MrSmith Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I clicked on the first link and looked at the URL whilst the page was loading. Surprise surprise ... It was to the Daily Fail. Needless to say I didn't wait for the page to load. OK, so Labour were in government from 1962 to 2011? I would have expected the labour party spokesperson to know when they were in power and that they issued passports to many immigrants in return for their vote. It was after all Labour policy. Take your pick, different news stories from different sources all saying pretty much the same thing labour tried to buy power by allowing mass immigration. Labour's 'secret plan' to lure migrants http://www.telegraph.co.uk The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends. the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”. Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour. February 26,2010 http://www.express.co.uk THE number of immigrants granted British citizenship soared by half as much again to more than 200,000 last year, official figures revealed yesterday. A total of 203,865 newcomers were handed UK passports during 2009, Tens of thousands of immigrants were given the right to come to the UK to take up job offers last year, despite 2.46 million being unemployed. Using immigration to turn Britain into a nation of Labour voters is so shameful I can hardly believe it Historians may note that the 1997 Labour manifesto offered no clue whatsoever as to what was in store. It merely stated that ‘every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception’. Neither the manifesto nor the utterances of leading Labour politicians gave the British people any reason to expect the ensuing surge that took place. http://www.express.co.uk LABOUR dismissed the British public’s widespread opposition to mass immigration as “racism”, a Government document revealed yesterday. Officials made it clear that public opinion was strongly against relaxing border controls. But ministers were urged to ignore voters’ “racist” views and press ahead with a secret policy to encourage migrants to flood into Britain. Immigration: a plan to alter the nation's soul The government's policy of mass immigration was intended to remodel the social fabric of the nation, says Janet Daley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I would have expected the labour party spokesperson to know when they were in power and that they issued passports to many immigrants in return for their vote. It was after all Labour policy. Take your pick, different news stories from different sources all saying pretty much the same thing labour tried to buy power by allowing mass immigration. But it's all just rightwing rubbish used to influence public opinion and the articles have very little, if any, facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 But it's all just rightwing rubbish used to influence public opinion and the articles have very little, if any, facts. Is this rightwing? http://www.visabureau.com/uk/news/22-06-2012/labour-admits-immigration-failures.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 No I would just say don’t be stupid and leave it at that That's no way to debate like an adult. It might be appropriate if you're at school in the playgroung. and moabdul said many after you asked if it was most. Yeah, he went from implying all, to saying a rather nebulous 'many'. So what % is that? If it's 10% or 20%, can it really be called many? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I often wonder why the members asking the question don’t just Google it themselves, but I don’t mind spending a minute or two helping to educate them. Answer: Members most likly don't have time. Your posting timeline suggest you have more than a minute or two to spare so keep up the good work. Educated by the DM??: les ov the hoomer please, I have a hernia: Edited July 20, 2012 by ronthenekred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 That's no way to debate like an adult. It might be appropriate if you're at school in the playgroung. Yeah, he went from implying all, to saying a rather nebulous 'many'. So what % is that? If it's 10% or 20%, can it really be called many? It wasn't a debate about the sky being green, when you make a silly statement that has no basis of fact, like “the sky is green” don't expect people to ask for evidence or debate it, expect them to think you are being silly and treat you as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Answer: Members most likly don't have time. Your posting timeline suggest you have more than a minute or two to spare so keep up the good work. Educated by the DM??: les ov the hoomer please, I have a hernia: You will note I usually have the time to use multiple sources to verify fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 It wasn't a debate about the sky being green, when you make a silly statement that has no basis of fact, like “the sky is green” don't expect people to ask for evidence or debate it, expect them to think you are being silly and treat you as such. Perhaps you didn't realise that it was an analogy being used to explain how debate works. a·nal·o·gy/əˈnaləjē/ Noun: A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Can you see how that works? When a statement is made it's not normal to have to google the proof yourself, it's normal for the person making the statement to provide it. That's why people don't google it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Perhaps you didn't realise that it was an analogy being used to explain how debate works. Can you see how that works? I realised. Debate is a formal discussion on a particular topic in which opposing arguments are put forward; there isn't a need for someone to prove what they say although they may do if someone else claims what they have said in incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Or if someone else simply asks them for the basis of a statement they make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now