(06-24-2016, 03:45 PM)meow Wrote: Britian payed £35 million a day to the EU, which is a LOT of money that could've been used on something more useful.

(06-24-2016, 03:52 PM)Dyme Wrote: Have you noticed that for some reason I only do this to you? Perhaps it is because you can't have a normal debate with out insulting or inflaming the person you disagree with? Just some stuff to think about.

(06-24-2016, 03:55 PM)superMAUS Wrote:

(06-24-2016, 03:45 PM)meow Wrote: Britian payed £35 million a day to the EU, which is a LOT of money that could've been used on something more useful.

The question is would it realistically end up going to something more useful?
And what are you perceptions of what is useful? Judging by your comments, I doubt you perceive social welfare, particularly healthcare, as particularly useful so you certainly wouldn't be in favour of it being spent on the NHS (Englands health care system) spending that the Leave bus was suggesting it be used for:

(06-24-2016, 03:45 PM)superMAUS Wrote:

(06-24-2016, 03:23 PM)meow Wrote:

(06-24-2016, 01:55 PM)Dyme Wrote: Bruh if you can't see the racial side to Brexit than you really do have your eyes sewn shut. A huge part of the Brexit movement was to close off the UK's borders to the rest of the EU to prevent "unwanted peoples" from making their way into the UK easily. Most people are using the same old "they took my job!!!" argument that republicans in the U.S. have been using since the end of Reagan's last term.

"But Dyme! It isn't about race! The brexit people could be talking about white people who they don't want allowed into the country!"

Now I will refer you to the following billboard by the Leave campaign.


Very interesting how the leave movement has decided to use a line of (brown) refugees as their prime motivating message to close the UK's border. The similarities to the Leave movement and the xenophobic rhetoric of Donald Trump is almost uncanny.

And who is that charming man in front of the poster? It's none other than Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP. And well, lets just say UKIP has had more than a few incidents where they have been accused of blatant racism.

Why listen to me though when you can hear it straight from the horses mouth?

I deleted the line of this video otherwise it wouldn't let me post -meow

I'm not saying the entirety of Brexit has to do with race - of course it doesn't. But if you can't see the racial component to Brexit, than you are either uninformed or willfully ignorant.

Brexit has NOTHING to do with race. This is not a racial problem, this is an immigrant/refugee problem. Brexit isn't a thing because they're racist towards Africans and Arabs, it's a thing because Britian is fucking scared to shit of having their country torn apart by these barbarians because they see it already happening to Sweden and Germany, and I don't blame them a tiny bit. Also, for the record, there are more races in the migrants than just Arab and African. It seems you're the one with your eyes "sewn shut." I encourage you to watch this video so that you can see what I mean when I say Germany and Sweden are getting fucked by these migrants.


Would you like to know why the billboard uses brown people to portray the refugees? I don't fucking know, maybe it's because the majority of refugees are brown, but there's no way that could be it cause that's racist right!!!!!! By getting pissed off about something like that, I get the feeling you're trying to find the dumbest shit to go against Brexit for because there's literally no other reason to be against it other than your precious "but dats rasist!"

Obviously someone who leads a movement to keep destructive migrants out of their country is going to be accused of racism, thanks to ignorant people like you who actually think this has something to do with race. Shit, I get accused of racism when I pull up stats on fucking Muslims even though Islam isn't even race. Either way, an accusation is an accusation, you should probably assume that those are wrong before assuming they're true little buddy.

Ignoring the issue muslims and the recent refugee crisis relating to Syria, there has been for a while a disaffection with the idea of a highly multicultural Britain. Take from that what you will, perceive it as racism or whatever but it is undeniably tied up with the idea of an indepent, sovereign britain and brexit. I think alot of conservatives will talk about the rational behind this xenophobia because of the dangers of terrorism but one has to remember that the severity of these threats in highly exaggerated.

I have been thinking about the comparisons that are made with the suggested treatment of muslims by figures like trump and the the treatment of jews at the start of world war 2. At first I thought that such comparisons were ludicrous, after all jews werent suicide bombing and shooting up places like muslims are today, the comparison is at fault because muslims are an active harm. But recently my line of thinking has changed, after all, at the time jews were considered to be economically dangerous, that they were purposely leading to the demise of germany through the control of big business, economic terrorism if you will. can this exaggeration of the perception of the dangers of jews at the start of ww2 and the perception of the dangers of muslims be compared? I don't know, but it is food for thought. and the attacks of halal foods and the proposed muslim bans seem to be red flags to me.

(06-22-2016, 10:10 PM)meow Wrote:

(06-22-2016, 03:38 AM)Queen Wrote: The Quran [Islam's Holy Book] said that if someone killed else ignorantly, they are not from us.

That means everyone who kills someone without a reason or fighting against Jihad is nothing near religious or Muslim.
Anyone that is part of ISIS isn't a Muslim.
so if you're saying muslims are terrorists & shit, then you're fucking wrong. get your facts right.

Spoiler:

Found the leftist who shouts "islamophobe!" at anyone who criticizes muslims

Yeah, about that.

ISIS kills anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs (including Sunni muslims) and believe that what they're doing is Jihad (holy war against non-believers). In the Quran (2:191-193), it states that you should kill all non-believers, because disbelief is worse than murder. Therefor, ISIS is in accordance with Islam and you're fucking stupid. Take your own advice and "get your facts right."

Responding towards your "if you're saying muslims are terrorists & shit, then you're fucking wrong" statement, does it just happen to be a coincidence that not a single week goes by without a terrorist attack being committed by a muslim or group of muslims? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2016
Before you say "citation needed", go ahead and scroll to the bottom of that page. There are also pages like that for 2015, 2014, and so on if you feel like that's not convincing enough.

Furthermore, according to PEW research statistics, well over 50% of Muslims believe in Shariah Law to some degree, making them radical. With that being said, it's not illogical to assume that some muslim you randomly meet somewhere is radical (kind-of a synonym for terroristic, but eh, it's shaky grounds. All Muslim terrorists are radical but not all radical Muslims are terrorists). I'm not going to find all of the stats for you, if you care that much, you can watch this video and look up the stats for yourself as I've already done it.

---

(06-20-2016, 09:42 PM)Rick Wrote: I can see why they are doing it

Anyone with the ability to think can see why they're doing it. They're barbaric people with a barbaric ideology.

(06-24-2016, 02:47 PM)Dyme Wrote: It also pains me that the Brexit people and others are so quick to turn these refugees away. "Well they don't help us so why the fuck should we take them!". Perhaps maybe because they are fleeing war and have no where else to go? Have we as a society really lost the bare amount of empathy needed to help these people? They are refugees from WAR. Their homes have been over run by an organization that beheads, drowns, and tortures the people who they capture. Where exactly do you want them to go? "Anywhere but I live" is not an acceptable answer.

(06-24-2016, 03:05 PM)superMAUS Wrote: Right on the money, but my guess is that this kind of argument doesn't appeal to most conservatives or is easy for them to discount, in which case they should also acknowledge just how detrimental this will be (and already has been) to the British economy. Britain is reliant on the EU as trade partners and they make a profit on being a member.

(06-24-2016, 04:30 PM)DarkMuse Wrote: It's nice to see so many engaged in (somewhat) respectful and informed debate. I believe this news will be an important precursor to whatever the future might hold. It's an important point in our history and whether or not it is deemed as a good or bad event has yet to be determined/witnessed.

(06-24-2016, 03:56 PM)meow Wrote: Here I was actually thinking you were intelligent.

meow Wrote:Britian relies on the EU because it's a major benefit, you would do the same, no? Britian being reliant on the EU to benefit themselves doesn't mean they can't become self-reliant. Why shouldn't the UK try to establish new trade agreements after ditching its forced obligations to a socialist EU? Trade agreements are easy to negotiate as long as both sides are willing.

meow Wrote:One of the only reasons the economy of the UK has remained standing is because of their unwillingness to adopt the Euro out of preservation of the pound, which has worked out for them obviously since they had the best economy out of the entire EU next to Germany.

(06-24-2016, 04:48 PM)superMAUS Wrote: Not a way to win someone over. Srsly dude you have to stop with the personal attacks, people will just get peeved and tune out I'll try not to though because you are friendly when not discussing politics.

(06-24-2016, 04:48 PM)superMAUS Wrote: To read between the lines a little, your advocating that Britain stops all trade with every member of the European union? A move that means cutting of 48% of their exports and 47% of their imports (April 2016). Yes it is true that the UK could try and setup trade agreements with other countries but this is going to be alot more difficult than with European countries because of the UK's geographical location and historical connections. Historical connections centred around trade that the UK simply does not have with, say, America or China and so organising a trade agreement which is even better than that which is setup with the EU is going to be especially difficult. The UK will not have the high ground in any kind of trade deals that it will attempt to sort out moving forward, so it will likely have to settle for worse deals simply out of necessity of sorting out a deal. As well as this, actual UK products/exports are not in themselves particularly valuable, given the cheap nature of simple getting stuff from 3rd world countries , infact the way the EU works out is that the UK gets paid alot more for stuff that is very cheap elsewhere because of the nature of the agreement. In short the UK is going to struggle to even match its economic success at the moment under the EU.

(06-24-2016, 04:48 PM)superMAUS Wrote: What relevance does the Euro have to this debate? The UK did not adopt the Euro and adopting the Euro was not something they were about to do if they continued as a member of the EU. Besides, Germany uses the Euro and is the wealthiest country in EU (interesting that you used the term "next to" to describe its financial ranking in relation to the UK).

(06-24-2016, 05:11 PM)meow Wrote: That's not necessarily what I meant, but I guess it's my fault for wording it that way. I meant UK companies as well as the UK itself are now free from the burden of EU regulation, meaning they will no longer have to pay a bunch of money to the EU as well as support other failing countries in the EU (like Greece). Trade with EU countries will still continue because the UK import more from them than they export to them. And the thing you said about geographical position and history is nonsense, how is the UK being surrounded by water going to make it hard to establish trade? Being surrounded by water is actually the preferred place to be when regarding trade, since the water is your friend. Land-locked countries are actually at a huge disadvantage because those countries are dependent on neighboring transit countries for their external trade and suffer from high trade transaction costs. According to the World Bank, land locked countries are paying about 50% more in transport costs than coastal countries and have up to 60% lower volumes of trade. As for the historical perspective, I don't even see how that makes sense. Nobody is going to say no to potentially profitable with Britian just because of what has happened in the past, assuming you're talking about British imperialism and the slave trade and whatnot.

(06-24-2016, 01:55 PM)Dyme Wrote:

(06-24-2016, 10:42 AM)Oni Wrote: I don't think the referendum had anything to do with race, although there are always people crying wolf when it comes to racism.

Bruh if you can't see the racial side to Brexit than you really do have your eyes sewn shut. A huge part of the Brexit movement was to close off the UK's borders to the rest of the EU to prevent "unwanted peoples" from making their way into the UK easily. Most people are using the same old "they took my job!!!" argument that republicans in the U.S. have been using since the end of Reagan's last term.

"But Dyme! It isn't about race! The brexit people could be talking about white people who they don't want allowed into the country!"

Now I will refer you to the following billboard by the Leave campaign.


Very interesting how the leave movement has decided to use a line of (brown) refugees as their prime motivating message to close the UK's border. The similarities to the Leave movement and the xenophobic rhetoric of Donald Trump is almost uncanny.

And who is that charming man in front of the poster? It's none other than Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP. And well, lets just say UKIP has had more than a few incidents where they have been accused of blatant racism.

Why listen to me though when you can hear it straight from the horses mouth?



I'm not saying the entirety of Brexit has to do with race - of course it doesn't. But if you can't see the racial component to Brexit, than you are either uninformed or willfully ignorant.

(06-24-2016, 04:41 PM)meow Wrote:

(06-24-2016, 04:30 PM)DarkMuse Wrote: It's nice to see so many engaged in (somewhat) respectful and informed debate. I believe this news will be an important precursor to whatever the future might hold. It's an important point in our history and whether or not it is deemed as a good or bad event has yet to be determined/witnessed.

I predict it will be a good thing. Before the vote was over I made these predictions:

If the UK leaves the EU - This will compel other countries to leave that are being majority affected by this migrant crisis, ultimately sealing the deal for the cancerous and destructive migrants. The German prime minister (the one responsible for almost all of the migrant shit happening in Europe) will be either impeached or someone else will get elected (this is already happening). This will push the migrants back into the middle-east and Africa where they can fuck up their own countries instead of fucking up others, and ultimately kill each other and themselves. Yay!

If the UK remains in the EU - In x years, migrants force themselves into every country of the EU, eventually turning the countries into shitholes (this is currently happening with Germany and Sweden). After x or xx years, another migrant crisis begins due to the countries they turned to shit, and migrants begin pushing their way into Asia, ultimately turning those countries into shitholes as well. After x or xx years once again, either 1. the migrants decide to forcefully take over the Americas or 2. another migrant crisis will happen and they will eventually take over the Americas. At that point, the entire world will be doomed.

If my predictions were correct, then the whole world was just saved by Britian leaving the EU. Thank fuck for that.

DarkMuse Wrote:

meow Wrote:

DarkMuse Wrote:It's nice to see so many engaged in (somewhat) respectful and informed debate. I believe this news will be an important precursor to whatever the future might hold. It's an important point in our history and whether or not it is deemed as a good or bad event has yet to be determined/witnessed.

I predict it will be a good thing. Before the vote was over I made these predictions:

If the UK leaves the EU - This will compel other countries to leave that are being majority affected by this migrant crisis, ultimately sealing the deal for the cancerous and destructive migrants. The German prime minister (the one responsible for almost all of the migrant shit happening in Europe) will be either impeached or someone else will get elected (this is already happening). This will push the migrants back into the middle-east and Africa where they can fuck up their own countries instead of fucking up others, and ultimately kill each other and themselves. Yay!

If the UK remains in the EU - In x years, migrants force themselves into every country of the EU, eventually turning the countries into shitholes (this is currently happening with Germany and Sweden). After x or xx years, another migrant crisis begins due to the countries they turned to shit, and migrants begin pushing their way into Asia, ultimately turning those countries into shitholes as well. After x or xx years once again, either 1. the migrants decide to forcefully take over the Americas or 2. another migrant crisis will happen and they will eventually take over the Americas. At that point, the entire world will be doomed.

If my predictions were correct, then the whole world was just saved by Britian leaving the EU. Thank fuck for that.

I definitely see your point here but the important thing to remember is that a group of people is not defined by individuals. I'm not sure on the statistic of crime in immigrant population or if migration has any effect on said rates but I have a feeling that a majority of immigrants are not violent, nor are they criminals. I think that we should be a lot more strict on who we are letting in. This is especially true for countries who have serious issues as it is and for immigrants from regions  that are already causing problems or are threatening the host country. Immigrants should have a use in the society if and only if the host country needs it. Countries should be able to opt out of immigration altogether if a vote is created but pro-immigration attitudes should be encouraged All people, in my opinion,  deserve to have a place to escape to if their country is in a "bad place" so to speak. Specifically if their country is being violent, suppressive, manipulative, etc. I'm a firm believer in providing aid to those who need it but I will not condone forcing it down peoples throat. I do not believe we should be in other countries fighting wars for people. I do not believe we should be in other countries forcing our own ways onto people. I do believe that we should be there for others if they choose to ask for help but we shall not intervene directly.  Should some power threaten us, then I believe we have the right to  engage, outside of that is asking for trouble. Yeah you can argue that we should be proactive but that is a temptation that spirals out of control quickly. The US moved swiftly from defensive to offensive-defense. It's naive and will end up fucking us over in the future.

As my 1st grade teacher always used to say,
"Nose nose, where it goes."

-DarkMuse