sector, to be successful.
"There is value in these patrols, in terms of maintaining law and order on the high seas," he said.
However, the only real solution to the problem is to improve conditions ashore, while ensuring the criminal networks "do not have any targets", he added.
For pirates off the Somali coast, this means protecting vulnerable ships. But in the Mediterranean it means working to stop the flow of migrants.
"Anything you do at sea is effectively a sticking plaster," he said.
"Until you actually stop the migrants coming off, or being able to come off in the first place, you are limited in the degree to which you can solve this problem.
However, the only real solution to the problem is to improve conditions ashore, while ensuring the criminal networks "do not have any targets", he added.
I ignored this bit because it is unadulterated pie in the sky waffle.
As you have copied his crap plan can you please explain how you improve conditions ashore? How do you ensure the criminal networks ''do not have any target"? What a load of claptrap. The man should be a Labour politician.
There is only one workable plan and I have come up with it. You lefties need to harden the feck up and accept a small loss of life to prevent massive loss of life.
Thank goodness Churchill wasn't a leftie. Like me he knew the value of a small sacrifice for the greater good.
Now provide some proper answers to the crap plan you've copied or get on with an abject apology
-
I would suggest that our meddling in the middle east has played a massive part in this IS catastrophe.
Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi more or less kept their house in order before western greed for oil toppled them. This paved the way for IS as these countries are now completely lawless.
Blowing little boats out of the water and leaflet dropping won't stop this mess. This is heading for WW3 and it need the west and countries like Iran, Saudi and UAE to unite to defeat IS. It will take at least 1 million soldiers on the ground to crush IS. If and when this can be done, then the migrants might have some hope of living peacefully in their own country.
But I fear that ancient religious thinking will do away with any hope of stabilising the middle east. They need to come out of the dark age and medieval mindset of an eye for eye to move forward. It won't happen!
We should bow out and let them get on with killing each other. While-ever they all believe in their version of a non-existent God there is no hope for them. Nothing we can do about it and it's time we realised it.
Nothing will change until they cop themselves on and realise believing in 'God' is a massive con. This will take decades if not centuries. In the meantime we need to shut the borders and force them to sort it out themselves. Running away from their problems to Europe is the easy way out. It has to stop.
-
Now you are really making my piss boil. You said, post 56, you would be grateful if I answered your question. I answered your question. Is that rude reply what you call gratitude?
I have answered your question - now you go back and answer mine and explain your quote:
If we were out (of the EU) we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis.
-
Now you are really making my piss boil. You said, post 56, you would be grateful if I answered your question. I answered your question. Is that rude reply what you call gratitude?
I have answered your question - now you go back and answer mine and explain your quote:
If we were out (of the EU) we'd be able to forget about the migrant crisis.
You haven't answered the question. All you've done is regurgitated a crap plan that doesn't make any sense. I've asked you pertinent questions as to how your copied plan would work. You haven't answered because your copied plan is the typical politician's answer that doesn't get to the heart of the problem. I asked for a workable plan. No way is your copied plan workable. If you think it is then you need to answer my questions. If you don't (no surprise there then) we will all assume it is unworkable and as I said unadulterated pie in the sky waffle.
If we were out of the EU we could control our own borders and stop people coming in like economic migrants. There'd be no need for us to sink a few boats. The EU could sort things out. After all we're hardly the closest country to the problem are we? Aren't people supposed to go to the nearest safe country when fleeing war or persecution? We are not the closest safe country. We are already full. We shouldn't be borrowing money to bring these people here, the vast majority of which are economic migrants.
100% record still intact.
-
You really dont ever read whot u rite do you. Give up now, with every post you make yourself look sillier and sillier.
I said, on the other thread, there is no solution to this problem, illegal migration from Africa, until the problems in Africa are sorted. Captain Gerry Northwood (RN retired) agrees with me. What is the heart of the problem. The African economy. Who do you say these people are... the vast majority of which are economic migrants.
So you say I haven't got to the heart of the problem - and then agree with me on what the heart of the problem is!! Unbelievable Jeff! My piss has boiled so much the gauge has fallen off.....
The EU allows for free movement of European citizens. These people are economic migrants from Africa who enter illegally. We would be more at risk if we left the EU because now the southern Med countries have a duty to stop them reaching us - where as if we left they could just as well point the ones they catch in our direction.
I shall require an abject apology for both of your false statements thank you very much.
-
You know what, even though I've got our Resident Idiot blocked, I can see when he posts. And in the space of a page and a half he's replied to hismelf no less than 4 times. He's even replied three times! So what does this suggest about his level of intelligence?
I'll tell you: he can't organise his arguments into any coherent whole. He rushes to paper before thinking where he is going. He has a stream of consciousness sort of mind. or butterfly if you prefer. My psychologist mate says his mind is deeply troubled. me? I just think he's so dim he hasn't learned how to write properly yet. I don't think he ever will now. As he has proved, over a long period, unable to listen to well meant and good adcice, he clearly thinks he's above ordinary mortals. So that makes him egotistical, power crazed and probably psychotic too.
I do think Coventry would do him a shed load of good.... He needs help somehow. In all these years I have never seen anybody reply to his own post THREE times before! Our Resident Idiot has made replying to himself a daily habit. He'll stay a butterfly brain until he learns how to take a deep look at himself.
BobG
BobG
-
You know what, even though I've got our Resident Idiot blocked, I can see when he posts. And in the space of a page and a half he's replied to hismelf no less than 4 times. He's even replied three times! So what does this suggest about his level of intelligence?
I'll tell you: he can't organise his arguments into any coherent whole. He rushes to paper before thinking where he is going. He has a stream of consciousness sort of mind. or butterfly if you prefer. My psychologist mate says his mind is deeply troubled. me? I just think he's so dim he hasn't learned how to write properly yet. I don't think he ever will now. As he has proved, over a long period, unable to listen to well meant and good adcice, he clearly thinks he's above ordinary mortals. So that makes him egotistical, power crazed and probably psychotic too.
I do think Coventry would do him a shed load of good.... He needs help somehow. In all these years I have never seen anybody reply to his own post THREE times before! Our Resident Idiot has made replying to himself a daily habit. He'll stay a butterfly brain until he learns how to take a deep look at himself.
BobG
BobG
Hahahahahahaha!!! You do make me laugh daft Bob.
You say I haven't learned how to write properly yet. Pot, kettle, black. Resident Idiot should not be started with a capital letter. It should be 'resident idiot'. hismelf should be spelt himself. You say I've replied to myself no less than 4 times then in the next breath say THREE times. This should be 4 times and 3 times or four times and three times. You shouldn't be mixing the way you write numbers like that. Also what you have written is gibberish. Is it 3 times or is it no less than 4 times? Make your mind up. Can't you count?
Your statement is also patently untrue. I reply to other posters, not to myself. How you think you can work out that I'm replying to myself when you don't even read my posts (allegedly) is a mystery to me.
I do not rush to paper. I write nothing down on paper. It's just me, my computer and keyboard. or butterfly should be Or butterfly. You obviously don't know that a sentence should start with a capital letter. me? should be Me? As he has proved, over a long period, unable to listen to well meant and good advice, is very poorly constructed. It is gibberish.
Why do you also feel the need to sign off twice when you usually only do it once?
My standard of writing is far superior to yours as is my intellect. It beggars belief that you would criticise me for this in such a poorly constructed, mistake ridden post. What a clown.
Look. If you get an abject apology sorted pronto, I'll give you the opportunity to take down your daft post and I'll do the same, to save you from further ridicule.
Get on with it man. You know you should.
IC1967
-
You are Peter Tatchell and I claim my five pounds.
-
You really dont ever read whot u rite do you. Give up now, with every post you make yourself look sillier and sillier.
I said, on the other thread, there is no solution to this problem, illegal migration from Africa, until the problems in Africa are sorted. Captain Gerry Northwood (RN retired) agrees with me. What is the heart of the problem. The African economy. Who do you say these people are... the vast majority of which are economic migrants.
So you say I haven't got to the heart of the problem - and then agree with me on what the heart of the problem is!! Unbelievable Jeff! My piss has boiled so much the gauge has fallen off.....
The EU allows for free movement of European citizens. These people are economic migrants from Africa who enter illegally. We would be more at risk if we left the EU because now the southern Med countries have a duty to stop them reaching us - where as if we left they could just as well point the ones they catch in our direction.
I shall require an abject apology for both of your false statements thank you very much.
Excuse me. You're the one that doesn't read what they write as you consistently write gibberish and make numerous grammatical errors.
Let's cut to the chase. You offer up a crap copied plan. When pressed on it you say there is no solution to the problem.
But there is! My plan.
Now get an abject apology sorted for wasting our time reading your drivel.
Get on with it man. You'll feel so much better.
100% record intact.
-
That's rite keep on ignorin where I embarass u and show how much u contradict yourself, and then try and change the subject again, no one will notice...
-
You say I haven't learned how to write properly yet. Pot, kettle, black. Resident Idiot should not be started with a capital letter.
What an own goal. Proper nouns are capitalised.
-
Thank you Glyn.
Our Resident Idiot shows up his vast, unlimited, ignorance once again.
Got it Mick? Good! Get in! I'll expect the usual grovelling apology you so often demand.
BobG
-
You say I haven't learned how to write properly yet. Pot, kettle, black. Resident Idiot should not be started with a capital letter.
What an own goal. Proper nouns are capitalised.
Hahahahahahaha! Resident Idiot is not a proper noun. It is a slur on my character. It can't be both.
Now what about the rest of the poorly put together drivel daft Bob spouted? I notice you ignored all that. What a plank. Defending your mate over the indefensible.
-
Thank you Glyn.
Our Resident Idiot shows up his vast, unlimited, ignorance once again.
Got it Mick? Good! Get in! I'll expect the usual grovelling apology you so often demand.
BobG
Hahahahahaha! You never fail to let us down daft Bob. Or should that be Daft Bob? Are you a proper noun or are you just a bitter and twisted old man?
Have you been through your post where you criticised me for not being able to write properly? That post is the best laugh I've had for ages. It is so full of mistakes it is clearly you that can't write properly.
Keep it up. We all do enjoy a good laugh at your expense.
IC1967
-
Surely not two replies yet again Mick??!! Verbal diarroeah is it mate?
BobG
-
You say I haven't learned how to write properly yet. Pot, kettle, black. Resident Idiot should not be started with a capital letter.
What an own goal. Proper nouns are capitalised.
Hahahahahahaha! Resident Idiot is not a proper noun. It is a slur on my character. It can't be both.
Now what about the rest of the poorly put together drivel daft Bob spouted? I notice you ignored all that. What a plank. Defending your mate over the indefensible.
All titles are proper nouns, and therefore capitalised. Nice of you to confirm that you are the most fitting recipient of said title.
-
You say I haven't learned how to write properly yet. Pot, kettle, black. Resident Idiot should not be started with a capital letter.
What an own goal. Proper nouns are capitalised.
Hahahahahahaha! Resident Idiot is not a proper noun. It is a slur on my character. It can't be both.
Now what about the rest of the poorly put together drivel daft Bob spouted? I notice you ignored all that. What a plank. Defending your mate over the indefensible.
All titles are proper nouns, and therefore capitalised. Nice of you to confirm that you are the most fitting recipient of said title.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I've highlighted in bold the bit you've ignored. Why can't you be like me and answer every question? Your current answer rate is running at about 8.976%.
As for me? 100% record intact.
Come on man. Get on with it.
-
Is it congenital Mick? Your inability to accept anything that's not in your lexicon? It's a sad weakness mate. Makes you look a reight w anker.
BobG
-
You say I haven't learned how to write properly yet. Pot, kettle, black. Resident Idiot should not be started with a capital letter.
What an own goal. Proper nouns are capitalised.
Hahahahahahaha! Resident Idiot is not a proper noun. It is a slur on my character. It can't be both.
Now what about the rest of the poorly put together drivel daft Bob spouted? I notice you ignored all that. What a plank. Defending your mate over the indefensible.
All titles are proper nouns, and therefore capitalised. Nice of you to confirm that you are the most fitting recipient of said title.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I've highlighted in bold the bit you've ignored. Why can't you be like me and answer every question? Your current answer rate is running at about 8.976%.
As for me? 100% record intact.
Come on man. Get on with it.
What about it? I was only commenting on your cock-up. I presume you're going to agree to disagree with every dictionary definition of proper noun too, or are you going to maintain they're wrong too?
-
Now what about the rest of the poorly put together drivel daft Bob spouted?
Come on man. Defend your friend.
If you don't, we'll all know why. It's indefensible.
100% record intact.
Now get on with it.
-
Is it congenital Mick? Your inability to accept anything that's not in your lexicon? It's a sad weakness mate. Makes you look a reight w anker.
BobG
Is it congenital? I'd answer that question but first you'll need to elaborate on what you're on about. I'm guessing your poorly constructed second sentence is what you're getting at. I'm guessing you're talking about proper nouns. If so, this is how you should have expressed yourself.
'Is your inability to accept anything that's not in your lexicon congenital, specifically proper nouns?'
I've used fewer words and have been crystal clear in what I was trying to get across. You could learn a thing or two from me.
If I've read you right, the answer is no.
100% record intact.
By the way, would you prefer me to refer to you as daft Bob or Daft Bob?
IC1967
-
tut tut tut Mick. Talking to yourself again I see.
Get some help lad. You need it.
BobG
-
tut tut tut Mick. Talking to yourself again I see.
Get some help lad. You need it.
BobG
Look. That first tut should have had a capital t i.e. T. It's basic grammar to start a sentence with a capital letter. I'll keep an eye on what you post and point out any errors so one day you can be nearly as good as me at expressing yourself.
IC1967
-
Along with being our Resident Idiot (note the correct use of capital letters Mick) you still exhibit all the symptoms of being one of Pavlov's dogs too. Its absolutely guaranteed. Your posts exhibit an unerring rhythm. Very Pavlovian.
Poor lad. I dont suppose you've got a clue have you? Our Resident Idiot doesn't know very much.
BobG
-
Now what about the rest of the poorly put together drivel daft Bob spouted?
Come on man. Defend your friend.
If you don't, we'll all know why. It's indefensible.
100% record intact.
Now get on with it.
Why should I? it's his opinion. not mine. You won't even defend your own opinion, you have to try deflecting as usual. You can't even respond to my last post with anything other than this flummery.
-
Now what about the rest of the poorly put together drivel daft Bob spouted?
Come on man. Defend your friend.
If you don't, we'll all know why. It's indefensible.
100% record intact.
Now get on with it.
Why should I? it's his opinion. not mine. You won't even defend your own opinion, you have to try deflecting as usual. You can't even respond to my last post with anything other than this flummery.
I see. Being a bit selective in which bits of posts of your friends you'll defend. I get it.
Right. It looks like you need help with your grammar as well. Your third sentence should start with a capital letter (bit of a massive own goal there if you don't mind me saying). Your fourth sentence is poorly constructed. There is no need for as many words. You should have written 'You won't even defend your own opinion, you try deflecting as usual.'
Now get on with admitting daft Bob's post was full of errors. If you don't, we'll all assume you couldn't find fault with it and are as illiterate as he is.
-
There you go Mick. Right on cue. You are just so, so, so predictable. It's really quite boring. Mind you, as our Resident Idiot (and do note the correct use of capital letters Mick - one day you might just learn it) it's not really very surprising is it?
Cheers
BobG
-
There you go Mick. Right on cue. You are just so, so, so predictable. It's really quite boring. Mind you, as our Resident Idiot (and do note the correct use of capital letters Mick - one day you might just learn it) it's not really very surprising is it?
Cheers
BobG
:facepalm:
-
Pavlov's dog.
BobG
-
As I see it, if the UK was to pull out of EU it would make economic migration worse . Why?. Well, currently the French allow UK immigration folk to operate in Calais and the likes, why would they do that if UK is not a member. The French wouldn't give a toss about how many line up to get here ( that will not change in any of our lifetimes ).
So, for every one who gets through now multiply by 4,5 or 6 .
-
As I see it, if the UK was to pull out of EU it would make economic migration worse . Why?. Well, currently the French allow UK immigration folk to operate in Calais and the likes, why would they do that if UK is not a member. The French wouldn't give a toss about how many line up to get here ( that will not change in any of our lifetimes ).
So, for every one who gets through now multiply by 4,5 or 6 .
The French appear not to give a toss now judging by the gauntlet that lorry drivers have to run at Calais docks on a daily basis
-
up the Rovers
-
Pavlov's dog.
BobG
:zzz:
IC1967
-
As I see it, if the UK was to pull out of EU it would make economic migration worse . Why?. Well, currently the French allow UK immigration folk to operate in Calais and the likes, why would they do that if UK is not a member. The French wouldn't give a toss about how many line up to get here ( that will not change in any of our lifetimes ).
So, for every one who gets through now multiply by 4,5 or 6 .
The French appear not to give a toss now judging by the gauntlet that lorry drivers have to run at Calais docks on a daily basis
You reckon?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11178768/Calais-police-demand-live-rounds-after-second-day-of-clashes-with-migrants.html