ForumGarden

FourPart;1469291 wrote: Show me where in that quote, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I called for any party to be banned. The nearest I have ever come to making a statement such as that is when I mentioned that the whole thing about the existence of such Neo-Nazi parties such as yours put me in a quandry where, on the one hand, my heart feels that such evil should be banned, but that the principles that we, in the free world, value above all others are that you have the right to exist, even if they conflict with the freedom & democracy that we fought a World War to defend. You see, far from calling for your evil ils to be banned, I have always supported your right to exist, no matter how loathsome, obnoxious & evil you may be. Besides, it's better that we keep you where we can keep an eye on you, rather than force you into the shadows & the secrecy of dark cults, driven by your fetishes of hatred to share such dire views with your group of other like minded Political Perverts.

As for various parties having ruined this country, the whole mess began with the 1975 REFERENDUM (where the people decided) to join the Common Market (a policy which, in itself, I still support) which, yes, happened to be under a Labour Government, but would stlil have probably happened under ANY party as a natural progression of world events. What ensued to evolve into a Central European Government became out of our hands, having only a tiny voice against a vast majority of the rest of Europe. Did any Tory Government see fit to get us out of it either?

Yes, it is official policy of all the leading parties to remain in the Union - a policy on which I am totally opposed. You see, just because I am a Labour supporter doesn't mean I blindly agree with every policy then have. It's just a matter of balancing one set of policies against another, and I find there are more that I support & fewer that I oppose in Labour than any of the others. I support the principle of free trade, but I oppose that of open door immigration as we are simply too small a country to cope with it. On that much I think we probably agree. However, my objections are based on economy, whereas yours are based on Racial Purity & to maintain the Arian line.

As for the country's economic problems - need I remind you that the first one (in my lifetime, at least) was under the dictatorship of Margaret Thatcher & her Far Right Cronies, taking from the poor to give to the rich, selling off all the country's national assets, closing all the major British industries when they stood up to her, like a kid in a playground taking his ball home when the other kids wouldn't let him win all the time. The introduction of taxes that led to people starving & being evicted when they couldn't afford to pay.

Then there was the 2nd recession (which we are still in recovery from). This, however, was the onset of a much larger set of circumstances from a worldwide economic calamity, brought about by the greed, incompetence & blatant fraudulent activities of the bankers, who are obviously going to be Far Right in there political thinking (you won't get many Socialist bankers). With such International financial disaster it was only to be expected that we were not likely to escape its effects.

Now we have another Tory Government in power, and once again we see the claws of austerity grabbing what they can from those who can least afford it, whilst scratching the backs of their own kind by giving them tax cuts. Doing their utmost to continue Thatcher's agenda of privatisation, with the next prime target being the privatisation of the NHS (a Labour introduction, I might add). We now have more families relying on Food Banks (the modern day equivalent of the Soup Kitchens of the 20s) than ever before, and all of this after just one term.

I don't envisage UKIP becoming the next Goverment in power, but I have no doubt that there is a very high probability of them becoming the 3rd main party after the election. I also envisage all BNP candidates losing their deposits.


Posted by FourPart

"Therein lies a paradox. I believe the BNP to be evil hatemongers & should be banned accordingly"

Its a bit disingenuous to just quote half the sentence. The full quote puts a different perspective on his intent but hen again I suppose you are learning your trade as a potential politician so maybe its not important

Correctly quoted by Foupart......Therein lies a paradox. I believe the BNP to be evil hatemongers & should be banned accordingly, yet because I also support the right to free expression so strongly I am also opposed to banning them.

"..........the evidence I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

What is a comma amongst friends ?

A Blatant lie ?

Snowfire;1469298 wrote: Its a bit disingenuous to just quote half the sentence. The full quote puts a different perspective on his intent but hen again I suppose you are learning your trade as a potential politician so maybe its not important

Correctly quoted by Foupart...... What's hens got to do with It ?

Oscar Namechange;1469300 wrote: What's hens got to do with It ?


Well some of us are liable to the occasional error. We cant forever be infallible. Recognising that is a virtue

Oscar Namechange;1469295 wrote: Posted by FourPart

"Therein lies a paradox. I believe the BNP to be evil hatemongers & should be banned accordingly"
ROFL

I couldn't have asked for a better example of Selective Quoting if I'd tried.

FourPart;1469311 wrote: ROFL

I couldn't have asked for a better example of Selective Quoting if I'd tried. Are you actually objecting to your own practice ?

Let me tell you something that happened two nights ago. I even put this on my Facebook status and I can say hand on heart, this conversation really did take place word for word.

We are leaving the hired hall where we've just held our Christmas branch meeting and The local Labour Party are arriving to have theirs In the evening.

The Labour Councillor Mike says to me " J**** seriously, what are you doing with these people ?" Errr I think you'll find these people are with me Mike...

Then he says " you should come over to us, we have so much more to offer you"... so I laugh and he says " We are the only one's who ever do anything around here" For example he says, " I've just got the postbox In S******** Drive repainted".

So there you go folks... Vote Labour for another 6 million migrants that the country can not financially sustain but you can sleep at night because they have shabby postboxes covered.



:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Oscar Namechange;1469313 wrote: Are you actually objecting to your own practice ?

Let me tell you something that happened two nights ago. I even put this on my Facebook status and I can say hand on heart, this conversation really did take place word for word.

We are leaving the hired hall where we've just held our Christmas branch meeting and The local Labour Party are arriving to have theirs In the evening.

The Labour Councillor Mike says to me " J**** seriously, what are you doing with these people ?" Errr I think you'll find these people are with me Mike...

Then he says " you should come over to us, we have so much more to offer you"... so I laugh and he says " We are the only one's who ever do anything around here" For example he says, " I've just got the postbox In S******** Drive repainted".

So there you go folks... Vote Labour for another 6 million migrants that the country can not financially sustain but you can sleep at night because they have shabby postboxes covered.



:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
And that bears what relevance to Blatant Selective Quoting? Oh, of course - I forgot who & what you were. A politician. It is in the nature of a Politician to lie & cheat & when caught out to change the subject & go on the offensive on a totally irrelevant matter.

FourPart;1469315 wrote: And that bears what relevance to Blatant Selective Quoting? Oh, of course - I forgot who & what you were. A politician. It is in the nature of a Politician to lie & cheat & when caught out to change the subject & go on the offensive on a totally irrelevant matter.


No, but It Is relevant to how misguided your Labour Party Is.

And a few more 'Likes' from the FaceBook of a "Non-Racist":

https://www.facebook.com/pages/London-B ... le_browser

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ban-Isla ... le_browser

https://www.facebook.com/pages/World-de ... le_browser

Oscar Namechange;1469313 wrote: So there you go folks... Vote Labour for another 6 million migrants that the country can not financially sustain but you can sleep at night because they have shabby postboxes covered.




What a load of testes.....

Centre Right wing in Germany..............and more immigrants than the UK ?

Bruv;1469323 wrote: What a load of testes.....

Centre Right wing in Germany..............and more immigrants than the UK ?


When you link a credible site, I may take you seriously.

Oscar Namechange;1469326 wrote: When you link a credible site, I may take you seriously.


The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most revered, trusted, news organization in the world.

AnneBoleyn;1469327 wrote: The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most revered, trusted, news organization in the world.


So Is Bare Naked Islam but I wouldn't link It here.

Oscar Namechange;1469326 wrote: When you link a credible site, I may take you seriously.


Daily Mail ?

BBC ?

Bloomberg ?

Yahoo ?

BNP ? The horses mouth........

European Commission............

"Germany reported the largest number of immigrants (592 200) in 2012"



Book up yourself

AnneBoleyn;1469327 wrote: The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most revered, trusted, news organization in the world.


It's OK Annie.......I gave her a direct link to the gospel according to the hallowed BNP......obviously a different slant on the news.......it must go with the dogma.

Bruv;1469330 wrote:




Book up what myself ?

Oscar Namechange;1469332 wrote: Book up what myself ?
She's getting hot on typos now, isn't she.

Oscar Namechange;1469332 wrote: Book up what myself ?


Remember.......no one likes a smart arse.

The Far right has a fine history there......Give it a go

Oscar Namechange;1469329 wrote: So Is Bare Naked Islam but I wouldn't link It here.


"Notable reporting[edit]

Monitor staff have been the recipients of seven Pulitzer Prizes, the most recent in 2002.

1950, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: Edmund Stevens, for his series of 43 articles written over a three-year residence in Moscow entitled, "This Is Russia Uncensored."[8]

1967, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: R. John Hughes, For his thorough reporting of Indonesia's attempted Transition to the New Order in 1965 and the purge that followed in 1965–66.[9]

1968, Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting: Howard James, for his series of articles, Crisis in the Courts.[10]

1969, Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting: Robert Cahn, for his inquiry into the future of our national parks and the methods that may help to preserve them.[11]

1978, Pulitzer Prize Special Citations and Awards, Journalism: Richard Strout, for distinguished commentary from Washington over many years as staff correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor and contributor to The New Republic.[12]

1996, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: David Rohde, for his persistent on-site reporting of the slaughter of thousands of Bosnian Muslims in the Srebrenica Genocide.[13]

2002, Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning: Clay Bennett[14]"

ETC.

The Christian Science Monitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When people have done good in this miserable world, they should be rewarded, not scorned.

Bruv;1469334 wrote: Remember.......no one likes a smart arse.

The Far right has a fine history there......Give it a go Give It a go ? Oh well, It makes a change from ' Here '.....

I'm sorry, this Is not fair... I'm In a very silly mood tonight and can't take anything seriously....I'll leave you to mutter among yourselves until my giggles have passed.

AnneBoleyn;1469335 wrote: "Notable reporting[edit]

Monitor staff have been the recipients of seven Pulitzer Prizes, the most recent in 2002.

1950, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: Edmund Stevens, for his series of 43 articles written over a three-year residence in Moscow entitled, "This Is Russia Uncensored."[8]

1967, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: R. John Hughes, For his thorough reporting of Indonesia's attempted Transition to the New Order in 1965 and the purge that followed in 1965–66.[9]

1968, Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting: Howard James, for his series of articles, Crisis in the Courts.[10]

1969, Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting: Robert Cahn, for his inquiry into the future of our national parks and the methods that may help to preserve them.[11]

1978, Pulitzer Prize Special Citations and Awards, Journalism: Richard Strout, for distinguished commentary from Washington over many years as staff correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor and contributor to The New Republic.[12]

1996, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: David Rohde, for his persistent on-site reporting of the slaughter of thousands of Bosnian Muslims in the Srebrenica Genocide.[13]

2002, Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning: Clay Bennett[14]"

ETC.

The Christian Science Monitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When people have done good in this miserable world, they should be rewarded, not scorned.
BNP Prizes...

2 Goldfish at local fairground for throwing loads of balls.

Oscar Namechange;1469336 wrote: Give It a go ? Oh well, It makes a change from ' Here '.....

I'm sorry, this Is not fair... I'm In a very silly mood tonight and can't take anything seriously....I'll leave you to mutter among yourselves until my giggles have passed.


Glad to here that!

Nigel Farage has been accused of exploiting the murders of cartoonists in France for political gain after saying the attack was a result of “a really rather gross policy of multiculturalism

Bruv;1471096 wrote: Nigel Farage has been accused of exploiting the murders of cartoonists in France for political gain after saying the attack was a result of “a really rather gross policy of multiculturalism
As is commonly the situation, the headline quote is incorrect. He didn't say that was because of the policy of multiculturalism, but IN THE NAME OF multiculturalism, which is not quite the same thing. As with Religion. Whilst it can be said that wars are usually fought bacause of Religion, is is usually more accurate to says that wars are usually fought IN THE NAME OF Religion.