Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 a) I know what polygamy is, but not everybody marries to have children.b) I don't see what the concern is in the UK, as the birth rate is falling, and immigration is needed to bolster the numbers. You have stated that you don't like the idea of our population being increased by way of immigration, so surely you would prefer to see the indigenous population increased from within. a) Did I suggest they do? Some people can't have children even if they want them. But the potential for children is greater where a polygamous situation exists. b) My main concern is that this country doesn't become an Islamic nation with the help of any population change - by immigration or otherwise. You may think the threat does not exist - and I'd hope you were right - but, sadly, I think the threat is massive. However, my stance was clear whatever the truth of the above. If polygamy were considered desirable for the good of this country and its people - an academic debate if eer there was one - then it should be allowed for all and not allowed for anyone until that is the case.
BoneDog Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 1. It seems to me that homosexual debate has been rammed down our throats by the same Left wing/liberal social engineeers that have inflicted the unnaturally rapid drive towards multiculturalism on us - without so much as a widespread debate or a by-your-leave from those that elected them.They have done it by stealth, because they knew it would be highly controversial if not downright unacceptable. 2. Same sex relationships don't produce anyone and there is considerable controversy about whether they are beneficial in an adoption situation. 1. I agree that they do these things by stealth, as they seem to have done when they decided that our kids were going to be taught about these things from as young as 5 or 6. Even 9 years old is too young. It is outrageous and I don't think there is another word for it. In the old days kids were left to be kids and it did them no harm. Now we are told that our kids must be told certain things. I agree that kids need to be told certain things, but that decision is the parents to make as to when and how. 2. I would say that for a gay couple to adopt is not the right decision. Not because I don't think they would be good parents, but because of the kind of abuse that child will recieve for 12 years of their lives while going through school. No matter how good and caring the parents were this abuse would affect the child very badly at the most important stage of their lives. I've seen the abuse a kid has to take at school because one of their parents were gay. And I wouldn't wish it on any child.
BoneDog Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I'm still too immature not to giggle at this. Sorry Thrac. I had to stop reading. Yes the 14/15/16 year old line was a classic!
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Thrac can bust a nut 3 times in half an hour?! Why is he always so gloomy?! It was such a long time ago!
purpleronnie Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 a) Did I suggest they do? Some people can't have children even if they want them. But the potential for children is greater where a polygamous situation exists.b) My main concern is that this country doesn't become an Islamic nation with the help of any population change - by immigration or otherwise. You may think the threat does not exist - and I'd hope you were right - but, sadly, I think the threat is massive. However, my stance was clear whatever the truth of the above. If polygamy were considered desirable for the good of this country and its people - an academic debate if eer there was one - then it should be allowed for all and not allowed for anyone until that is the case. Sorry, you're wrong.
BoneDog Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Did I really just read that thracian was part of a daisy chain in his past?
Flynny Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I don't see how Polygamy = more kids, especially with that newfangled contraception stuff and all.
BoneDog Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I'd like to concentrate on three very important words in that post - "perhaps even more".Sordid. sorry for back to back lols but I have laughed alot in the last 10 mins!
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I'm still too immature not to giggle at this. Sorry Thrac. I had to stop reading. Be my guest. I've broad enough shoulders.
Flynny Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Be my guest. I've broad enough shoulders. I'm still about 12 mentally, hah. But again, re: the polygamy stuff - there are a finite number of people in the world. People in general will have sex if at all possible. I don't see how Polygamy alters that. I've no idea what or why Polygamy relates to anything else you were talking about cos I was too busy taking the piss () , but it confuses me that you'd think we'd end up with more kids because of it.
BoneDog Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 To this day I mostly regret what happened to one of the guys as a result. A severe warning would probably have sufficed and I don't what actually happened ever changed him anyway. But that doesn't mean he wasn't one scary bloke to a kid of 13 and more especially when he was trying to pull me down a dark alleyway in the middle of Leicester. Sounds like no regrets are in order whatever happened there. Congratulations on your anniversary this week 42 years marraige is a great acheivement and it always warms me cockles when I hear these things!
Babylon Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Racism, immigration, religion, polygamy, daisy chains, attempted abductions, orgasms and Edgar Davids.... It can only be FT.
Babylon Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Sounds like no regrets are in order whatever happened there. Congratulations on your anniversary this week 42 years marraige is a great acheivement and it always warms me cockles when I hear these things! Thrac has warmed a few cockles in his time.
BoneDog Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 a) Did I suggest they do? Some people can't have children even if they want them. But the potential for children is greater where a polygamous situation exists.b) My main concern is that this country doesn't become an Islamic nation with the help of any population change - by immigration or otherwise. You may think the threat does not exist - and I'd hope you were right - but, sadly, I think the threat is massive. However, my stance was clear whatever the truth of the above. If polygamy were considered desirable for the good of this country and its people - an academic debate if eer there was one - then it should be allowed for all and not allowed for anyone until that is the case. I don't think you've got anything to worry about there. I think there is more to worry about with the leaders we have and the things some of the secret services get up to. Even if this country did become a Muslim nation (which I doubt) I don't think it's possible they would do anything more sinister than already happens. Muslims are going to be under more threat in the coming years and will have no chance of gaining control of Britain. From what I've learnt there will soon be another terrorist attack (bigger than Sept 11th) and it will wrongly be blamed on Muslims.
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 sorry for back to back lols but I have laughed alot in the last 10 mins! Me to - and I'm the fall guy. Thanks for the congrats by the way. Forty-two years is not so hard if you go about it the right way. I'm just amazed the chains and padlocks have lasted so long. :locked:
Shrenchel Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 It was such a long time ago! Still impressive. Kudos. Maybe I should have got involved in some kind of pubescent tantric daisy chain.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 You what? A racist, homophobic bigot is allowed on national TV, and you complain?Or are you taking the piss? Only bigots would say he should not be on T.V. Everyone, if asked, should have that right, whether we agree with them or not. That programme was a Witch Hunt, and N.G. came out of it well. Although he wont get my vote, his party will get stronger and stronger.
Alexikokopops Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 What has polygamy got to do with overpopulation?It depends on when and where a poll is conducted. I would guess the Sky one is one where people can be arsed to texted or red button their response, whereas Yougov, MORI etc are done in a more controlled manner, if that's the right word. I for one would take part in one of the Yougov polls, if asked, yet I would never text a Sky poll. I still think that 1,000 for a population of 58m is pretty small. I guess you missed it because we posted at pretty much the same time, but 1000 is a perfectly adequate sample size Using a UK population of 61,113,205 and working under the assumption that you'd expect a proportion of 6.2% (because that's the percentage of the vote the BNP got at the last election), if you wanted to obtain an estimate of the population mean to within 1.5% with 95% certainty then you'd only need a sample size of 993 people if they were selected from the population at random. If you assume the YouGov poll was selected at random then 1,314 is more than enough. The real question is how was the sampling done to get those 1,314? The likelihood is that it is biased because the people who tend to respond feel more strongly about the subject matter.If you worked with no underlying assumption of what you'd expect the proportion to be interested in the BNP (where I used 6.2% before) then a sample size of 1068 would be enough if you wanted to obtain an estimate of the population mean to within 3% with 95% certainty. Oh, and it was a YouGov poll, not a Sky poll. The article was just from teh Sky News website "Taken in the hours after Mr Griffin's appearance, the YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph found 22% of voters would seriously consider voting BNP in a future local, general or European election."
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Although he wont get my vote, his party will get stronger and stronger. It will only get stronger if they rid themselves of Nick Griffin and get some workable ideas that address the genuine concerns of people about the rate of immigration, the availability of jobs, the appallingly mistaken imposition of fast-track multi-culturalising that was never called for (causing endless and lasting problems) and put an end once and for all to lies, denials and their ridiculous ideas about repatriating or otherwise victimising people. I've never written on here demanding fairness for British whites only to somehow be seen as standing for unfairness to others who rightfully and supportively live here. Griffin had the chance of his life this week. He should have used that nationwide broadcast to sanction, with his party, the unambiguous right to adopt a new and sincere political agenda concerning immigration, newly arrived citizens, and the way forward for Britain. Instead of denying the undeniable and fostering still more inter-cultural conflict he should have persuaded his party to admit the shameful errors of the past and to promise instead to represent fairness for all who live here and respect by all for the laws of our land. All the other major political parties paid shallow lip service to the idea of listening to a screaming populace and curbing immigration when it was clearly obvious it was all so much bullshit and they didn't either believe in it or didn't want to admit that Europe wouldn't allow it. The BNP could easily have taken advantage of that. Even people who arrived here long ago as foreigners are now saying they want immigration controlled, if not ended, because they too have lost their jobs and the BNP should have committed themselves to changing that just as they would work to change it for the often displaced white working class. Then any post-broadcast poll might have been interesting.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Bah - more people voting for the BNP - most beleive voting for the lib dems is a waste of time, so why would they think voting for the BNP is any better? Considering to vote is one thing, actually bothering is another, and although the BNP may do well in terms of explosure from the programme, the election is a still a little bit away, and other parties will start beating their drums and drown the BNP out. Immigration may be a concern to a lot of people, but so is hospitals, schools, the armed forces, local services, crime and a host of other factors which will mean unless the BNP come up with concreate ideas for each of these, I can't imagine they will gain votes in a general election, surely? (Despite typing this, I'm not 100% confident in what i've put - part of it is in hope.)
purpleronnie Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Care to explain why? Sure after you explain why it is. You seen to be obsessed with immigration and I'm unsure why, always focusing on the negatives and seem blind to the many positives.
Daggers Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Sure after you explain why it is. You seen to be obsessed with immigration and I'm unsure why, always focusing on the negatives and seem blind to the many positives. Come on, be fair - he's obsessed with so much more besides. Mutual masturbation, gay abductions, the Christian white, Labour, conspiracy, social engineering, free markets, social control... On one hand his rights to be himself and celebrate are being curbed - his solution? To curb those of others.
Guest Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I guess you missed it because we posted at pretty much the same time, but 1000 is a perfectly adequate sample size Oh, and it was a YouGov poll, not a Sky poll. The article was just from teh Sky News website "Taken in the hours after Mr Griffin's appearance, the YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph found 22% of voters would seriously consider voting BNP in a future local, general or European election." It was going so well until you mentioned the Torygraph
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Sure after you explain why it is. You seen to be obsessed with immigration and I'm unsure why, always focusing on the negatives and seem blind to the many positives. I could list endless reasons - and have already mentioned many over the months - but will offer you just three. a) It has been admitted today that Labour's deliberate stealth policy of allowing mass migration to this country was in fact a calculated political ploy by the Left to send the Right into disarray and it had no mandate whatsoever from the people who elected them. Indeed it was admitted that the issue was deliberately suppressed to avoid it costing Labour many votes among its traditional suporters, many of whom have been made redundant as a consequence both of the policy and Labour's anti-English-white employment laws. b) UK unemployment currently runs at an obscene near-3m officially but the real figure as shown below is at least 8m and probably closer to 10m. Every job taken by an incomer is a potential job that cannot be taken by an existing resident - a situation that cannot and should not continue. Furthermore the general population are calling loudly for a halt too. c) The UK's population growth is rapidly heading towards the 70m that many believe is as many as the country can sensibly sustain. Already even the government's own green advisor demands a halt for environmental reasons, as do other experts. http://en.timeturk.com/uk-population-to-ri...908-haberi.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510377,00.html And another slant on the same story: http://www.fairhome.co.uk/2009/04/16/david...ulation-growth/
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.