Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Are conservative party members human? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    In the meantime take my advice and stick to talking about only what you know.
    I really wish you'd took your own advice and never made this thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Did you read your own article? It has little relevence to my previous post :rolleyes:
    You must be very young.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    I really wish you'd took your own advice and never made this thread.
    This thread is about humanity. Being human I'm an expert on the subject.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There you have it folks.

    As well as being inhuman Conservatives (or at least their supporters in this thread) are badly informed, badly educated, naive, deluded and ignorant too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    This thread is about humanity. Being human I'm an expert on the subject.
    It's about Conservative party members, rather than the subject of humanity...
    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Apologies for the delay, I was on a short holiday.
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    Coming to a country in search of a better life is only something indigent and destitute people should be allowed to do.
    Why? Again, you're still lacking compassion. Even if a family is only in mild poverty why should they not deserve a chance to move and find a better life here? There's a whole other debate here about whether it's really possible for a government to morally own land and regulate who enters it, but it seems to me that you're on thin moral ice. We hold this land because we fought for it and we'd fight to maintain it, that may be the very definition of ownership itself, but there's nothing particularly moral about it. Give me a moral reason for why we should be able to stop foreign people moving here?

    People from countries in temperate climates, countries with bountiful natural resources, an abundance of foodstuffs, decent infrastructure, enjoying a stable peaceful political climate, should not be allowed to settle in this country as economic migrants, especially not when their presence here deprives natural born citizens of access to jobs, housing and benefits. Instead they should be encouraged to develop the economies of their own countries.
    May I request your economic credentials? Extra people in the country may take up jobs, but they also create more jobs in that they expand the economy. More food is required to be produced, they create more trade and service requirements, in general they increase production, which is a role that the people already here can fill. If every immigrant in this country was ordered to leave, food would go to waste, numbers of civil servants could be reduced, overall production could be scaled back, and that means job losses.


    A British government should be concerned first and foremost with the wellbeing of British people. Otherwise there is no reason for British Citizens to observe and obey rules or laws imposed upon them by such a government.
    In recent years there has also been greater emphasis on governments taking action to prevent suffering in other countries. Why not? After all, should our soldiers not have stopped Hitler when he didn't even pose a threat to us?
    Here's the explanation: The people of this country want the government to help out foreign people with aid. When there was talk of government international aid being reduced, the idea was lambasted by the public. The people of this country are generous, huge amounts of money for example was donated to Haiti, the tsunami appeals, etc. If it is the will of the British public that overseas people be helped, then the government are perfectly within their right to do it. Just because Daily Mail readers complain about overseas aid doesn't mean everyone does.

    The word you are looking for is reconcile.
    Actually, no it wasn't. Here's my Oxford dictionary definition of Rectify:

    1 put right; correct. 2 convert alternating current to direct current.

    Look at sense 1, let's inject this definition into the original phrase:

    How can you put right supporting two completely conflicting viewpoints?
    How can you correct supporting two completely conflicting viewpoints?

    Do these both make sense? Yes they do, therefore I used the word correctly. If I'm using words that you don't understand then just let me know and I can switch to monosyllabic ones to satisfy you. For the record there is much I can correct you on, your lack of a capital C for the word Conservative in the title of this thread; your use of destitute and indigent together, despite them being synonyms. I would have otherwise held my tongue though, cleaning your own doorstep and all that. It appears that you jumped on this hoping to make yourself look intellectually superior, yet it has actually backfired on you somewhat.


    To answer your illogical question (there is no contradiction in my position), I ask you: what is the significance of a passport?

    For what reason do passports exist?
    I used passports as a fanciful way of referring to citizenship, I don't particularly care for needlessly explaining what a passport is. In short I was saying you only care for your fellow British subjects. You appear to think that human morality is based on governments sticking to helping the population who voted for them, rather than people generally. Do you really see no immorality in refusing to help your common man just because they are of a different nationality? There may be the 21st century view that nationality means something, but where countries end and begin is merely an invention. Is it really human to abandon those who are not of the same nationality as you? The concept of a human is thousands of years older than nationality, so I'm finding it hard to believe that you think the latter defines and supersedes the former.

    In short, you're fighting a losing battle to convince me that being xenophobic makes you more 'human' than the government's current actions makes them.


    If I should have empathy for the majority of human beings, if you or your government should, then why are the majority of human beings restricted from settling in this country on account their not being members of the EU?

    Why are EU countries, countries who joined this arbitrary political union, just a few years ago, given the right to free movement in this country, while the citizens of others, nations with centuries old traditions and relations with Britain, restricted from coming here?

    Are EU nations better than non-EU nations? Are they more deserving of your brand of "compassion"? Are they poor? Are they suffering from drought or famine or war? Are they starving? Do their children have files in their mouths? Are they dying of artificial diseases?

    Have you failed to notice that the citizens of most EU nations are white? Do you not realize? A racially motivated immigration policy has been put in place here. White Eastern Europeans are encouraged to come and partake of the wealth of Britain at the expense of the poor people of Britain, a sizable number of whom are non-white.

    Is that compassion?

    Is this the compassion you want me to have?
    You're getting desperate there. Since when was I an advocate for the EU? I don't remember suggesting it was the standard that we should all follow. I don't even support it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    Why? Again, you're still lacking compassion. Even if a family is only in mild poverty why should they not deserve a chance to move and find a better life here?
    There are people in abject poverty here who on account of being British natives, deserve priority over (mildly poor) foreigners who are better off. Sort out your own destitute before you hand their cream to "economic migrants".

    There's a whole other debate here about whether it's really possible for a government to morally own land and regulate who enters it, but it seems to me that you're on thin moral ice. We hold this land because we fought for it and we'd fight to maintain it, that may be the very definition of ownership itself, but there's nothing particularly moral about it. Give me a moral reason for why we should be able to stop foreign people moving here?
    What did you fight for? Let's take a look! The last defense of these islands ended 65 years ago. Its aim was to prevent the imposition of racist central European white national authority over the citizens of Britain.

    Am I to understand that the defense of Britain against European National Socialism was in vain? Was it not a moral cause?

    By allowing, by condoning selective ethnocentric immigration from Central and Eastern Europe, on a massive scale, this and the previous government shows its true colors, and pours scorn all over the extraordinary sacrifices the people of Britain made not so long ago.

    Pay attention and you may yet comprehend the subtle and insidious nature of your beloved government.

    May I request your economic credentials? Extra people in the country may take up jobs, but they also create more jobs in that they expand the economy. More food is required to be produced, they create more trade and service requirements, in general they increase production, which is a role that the people already here can fill. If every immigrant in this country was ordered to leave, food would go to waste, numbers of civil servants could be reduced, overall production could be scaled back, and that means job losses.
    This is not even worth dignifying with a response.

    Only one class of entity would be deprived by the removal of all EU migrants: rich profit seeking corporations / businesses.

    There is a real tragedy here; there are enough resources to maintain, under the present system, full employment of British Nationals AND employment of a sizable number of immigrants in service or menial roles.

    Ideological and social biases stymie free market logic. Because of institutionalized and instinctive taboos, a certain demographic is excluded from partaking of the national prosperity; systems to implement this barring have been developed and are manifest as economic strife for the population at large.

    The resulting social order maintains positions of power and prosperity for those who already enjoy them, opportunities for foreigners of a particular ethnicity, and exclusion, or relegation of British nationals on account of race, save for those willing to forgo personal credo for the promise of vacuous esteem.

    To put this in plainer language. Each post war government has tried to find ways to send temporary black slaves (who were invited to rebuild Britain) back to their countries of origin, and/or in failing this - squeeze their offspring out of existence, even to the detriment of working or middle class whites.

    EU migration into this country whether consciously or otherwise is supposed to augment this process.

    In recent years there has also been greater emphasis on governments taking action to prevent suffering in other countries. Why not? After all, should our soldiers not have stopped Hitler when he didn't even pose a threat to us?
    Here's the explanation: The people of this country want the government to help out foreign people with aid. When there was talk of government international aid being reduced, the idea was lambasted by the public. The people of this country are generous, huge amounts of money for example was donated to Haiti, the tsunami appeals, etc. If it is the will of the British public that overseas people be helped, then the government are perfectly within their right to do it. Just because Daily Mail readers complain about overseas aid doesn't mean everyone does.
    Nobody is complaining about legitimate or genuine compassion. The complaints are leveled at false compassion with insidious selfish goals.

    FYI genuine charity is exploited by the very same people who cause what appear to be natural disasters.


    Do these both make sense? Yes they do, therefore I used the word correctly. If I'm using words that you don't understand then just let me know and I can switch to monosyllabic ones to satisfy you. For the record there is much I can correct you on, your lack of a capital C for the word Conservative in the title of this thread; your use of destitute and indigent together, despite them being synonyms. I would have otherwise held my tongue though, cleaning your own doorstep and all that. It appears that you jumped on this hoping to make yourself look intellectually superior, yet it has actually backfired on you somewhat.
    No. I just wanted to offer a better word.

    Destitute and indigent are separate words with differing meanings. The use of two synonyms within a sentence is a common technique for both emphasis and clarification (in case the reader is unfamiliar with either word).

    The lack of a capital C in the title is down to the software regulating data entry on this board. I typed the whole title in capital letters.

    Anything else?

    I used passports as a fanciful way of referring to citizenship, I don't particularly care for needlessly explaining what a passport is. In short I was saying you only care for your fellow British subjects. You appear to think that human morality is based on governments sticking to helping the population who voted for them, rather than people generally. Do you really see no immorality in refusing to help your common man just because they are of a different nationality?
    The point you fail to acknowledge is the purpose of National Government, which is after all, what is being discussed.

    Bringing millions of particular foreigners into this country (at the same time) defeats that purpose and invalidates national sovereignty.

    Passports exist to monitor and prevent such occurrences.

    Furthermore my help is reserved for those who need help as opposed to OPPORTUNISTS.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I had to give you rep 'Gimme More', for that amazingly humorous post.

    Keep 'em coming!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I had to give you rep 'Gimme More', for that amazingly humorous post.

    Keep 'em coming!
    Raw truth often elicits humor.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    Raw truth often elicits mirth.
    Very true; but seeing as your post contains very little 'truth', that statement is irrelevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Very true; but seeing as your post contains very little 'truth', that statement is irrelevant.
    Your response here isn't even remotely funny.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    Your response here isn't even remotely funny.
    It wasn't meant to be. Let me highlight of the more obvious idiocies in your post:

    'Sort out your own destitute before you hand their cream to "economic migrants".'
    By allowing, by condoning selective ethnocentric immigration from Central and Eastern Europe, on a massive scale, this and the previous government shows its true colors, and pours scorn all over the extraordinary sacrifices the people of Britain made not so long ago.
    Only one class of entity would be deprived by the removal of all EU migrants: rich profit seeking corporations / businesses.
    There is a real tragedy here; there are enough resources to maintain, under the present system, full employment of British Nationals AND employment of a sizable number of immigrants in service or menial roles.
    FYI genuine charity is exploited by the very same people who cause what appear to be natural disasters.
    I'm sure, intelligent as you are, you don't need me to go into a long-winded elaboration as to why all those statements are at best, ridiculous.

    This was the real reason behind my 'mirth'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    It wasn't meant to be. Let me highlight of the more obvious idiocies in your post:











    I'm sure, intelligent as you are, you don't need me to go into a long-winded elaboration as to why all those statements are at best, ridiculous.

    This was the real reason behind my 'humor'.

    You neglect to complete your own thoughts.

    So slovenly a response is negligible.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    You neglect to complete your own thoughts.

    So slovenly a response is negligible.
    *sigh*

    1. You do not know what an 'economic migrant' is.

    2. You somehow manage to insinuate that Central and Eastern Europeans are genetically National Socialist or something. The war wasn't fought to keep people out, it was fought to keep fascism out; it is you who is spitting on the graves of the millions who died in that war.

    3. The rich aren't the only ones who would be affected by a mass exodus of all foreign workers; what with our NHS dependant on foreign labour. And who the hell do you think these 'profit seeking corporations/businesses' are providing services for? Yes, again, you. If they lose out, you also lose out.

    4. There are 2 things you have to realise: (1) the British worker, at this point in time, is massively under-qualified and way too expensive for full employment to even be considered (not that it's possible, but never mind); and (2), this is more of a question really; what will happen when your immigrants have children and they aren't particularly loving the idea of being 'menial workers' and they want to be doctors and pilots instead?

    5. The only thing I can say to that particular quote is: 'lol'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    *sigh*

    1. You do not know what an 'economic migrant' is.
    This is true.

    What is an "economic migrant"?

    2. You somehow manage to insinuate that Central and Eastern Europeans are genetically National Socialist or something. The war wasn't fought to keep people out, it was fought to keep fascism out; it is you who is spitting on the graves of the millions who died in that war.
    You'll have to explain how physical conflicts can repel ideologies.

    3. The rich aren't the only ones who would be affected by a mass exodus of all foreign workers; what with our NHS dependant on foreign labour. And who the hell do you think these 'profit seeking corporations/businesses' are providing services for? Yes, again, you. If they lose out, you also lose out.
    Actually, that isn't true. You see, businesses are profit seeking entities which can make no profit without workers. In the absence of cheap foreign labor, they'll be forced to train / employ unemployed Brits. Profits might take a little scratch, and you'll have more blacks and Asians in white collar roles, but in the end British citizens will benefit.

    4. There are 2 things you have to realise: (1) the British worker, at this point in time, is massively under-qualified and way too expensive for full employment to even be considered (not that it's possible, but never mind); and (2), this is more of a question really; what will happen when your immigrants have children and they aren't particularly loving the idea of being 'menial workers' and they want to be doctors and pilots instead?
    British citizens (born or naturalized) should be given priority, and also priority based on length of residency, so that no post 2004 EU migrant, or their offspring should supplant the children of British natives. Those EU anchor babies will, by the time they're ready to work, be fully fledged British Nationals and can enjoy the rights of such (assuming any still remain).

    If businesses can't afford to train local workers they should relocate and leave open the way for more respectable enterprises.

    5. The only thing I can say to that particular quote is: 'lol'.
    Why?

    This is far from a laughing matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    British citizens (born or naturalized) should be given priority, and also priority based on length of residency, so that no post 2004 EU migrant, or their offspring should supplant the children of British natives. Those EU anchor babies will, by the time they're ready to work, be fully fledged British Nationals and can enjoy the rights of such (assuming any still remain).
    I'm just wondering what it is about British people or people who have lived in Britain that gives them extra rights to entitlement. You might argue that they have been here and paying taxes longer, but they have also been here and using the services longer.

    A new migrant is just as human as a 4th generation one or one dating back to Viking times (and so on). They are all human beings and do not deserve preferentil treatment by virtue of being born in a certain place.

    If businesses can't afford to train local workers they should relocate and leave open the way for more respectable enterprises.
    Really? You wish to place another barrier to entry in markets. Government places enough of them, it's what allows monopolies to flourish, pushing prices up and quality down. Shafting who? The consumer, as always.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    I just watched a live Q and A session with the Home Secretary, Teresa May, making statements about the student protests and have to say I am stunned by the display of illogical emotion I witnessed.

    Apart from perhaps two MPs - not one person stated, addressed or asked why these protests have taken place.

    I overestimated these individuals' propensities for compassion. I don't even know where to start to describe what I mean. It is as though these people believe they are legitimate representatives of the people, having the mandate of the people, even after they've been shown that nothing can be further from the truth!

    The argument being put forward is that a hard core of violent activists infiltrated peaceful protests in order to perpetrate criminal acts! I mean, what kind of mentality would rationalize things in this way?

    This so called hard core of trouble makers exists? Where are they then? What makes them suddenly appear? Where were they during the Blair/Brown years? According to the Tories, and even if you ask me, I'd say there was plenty of reason for angry protest under the last government, and yet we did not see this level of animosity.

    Teresa.

    You need to ask yourself a simple question.

    Why is this happening?
    the tories seem intent on confirming all stereotypes people have about them. cruel, uncaring, elitist, snobbish etc
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    I'm just wondering what it is about British people or people who have lived in Britain that gives them extra rights to entitlement.
    They should have no extra rights to entitlement beyond their country of origin. In their own lands however, they should have EVERY entitlement. People were created to live upon the land. They were not created to be thrown scraps and hidden away in unwanted corners of their own country.

    If British people have no entitlements in Britain there is no necessity for a government, or indeed a sovereign state called Britain, and it would be logical for British people to refuse to pay taxes, to refuse to observe laws, and to take and do whatever they feel like.

    You might argue that they have been here and paying taxes longer, but they have also been here and using the services longer.
    You seem to think British people have no stake in the resources of Britain. If this is true, perhaps British people need to be told as much so that they can stop voting for and take action against the sophisticated parasites who fool them at all times.

    A new migrant is just as human as a 4th generation one or one dating back to Viking times (and so on). They are all human beings and do not deserve preferentil treatment by virtue of being born in a certain place.
    Then please explain why so many nation states exist and why so much blood was shed in order to establish them.

    What will happen if the concept of nationhood is eradicated?

    That's right: callous, insensate opportunists will grab and will kill and the poor will eventually unite and overthrow them through bloody revolution, and guess what?

    Borders will be drawn so as to maintain order.

    Really? You wish to place another barrier to entry in markets. Government places enough of them, it's what allows monopolies to flourish, pushing prices up and quality down. Shafting who? The consumer, as always.
    Under my rules Monopolies would need to change their recruitment policies in order to flourish. There is nothing wrong with a corporation which distributes the majority of its revenues directly to members of a local community.

    It's a concept only humans are familiar with.

    It's called sharing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    That's right.

    That's my point.

    Why should students be burdened with additional debt?
    Because the alternative is burdening taxpayers, many of whom have never had the privilege of a university education. And that's wrong. Students need to start paying off their OWN debts after graduation if they earn over £21,000 - not fleecing taxpayers (many of whom earn far less) to do it for them!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hello dave)
    Almost a million people protested against the Iraq war, that's a bit more than this level of animosity.

    A few thousand students rioting and you think they suddenly don't represent the population? The population isn't just made up of students, and many people agree with the the reforms.
    Many people who'll never be £40k in debt by the time they're 21 agree.

    Surprising, isn't it?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.