How did Nick Griffin do on BBC Question Time?

One thing I forgot to add McTag and again I can't stress enough this isn't meant to be a racist comment, it is the REAL WORLD not some hypothetical politicians bullshit about "we should all live in harmony" crap.

I bought the house I live in 30 years ago and now the second part of the plan should be coming to fruition which was when we retire we can sell the house for a bundle and retire to Spain.

So why aren't we doing this, simple, in this area now the houses are worth next to nothing because of the massive influx of asian immigrants that were dumped on Leeds city council by tosser blair, what should have been a retirement pay off of £250,000 (or more) is now worth at the most £80,000. Would you want to live in an area where half the properties have been turned into bedsit land to house immigrants?

Do you think Tony (the tosser) Blair and the idealistic head in the clouds dreamers that have absolutely no grasp of the real world will have a whip round to get me the £150,000 + shortfall

Forgot to add this snippet (NOT FROM NICK GRIFFIN)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222049/Crowded-Britain-heading-70m-migration-causes-population-rise-faster-before.html

It's a problem.

There is a programme on Channel 4 tonight about Afghans coming through Turkey headed for Greece and the EU.

I'll be watching that.

Well if they fare as well as these McTag they are laughing and (so far) they haven't had to hijack a plane.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4757523.stm

What isn't a problem Mac?

The larger problem here is the appeal to zoological strivings. Our culture is based upon an idea. At its broadest it is extension into space. Which gives rise to exploration, technics, imperialism and space travel through the application of a mathematic inspired by such an idea. Patriarchal through and through. The feminine boasts of having her feet on the ground rooted in practicalities. The Greeks forbad statues which didn't show at least one foot on the ground. No can-can dancing in old Attica mate. No figure skating leaps. Clump, clump, clump all the way.

Notice lj's zoolological urges. What can his country do for him is the name of the game there. A total absence of any spiritual direction.

About 2.5% of a population have IQs above 130. Hence an increase of population of 10 million would make available 100,000 extra people with IQs above 130. It would also produce an extra 100,000 with IQs below 70.

But the gain to society of that increase in the 130 plus range would far outweigh the negative effects, assuming there are any, of the increase of the other segment. The numbers are much multiplied for IQs above 120 and below 80. And it these higher IQ groups that take us forward.

The idea of extension into space would be served by such an increase. We are already seeing immigrants and the children of immigrants being selected for our national sporting teams.

Take American music as an example. Can you imagine that without the incredible influence of black musicians. I for one shudder at the thought of WASP musical developments.

What Nick Griffin represents is the notion that our cultural prime symbol, extension into space as artistically represented by a cathedral spire and perspective generally, unknown to any other culture, is exhausted and only the zoological strivings remain and they are threatened in all circumstances apart from on desert islands.

One glance at Nick Griffin's minders suffices to demonstrate the feeling of threat.

lj seeks to turn our direction around for no other reason than that he can extend himself to Spain which he could anyway if he took a job there as a supermarket sweeper up, say.

I admit I missed the irony in the previous statement, even if it wasn't very funny.

Another irony: the British have always wanted to export themselves to all corners of the globe, and have always felt that it was their right to do so.
Even if the natives weren't too keen.

Now some of us think we should be left alone, and no foreigners are welcome.

Is this reasonable?

Not to me Mac. I don't think I am qualified to think anything about such complex matters. Nor you.

We can only guess at the alternative policy's outcome. We can see the outcome of the one in operation. We could be comparing what we see in front of us with some hypothetical ideal. Often never even thought about. (A lot of people get un-necessarily divorced on that basis. ) [How's that for irony?]

The government is , on the whole, taking it in the round and altogether, a fine body of men and women and, as such, subject to ordinary weaknesses but is, taking all the circumstances into account, doing the best it can. IMHAHO.

So whatever happens I just assume it is beneficial in the lump and that, like the weather, it is best to take it as it comes.

Hey--run this through-- On Corrie tonight young Barlow, he's pretty funny, said to Battersby's daughter, the reformed prostitute, " You can tell lies better than you can tell the truth."

You have simply pointed out the difference spendius between pseudo intellectualism which you obviously represent and reality which I represent

The key marker with which to identify psuedo-intellectualism is the constant use of that sort of imbecile, self-validating assertion and the evident and touching faith with which it is believed to be true on the basis of it having been blurted out.

As I'm not a citizen of the UK, I won't respond to your question, McT.
But I really wish some of the contributors to this thread would .... It's a valid question.

I'll respond Olga.

It is perfectly reasonable.

Governments of any day do what they want to do and have the power to do.

Fair play is not a consideration.

Mac's expression that the natives "weren't too keen" is disingenuous. He ought to have said "some of the natives". Some did very well out of it. And still are doing.

Tell that to the Maoris.

And to the decendants, if you can find any, of Tecumseh.

Or, closer to home, to Martin McGuinness.

Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet

and all that.

You're udder milking Mac. Destiny is not ruled by cheap sentiment as the Grauniad would have you believe. And neither is evolution.

So you're saying might is right, yes?

If you can get away with a bit of colonization & exploitation, half your luck?

I'm sure "some of the natives" did do quite well out of it, but that's hardly the point, really.

It might help Olga if you imagined, if you can, the situation now if it hadn't happened.

It was destiny.

Destiny.

Hmmmm ....

(I think I might need someone to translate what you just said, spendius. )

Apologies for my ignorant post earlier. It's the trap I always fall into when I argue something I don't know all the facts about.
Which is why A2K is excellent for straightening out ideas and making sure the things you say have validity. Thank you McT.



Anyway..... Lovejoy WHAT? Is this a joke?
Your problem is that immigrants have 'destroyed' your area and lowered the value of your property...
How do you think the Spaniards feel about the thousands of OAP's moving to their countryside and buying their properties? What impact do you think it's having on their culture?
What were you planning to do in Spain? Because I hope you were going to take an interest in the culture, learn to speak the language if you cannot already, and integrate yourself nicely within Spanish society.
Or were you going to move to a part which already had a large English population, carry on eating English food from the shops that sell it, and spend your evenings watching English programmes on Sky.
What a joke.

I'm sorry, but I think your claims to represent the 'real world' rather than some apparently convoluted intellectual claptrap is true, albeit ridiculous. You represent the 'real world' as in you represent the majority of the population who only think of the world in terms of themselves, and can't think about anything on a larger scale. As you just demonstrated.
When is Spain going to cap their immigration? When does that become a problem?

I will.
You're anthropomorphising 'Britain'. I didn't go off to India about a hundred years ago to make sure I got sold cheap tea, even if my great Grandad did.

I think most of us are a bit embarrassed about our colonial past, but Britain can technically do what it wants, I don't think being 'reasonable has much to do with anything.

I'm unsure of my attitude to immigration because I don't know all the facts. I'm pretty happy for some Polish people to work in Asda so I don't have to. I'm sorry that you feel your area has been blighted by immigration, lovejoy. It did hit my family too, my dads friends at work all got sacked and replaced with Poles. Luckily he only works 4 days a week so wasn't laid off.

Pretty sound, PQ, respect.

The issues arising from colonization/exploitation of other cultures can be interpreted in this way, I guess. Or you can look at it from the point of view of the colonized & exploited.
Example: I personally was not part of the white colonization of Australia which (as most people would be well aware) led to pretty dire ongoing consequences for the aboriginal people of this country. I could argue that I had absolutely nothing to do with the first fleet & all that came after. (As our previous prime minister often did.) However it could also be argued that I (over 200 years later) have personally benefited, directly as a result of the white invasion of this country, at the expense if the aboriginal people. I'm more than just embarrassed at the consequences of the colonization of my country. I believe we have a moral responsibility to address the ongoing repercussions for the aboriginal people.

Folk like your grandfather & the many others like him (who, of course, contributed to far more financial benefit to the British nation than cheap tea ) eventually left India & returned home, once their activities there were no longer viable. The Australian colonizers stayed on. But I'd argue that there's a moral responsibility (though the issues are quite different) to both countries.