Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    EU? Wth are you talking about now?
    The borders can be shut off with a member state for any security reason. The same thing was threatened with Greece earlier this year.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    The borders can be shut off with a member state for any security reason. The same thing was threatened with Greece earlier this year.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    But why vehemently deny it then? If it's a very likely possibility..?
    Because we don't know it to be true, yet people are stating it as fact and are forming political arguments on the basis that it is so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    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.
    Who supports the nationalisation of things such as railways?

    Who supports the welfare state?

    Who supports increasing the size of government?

    Who is against "unearned profit"?

    Would it be the right who support limited government, with a limited welfare system and support private companies? Nope, that would be the left. You need to learn what left and right actually is.

    Killing groups of people is neither left or right, you are just ignorant of this whole topic area.
    Offline

    11
    the double standards are killing me... Why was it not plastered all over the news this was an act of terror against democracy humanity freedom and all that.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Damn, someone get some ice for that burn

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/res...071a4/toplines

    Only 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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Ok.....except that they have refused any refugees.
    I already explained this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    I already explained this.
    and I already explained that they are not going to hand out millions of passports to random refugees.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    and I already explained that they are not going to hand out millions of passports to random refugees.
    I also already explained this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know the killer motives??
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, you are contradicting yourself. One moment , they are not letting anyone in and the next they are handing out passports to millions.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheAdviser)
    Does anyone know the killer motives??
    Some say Thomas Mair might know.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    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.
    Yeh, except, you don't answer point A or B. You just move onto point C.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubiquitousking)
    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.
    I don't expect him to behave rationally. That doesn't mean that I think impossible his behaving rationally. So, no, I'm not calling myself an idiot.

    I haven't contradicted myself once. I never said something with contradicts something else I said. If you think that I have, quote it (both points) and I'll explain.

    Even if I had contradicted myself, he would still need to say more because it wouldn't harm my argument (i.e. that we don't know Mair's motive), and he has conceded every other point I have made. He is arguing with something inconsequential. His argument would otherwise be reduced to 'you contradicted yourself once'.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0e71ef36d9617

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

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    My main point was directed towards FoS's lazy argument.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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