UKIP go from strength to strength

[useless]

What merits are there to this misogynist neo-nazi?

Oh wait money

 

[Quackers]

What merits are there to this misogynist neo-nazi?

Oh wait money

Spot on useless. UKIP are only allying with this nutter to gain funding, they don't condone his political views.
Glad we both agree on this.

 

[useless]

Spot on useless. UKIP are only allying with this nutter to gain funding, they don't condone his political views.
Glad we both agree on this.

Nah i don't think we both agree on this, but congrats for being dishonest however worry not, i forgive you.

I think it's telling that UKIP feels it's okay to drop certain groups when there's money at stake, i think that's pretty telling.

 

[Quackers]

Nah i don't think we both agree on this, but congrats for being dishonest however worry not, i forgive you.

Where am I being dishonest? What motivation do I have to be dishonest on an online anonymous forum?

I think it's telling that UKIP feels it's okay to drop certain groups when there's money at stake, i think that's pretty telling.

What do you mean, "drop certain groups"?

UKIP were in a super-party, an MEP left and they needed another in order to maintain significant levels of funding. They scraped the barrel and got this gentleman.

I'm confused what your line of attack actually is, or are your arguments just very weak?

 

[Traitorfish]

UKIP claim to be doing things differently, to be motivated by principle and not by monetary self-interest. They also claim that they are not racist.

Yet, they're willing to ally themselves with an unapologetic racist and Nazi-apologist for money.

So, something doesn't add up, omelettes or no omelettes.

 

[Quackers]

UKIP claim to be doing things differently, to be motivated by principle and not by monetary self-interest.

Political parties cannot operate without money. UKIP stood to lose £1 million if they didn't find anybody. It's not ideal.

They also claim that they are not racist. Yet, they're willing to ally themselves with an unapologetic racist and Nazi-apologist for money.
So, something doesn't add up.

They describe themselves as "non-racist" actually, which is where I'm at. UKIP aspire to a colour blind society, where the New Labour style condescension of ethnic minorities speaking to self appointed "community leaders" as if they represent the hivemind of a particular ethnic bloc is put to bed. UKIP, as i stated earlier, treat people as individuals.

Unfortunately, in the real world Traitorfish, political parties do not run on air. You require money and when your a budding young party, you got to do unsavory things to get it. UKIP don't want to ally themselves to someone like this, but they have too in order to continue being an electoral threat.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's a glorious distinction. "We're not not racist, but we are non-racist." I'd call it a distinction without a difference, but the fact that you're so quick to make the distinction suggests that there's some difference after all. Who would even think to make the distinction, unless they really were not not racist? It's wonderful. Are you going to have to revise the qualifier "I'm not racist, but"? What else would work? "I'm not not racist, but I'm non-racist, but" is a bit long-winded, and by that point people's natural defences will have kicked in and they'll have hurled themselves out of a window before the UKIPer can start talking. These are vital milliseconds, man, you've got to strategise, know how you're coming at people.

But, yeah, recognising that your party conducts itself in a mercenary fashion is not a defence of that conduct, and your repeated insistence that UKIP don't want to do this suggests that you're quite aware of the difference.

 

[Quackers]

That's a glorious distinction. "We're not not racist, but we are non-racist." I'd call it a distinction without a difference, but the fact that you're so quick to make the distinction suggests that there's some difference after all. Who would even think to make the distinction, unless they really were not not racist? It's wonderful. Are you going to have to revise the qualifier "I'm not racist, but"? What else would work? "I'm not not racist, but I'm non-racist, but" is a bit long-winded, and by that point people's natural defences will have kicked in and they'll have hurled themselves out of a window before the UKIPer can start talking. These are vital milliseconds, man, you've got to strategise, know how you're coming at people.

I disagree. Labour and co like to patronise ethnic minorities. Treat them differently as if they're another species. UKIP on the other hand, likes to treat them the same as everybody else. For example a UKIP-led council in certain Midland cities would actually apply the law without regard to colour, unlike some parties. UKIP is the true non-racist party.

But, yeah, recognising that your party conducts itself in a mercenary fashion is not a defence of that conduct, and your repeated insistence that UKIP don't want to do this suggests that you're quite aware of the difference.

I haven't defended anything, i'm just trying to put this into context. useless posted an article and i wanted to clarify a few things.
Forgoing £1 million in funding would be so stupid because one fella in this Euro Super party is a twit.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Well, we're not not mercenary..."

 

[filli_noctus]

It seems Britain First (aka BNP 2.0) are running a candidate in the Rochester by-election. Will the presence of explicit racists on the ballot act as a spoiler on UKIP's chances?

 

[Traitorfish]

You've gotta love far-right splinter-groups. They're almost as bad as the Trots, and they have much more creative names: they're all "Britain This" and "Blood and Some Other Thing", not just endless recombinations of "worker", "revolutionary" and "socialist". Even Britain First have already had a falling-out, with the Ulster branch going off to form "Protestant Coalition". Fun times, fun times.

 

[useless]

I haven't defended anything, i'm just trying to put this into context. useless posted an article and i wanted to clarify a few things.
Forgoing £1 million in funding would be so stupid because one fella in this Euro Super party is a twit.

Your own words say otherwise:

You have to break eggs to make an omlette.

UKIP are one of the few parties which treat people as individuals. Not a member of some group, you won't find UKIP treating women and ethnic minorities like simple minded special snowflakes. UKIP takes you on your individual merits. UKIP.

When will you stop defending your party's decision to get into bed with a misogynistic neo nazi for money?

It's pretty clear from this that UKIP is eager to sell off it's principles to treat everyone equally so they can score more money.

 

[Quackers]

Your own words say otherwise:



When will you stop defending your party's decision to get into bed with a misogynistic neo nazi for money?

It's pretty clear from this that UKIP is eager to sell off it's principles to treat everyone equally so they can score more money.

My own words didn't defend anything. Once again, clueless.

 

[Arakhor]

For example a UKIP-led council in certain Midland cities would actually apply the law without regard to colour, unlike some parties.

That's an impressive of way saying nothing at all, yet still managing to imply many things. You're not not discriminatory, I see.

 

[Takhisis]

FEWER. (The votes themselves weren't smaller. All ballot papers are much the same size, afaik.)

Oh, the joy of catching a grammar nazi out!

And shouldn't it strictly be "than they"? (Which is ponderous, I know. So I'd have written "than they did".)

Still, I daresay you wrote all that very deliberately.

The damned 'Muricans keep using 'less' instead of 'fewer' and it catches on! Their rebellion must be suppressed! btw the votes are the expressions of smaller-minded people.
'Than' is a preposition so 'they' should be declensed accordingly. I think. 'x is better than them', always. 'Than they do/did' is always fine.

You have to break eggs to make an omlette.

Omelettes, eh? And what kind of omelette are you making?

In plain English: Your post just reads as 'the end justifies the means'. What is that end? What other means, i.e. policies, does this wonderful shiny new toy party of Farage's plan to push for?

UKIP are one of the few parties which treat people as individuals. Not a member of some group, you won't find UKIP treating women and ethnic minorities like simple minded special snowflakes. UKIP takes you on your individual merits. UKIP.

Are you a member of UKIP or not? You've managed to post 40 words there without actually communicating anything.

 

[Borachio]

The damned 'Muricans keep using 'less' instead of 'fewer' and it catches on!

Oh, I see. That's OK then.

'Than' is a preposition so 'they' should be declensed accordingly. I think. 'x is better than them', always. 'Than they do/did' is always fine.

Now you're just making wordlets up. Which is fine.

Anyway. Back on topic: UKIP, meh!

Not that they're any worse than the CONservatives.

 

[Traitorfish]

In some ways they're preferable to the Conservatives, because people expect you to prove that the Conservatives are a bunch of miserable racists, but with UKIP, it's common knowledge. I was in the canteen at work, a couple of weeks ago, when UKIP came on the news and somebody said "Oh, is that the really racist party?". Anecdotal evidence but evidence of a sort, that if people know one single and solitary thing about UKIP, it's that they're a bunch of racists.

 

[Borachio]

Thing is, though: the one topic most people seem to agree on is immigration. You don't have to be a racist (in one's own eyes; and who is a racist in their own eyes, anyway?) to be concerned about immigration.

I'm thought a really strange fish, for actually favouring immigration, by nearly everyone.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most people agree on immigration so far as they think that there's too much of it, but there's not much consensus after that point. What volumes of immigration, what kind of immigration, from where, people have different views on that, depending on their own beliefs and circumstances. The few points of consensus which do exist seem to be, by and large, sympathetic to immigrants: few people would disagree that we should accept highly-skilled professionals like doctors, for example.

Even the far right can't agree on exactly what they want: parts of it want Commonwealth-only immigration, so they can keep playing Empire, some parts of it want EU-only immigration, so at least the immigrants will be white and approximately Christian, and parts of it actually want to start chucking out people who are already here.

My experience is that most people don't hold anything against any given immigrant- that's where UKIP struggle, the fact that most Britons simply don't have the sort of gut-level animosity towards immigrants that's necessary for them to ignore the festering mass of Thatcherism that is UKIP's actual policies- but are made anxious by immigration as a grand, impersonal phenomenon, and the thing about anxiety is that it doesn't translate straightforwardly into a coherent policy, so people who think of themselves as being on the same page about immigration will often, in reality, have contradictory views, if not simply self-contradictory views.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is this what they mean by going from strength to strength?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...na-on-Ukip-vile-abhorrent-and-un-British.html

As another one of those successful immigrants the UKIP likes so much (as opposed to those who have truly integrated) states

Ukip’s alliance with a Polish far-right party is “absolutely vile” and un-British and the party’s rhetoric about Eastern European migrants is “abhorrent”, in Labour front bencher has said.

Chuka Umunna said he was concerned that there had not been “more of a row” about Ukip’s alliance in the European Parliament with Robert Iwaszkiewicz, a member of the Congress of the New Right.

The party’s leader has a history of Holocaust denial. The deal was struck in order to preserve the existence of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy grouping in the European Parliament, ensuring Ukip retains vital funding.

Who cares for morality when you need money?

What's a little holocaust denial amongst friends? To nag about that is typical left-wing Political Correctness.

“What I find really awful is this notion that somehow all the problems in our country are caused by immigration.

"All the problems that you have, whether it’s a getting an appointment at your GP, the fact you aren’t earning enough at work, the fact your child can’t get a house round the corner from you, is down to Eastern European immigration. It isn’t. It’s a con. It is misleading and wrong.

“Seeking to blame it on ‘that bunch over there’ is a complete con.

"The reason I find it abhorrent – I’ll be frank, my name is Chuka Umunna, clearly I'm of immigrant stock - is the kind of things you hear people saying about eastern Europeans these days is exactly the kinds of things they were saying about black and Asian people when they first arrived in this country.

"We can’t have any truck with that. That is not what we are as Brits.”

Ukip’s alliance with Mr Iwaszkiewicz was condemned by the Board of Deputies, the leading representative body of Jews in Britain as “beyond belief”.

And here I can see Quacker's point. Blaming all your problems on immigrants is as English as Porkpie, as American as Applepie and as Dutch as Stroopwafels.