eckby

I thought the BBC used 'so called Islamic State'

It's just a flag with some Islamic symbols and the message, God's messenger Mohammed written on it, not much to get excited about, he might be expressing his faith or he might be attempting to cause offense which he can only do if you allow it to bother you.

So to create a tolerant society you have to ban everything and everyone that you find intolerable. That would be a closed society full of intolerant people. Or would there be no one left because each person that suppresses or expels an intolerant person would also need to be expelled because of their intolerance. The only people that are intolerant of intolerant people are intolerant people. The tolerance paradox arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.

Because you have very likley been conditioned to feel like that. Intolerance of intolerance is intolerance, Intolerance of Islam is however more understandable than intolerance of BNP. One group has killed millions over opinions, gender and sexuality and the other hasn't.

Born in the UK to citizens of the UK makes you a citizen of the UK.

Nope, I am an omnivore but that doesn't mean that want to see the mass extinction of other species. ---------- Post added 04-07-2015 at 21:06 ---------- You didn't point out any deficiencies, you asked a question and I answered it.

Its you showing the inability to accept other points of view and humans are not the only species living on the planet, the more space we occupy the less there is for other species.

https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights/breath-tests The police can stop you at any time and ask you to take a breath test (‘breathalyse’ you) if: they think you’ve been drinking you’ve committed a traffic offence you’ve been involved in a road traffic accident If you refuse to take a breath test, or fail to supply a sample of breath and don’t have a ‘reasonable excuse’, you can be arrested. A reasonable excuse could be a genuine physical or mental condition stopping you from giving a sample. The breath test gives a result straight away. If it shows you’re not over the drink drive limit, you may be allowed to go. If you fail the breath test, you’ll be taken to a police station and given a final breath test. If it’s positive, you will be charged. Charged with what? at this point they only think you have been driving, surely they would then be required to prove that you have been driving.

You should look at your own punctuation. ---------- Post added 04-07-2015 at 18:36 ---------- Increases racial tensions. More food poisoning. We can have music, art, clothes, without immigration. They cost more than they put in so not good for the economy. Diversity means more diverse beliefs and opinions and you hate people with different opinions to the opinions you hold. More competition for jobs which leaves many young British people with out work. More competition for housing which leaves many young British people unable to buy and paying very high rents. Increased demand for road use so more congestion. Increased demand for schools, NHS, council services, Scarce resources used to print signs and leaflets in multiple languages. Higher demand for benefits. Increased UK carbon footprint. More damage to the environment. Less space for other indigenous species. Increased security which decreases everyone's freedom and increases cost. Higher demand for food so more imports. Water Shortages. Increased demand for power. Increased depletion of UK resources.

retep's sentences look fine to me.

On this I agree, no need for a test at all, British citizenship could simply be given once someone as resided here for a set amount of years and made continuous posative contributions to the UK economy and society.

I was just posting a counter argument to the incorrect point you made, obviously something you don't like, which is why you are claiming that I have another account, probably hoping that I will be kicked off the forum so that you can spout your nonsense without it being challenged.

UAF are far more dangerous than EDL will ever be. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-is-the-left-so-blinkered-to-islamic-extremism-8679265.html Launched in 2003 as a response to the electoral activity of the British National Party, UAF spends most of its time these days organising counter demonstrations against the EDL. An honourable way to pass the time, you might think. UAF’s definition of what constitutes fascism, however, is a peculiar one. Not only are those advocating the resurrection of a fascistic Islamic caliphate seemingly not worth opposing, they have been actively welcomed into the UAF fold by the leadership. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10122496/Anti-fascists-fuel-the-fire-of-hate.html UAF, 10 years old this year, is one of Britain’s most prominent anti-fascist organisations. It has received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the biggest trade unions, and support from dozens of mainstream politicians. Its vice-chairmen include Christine Blower, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, and Hugh Lanning, the deputy general secretary of the PCS civil service union. Even David Cameron, when a backbench MP, signed its founding statement. It has avoided substantial scrutiny because, as in the case of Mr Brett, anyone who criticises it risks being smeared as an ally of the vile groups it opposes. Of course, few causes can be more deserving than resistance to the EDL and British National Party. But the uncomfortable truth about UAF is that it contains more than a trace of fascism itself. It specialises, as seen in Oxford, in organising counter-demonstrations to any activity, or anticipated activity, by the far Right. Unfortunately, UAF’s counter-demonstrations often seem to cause as much, if not more, trouble than those by the EDL and BNP.

But immigrants overall have made a negative contribution to government coffers, its cost more then they have paid in, meaning they haven't helped to keep pension affordable.

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” Thus, if we engage (civilly) with controversial or offensive ideas we'll either discover we have been wrong the whole time - which is, of course, beneficial to us - or we'll show the dissenter he or she is wrong - which is also beneficial, since more people will now benefit from having more robust ideas. What helps no one is silencing one side, since those ideas are now denied to everyone. If those ideas are wrong, we should be able to simply point out how those ideas are wrong; if the dissenting ideas are in fact better, then we've done the world a disservice by locking up good ideas. http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/john-stuart-mill-and-the-dangers-of-silencing

Unite Against Fascism vs UKIP on daily politics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rm7NmIsjsk UAF show themselves to be the fascists.

This is an interesting interview. Martin Smith (UAF) speaks to BBC 5 live after UAF violence in Bolton.

No it doesn't discount it, it just demonstrates that you was wrong, most were not killed deliberately by settlers, most died inadvertently because their immune systems could not cope with the new deceases taken to America.

The overwhelming majority died from disease carried to the Americas inadvertently by the settlers.

Did they go over with the intentions of murdering on mass or did they go over for a better life and the clash of two very different cultures resulted in the stronger culture destroying the weaker culture.

I didn't say it can't be racist, but if the same policy applies to everyone regardless of race then the policy isn't racist.

The point I made was in the post you quoted. For the rest of your post. What are you talking about?????????

You appear to be describing a serious mental health issue. Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a "psychosis" in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue. People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against, or loved from a distance. These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated. Belief that a God is watching you, loving you and will punish or reward you fits nicely into the above mental health issue. So either they all have the same disorder or they are all normal but different and that disorder is imagined by the people that came up with it.

Two people believe in God. Person A believes God is all loving so lives their life in loving way, ignoring all that is violent in the bible or Koran. But they still believe they are following the will of God. Person B believes God is hateful, violent and vengeful, caring and loving, so lives their life in a hateful, violent and vengeful caring and loving way. They believe they are following the will of God. If persons B's belief in God means they have mental health issues then surely persons A's belief in God must mean they also have mental health issues.