Immigrant workers are scab workers?

[exosculate]

odd! i don't .. TB is a longtime friend from afa days .. tis all

though TB makes some very important points about the damage forced migration does both here and abroad ..

not sure what exo believes .. tell me!

I actually think I agree with you durruti alot to be honest and think baldwin makes some good points that the unreconstructed left cannot cope with.

edited for spelling

 

[belboid]

You've already said you know what i think, now you're saying you don't.

Very silly.

I said no such thing - I said I thought you beleived something going by your contributions on this thread. Hence the (?) after your name. & I have no problem at all with people disagreeing with me, unless they start lying - like balders does.

 

[exosculate]

yes they fucking do, you fool.

What belboid means is - they don't in highly unionised, permanent employed local government land. He can't see beyond it.

 

[exosculate]

I said no such thing - I said I thought you beleived something going by your contributions on this thread. Hence the (?) after your name. & I have no problem at all with people disagreeing with me, unless they start lying - like balders does.

You think the question mark makes things alright?

If I said belboid is a cunt(?) why do you bother debating with him, would that be alright?

 

[snadge]

read on macfudd

I have.

maybe in your line of work it doesn't happen because you are covered by employment law.

But it happens to everyone else.


I have been "sacked" from loads of jobs due to my refusal to lick bum and do "yessir, yessir 3 bags full" type fawning when the company is blatently breaking health and safety regulations.

They just get someone else in that is willing to put their life in danger.

 

[ViolentPanda]

so capitalism is fine to you jessie then

Did he say that?

Did he even go anywhere near saying that?

Nope, so why be so simplistic as to imply that he did, rather than arguing with him on the substance of his post?

 

[ViolentPanda]

you are having a laugh!!!

Capitalism is instrumentalist. If the most benefit can be derived from "hiring and firing at the drop of a hat" then that's what will happen.
Thing is, that's not a view that it'd make much sense to perpetuate with reference to any (service or manufacturing) industry where any training is needed, because the most benefit is actually derived from retaining trained staff rather than incurring a never-ending flood of training costs.
That's why hiring and firing is most often piecemeal rather than wholesale, and why, when it is wholesale, there's usually other additional factors that should be taken into account.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What a patronising buffoon you are...

Sorry mate, but don't you know you should never start a post about someone patronising you by adopting a patronising manner?

 

[treelover]

when posters praise posts or diss them can they mention the post number , ta

 

[exosculate]

Sorry mate, but don't you know you should never start a post about someone patronising you by adopting a patronising manner?

Thats a non-sexist patronising manner to you sunshine.

 

[belboid]

What belboid means is - they don't in highly unionised, permanent employed local government land. He can't see beyond it.

that is not what I said, nor is it what I meant. It applies in many industries, tho not all as I recognised (possibly belatedly, but still recognised)

I have.

maybe in your line of work it doesn't happen because you are covered by employment law.

But it happens to everyone else.

Everyone is 'covered' by employment law equally, no matter what there field of work - the question is whether htose laws can be enforced, and whether the employment contracts allow the full effects of the law to kick in. Such a situation is not restricted to my (presumed) line of work at all - and that line isnt local government, btw. it's the also highly insecure vol/com sector (which isnt as bad as building trades I know, but if you think it is entirely lovely hippy employers, you'd be several miles out)

 

[belboid]

You think the question mark makes things alright?

If I said belboid is a cunt(?) why do you bother debating with him, would that be alright?

I'm glad you think hat being in favour of immigration controls is the equivalent of being a cunt.

If that is not what you think, then your comaprison is simply an ill-tempered insult which has no relevance or connection to this argument.

If you dont support some immigration controls, I apologise, just going from what you say on this (and the similar) thread(s). you have not, as far as I can see, said either way definitively. However your tone towards those who have argued againat IC's would imply that you disagree with them (and not just with their/our way of stating the case).

 

[Blagsta]

Not really. The capitalist machine has mutated and outlived the need for it's operators - which it now intends to cast into the dustbin of history. Just keep watching the mass layoffs. Eventually, you'll believe me. Sooner or later.

Utter crap.

 

[exosculate]

Well

I'm glad you think hat being in favour of immigration controls is the equivalent of being a cunt.

I didn't say that, you clearly think that though. I was clearly making the point that putting a question mark against something does not neautralise the statement. As you well know.

If that is not what you think, then your comaprison is simply an ill-tempered insult which has no relevance or connection to this argument.

Your whole manner is ill-tempered with people who do not agree with you, mine isn't.

If you dont support some immigration controls, I apologise, just going from what you say on this (and the similar) thread(s). you have not, as far as I can see, said either way definitively. However your tone towards those who have argued againat IC's would imply that you disagree with them (and not just with their/our way of stating the case).

I think an open borders/no borders position is absurdly simplistic. Since that is not going to happen, you just end up agreeing with whatever the current neo-liberal position is.

I am curious though. Since its obvious that the majority of the UK population would not support a no borders position, would you argue they are all cunts?

 

[JoePolitix]

I've found a sticker for Suburban Casual!

 

[belboid]

I didn't say that, you clearly think that though. I was clearly making the point that putting a question mark against something does not neautralise the statement. As you well know.

It is what is called a rhetorical device dear boy. try it sometime, it might make you think a bit. A question mark does not 'neutralise' a statement, but it implies a realisation that it might not be true. Turns out, it was true, so I am really not sure what your problem was. But to point out to you why your poor attempt at a comparison was poor, let me continue. The statement to which I added a (?) was one which had a variety of possible answers, but there were definite answers. You either do or do not think that some immigration controls are necessary. The statement to which you added a (?) was one which is simply a matter of opinion, and opinion which could fall anywhere upon a continuum. Am I a cunt? Could be yes, no, a little bit, quite a lot. etc etc. Whichever it is tho, it would be your opinion. It would not be a statement of absolute fact, and so a (?) is totally superfluous. It makes no logical sense (unless you do not know your own mind), whereas in my statement is indicated something specific - a degree of uncertainty. Had you written 'belboid is a tranmere supporter (?)' - that would make perfect sense. But your comment did not.

I hope that makes things clearer for you.

Your whole manner is ill-tempered with people who do not agree with you, mine isn't.

I beg to differ. i get somewhat narky when someone lies about me, or is wilfully ignorant, but I dont think there is actually anything wrong with that. So sorry if you do.

I think an open borders/no borders position is absurdly simplistic. Since that is not going to happen, you just end up agreeing with whatever the current neo-liberal position is.

In what way is it 'simplistic', or perhaps I should ask, in what way is it any more 'simplistic' than the authoritarian solution (half) offered by mr baldwin? He cant even explain why he thinks they would work! No one on this thread - or any of the others I have read (far, far, too many) have even tried to do so. At least I have made an attempt to provide some evidence for my position, however much you may disagree with it.

As to the second half of your comment, there are two points:

Firstly, just because something is unlikely in the near future, it doesnt mean you shouldnt argue for it. Do you never argue for your ultimate ambition, in the hope that, in the here and now, we can at least move a step or two closer to it? Rosa Luxembourg (sorry to quote someone who is probably another 'unreconstructed leftists', whatever that actually means (nothing, as far as I can tell)) once said 'revolutionaries make the best reformists, because our goal is revolution'. She recognised that without shooting for the stars, the shitty compromises that reformist governments always make would mean that there 'realism' ends up being a pathetic shadow of what they hoped for.

Secondly, how does arguing for no borders mean that I simply agree with the neo-liberals. The neo-liberals want a Fortress Europe, they dont want really poor people coming into our nice clean little superstate. they certainly dont want such immigrants to enjoy the same rights benefits and wages as other workers. They dont want strong unions that dont allow bosses to undercut workers' terms and conditions. I'm afraid your comment is simply wrong.

I am curious though. Since its obvious that the majority of the UK population would not support a no borders position, would you argue they are all cunts?

I dont think that such people are all cunts by any means, and I would be interested if you could point out where I have said so (and no, you wont find it in my last post). Again, that is a somewhat irritating distortion of my view, in order to hide from your own failure of comprehension/logic/intellect/whatever. Most people beleive there is a need for immigration controls for perfectly understandable and even logical reasons. They are not all cunts by any means. Of course some of them are though - I am sure we can all agree that Nick Griffin is one such person. And those who obsess about the subject to the exclusion of almost all others come jolly close as well. Especially when they claim to be 'socialists', but only ever get round to actual socialism when absolutely forced to.

Anyway, I hope you are happy that this pointless diversion has alowed mr tbaldwin to continue to avoid answering any questions put to him. Including exactly what imigration contorls he - or you - would actually like to implement. Unless you have something to actually add to the above statements other than mere bluster, I shall not bother replying to your ill-tempered and ill-thought out comments. I would prefer to actually discuss the topic of the thread rather than your hurt feelings.

 

[exosculate]

That whole post Belboid demonstrates several things to me

1) It has a pompous and patronising tone, and is clearly hostile, what you have denied infact and yet demonstrated at the same time.

2) That you support the neo-liberal agenda, as and when they make policy on opening labour movement you support it regardless of consequences.

3) That you personally decide what stars to shoot for and what not to. The working class are right when you think so and not right when you think so. How you work out that heaven only knows.

4) You are not interested in debate, you want to accuse others of derailing etc when it doesn't suit you.

5) You actually do think a majority of working class people in the UK are cunts.


I do have a few questions for you though, I know you think its only you that has the right to scrutinise but i'll ask anyway

How many people do you think it is acceptable to have as a population in the UK? What figure is sustainable? Should it be unlimited? Or if you have a cap how do you cope if it is inevitably exceeded?


p.s And of course I'm not hurt, no borders advocates live in la la cuckoo land as far as i am concerned. How could anyone be hurt by that. I'm just disappointed that you are clearly another person who knows best and has a correct line and everyone else is a racist cunt.

 

[Julie]

I was not stating that immigrant labour IS scab labour, but asking if it is, given the similarities.

That would be no, then

 

[belboid]

are you actually the same exo as posted here a couple of years back? cos I recall him being a fairly sensible and decent sort, rather than a narky cunt. the above post (with the exception of the pompus and patronising bit, that was deliberate as you seem to need to have things put in very simple terms) is totally and utterly false, and you are either unutterably stupid or a straightforward liar.

I note tho that you have also REFUSED to answer ANY question put to you -I have answered most, tho I wont answer more till you have the guts/decency to do the same.

Most of your ponts are simly fuckng stupid, and blatantly ignorant. As you simply do not believe me when I say something, why are you even bothering to engage? The fact that you do continue to do so indicates quite strongly that you know you are full of shit.

1 - yes, and then no not at all (I'll also point out here tht I did recognising making an erroneous oversimplification in one of my posts before, which is something neither you nor baldy have the nerve to do).
2 - not at all - please DEMONSTRATE how I do so rather than simply asserting it
3 - of course I decide what I am going to shoot for, who he fuck else should?
4 - tosh. I am interested in DEBATE but debate means actually exchanging ideas, devloping and discussing them, not simply restating them over and over again.
5 - rubbish, and indeed, fuck off. I know you think you speak for the entire working class (or so it would seem) I do not. Nor do I patronise people by refusing to state my opinion as you do.

Now shithead (ophh sorry that was rude I wonder what came over me?)

WHAT IMMIGRATION CONTROLS DO YOU SUPPORT AND HOW MANY GUNS SHOULD THE BORDER PATROL HAVE?

I have answered almost all your questions, you havent answered a single one. That reeks of cowardice and/or ignorance.

 

[belboid]

A final point for now.

twatbaldwin and his new parrot exo keep epeating 'nyaah nyaah nyaah nyaah nyaah, you're a neo-liberal cos you support a free market in migration' as if it was a somehow clever point. What they both seem to miss is that unlike the free market in goods and services, migration is done by PEOPLE, actual human beings, not 'products' or 'resources'. As such supporting real live actual peoples right to movement is not the same as supporting the 'right' of goods or money to cross borders. because people are not commodities. It is actually baldy and exo who are supporting te right-wing notion of people simply as 'economic units.' And I find that disgusting.

 

[treelover]

oh do fuck off JP.....

I've found a sticker for Suburban Casual!

 

[exosculate]

are you actually the same exo as posted here a couple of years back? cos I recall him being a fairly sensible and decent sort, rather than a narky cunt. the above post (with the exception of the pompus and patronising bit, that was deliberate as you seem to need to have things put in very simple terms) is totally and utterly false, and you are either unutterably stupid or a straightforward liar.

I note tho that you have also REFUSED to answer ANY question put to you -I have answered most, tho I wont answer more till you have the guts/decency to do the same.

Most of your ponts are simly fuckng stupid, and blatantly ignorant. As you simply do not believe me when I say something, why are you even bothering to engage? The fact that you do continue to do so indicates quite strongly that you know you are full of shit.

1 - yes, and then no not at all (I'll also point out here tht I did recognising making an erroneous oversimplification in one of my posts before, which is something neither you nor baldy have the nerve to do).
2 - not at all - please DEMONSTRATE how I do so rather than simply asserting it
3 - of course I decide what I am going to shoot for, who he fuck else should?
4 - tosh. I am interested in DEBATE but debate means actually exchanging ideas, devloping and discussing them, not simply restating them over and over again.
5 - rubbish, and indeed, fuck off. I know you think you speak for the entire working class (or so it would seem) I do not. Nor do I patronise people by refusing to state my opinion as you do.

Now shithead (ophh sorry that was rude I wonder what came over me?)

WHAT IMMIGRATION CONTROLS DO YOU SUPPORT AND HOW MANY GUNS SHOULD THE BORDER PATROL HAVE?

I have answered almost all your questions, you havent answered a single one. That reeks of cowardice and/or ignorance.

hmmmmm.....

1)unutterably stupid
2)fuck
3)tosh
4)fuck off
5)shithead

This is how you win people over to your way of thinking, with such erudite argument? God help the working class.

 

[exosculate]

A final point for now.

twatbaldwin and his new parrot exo keep epeating 'nyaah nyaah nyaah nyaah nyaah, you're a neo-liberal cos you support a free market in migration' as if it was a somehow clever point. What they both seem to miss is that unlike the free market in goods and services, migration is done by PEOPLE, actual human beings, not 'products' or 'resources'. As such supporting real live actual peoples right to movement is not the same as supporting the 'right' of goods or money to cross borders. because people are not commodities. It is actually baldy and exo who are supporting te right-wing notion of people simply as 'economic units.' And I find that disgusting.

twat and parrot? are you drunk?

Not a clever point it is just a statement of fact.

You find everything disgusting when you disagree with it.

 

[belboid]

and again, no answers from exo, merely abuse.

c'mon, give it a go, I'm sure you are capable of at least one serious reply.

Dont you think treating people as simple commodities is disgusting?

 

[exosculate]

and again, no answers from exo, merely abuse.

c'mon, give it a go, I'm sure you are capable of at least one serious reply.

Dont you think treating people as simple commodities is disgusting?

What do you mean abuse? I'm just summarising your verbosity.

 

[laptop]

cunt

Eloquent.

 

[exosculate]

Eloquent.

Yes Belboid is very eloquent.

 

[belboid]

hey, you're the one who apparently wants other people to decide for you what your aims should be!

 

[Blagsta]

How can capitalism free itself of labour?

 

[poster342002]

you are having a laugh!!!

Quite. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is now so often the lefties who are continually trying to downplay this awful state of affairs - merely highlighting how utterly disconnected and remote so many of them are from real working class problems.