Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[TD1]

Misogyny is terrible, and if UKIP had any misogynistic policies that too would be terrible. It doesn't however, so the views of the individual aren't the views of the party.

[kaijyuu]

So you're saying the party's ideas and ideals are pure but just tend to be held by racist and misogynistic people?

[LordSlowpoke]

So you're saying the party's ideas and ideals are pure but just tend to be held by racist and misogynistic people?

do you feel the need to give me the name of the party you support and spend ten minutes researching who was kicked out of it for being a bigot

[TD1]

Given that none of the ideals/policies are racist or misogynistic, you mean?

And they don't tend to be held. They can be held. True, a greater percentage than other parties, but mainly because of the policy of fewer immigrants, which isn't a racist policy, simply a numerical one.

I am neither racist or sexist. Yet I agree with a helluva lot of their policies. Simply because some other eejits do, doesn't mean I shouldn't have the option to vote for a party that represents me, nor be scorned because I think enough migrants is enough, and withdrawing from the EU may be in our best interests.

Are you suggesting my ideals and ideas are impure?

[kaijyuu]

So you're saying the party's ideas and ideals are pure but just tend to be held by racist and misogynistic people?

do you feel the need to give me the name of the party you support and spend ten minutes researching who was kicked out of it for being a bigot

Do you need me to point out the proportional differences and/or whether it's the leaders saying these things?

Every group's got people saying [insert bad thing here] but useful information on that group, or at least the people it attracts, can be gleaned from the proportion of people saying [insert bad thing here].

Given that none of the ideals/policies are racist or misogynistic, you mean?

And they don't tend to be held. They can be held. True, a greater percentage than other parties, but mainly because of the policy of fewer immigrants, which isn't a racist policy, simply a numerical one.

I am neither racist or sexist. Yet I agree with a helluva lot of their policies. Simply because some other eejits do, doesn't mean I shouldn't have the option to vote for a party that represents me, nor be scorned because I think enough migrants is enough, and withdrawing from the EU may be in our best interests.

Are you suggesting my ideals and ideas are impure?

More than you perceive your country to be.

Ba-zing!


My perspective is from 'Merrica, where anti-immigration is 100% focused on racism.

[TD1]

What? I don't believe my country to be impure, if that's what you're saying? I think there should be restrictions on what type of people get in, not what race of people get in. You could be indigo for all I care, you'd still be a human.

Some people voting for UKIP may be racist. However, if so they're very much in the minority. If there were any significant number, you would get bands of UKIP supporters shouting out hate, or doing crime. Much like the Nazis did. Most supporters believe that immigration should be curbed, and that distance or separation from the EU would be best.

Are you suggesting that Australia's immigration laws are racist? You're let in if you have a use to the country. I don't quite agree with that, but they aren't racist anyway. UKIP believes in easier ways of getting rid of racists who come in with the intention of blowing things up and inciting violence.

[LordSlowpoke]

...if you walk into an european poltiics thread and plainly state your perspective is american

i'm not sure what the hell you expect

[Loud Whispers]

So you're saying the party's ideas and ideals are pure but just tend to be held by racist and misogynistic people?

do you feel the need to give me the name of the party you support and spend ten minutes researching who was kicked out of it for being a bigot

+1

In addition it doesn't seem like that's something you want to proudly talk about Owlbread. The skinheads got turned away from the UKIP thing whereas the "baying mob of Scottish far-left activists" don't really glamorize opposition much. The mistake of the other parties is that they're seeing their constituencies move away to UKIP and their response is to call them racist and sexist, completely ignoring how this is not true and not once addressing what UKIP's sole purpose is: Independence from the EU. If I were a shop owner and my customers were leaving to a newer shop, how do you think they would react if I tried to get them back by slagging them off? Calling them racist holds no credibility in the mainstream view, especially considering they are the only party which actually polices itself for EDL and BNP members. People do not treat Farage as they do Griffin, they do not treat UKIP as BNP. It was founded to get Britain out of political union, a legitimate cause no less than what the SNP is doing. Racism allegations are no longer a credible threat when you wield them with all the finesse of a drunk driver ploughing into a bus stand full of pedestrians.

[TD1]

Yes, it really doesn't make the "Yes" voters sound appealing, does it.

The only people inciting hate/violence there seem to be the protesters.

[Loud Whispers]

And the skinheads.

[TD1]

Interestingly, about a dozen skinheads turned up in polo shirts and tried to get entry to the UKIP rally going on inside the building. They were refused admission at the door and all the protestors started chanting "Nazi Scum Off Our Streets" over and over again and got into shouting matches with them until they left. They were suspected SDL (Scottish Defence League) members. Shows you what kind of support UKIP get up here.

Doesn't sound like they incited anything. They tried to get in. They were turned away because they wore polo shirts, were bald, and wanted admittance, and because the crowd decided they were SDL members. Then, apparently, they left. Of course, the only information I'm going on here is Owlbread's post. Perhaps the skinheads did.

EDIT TO AVOID DOUBLEPOSTING: Well, perhaps not the best tone or language in the world, but the point it tries to get across seems valid.

[scriver]

Just because people say they aren't racist or misogynist doesn't mean they're aren't. If they continually use the same arguments, same rhetoric, and the same fallacies, they're usually the same. Parties like UKIP just but more importance on appearing "PC" and covering up when they shit on the floor. You can still smell it, though.

[scriver]

My perspective is from 'Merrica, where anti-immigration is 100% focused on racism.

It's the same in Europe. Or well, "ethnicism", since a lot of racists get all semantical about what racism is. Regardless, it's all about where people come from, and about letting certain peoples in and keeping others out. The more melanin you produce, the bigger chance of you being in the "Out" group, of course.

edit: Sorry for the doublepost, I meant to edit this into the above one.

[kaijyuu]

I'll let you Europeans talk about European stuff, but I'll pop some questions ya'll can answer at your leisure.

1) Assuming you were in control of immigration, what qualifications would you have for who's allowed in and who's not? Important topics are things like education, economic class, race, ethnicity, country of origin, etc, but feel free to mention other things.
2) If you were in power, what steps would you take to dissuade bigotry in the workplace? In politics? Anywhere else? Also mention what types of bigotry (racism, sexism, etc)
3) Fast forward to the future. Because of advances in infrastructure making work vastly more efficient, only a tiny fraction of the populace is needed to work to support everyone's necessities. What economic system would you think is ideal? Would everyone still be forced to work?


I won't rebut any answers. Your words can stand for themselves (or be debated by others).

[TD1]

Hahaha. UKIP is racist? It is the least discriminatory party of all. All others do have in-out categories; European, in. Not European, much harder to get in. UKIP believes immigration should be cut down, but doesn't favour any particular ethnic group.

It's not anti immigration. It's controlled immigration.

Using the example of Australia, yet again. Are they racist?

So. Give me an example of racist/sexist rhetoric that is consistent with UKIP policies?

All parties, as you so eloquently put it, "Shit on the floor." It's merely a discussion on what their particular problems are.

Ninja'd by Kaijyuu.

1) Education would be helpful, but not needed. Willingness to work and available places would be key. Economic class, race, ethnicity, country of origin don't matter, as long as they are not found to be immigrating for the purpose of destruction/terrorism or have ties to such organisations. The only other consideration, really, would be a criminal record clean of all but small issues.
2)I'm fairly certain in this regard I'd keep current legislation which means that if anyone experiences such things, they can report it and get it sorted. Perhaps change some boundaries so it's easier to get sorted.
3)I'm not an economist, but if only a tiny fraction is needed to support the needs I'll eat my hat
Other than that, making sure there was a tradeable surplus would be needed, and probably an investment in gyms to keep people healthy.