Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
09 Nov 09
22:26
Joined:
Date Joined:
07 Nov 09
he said he was going to vote bnp, does he have a fair reason to blank him as he said they are nazis and he cant be a friend of someone who supports nazism?
Show More
ask your black friend what nazism is. he wont have a clue
Tbh if I were black I think I would stop talking to somebody who voted BNP. They wouldn`t think I was fit for their party so I would think stuff them.
Ask him if he agrees with the MOBO awards and the Black police federation . and if he does, ask him why .
Given that your black mate would be forcibly ejected from the country by the BNP, you can hardly blame him.
Given that your black mate would be forcibly ejected from the country by the BNP
sib, you know that's not true, so why say it? Do you want it to be true or something?
sib, you know that's not true, so why say it? Do you want it to be true or something?
you dont have to be black to win a mobo (non blacks have won a mobo in the past), bnp does not want blacks in their party.
shab, its been at least a week so you must have forgotten. It is in BNP's constitution, which goes on to say that constitution takes precedence over policy. You want some cut and pastes?
Section 1, clause 2 of the constitution says:
"It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."
But here's the clever bit, clause 3 says:
Any changes of policy such as may be needed to adapt to changing circumstances are permissible only in so far as they do not run contrary to any of the aforementioned principles.
You see, it means policy is second in line to this principle. It is meant to keep it hidden. It hasn't worked though.
"It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."
But here's the clever bit, clause 3 says:
Any changes of policy such as may be needed to adapt to changing circumstances are permissible only in so far as they do not run contrary to any of the aforementioned principles.
You see, it means policy is second in line to this principle. It is meant to keep it hidden. It hasn't worked though.
Keep it hidden? Just in case anybody suspects that they are racist? ffs!
What you have done is assumed what they are going to do. There is no proof one way or the other (in fact, I would argue thet they are not likely to do it in the future because they have not done it yet). SO when you say they are going to do it, as i said earlier, that is not true, is it?
What you have done is assumed what they are going to do. There is no proof one way or the other (in fact, I would argue thet they are not likely to do it in the future because they have not done it yet). SO when you say they are going to do it, as i said earlier, that is not true, is it?
Why have they put it in Shab? To be ignored?
The constitution was published in 2005, by the way.
The constitution was published in 2005, by the way.
So they have ignored it for the last 4 years. But that wasn't my polnt.
My point was that you are stating something as a fact when it is not.
My point was that you are stating something as a fact when it is not.
Is it relevant that your m8 is black?
Surely anyone of any skin colour would disown a BNP member? I can't think of anything more embarrassing.
Surely anyone of any skin colour would disown a BNP member? I can't think of anything more embarrassing.
shab, in so far as BNP state that it is their intention to deport people of different skin colour if in power, that is a fact. This mate out there, has nothing but their stated word to go on, and if I was him, thats what I would rely on. What else is their for him to relyon, after all?
Shab 10 Nov 11:36
Keep it hidden? Just in case anybody suspects that they are racist? ffs!
Why are you saying 'ffs' about that? Seems a plausible tactic to me. Make sure policy is always implemented in line wth a racist agenda explicated by the constiution, but don't be too overtly racist. Do you think calling shouting about being racists is a vote-winner Shab?
Keep it hidden? Just in case anybody suspects that they are racist? ffs!
Why are you saying 'ffs' about that? Seems a plausible tactic to me. Make sure policy is always implemented in line wth a racist agenda explicated by the constiution, but don't be too overtly racist. Do you think calling shouting about being racists is a vote-winner Shab?
sibaroni
As you are a man for whom words and their specific meaning are very important I am somewhat suprised to see you constantly making the same mistake time and time again. I for one don't think the BNP will ever amount to a hill of beans in this country but if I ever felt the need to consult their constitution I hope I would be able to relate what it says accurately.
You have made this point about "forcible ejection" on several occasions and cited their constitution as evidence for your assertion. This is unadulterated nonsense.
There is nothing in what you have shown us which suggests that there will be forcible ejection. There is clear mention mention of negotiation and consent and also reference to legal changes. However, unless you can show me otherwise, nowhere does it suggest forcible ejection.
As you are a man for whom words and their specific meaning are very important I am somewhat suprised to see you constantly making the same mistake time and time again. I for one don't think the BNP will ever amount to a hill of beans in this country but if I ever felt the need to consult their constitution I hope I would be able to relate what it says accurately.
You have made this point about "forcible ejection" on several occasions and cited their constitution as evidence for your assertion. This is unadulterated nonsense.
There is nothing in what you have shown us which suggests that there will be forcible ejection. There is clear mention mention of negotiation and consent and also reference to legal changes. However, unless you can show me otherwise, nowhere does it suggest forcible ejection.
In answer to the original question it does seem somewhat peculiar that a guy voting BNP is close mates with a black guy but if they were good mates then I would have explored it further instead of a knee jerk reaction and resorting to name calling.
Three methods for "repatriation" are brought in, negotiation, consent, legal changes.
Ie., "repatriation by consent", "repatriation by negotiation", and "repatriation by legal changes".
Now then, what do you think "repatriation by legal changes" might mean?
Or put another way, if you were the black guy the subject of this thread, what would you feel about it?
Ie., "repatriation by consent", "repatriation by negotiation", and "repatriation by legal changes".
Now then, what do you think "repatriation by legal changes" might mean?
Or put another way, if you were the black guy the subject of this thread, what would you feel about it?
Now then, what do you think "repatriation by legal changes" might mean?
There. You got there in the end. You used the word 'might'. So you agree it is not certain.
There. You got there in the end. You used the word 'might'. So you agree it is not certain.
sibaroni
Naughty naughty. Keep this up and I may have to start referring to you as Dr J.
There is no mention of "repatriation by legal means".
It does state that they wish to stem and reverse the tide of non white immigration and restore the overwhelmingly white make up etc etc.
I have no idea how they intend to achieve that. Maybe they will extend Labour's current programme of paying people to bugger off. I would imagine that a necessary precursor to any programme they wish to implement would be to remove us from various treaties and obligations so that we first stop immigration. Maybe that is the legal element. However, as I point out I am not privvy to their thoughts and can't be bothered to look at them in too much depth seeing as they will never come anywhere near power.
My point remains that you are attributing to them clear goals which are far from clear.
Naughty naughty. Keep this up and I may have to start referring to you as Dr J.
There is no mention of "repatriation by legal means".
It does state that they wish to stem and reverse the tide of non white immigration and restore the overwhelmingly white make up etc etc.
I have no idea how they intend to achieve that. Maybe they will extend Labour's current programme of paying people to bugger off. I would imagine that a necessary precursor to any programme they wish to implement would be to remove us from various treaties and obligations so that we first stop immigration. Maybe that is the legal element. However, as I point out I am not privvy to their thoughts and can't be bothered to look at them in too much depth seeing as they will never come anywhere near power.
My point remains that you are attributing to them clear goals which are far from clear.
Larry I made this point to him several times before. He point blank refused to enter any sort of discussion on the issue. He just gave it the big 'un.
It is lovely watching you guys wriggle. The words are plain and it is clear what they mean. But you entirely miss the point any way.
Your man Nick Griffin is a bright feller, Cambridge educated don't you know. Why would he want these words in, knowing how they will be construed, (or even on your analysis, might be construed), unless he wanted them in. He is plainly bright enough to have something else written if he didn't want the obvious (or the majority's, on your analysis) interpretation put on it.
Again, the constitution was published in 2005.
Your man Nick Griffin is a bright feller, Cambridge educated don't you know. Why would he want these words in, knowing how they will be construed, (or even on your analysis, might be construed), unless he wanted them in. He is plainly bright enough to have something else written if he didn't want the obvious (or the majority's, on your analysis) interpretation put on it.
Again, the constitution was published in 2005.
if he changes the wording to any illegal immigrant who has come here through deceit would you change your opinion sib?
Lets see if he does.
I wouldn't be sending back someone who has been here twenty years and assimilated into society and contributed say, but recently, yes.
I wouldn't be sending back someone who has been here twenty years and assimilated into society and contributed say, but recently, yes.
Shab 10 Nov 17:08
Now then, what do you think "repatriation by legal changes" might mean?
There. You got there in the end. You used the word 'might'. So you agree it is not certain.
'reversing the tide of non-white immigration by legal changes' = forcible ejection based on a racist criteria. No brainer to me.
Seems the subtlety of this Cambridge graduate has caught a few of you in his net.
Not out Sib 'cos he went to Cambridge too don't ya know!
sibaroni
It is lovely watching you guys wriggle. The words are plain and it is clear what they mean. But you entirely miss the point any way.
Only you are wriggling here sibaroni.
You cited the constitution of the BNP for your assertion that the BNP would forcibly eject black people and yet from what you have pasted the constitution says no such thing. That much is clear.
What you allege may be their covert intention but you won't find it in their constitution.
It is lovely watching you guys wriggle. The words are plain and it is clear what they mean. But you entirely miss the point any way.
Only you are wriggling here sibaroni.
You cited the constitution of the BNP for your assertion that the BNP would forcibly eject black people and yet from what you have pasted the constitution says no such thing. That much is clear.
What you allege may be their covert intention but you won't find it in their constitution.
Their constitution says they want to reverse "non-white" immigration by (amongst other things) legal changes.
Very very clear.
Very very clear.
Think about it.
We want to reverse non-white immigration by
negociation annnnnnnnnnnnnd we're not just going to do it by persuasion, we're going to do it by......
LEGAL CHANGES.
Griffin's subtlely is reeling too many of you in.
We want to reverse non-white immigration by
negociation annnnnnnnnnnnnd we're not just going to do it by persuasion, we're going to do it by......
LEGAL CHANGES.
Griffin's subtlely is reeling too many of you in.
Rowan86 10 Nov 22:50
Think about it.
We want to reverse non-white immigration by
negociation annnnnnnnnnnnnd we're not just going to do it by persuasion, we're going to do it by......
LEGAL CHANGES.
Griffin's subtlely is reeling too many of you in.
Sounds like you are worried Rowan. I thought you believed that the BNP were a little unimportant party.
Think about it.
We want to reverse non-white immigration by
negociation annnnnnnnnnnnnd we're not just going to do it by persuasion, we're going to do it by......
LEGAL CHANGES.
Griffin's subtlely is reeling too many of you in.
Sounds like you are worried Rowan. I thought you believed that the BNP were a little unimportant party.
Yes. I am worried. Even if they aren't a major force politically, their agenda is disturbing enough for me to be bothered by them.
Whilst I take your point rowan, they plainly have no influence on decision making and never will. Still good sport though.
I was on youtube yesterday. Left a comment on a Griiffin video that anybody who objected to mass immigration was immediately labelled racist.
Some muslim (he said he was a muzzie) posted ' If I thought you were serious about supporting the BNP I'd facking lay you out, you cvnt.' among other insults.
Islam - the peaceful religion.
Keyboard warriors, ya gotta love'em. :^0
Some muslim (he said he was a muzzie) posted ' If I thought you were serious about supporting the BNP I'd facking lay you out, you cvnt.' among other insults.
Islam - the peaceful religion.
Keyboard warriors, ya gotta love'em. :^0
Opposing "non-white" immigration, thats the BNP's problem. It is racist.
sibaroni
Their constitution says they want to reverse "non-white" immigration by (amongst other things) legal changes.
Are you sure you are a barrister? You seem amazingly lazy when it comes to the specific meaning of words and sentences. What you suggest may follow by implication but it is far from what the constitution actually says.
It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."
The fact that they use "and" in that sentence clearly negates your suggestion that they want to "reverse by legal changes". There are two clear parts to that sentence with the break coming where I have emboldened. The only thing which does flow from this statement in their constitution is that by legal changes (and others) they want to restore the overwhelmingly white make up of the population. It isn't at all clear how they would do this with recourse to the law but crucially for our discussion it isn't clear that they would do so through forcible repatriation.
For example, if they had a parliamentary majority there is no law which parliament cannot undo or enact. So let us imagine they enacted the following legislation:
From the beginning of next year whilst all black people are quite welcome to remain in this country all white people are welcome to buy a gun and shoot a black person on sight without penalty.
All consistent with their constitution but under such circumstances there wouldn't be a single black person forcibly repatriated but you could bet your ass they would hot tail it out of dodge.
Of course there is another possibility under the wording of this constitution and once again I am technically right. The and could have been deliberately placed there because they have every intention of returning us to an all white population but have no intention at all of repatriation. I'll allow you to join the dots up on that one.
Are you sure you want to continue debating with me?
Their constitution says they want to reverse "non-white" immigration by (amongst other things) legal changes.
Are you sure you are a barrister? You seem amazingly lazy when it comes to the specific meaning of words and sentences. What you suggest may follow by implication but it is far from what the constitution actually says.
It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."
The fact that they use "and" in that sentence clearly negates your suggestion that they want to "reverse by legal changes". There are two clear parts to that sentence with the break coming where I have emboldened. The only thing which does flow from this statement in their constitution is that by legal changes (and others) they want to restore the overwhelmingly white make up of the population. It isn't at all clear how they would do this with recourse to the law but crucially for our discussion it isn't clear that they would do so through forcible repatriation.
For example, if they had a parliamentary majority there is no law which parliament cannot undo or enact. So let us imagine they enacted the following legislation:
From the beginning of next year whilst all black people are quite welcome to remain in this country all white people are welcome to buy a gun and shoot a black person on sight without penalty.
All consistent with their constitution but under such circumstances there wouldn't be a single black person forcibly repatriated but you could bet your ass they would hot tail it out of dodge.
Of course there is another possibility under the wording of this constitution and once again I am technically right. The and could have been deliberately placed there because they have every intention of returning us to an all white population but have no intention at all of repatriation. I'll allow you to join the dots up on that one.
Are you sure you want to continue debating with me?
Well lets explore how else, by legal changes, Griffin meant he wanted to restore the overall white make up of the population. Copulsory sh*gging for whites? Sterilisation for non-whites?
What you just don't address, deliberately or because you are blind to it, is the desire to make policy, however you read that clause, specific to non-whites.
And again, even if (and its absurd to suggest, but I will humour you), the clause doesn't mean what it plainly says, why would Griffin leave in that contradiction? (Not that there is one, but on your analysis, to move things on).
What you just don't address, deliberately or because you are blind to it, is the desire to make policy, however you read that clause, specific to non-whites.
And again, even if (and its absurd to suggest, but I will humour you), the clause doesn't mean what it plainly says, why would Griffin leave in that contradiction? (Not that there is one, but on your analysis, to move things on).
As I said maybe there is a perfectly simple and sinister explanation for it.
Simple enough reason for it, Griffin and the members agree with it.
Larry. You actually right, but I now find this more disturbing:
'restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."'
If this isn't achieved by forced repatriation, then how else it achieved? That's even worse imo.
'restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."'
If this isn't achieved by forced repatriation, then how else it achieved? That's even worse imo.
It is a heck of a lot worse if you are thinking what I am thinking.
White people will be forced to have 20 kids each. That will serve the purpose.
lol. I am actually disturbed by Larry's closer inspection of the constitution. Forgive me for assuming the legal changes concerned repatriation. I overlooked the 'and'.
quietgenius 11 Nov 01:54
White people will be forced to have 20 kids each. That will serve the purpose.
I'm a tad short of 20.
I need a few young fillies to impregnate.
White people will be forced to have 20 kids each. That will serve the purpose.
I'm a tad short of 20.
I need a few young fillies to impregnate.
The Golden Rule:-
Never discuss Race, Religion or Politics.
Never discuss Race, Religion or Politics.
howcan you not discuss race ,the paddy power race has been on my mind all week - and i have a double on the the chief rabbi and boris johnston being hit by a meteorite whilst sharing bagels on a barge on the thames.
at 35 million to one i thought it was worth a quid.
at 35 million to one i thought it was worth a quid.
Big Charlie 11 Nov 15:23
quietgenius 11 Nov 01:54
White people will be forced to have 20 kids each. That will serve the purpose.
I'm a tad short of 20.
I need a few young fillies to impregnate.
Hmmm since you spend all night being Nazi Nicks' propaganda king you quite clearly have lost use of your todger.
Larry codpiece is heading straight into the world of S+M nazi fetish imo
quietgenius 11 Nov 01:54
White people will be forced to have 20 kids each. That will serve the purpose.
I'm a tad short of 20.
I need a few young fillies to impregnate.
Hmmm since you spend all night being Nazi Nicks' propaganda king you quite clearly have lost use of your todger.
Larry codpiece is heading straight into the world of S+M nazi fetish imo
Remind us Pussyclart, how many children have you got, not including Blow-up Barbie. :^0
Big Charlie 12 Nov 09:28
Remind us Pussyclart, how many children have you got, not including Blow-up Barbie. :^0
Pussy can breastfeed but not conceive if you get my meaning.
Remind us Pussyclart, how many children have you got, not including Blow-up Barbie. :^0
Pussy can breastfeed but not conceive if you get my meaning.
rowan
That could be one awful interpretation of their constitution.
That could be one awful interpretation of their constitution.
As for my closer inspection I must confess I have never read it. I am taking sibaroni's word for it that he has and has documented it accurately. Perhaps you will forgive a couple of old Barrister's behaving like two gunslingers who have just walked into dodge.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539