Of all things to hate on UKIP for, their stance on immigration is probably the least offensive.
Yes, they are that bad. I don't understand how anyone can support them. I suspect many people who do don't really understand their policies and stances on issues, and buy into the PR and hype they throw around to try and get support from angry people.
I am sad.
This is like a funeral for one of those exotic mystic words you could dance with in a fairy tale.
very sad day.
it seems pretty much all immigrants that come to the uk have no intention of intergrating with the native population.
theyre more intent on grabbing all they can from the state, without actually embracing any of our traditions.
i say keep them out, all of them.
It's not just that. Ever since they joined the EU in the 80s they have been sucking finances out of the whole continent via tax evasion schemes and other financial malfeasance. They have been exploiting the system for their gain, but are also the first to cry foul when something doesn't go their way.
Quite pathetic.
I remember something about Mexicans and this other country. We had the decently to blame all the issues on the Cartel. See? Mexican and Cartel. Nothing magical about those words.
Can't believe you went and ruined a perfectly good word.
So let me get this straight, your okay with UKIPs stance on immigration control for say SE Asia but you take exception with UKIPs stance on direct net migration from Eastern Europe? Flawed logic or what!
UKIP scares the British public into thinking immigration is a bad thing, the fact of the matter is simple: Immigration has had a direct positive result on the UK, without immigrant nurses, doctors and medics the NHS would have collapsed, without immigrant agricultural workers the British farmer would have gone bankrupt. And it has been proven that the majority of immigrants living in the UK today contribute a healthy amount of fiscal return to the UK economy via taxes and direct contributions.
Last edited by mmocbc36cf2888; 2013-11-13 at 01:16 PM.
You tl;dr makes your position sound even more ridiculous than it already is.
For the record Nakura Chambers is American and lives in the USA, fuck knows why he is obsessed by British politics and especially UKIP.
The racist party turns out to be kind of racist? Who'd have thought
Anglophiles. They are a specific breed (pun intended) of people from the US (usually) who revere the... Traditional culture (or rather: Their own perspective of it) of (mostly) England, and see their (perceived and/or hoped for) Anglo-Saxon heritage as vastly superior to all other heritages.
A very well known example of an Anglophile was H.P. Lovecraft. Even though his Anglophilia can be ascribed to the fact that he was also paranoid and psychotic, as a result of his congenital syphilis.
Aparently, it's a rather large group. Nakura Chambers is an Anglophile, as was (the late, due to constant ban-evasion) 'Guy Fawkes.'
OP what did you expect when you support a xenophobic, conservative political group?
He may love us, but he knows fuck all about us.
Same as the above, but even more so - he didn't even know who Guy Fawkes is....as was (the late, due to constant ban-evasion) 'Guy Fawkes.'
OT: UKIP is the party of the 'Little Englander', the Daily Mail reader, the 'Hitler was an awful man, but he had some good ideas on the Gypsy/gay/Jewish problem', the type of people that would vote BNP if they thought it would be acceptable to mention at the dinner table - they are a one trick pony with archaic ideals that hark back to a non-existant Golden Age.
The worst thing for an Anglophile, or any racially superior nut-job, is learning. Their identity and sense of self-worth is fully dependent on their views considering their values and their heritage. Any learning can cause doubt, and any doubt is damaging to their identity and ultimate concern (that of being valuable, where the measure of value can only be achieved by comparison).
As such, it is idolatory faith, in an object that is neither infinite nor conceptual, and can therefore be logically construed and assumed to be false. The ultimate result is either a destruction of self (followed by a restruction of self according to either 'true' faiths (a wholeness of self through an assumption of unfalsifiable OR unquantifiable infinity ('divinity' in this scenario does not need to be a deity, or even a tangible truth; in fact, it is more effective without either of those two)) or replaced by another false faith)).
It's quite an interesting thing. And I take some (admittedly cruel) joy in watching the destruction of self happen. I'm not without my vices.