Lmao. A referendum was literally the only way to leave the EU. We don't have decades to spare to wait for a new party. The demographic clock was ticking and it still is
Christian Martinez
Set fire to them.
Jonathan Walker
If you have to ask my advice, you're too wet to make it.
Landon Phillips
Seriously considering throwing a log of shit at these brainlet workers and their radio
Benjamin Price
LOG
Andrew Phillips
>what is public pressure and fear of losing your seat
This is why so many Remainers approved A50.
Easton Peterson
I shall be speaking tonight in Liverpool on the non-existent 'War on Drugs'
Brandon Phillips
Is it Kiss or Radio 1?
Aaron Perry
If only Powell and Mosley had teamed up with Mogg then Tony Blair and Ted Heath would be working in one of our Imperial intergalactic Teacake mines on Uranus.
Kayden Ortiz
So it Hitchens mad because Stallingborough didn't get around to killing all the Jews?
Tyler Fisher
Peter's focus on drugs is starting to seem rather pointless when the police don't bother with any other crime. It's like complaining about a tree on fire while the entire forest goes up.
He LITERALLY has no sense of humour whatsoever. I agree with him on quite a lot of things but he just gets obsessed with irrelevant non-issues which turns people away from him.
Jaxson Long
Send this to him on twitter. Also the OP pic with the swastika, that will trigger him.
Jose Thompson
I typed out an excerpt from Douglas Murray's Strange Death of Europe that dispells the myth of immigration being a financial benefit. (1/4) After decades of immigration from the third world, to paint a French high-tech entrepreneur as a typical migrant requires a considerable level of dishonesty. Most people who came to Britain in the period after the Second World War were not highly educated but poorly educated and from poor societies: that was why they wanted to better their lot by coming here. And among those who had qualifications many were, in any case, entering a society where these qualifications were not recognised as having parity and so they had to start down the chain in their profession. But the only way to present migrants as contributing not just equally but actually more than those already working and paying taxes in Britain id if we talk almost exclusively about highly educated, high net-worth individuals from first-world countries. The cliche of the "average immigrant" being an economic boom for the country only works when such exceptions are made to appear as though they are the rule. All efforts to make an economic case for mass immigration rely on this trick. Among those to have used it are EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom and UN Representative Peter Sutherland. In a 2012 piece they suggested that unless Europe opens its borders to mass migration, "Entrepreneurs, migrants with Ph.Ds" and others will all be "flocking to places like Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, China and India", thus leaving Europe to be a more impoverished place.
>abolish the state will bring progessivism and acceptance >just look at the few examples we have, like Africa and when prison systems break down and the rule of law is absent >so progressive! kek
David Anderson
(2/4) One of the Few studies in this area is from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration at University College London. It is a study that is widely cited. In 2013 the centre published a working paper titled "The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK". This working paper (rather than finished report) was exceptionally widely covered in the media. The BBC ran the story as a lead item with the headline: "Recent immigrants to UK "make net contribution"".
The story claimed that far from being a "drain" on the system, the financial contribution of "recent immigrants" to the country had instead been "remarkably strong". Following the lead of UCL's own positively spin press release, the nation media focused on the claim that "recent waves of immigrants - i.e., those who arrived to the UK since 2000 and who have thus driven the start increase in the UK's foreign born population", had "contributed far more in taxes than they received in benefits". Elsewhere the study made the claim that far from being a cost to the taxpayer, immigrants were in fact "less likely" to be a financial burden on the state than the people of the country they were moving into. It also claimed that recent migrants were less likely to need social housing than British people and were even 45 percent less likely to be receiving state benefits or tax credits than "UK natives". Doubtless some members of the public hearing this claim wondered when all the Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had managed to put so much money into the exchequer. But the study had performed the usual sleight of hand. It had presented the best-off and least culturally strange immigrants as in fact being typical immigrants. So the UCL study focused attention on "highly-educated immigrants" and in particular on recent immigrants from the European Economic Area (the EU, plus Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein).
Joseph Barnes
Abolishing the state will bring about possibly the biggest K-shift in history.
Liam Flores
(3/4) The working paper highlighted the fact that these people paid 34 percent more in taxes than they received in benefits while native British people paid 11 percent less in taxes than they received in benefits. Anybody doubting the financial benefits of mass immigration was suddenly opposed to wealthy residents of Lichtenstein transferring to the United Kingdom for work.
Yet anyone who wanted to delve into this working paper would discover that the reality was wholly different from the spin that the media, and even the university from which it hailed, had given to the findings. For although UCL's own estimate suggested that "recent migrants from the EEA between 2001 and 2011 had contributed around £22 billion into the UK economy", the fiscal impact of all migrants, regardless of origin, told an entirely different story. Indeed "recent" arrivals from the EEA were the sole migrants for whom such a positive claim could be made. Away from the spin, what UCL's own research quietly showed was that non-EEA migrants had actually taken out around £95 billion more in services than they had paid in taxes, meaning that if you took the period 1995-2011 and included all immigrants (not just a convenient high net-worth selection), then by UCL's own measurements, immigrant to the United Kingdom had taken out significantly more than they had put in. Mass migration, in other words, had made the country very significantly poorer of the period in question.
Ayden Reyes
(4/4) After some criticism for its methodology, manner of spinning and burial of crucial data, the following year UCL published its completed findings. By that point, and taking into account UCL's own figures, the results were even starker. For the full report showed that the earlier figure of £95 billion far understated the cost of immigration to Britain. In fact, immigrants over that 1995-2011 period had cost the United Kingdom a figure more like £114 billion, with the final figure potentially rising to as high as £159 billion. Needless to say, the discovery that immigration had actually cost the UK more than a hundred billion pounds did not make the news and nobody was aware on their news bulletins of a headline that should have read, "Recent immigrants to the UK cost British taxpayers more than £100 billion". How could they have done when the crucial finding didn't even make it into the conclusion of the publication that had discovered them?
While I appreciate this, and Murray's book, I think he's already on the back foot. As soon as one argument put forward in favour of mass-immigration is defeated, another takes its place and then we have to collect a decade's worth of evidence to prove that wrong.
Austin White
Really makes you think
Ryder Hughes
Yeah and even debating whether or not we should lose our country because it's finanically good for the Jews is inherently cucked and bugmanish
Andrew Lewis
But we already have all the data we need.
Ayden Reyes
He actually does He made a few jokes when I saw him at my uni
Ryder Long
B R A I N L E T R A I N L E T
Lucas Myers
kek dude is complete spastic I wonder if he's ever even read a scientific paper in his life
Colton Gutierrez
Exactly. It's Stage 2 thinking. It's the same reason I disagreed with a lot of the arguments over the Scottish and the EU referendum.
Colton Young
It deals with the aspect of the mass-migration argument that is most commonly used by those on the left, if they want to completely discount all other ramifications of it then they can so choose to, but being able to defeat their main point is quite handy, and who knows, it might even change someone's opinion.
Austin Ross
The point is that they don't need data to put forward their lies and misleadings.
The entire immigration "debate" has been those in favour making wild claims, and performing wild actions, then demanding the most rigidly logical and rational argument against it.
Christopher Moore
why is everyone slabbering about Hitchens Everyone used to love him He's basically been the spirit behind these threads for the last 3 years Because every trip fag wants to be him
Thomas Martin
>that is most commonly used by those on the left
At the moment. Every time an argument they put forward is disproved they pick up another one.
Daniel Gonzalez
>Because every trip fag wants to be him thats your answer started with yktd unironically copying and pasting peter's work and pretending it was his, and all the other tripnonces follow through
Noah Kelly
More fool them. It takes barely any effort to make a rigidly logical argument against someone offering no specifics. It makes them look bad in an argument.
Ryan White
>How Can Addiction Be Real If Our Bodies Aren't Real?
Julian Cruz
>somehow both his eyelid and gums are bleeding
Josiah Ross
>It makes them look bad in an argument.
And then they go and do it anyway. Do you think there was a debate about immigration before they started it? No, they just did it, ignored all arguments against it, and carried on once an argument they put forward is defeated by reality.
Luis Russell
Yeah what I said was probably unfair, he does have a sense of humour. But it is one which even he admits is vastly different to most people's. He tends to get wound up by seemingly trivial things though - and then won't just let them go.
Isaac Walker
It makes them look foolish and as if they have lost the argument in the eyes of anyone watching, not to be rude, but what's your point? You're just describing ways in which someone could loose an argument.
Xavier Anderson
Daily reminder Oliver Cromwell did nothing wrong.
Carson Reed
Who's got YMCA's one with "fuck off EastEnders is on"
Parker Reyes
They look like they havent showered for about 10 years.
Anthony Martinez
My point is that arguments don't matter as long as they aren't beholden to them before they act. And as long as all you do is try to counter their own claims on their own terms you've already lost since your arguing against it lends it authority, after all, why else would you consider it long enough to construct a counter point.
Which is why you need to cut them off at the pass and argue against in in principle, rather than whatever they have decided to be the acceptable angle of the moment.
Caleb Reyes
No showers in the Worker's Paradise, comrade.
Eli Clark
I thought the death of Stalin was good. The humour made it watchable - it doesn't devalue the deaths, it just makes comprehending the scale of it bearable.
Anthony Torres
Because he said the death of Stalin shouldn't be parodied because it trivialises the murderous and totalitarian regime he ran. But Sup Forumstards are too retarded to read what he said and instead perpetuate this myth that he is defending Stalin and Communism.
What Peter said:
>If you trivialise the death of a mass-murderer, you trivialise the deaths of his victims. I think the portrayal of Stalin’s death and the following events in this film *does* trivialise that monster’s death.
>It moves at a breathless pace, hamming up the story for laughs. But is the death of Stalin, and the murderous regime he ran, really something to ham up? The audience reaction to Downfall was serious reflection about the Hitler dictatorship and its grotesque finale. The Death of Stalin suggests that in the end Soviet politics under Stalin can be treated as opera buffa.
>‘This contrast is not perhaps accidental. There still remains a certain ambivalence in the public memory of Stalin. Almost everything is now known about the systematic and large-scale abuse of human rights that occurred under Stalin’s rule – a scale that challenges belief. Yet Stalin is remembered as the man who modernised the Soviet Union and defeated the German attempt to conquer it, if not quite arm-in-arm with Britain and the US, then at least in expedient collaboration. He was lauded at the time in a western world that knew little about the horrors of the regime. For better or worse, the conventional narrative of the second world war in the west still has Stalin on the side of the angels, and Hitler in league with the devil. ‘
>It was to this which I was referring when I wrote my short column item reproduced here:
>Mass murder... what a joke
What Sup Forumsacks think he said because they didn't read his article:
>hurdur i am joo and i luv communism ahahaha i am joooo
Asher Hall
Found it
Isaiah Mitchell
>‘A disgraceful film was released this week, in which misery, pain, fear and mass murder are milked for feeble giggles.
>It is not very good on its own terms, and – like so many modern comedians – uses the f-word repeatedly to jolt the semblance of laughter from its audience, much as you might make a corpse twitch with seeming life by plugging it into the national grid.
>The Death Of Stalin makes a farce out of that wholly grim and squalid event. As the monster himself lies dying, a gang of slave-drivers, secret police monsters and gruesome toadies, plus a murderous paedophile, are portrayed as a kind of Carry On farce or a Monty Python sketch.
If people actually read what the man wrote instead of relying on Chinese whispers from other Sup Forumsacks then this would be a non-issue. No wonder you fucks are politically illiterate, you refuse to actually research or read anything for yourselves.
Joshua Young
Start deporting poles, pajeets and pakis. Save Britain!
