Punching Nazis..

[BennyD]

What???? That sounds like you're saying people find lynching funny. Seriously?

Ever heard of the KKK?

[JohnMcGreal]

So if this is true why aren't they celebrating this? Why are they instead giving the low paid tax cuts AND increasing the minimum wage AND bringing in the living wage?

You're being paranoid. Utterly paranoid.

I'm sure if you asked the right people, they are celebrating it. It's no coincidence that the richest 1% have got richer in the time that everyone else's living standards have declined.

[Greenmile]

...
4. Net "benefit" to the economy is nil - the expenses weight out the same as the income...

This is the one I'm struggling with. You seem to be stating this as a fact rather than opinion, and if you mean overall "benefit" rather than economic, it could only be an opinion - there are those of us who like diversity and multiculturalism - so I'm inferring you mean economic benefit.

Most of the studies etc I could find - albeit only from a fairly brief bit of Googling - vary quite a bit in their estimates of the net economic benefit of immigration. The only real "fact" I could find is that it's all but impossible to measure with any degree of accuracy, so unless you base the above statement on some kind of "median value" from the articles, surveys etc read over many years (you should probably discount personal experience as anecdotal, if you want to get close to the truth of the matter), I can't see how you came to the above conclusion.

[Lancasterclaret]

I can, its Rowls ffs

[Imploding Turtle]

Come on Turtle. Poke your head out and engage in the debate.

You keep posting all these assertions yet you continue to refuse to provide any kind of supporting information. It makes me believe that all these assertions are are justt your opinions that you are presenting as if they are facts.

You are not an authority on immigration, nor are you an expert on the effects of immigration, so if you wish to discuss this with me then show me what it is that informs your opinion. If you can't do that then your opinion is uninformed and therefore unworthy of my time.

[Rowls]

That was referring to economic benefits, which you should have been able to ascertain by the language in the rest of the sentece, namely "expenses" and "income". Not too tricky.

As for the social factors you talk about like diversity and multiculturalism, I certainly do not follow the dictum of multiculturalism. I've rarely seen it work as its proponents claim. What you end up with is socially enforced apartheid.

But as ever, there are pros and cons to each factor. Immigration can enrich life and bring new ideas, new cultural things etc. But the old line about which goes along the lines of "well you like curry so you ought to be pro immigration" does not address the debate sensibly. Particularly when one of the demographics most opposed to further mass immigration are immigrant communities themselves.

As for how I came to my conclusion about net economic benefit being nil - it's really very simple. Pro immigrant groups like the BBC claim that immigration improves the economy and can show that a surge in immigration brings and increase in GDP. Anti-immigration groups like Migration Watch claim that GDP only rises in relation to the population rise therefore the rise brings no benefit as it simply mirrors the additional population.

Others claim immigration brings increases, others claim it costs us money.

The simple conclusion here is that these groups are presenting their findings how they want and it's likely to be neither.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was claiming this was a "fact". "Facts" are for ImplodingTurdlet. It's a dim soul indeed who inhabits a world of "facts" and can draw clear sharp atom-slicing lines between the world of absolute "facts" and "made up stuff". If it helps you to understand my posts, just imagine that underneath every single post I write the words "this is wot I fink". Everybody else (apart from you and IT) seems to understand the simple concept that I write things wot I fink and you can write things wot you fink. They don't have to be "facts".

Or how about this?- Every time I want to convey a "fact" I'll end my sentence with "FACT". Will that suffice?

[Imploding Turtle]

To think he claims not to be a hypocrite

How is it hypocritical to ask that someone back up their assertions with supporting information?

You keep calling me a hypocrite yet you can't cite a single example of hypocrisy. All you're doing is slandering me and that's pretty childish.

[Greenmile]

That was referring to economic benefits, which you should have been able to ascertain by the language in the rest of the sentece, namely "expenses" and "income". Not too tricky.

I did ascertain it, and even said as much (I used the word "inferred" granted), so I'm not sure why you seem to be taking a patronising tone with me here.

As for the social factors you talk about like diversity and multiculturalism, I certainly do not follow the dictum of multiculturalism. I've rarely seen it work as its proponents claim. What you end up with is socially enforced apartheid.

But as ever, there are pros and cons to each factor. Immigration can enrich life and bring new ideas, new cultural things etc. But the old line about which goes along the lines of "well you like curry so you ought to be pro immigration" does not address the debate sensibly. Particularly when one of the demographics most opposed to further mass immigration are immigrant communities themselves.

I never mentioned curry, or made a particular argument about multi-culturalism, other than it's not an objectively negative thing, but you've already clarified you meant economic benefits anyway. We can certainly agree there are pros and cons to immigration.

As for how I came to my conclusion about net economic benefit being nil - it's really very simple. Pro immigrant groups like the BBC claim that immigration improves the economy and can show that a surge in immigration brings and increase in GDP. Anti-immigration groups like Migration Watch claim that GDP only rises in relation to the population rise therefore the rise brings no benefit as it simply mirrors the additional population.

Others claim immigration brings increases, others claim it costs us money.

The simple conclusion here is that these groups are presenting their findings how they want and it's likely to be neither.

So you are taking a "median value". i.e. "some of what I hear says it's positive, some says it's negative, so it must be neutral". Isn't that what they call false equivalency? It certainly doesn't seem to be a very accurate way of reaching a conclusion.

To be blunt, this is the only part of your reply which is really relevant to what I was saying - the rest just seems to be an unwarranted attack (yes, yes, I'm a "snowflake", etc.)

I don't know where you got the idea that I was claiming this was a "fact". "Facts" are for ImplodingTurdlet. It's a dim soul indeed who inhabits a world of "facts" and can draw clear sharp atom-slicing lines between the world of absolute "facts" and "made up stuff". If it helps you to understand my posts, just imagine that underneath every single post I write the words "this is wot I fink". Everybody else (apart from you and IT) seems to understand the simple concept that I write things wot I fink and you can write things wot you fink. They don't have to be "facts".

Or how about this?- Every time I want to convey a "fact" I'll end my sentence with "FACT". Will that suffice?

You presented it as a one of a number of "points" and invited people (maybe just IT) to try to diagree with them. I was just disagreeing with that particular point. I would say, though, that stating it in the manner you did (as part of a list and with no "probably", "seems to be" or any other qualifying clause), led me to believe that you seemed to be stating as a fact, although I think my response allowed for the possibility that this was not so - I later referred to it as a "conclusion", which is a little closer to "opinion" on the sliding scale. I will consider myself corrected on that point.

I appreciate this is a "post-fact world" and all, but you (one) can't take everything you read that is not explicity stated as "fact" to be the writer's opinion only, can you? As mentioned above, I think there is a sliding scale from stone cold "fact" (eg "I think therefore I am") and totally uninformed opinion (eg "x is a nobhead"). I just suggested you presented your points in a way that was closer to the former than the latter.

[Damo]

It looks like the "anti-facists" got a taste of their own medicine in Berkeley yesterday.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn. ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[elwaclaret]

Find it strange that people consider themselves liberal who tolerate all forms of racist behaviour and even in some cases attempt justify it other than white racism.

Right or wrong multi-culturism will only work if everyone is tolerant that is clearly not the case here on ALL sides.

[ClaretMoffitt]

It looks like the "anti-facists" got a taste of their own medicine in Berkeley yesterday.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn. ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They've been getting pasted for a few weeks now.


The USA isn't England. You can't just go around assaulting people, pepper spraying women, vandalizing the streets and getting away with it whilst being painted as a hero by the media simply because you hold up banners saying "equality" "Peace" and label yourself anti-fascist over there.

These people were playing a very dangerous game attacking random Trump supporters in america at will, and I'm frankly surprised none of them have been shot yet.

[Pstotto]

The Nazis are now the left not the right. The Remainers on the side of the 4th Reich under Merkel are the true Nazis of today, who don't believe in democracy but the political persuasion of mob rule.

[evensteadiereddie]

Wow. What is this, a race to the bottom ?
If so, you win.

[Top Claret]

Biggest nazis in this country are the labour party and its supporters

[Lancasterclaret]

The Nazis are now the left not the right. The Remainers on the side of the 4th Reich under Merkel are the true Nazis of today, who don't believe in democracy but the political persuasion of mob rule.

Wind up merchant and an early start on the sherry is a bad combination on CM

[yTib]

The simple conclusion here is that these groups are presenting their findings how they want and it's likely to be neither.

a nice summation of your entire contribution to any argument on this thread or on this forum.

also, your continuing personal insults towards turtle just demonstrate to everyone how under your skin he gets. probably because he is easily your master in any debate.

[Imploding Turtle]

i see some people are still calling black bloc anarchists "protesters" and still putting them in with the left. ******* idiots.

[Damo]

i see some people are still calling black bloc anarchists "protesters" and still putting them in with the left. ******* idiots.

Antifa/black bloc anarchists are left wing protesters Charlie.
They are as left wing as the EDL etc are right wing.
You can't denounce them just because they undermine your moral highground

[mikeS]

Punching Nazis
Leave it to Jake and Elwood
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ClaretMoffitt]

Antifa/black bloc anarchists are left wing protesters Charlie.
They are as left wing as the EDL etc are right wing.
You can't denounce them just because they undermine your moral highground

Fair point.

If the edl are fine to be labelled right wing, ANTIFA are left wing, not that you will ever see ANTIFA or anarchist's be condemned on English media anyway or labelled as anything other than 'anti racism protestors.' Or anti far right.

I mean, who could possibly dislike anti racism protestors? They have to be the good guys with a label like that, right?

[Damo]

Fair point.

If the edl are fine to be labelled right wing, ANTIFA are left wing, not that you will ever see ANTIFA or anarchist's be condemned on English media anyway or labelled as anything other than 'anti racism protestors.' Or anti far right.

I mean, who could possibly dislike anti racism protestors? They have to be the good guys with a label like that, right?

They use violence against anyone who doesn't share their views.
That's a fairly Facist approach to anti-facism.

[bfcjg]

I think with what may happen soon on the Korean peninusla and the tightening of the the presidents power in the dubious Turkish ballot coupled with the middle east trouble will make the trouble in the USA look like handbags at ten paces .

[Lancasterclaret]

Far left and far right are as bad as each other at disrupting protests and starting fights.

[HatfieldClaret]

Totally agree Lancaster, though I hope Corbyn remembers that when he next addresses the rabble outside the Tory party conference.

[ClaretAndJew]

My willy hangs to the right but I lean quite left.

[morpheus2]

My willy hangs to the right but I lean quite left.

Yes you'll have to to address the balance, I speak from experience.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Btw, title of this thread has to be a parody on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AhGYo9TExU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

Antifa/black bloc anarchists are left wing protesters Charlie.
They are as left wing as the EDL etc are right wing.
You can't denounce them just because they undermine your moral highground

Black bloc are not protesters. They turn up to protests solely to participate in violence, not to protest. The sooner you understand the difference the better. But that's assuming you even want to understand it.

[morpheus2]

Black bloc are not protesters. They turn up to protests solely to participate in violence, not to protest. The sooner you understand the difference the better. But that's assuming you even want to understand it.

Wiki says these Black Bloc chaps are protesters, and Wiki knows stuff.

Ed: Don't make me post The Fonz again IT, don't make me do it...

[Imploding Turtle]

If the army turn up with the sole intention to open fire on people does their presense at a protest make them protesters too? Of course not.

Black bloc coordinate online to commit acts of violence at these events. They're pretty easy to identify because they'll all be dressed entirely in black, with their faces hidden and carrying a backpack. Any one who thinks these people are actually protesters, despite knowing that they're not there to protest anything, isn't someone whose opinion can be taken seriously. They're the activists version of football hooligans who only attend games to riot. I'm sure you wouldn't like people at a Burnley game committing violence to be considered representative of all Burnley fans at that particular game, so why would you be OK with it in this regard?

[morpheus2]

.....bu bu but 'Wiki'.....WIKI!!

[Damo]

They turn up with their antifa flags, after posting on Facebook they will bring back Nazi scalps. But they are nothing to do with the left or protesting in general.
Yeah alright charlie

[ClaretMoffitt]

Don't think IT denies they are branches of left wing. They obviously are because they fight against the right. When they turn up to protests with intent of violence (which they do) it's always to right wing events. They never attack left wing events.

What he's saying is they aren't protestors. They just turn up to legitimate protests with intent of hurting those who's opinions they oppose. Which while I may think over simplifies their situation, I agree with mostly.