Labour MP Jo Cox killed in shooting incident in West Yorkshire

Are you a goldfish? You seem to forget what I type almost instantly. I told you the situation where I said that they go to Germany, and then to a country like Poland after, as they are forced by the EU. Use your brain.

On that very Wikipedia page, it literally says:

Ideology: Nazism
Political position: Far-right

Everyone knows the SED (Socialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands) was the far-left party of the time. Weirdo.

Nothing to do with what i said.

EU Countries can expel citizens that provide a security risk.

That includes Polish citizens that were given free passports by an abuse of the system.

If they are so great a security risk, Poland can refuse to take those, and admit the non-risk migrants from Germany. You really don't see it do you.

Ok.....except that they have refused any refugees.

I already explained this.

and I already explained that they are not going to hand out millions of passports to random refugees.

I also already explained this.

Well, you are contradicting yourself. One moment , they are not letting anyone in and the next they are handing out passports to millions.

Does anyone know the killer motives??

Again, you are not reading my posts, ignoring them or just forgetting them.

This is what is happening.

You make point A,

I answer point A

You make point B

I answer point B

You then make point A, ignoring the point I previously made.

I don't understand.

You are saying that only an idiot would expect him to behave rationally, but you are, by the emboldened bit, calling yourself an idiot? No? 'Cos you're open to the possibility that he was, indeed, behaving rationally, which is only what an idiot would do, right? Since he had (according to others) OCD.

I'm just confused, so please correct me if I'm wrong. There was no intention of causing offence.

Also, he doesn't need to say more. He's implying that you've contradicted yourself, which is what I think you've done too.
The sentences might be basic in structure, but the meaning is ambiguous because you're taking two sides of an argument when you say only one is reasonable. Or, you have.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/britain-first-muslim-elected-officials_uk_574352c4e4b0e71ef36d9617

From their own Press Release "Britain First is about to launch a direct action campaign against Muslim elected officials, at all levels of politics." this includes Sadiq Khan (London Mayor)

And in your topsy-turvy world, in which one can implicate someone in a murder by yelling their organisation's name before committing it, like some sort of conjurer, and in which this can be extended ad infinitum to anyone whom any implicated party has ever supported, this is enough to implicate UKIP in the killing.

I'd like to take this opportunity to state that I, as a Leave supporter, mourn and condemn this killing, but I don't feel a jot of responsibility for it, and I don't see why Nigel Farage or any member of the Tory right should either. None of them have, to my knowledge and presumably anyone else's (or we'd have seen it in the press today), condoned or encouraged this sort of behaviour, and all of them are perfectly entitled to express their discontent with a remote system of government that quietly, insidiously accrues powers to itself and keeps us from exercising sensible border controls without taking responsibility for whatever any nutter who shares one or two sentiments with them takes it entirely upon himself to do.

Now, if you have any evidence to present that Britain First has encouraged violence I'd be happy to see it. That could reasonably be taken to implicate the group in violence. But you haven't bothered with that. Equally, if you'd like to argue that they are a generally hateful bunch, I'm sure you could make quite a reasonable case. That is entirely different thing from claiming that they are in any way responsible for this killing. So far you've shown nothing at all to support that, and a big, Thornberry-esque picture of an undesirable-looking working class bloke certainly isn't sufficient in itself.

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/86a11bc0-3467-11e6-a52f-0050569071a4/question/bf9c82c0-3467-11e6-a52f-0050569071a4/toplinesOnly 20% of people polled say this murder has anything to do with the political climate/brexit.Those 20% are hardline remain voters trying to salvage their dying campaign by using a woman's body.Recent poll conducted by Qriously also showed support for remain fall and undecided rise whilst leave stayed the same at around 55% in the wake of Cox's death.I know you're never supposed to interrupt the enemy when they're making a mistake - but stop pushing her as part of your agenda. It is immoral, repulsive and is collapsing your voter base.

Does anyone know the killer motives??

Yeh, except, you don't answer point A or B. You just move onto point C.

Alright then, fair enough, although I don't do being quoted out of context, so here's the post that was from:

My main point was directed towards FoS's lazy argument.

That is simply not true, I directly address your points, then you switch to point D