Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
there IS no short answer to it, obviously enoughtbaldwin said:
What is so wrong with looking after 'ones own'??
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
So who are these "economic migrants", balders? I think someone who constantly and obsessively craps on about immigration and rants about the "Left" isn't a socialist at all.
There is nothing particularly Internationalist about your obsession.
nino_savatte said:
You dont understand anything nino.
You dont understand that Socialism is not about supporting taking people from poorer countries to help people in rich countries do you?
You dont understand that for all your shite innuendos that people who argue with you are racist,that more and more people just think your a complete twat.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
Turn it in, will you? You sound like a stuck record.
Let's get something straight, I don't call "everyone a racist who disagrees with me", just you.
tbaldwin said:
to be honest, balders, you tool, that's a more accurate assessment of your current standing
Dissident Junk
picking oakum
I want to look after my own.
I've always wanted to fight "for my own" -- that's why I got into political journalism and it is the reason I get so worked up today.
But the question to ask, really, is who are 'my own'? I know that my family are 'my own', and that includes people who were immigrants and non-English asylum seekers with English working class mill workers and someone who drove a coal truck. I know that the people I went to school with are 'my own', and they include all manner of Northern families - black, white, Asian, Chinese. I know my uni friends are 'my own' (and most of them were stinky Southerners). My husband's family are 'my own' and they come from all over the middle east.
So this whole 'my own' thing covers quite a lot of types of people really -- from different races, origins, classes, places, teenage parents, drug addicts, graduates, musicians, entrepreneurs etc . And I suppose the only thing they have in common with each other is that they are 'my own'.
And, unfortunately, most of them seem to be getting really screwed by Blair's government.
Which I think is very telling.
I've always wanted to fight "for my own" -- that's why I got into political journalism and it is the reason I get so worked up today.
But the question to ask, really, is who are 'my own'? I know that my family are 'my own', and that includes people who were immigrants and non-English asylum seekers with English working class mill workers and someone who drove a coal truck. I know that the people I went to school with are 'my own', and they include all manner of Northern families - black, white, Asian, Chinese. I know my uni friends are 'my own' (and most of them were stinky Southerners). My husband's family are 'my own' and they come from all over the middle east.
So this whole 'my own' thing covers quite a lot of types of people really -- from different races, origins, classes, places, teenage parents, drug addicts, graduates, musicians, entrepreneurs etc . And I suppose the only thing they have in common with each other is that they are 'my own'.
And, unfortunately, most of them seem to be getting really screwed by Blair's government.
Which I think is very telling.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Aye, I would say that my 'own' is the human race. We have more in common with each other than we do a mouse or a pigeon.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Tom A said:Speciesist scumbag! *shakes fist*
Pigeons = flying rats.
Fruitloop said:
it is essential but not exclusive .. there are many networks that are NOT geographical that are crucial both socially and poiltically BUT
.. if you do not have the geograohical power you /we are fucked when push comes to shove
do you not see a relationship between our declining power as a class/people and the loss of community?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:
No, you mean "our own" in a very narrow, nationalistic sense. "Our own" is another way of saying "us Brits"...but when you unpack that, we see that one is referring specifically to white British people.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
becky p said:
nino you really are a contemptible cretin.
Why not try arguing the point rather than name-calling?
I mean, I'm presuming you are capable of that (even though we've seen little evidence so far)?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:
nino you really are a contemptible cretin.
This sums you and your chums up to a tee: you have no ideas with which to challenge me and resort, instead, to name-calling. I think I've touched a raw nerve with you and your silly wee pals. Your arguments (if that is what they are) are poorly conceived and suffer from a lack of reading. It is not my problem that you lot lack erudition. Maybe you should read more, then you wouldn't feel the need to reply with insults.
The only one who is a "cretin" here is you.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:you kill me!
How predictable. You deny that you're a xenophobe but it doesn't take a genius to unpack what you're saying on your many threads on the subject of immigration.
If anyone is "wide of the mark", it's you. But then, you're not the sharpest tool in the box - are you?
Oh and you're such a "revolutionary", so revolutionary, in fact, that you work to demand tighter immigration controls.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:cheers for the support VP .. do you therefore agree with nino???
p.s. is it possible to argue rationaly with the nino??
Another typical trick from the very dishonest durutti. You use the same tricks as your chum, baldwin.
You're not only intellectually dishonest, you're a bald-faced liar too.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:Mr Erudite. The man of great wisdom,who never resorts to insults himself of course.
I'll bet you don't even know what the word means.
This is pretty typical of you lot: you can't win your argument so you accuse me (and others) of constantly issuing insults. The funny thing is, you don't think that you do the same thing.
Are you familiar with the word "hypocrisy"?
nino_savatte said:
From what i can work out you never seem to have been involved in any political organisation. And no being a teacher doesnt count. Durruti has been involved in a few and still is...They are all Left wing like Hackney Independent and he used to be in CW...
You seem to have no involvement in anything apart from calling anyone who disagrees with you on urban a racist.....
Which in durrutis case is totally wide of the mark and just makes you look a right twat.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
Yawn.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fruitloop said:
Mr Durruti appears to be attempting to trim his sails to match the prevailing winds.
Again.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:
Well, in that case, could you tell me (and everyone else) why you seem to be so obsessed with this topic? Your 'explanations', thus far, have consisted of shuffling, dodging, ad hominems, obfuscations and even lying.
If you are opposed to tighter controls, then you haven't made this very clear...have you? Indeed, if one unpacks your thoughts on this issue one is left in very little doubt that you pursuing a hidden discourse.
nino_savatte said:I'll bet you don't even know what the word means.
This is pretty typical of you lot: you can't win your argument so you accuse me (and others) of constantly issuing insults. The funny thing is, you don't think that you do the same thing.
Are you familiar with the word "hypocrisy"?
Actually I didn't know what it meant. I didn't know what "pussillanimous" meant either. Plus I couldn't spell "hypocrisy".
You make me feel proud to be amongst the immoral illiterates.
But then I'm more interested in the politics than the display of my own literary skills.
