Do you consider UKIP good or bad? Watch

geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#981
Report 3 years ago
#981
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And now you're being a facetious arse, might want to get out of it, or do you make pointless arguments for the sake of it? You seem to be a bit of a broken record so you can be broken for somebody else.
You asked a question, I answered. Is that what facetious means?
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#982
Report 3 years ago
#982
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I can only assume because you can't admit that you're wrong, the Labour heartland is still larger than the Tory one, last I checked ~15m was more than ~10.3m, even when you cut it down to just the cities in England and Wales, the city population remains greater than the rural population, so even when trying to argue you're right by playing dumb you aren't.
You are comparing Cities to Rural.. that means you are leaving out everything else, towns for example.

According to your own data 45.8m people lived in "urban". If approx 15m of these live in Cities, that is twice as many non-rurals who DONT live in cities.

You can't even understand your own data (or more likely you don't understand that there's more than just living in a city or in a rural area)

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
because you can't admit that you're wrong


(Original post by Jammy Duel)
so even when trying to argue you're right by playing dumb you aren't.
:rolleyes:
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#983
Report 3 years ago
#983
(Original post by geokinkladze)
You are comparing Cities to Rural.. that means you are leaving out everything else, towns for example.

According to your own data 45.8m people lived in "urban". If approx 15m of these live in Cities, that is twice as many non-rurals who DONT live in cities.

You can't even understand your own data (or more likely you don't understand that there's more than just living in a city or in a rural area)







:rolleyes:
And now you're being an idiot YET AGAIN, or do you think that every last person in the country has to be in the heartland of one party or the other? Or are you now selectively being pedantic on cities and not on rural? Or do you define rural to be "not a city"?
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#984
Report 3 years ago
#984
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And now you're being an idiot YET AGAIN, or do you think that every last person in the country has to be in the heartland of one party or the other? Or are you now selectively being pedantic on cities and not on rural? Or do you define rural to be "not a city"?
You claimed cities were a Labour heartland. You justified this by pointing out how many people live in rural areas. It is you who has consistently made the argument that labour heartlands are cities because people who live in rural areas are so small in number and don't vote labour.

I've simply pointed out, all along, that you're ignoring half the population that lives in neither a City nor a Rural area.

So far you've accused me of being pedantic for repeatedly pointing this out, faecetious for answering your questions and an idiot for showing you that you don't understand your own data.

What next I wonder?

0
reply
T.I.P
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#985
Report 3 years ago
#985
Sigh... Just because a racist puts on a suit doesnt make them less racist. UKIP understand they cant go around beating up minorities so instead have formed a political party and will use it to get what they want in a legal way which wont result in prison. Its really not hard to workout... Not even worth debating.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#986
Report 3 years ago
#986
(Original post by T.I.P)
Sigh... Just because a racist puts on a suit doesnt make them less racist. UKIP understand they cant go around beating up minorities so instead have formed a political party and will use it to get what they want in a legal way which wont result in prison. Its really not hard to workout... Not even worth debating.
You think wanting out of the EU means you are racist?
0
reply
T.I.P
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#987
Report 3 years ago
#987
(Original post by geokinkladze)
You think wanting out of the EU means you are racist?
And you think thats all they want...?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#988
Report 3 years ago
#988
(Original post by T.I.P)
And you think thats all they want...?
Not all. But it is why they were set up, you implied it was set up for other nefarious reasons. I'd say you got that bit wrong.
0
reply
T.I.P
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#989
Report 3 years ago
#989
(Original post by geokinkladze)
Not all. But it is why they were set up, you implied it was set up for other nefarious reasons. I'd say you got that bit wrong.
Do I really need to post links to all the racist comments farge and his party have made? Really? You do know he wants to scrap race related laws to do with workplace racisim? And even blamed immigration for the reason he was late for a meeting saying there was traffic due to immigrstion LOL! Honestly I cbf to post all the 100s of links, theres a reason UKIP appeals to the thousands of racist people who support them and actively post on their fb page etc. Only thing I like about Farge is how entertaining his stupidity is.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#990
Report 3 years ago
#990
(Original post by T.I.P)
Do I really need to post links to all the racist comments farge and his party have made?
If you want a "link war" be my guest. Just give me an opposing main party (Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem) and I'll dredge up links of far worse than the use of insulting names.


(Original post by T.I.P)
You do know he wants to scrap race related laws to do with workplace racisim?
I do know he wants to push the "British jobs for British workers" mantra and under current discrimination laws he can't do that. So he's happy to scrap those laws to achieve that aim.

Does he WANT to scrap those laws? I would personally hold the view that if those laws could be left alone WITHOUT conflict with the "British jobs for British workers" mantra he'd probably leave it alone.

However he IS a libertarian, and scrapping laws is a Libertarian tendency.


(Original post by T.I.P)
And even blamed immigration for the reason he was late for a meeting saying there was traffic due to immigrstion LOL!
Glad you found it funny, I believe that was the intention.

(Original post by T.I.P)
theres a reason UKIP appeals to the thousands of racist people who support them and actively post on their fb page etc.
So do you think the radical, extreme muslims who preach hatred of the west represent muslims as a whole?

Do you believe the BNP represents Britain as a whole?

There IS a reason UKIP appeals to lots of different people.. a lot of the new breed is mostly due to disenfranchisement with the previous labour governments policy of settling immigrants into marginal constituencies. This has caused a strain on public services in those particular constituencies. People living in nearby constituencies have probably witnessed the result and don't want the same to happen to them.
0
reply
T.I.P
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#991
Report 3 years ago
#991
[QUOTE=geokinkladze;54518735]If you want a "link war" be my guest. Just give me an opposing main party (Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem) and I'll dredge up links of far worse than the use of insulting names.


[QUOTE=T.I.P;54516015]You do know he wants to scrap race related laws to do with workplace racisim? [/quotes]

I do know he wants to push the "British jobs for British workers" mantra and under current discrimination laws he can't do that. So he's happy to scrap those laws to achieve that aim.

Does he WANT to scrap those laws? I would personally hold the view that if those laws could be left alone WITHOUT conflict with the "British jobs for British workers" mantra he'd probably leave it alone.

However he IS a libertarian, and scrapping laws is a Libertarian tendency.


[QUOTE=T.I.P;54516015]And even blamed immigration for the reason he was late for a meeting saying there was traffic due to immigrstion LOL! [/quotes]

Glad you found it funny, I believe that was the intention.

(Original post by T.I.P)
theres a reason UKIP appeals to the thousands of racist people who support them and actively post on their fb page etc.[/QUOTE]

So do you think the radical, extreme muslims who preach hatred of the west represent muslims as a whole?

Do you believe the BNP represents Britain as a whole?

There IS a reason UKIP appeals to lots of different people.. a lot of the new breed is mostly due to disenfranchisement with the previous labour governments policy of settling immigrants into marginal constituencies. This has caused a strain on public services in those particular constituencies. People living in nearby constituencies have probably witnessed the result and don't want the same to happen to them.
Cant even be bothered.. maybe later when Im on my computer I will educate you.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
chezsu
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#992
Report 3 years ago
#992
I don't agree with everything UKIP say or do, in fact my political position is as confused as it is neutral.

That said, I have read the last few pages about race discrimination laws and jobs for British people with great interest. We have a problem in this country that we have been bullied by previous government's whenever people discuss the negative impact of immigration, especially low skilled workers filling up employment places that could have been filled by a national it's seen as racism.

Oh we've already had the utter rubbish spoon-fed to us that "they are taking the jobs no one wants" (a slight dig at the unemployed that can't afford to risk working on a zero hours contract at McDonald's). Create jobs that pay fair that have security and British nationals will gladly work for them.

The people who refuse to acknowledge this problem are most likely the same people that blindly label UKIP as racist without much thought. Take a look at recent Tory and Labour governments and tell me there hasn't been racist MP's with racist policies in either party. You can't.

The fact is this, immigration is a problem in this country. Why? Because we don't have the infrastructure to support the amount coming in compared to the amount going out. We don't build schools, houses or hospitals fast enough to manage our 'commitment' to the EU. That doesn't make someone racist.

In fact, what the media and other parties are continuing to do, is the same thing they have done for years which is to make discussion immigration, foreign aid etc a taboo subject and immediately label someone racist because they have alternative views that aren't actually discriminative.

I lived in HK for 7 years and similar to other countries they have a policy where they can only employ an immigrant if the company can prove the role cannot be fulfilled by a national. Oh wait they are being so racist. No, they are sensible.

It's all very well waxing lyrical that we are in the EU and those are the rules but there is an imbalance and the EU isn't necessarily correct.
0
reply
T.I.P
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#993
Report 3 years ago
#993
(Original post by chezsu)
I don't agree with everything UKIP say or do, in fact my political position is as confused as it is neutral.

That said, I have read the last few pages about race discrimination laws and jobs for British people with great interest. We have a problem in this country that we have been bullied by previous government's whenever people discuss the negative impact of immigration, especially low skilled workers filling up employment places that could have been filled by a national it's seen as racism.

Oh we've already had the utter rubbish spoon-fed to us that "they are taking the jobs no one wants" (a slight dig at the unemployed that can't afford to risk working on a zero hours contract at McDonald's). Create jobs that pay fair that have security and British nationals will gladly work for them.

The people who refuse to acknowledge this problem are most likely the same people that blindly label UKIP as racist without much thought. Take a look at recent Tory and Labour governments and tell me there hasn't been racist MP's with racist policies in either party. You can't.

The fact is this, immigration is a problem in this country. Why? Because we don't have the infrastructure to support the amount coming in compared to the amount going out. We don't build schools, houses or hospitals fast enough to manage our 'commitment' to the EU. That doesn't make someone racist.

In fact, what the media and other parties are continuing to do, is the same thing they have done for years which is to make discussion immigration, foreign aid etc a taboo subject and immediately label someone racist because they have alternative views that aren't actually discriminative.

I lived in HK for 7 years and similar to other countries they have a policy where they can only employ an immigrant if the company can prove the role cannot be fulfilled by a national. Oh wait they are being so racist. No, they are sensible.

It's all very well waxing lyrical that we are in the EU and those are the rules but there is an imbalance and the EU isn't necessarily correct.
I only read your first paragraph as Im on my phone and cant be assed. The thing is UKIP clearly dont consider non-white Brits as British, they basically feel non-white Brits should be classed as second citizens. I dont believe for one second employers recruit non-white Brits because they prefer them as this wouldnt even make sense as the employer 9x out of 10 would be white British themselves. Say whst you like but I work with a few Polish people and they work hard as **** they are machines... I agree immigration is a problem but disagree on treating people already here like subhumans snd stripping them of their rights as Im not an *******.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
chezsu
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#994
Report 3 years ago
#994
I'm really not sure how one should respond to your reply, considering you only read 20% of my post :undecide:

However I'm not in complete agreement that UKIP believe that non-white British are non British. I'd need to see some hard evidence if I'm going to consider that as fact.

I didn't say that Polish or any other nationality don't work as hard as a white British. That's just crazy profiling. However, if they are taking service or retail jobs (technically 'unskilled') then is that really right in an economic sense that these labour skills are imported.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#995
Report 3 years ago
#995
(Original post by chezsu)
I'm really not sure how one should respond to your reply, considering you only read 20% of my post :undecide:
Stick around, he's promised to educate me.
0
reply
DIN-NARYU-FARORE
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#996
Report 3 years ago
#996
(Original post by geokinkladze)
So men should only get such jobs if women don't want them?
there should be a fair application process for both but there needs to be driven recruitment towards women as they have been traditionally excluded from these jobs
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#997
Report 3 years ago
#997
(Original post by geokinkladze)
So if a law enabled sexual discrimination, would the party who voted for such a law be, in your view, sexist?
(Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
Unless there were scientifically, indisputably backed reasons for enabling the sex discrimination then yes that party would be sexist
(Original post by geokinkladze)
Que? Reasons such as?
(Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
if an idiot were to say the army (im completely for women serving on the frontline) sexual discrimination could ostensibly be justified through physical strength differences.
(Original post by geokinkladze)
Ok I understand that. So if this hypothetical idiot were instead to say the army should have more women (say close to 50%) and there were only 10% women, would you say this person was reasonable to disqualify men from joining the army? Or would that be discrimination?

(Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
if you properly advertise frontline jobs for women, and then during the next recruitment women still fail to apply (due to perhaps lack of interest), then you should give the vacancies to anyone
(Original post by geokinkladze)
So men should only get such jobs if women don't want them?
(Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
there should be a fair application process for both but there needs to be driven recruitment towards women as they have been traditionally excluded from these jobs
By a fair application process for both (men and women) , do you mean that some jobs under certain circumstances should be advertised for women only? Because that's how you make it sound when you say :

if you properly advertise frontline jobs for women, and then during the next recruitment women still fail to apply (due to perhaps lack of interest), then you should give the vacancies to anyone

Seems to me you are advocating quotas.
0
reply
DIN-NARYU-FARORE
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#998
Report 3 years ago
#998
(Original post by geokinkladze)
By a fair application process for both (men and women) , do you mean that some jobs under certain circumstances should be advertised for women only? Because that's how you make it sound when you say :

if you properly advertise frontline jobs for women, and then during the next recruitment women still fail to apply (due to perhaps lack of interest), then you should give the vacancies to anyone

Seems to me you are advocating quotas.
Nah im not.

What im saying is that to offset the prejudices of women joining the army which are ingrained in society, a recruitment drive should advertise strongly for women as men already have society encouraging them to join. There should be initiatives and incentives for women to join but not quotas.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#999
Report 3 years ago
#999
(Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
Nah im not.

What im saying is that to offset the prejudices of women joining the army which are ingrained in society, a recruitment drive should advertise strongly for women as men already have society encouraging them to join. There should be initiatives and incentives for women to join but not quotas.
So why say this:

(Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
if you properly advertise frontline jobs for women, and then during the next recruitment women still fail to apply (due to perhaps lack of interest), then you should give the vacancies to anyone
You are talking about advertising a job for women and only allowing men to apply for the job if women refuse to.
0
reply
DIN-NARYU-FARORE
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1000
Report 3 years ago
#1000
(Original post by geokinkladze)
So why say this:



You are talking about advertising a job for women and only allowing men to apply for the job if women refuse to.
Im not talking about advertising a job for women only. im saying emphasize advertising funds towards women
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (269)
80.06%
Leave (67)
19.94%

Watched Threads

View All