Bob's Board: The Earl of Chesterfield - Viewing Profile - Bob's Board

 s42blue, on 29 May 2024 - 07:17 PM, said:

Genuinely surprised by this reply.

As one of the more rational contributors I hoped you'd acknowledge the difference between opinion accompanied observations and whataboutery laden responses.

And who's desperately hiding behind 'Labour have no plan' diversion whenever called to account for the last fourteen years.

But as agreed let's not be party to yet another topic going down the gurgler...

 s42blue, on 29 May 2024 - 02:29 PM, said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make, here.

That I'm a Labour supporter? That I highlight fourteen years of tory failings? Perhaps celebrate their implosion as a party?

Hardly an eyebrow raising revelation. Though I continue to be flattered that so many contributors quote my pseudonym so often.

The 'Labour have no policies' thing's getting yawningly dull, too. Every rational observer acknowledges the nation's broke, just as every rational observer acknowledges whatever Labour pledge will be minutely dissected in a way the tory's never are. Hell, it's happening on this very thread as we e-speak. And of course SKS is no Blair. In the same way he's no Johnson, either.

But maybe the country needs boring. Maybe it needs bland. Maybe it needs rational and responsible.

Bottom line is this topic's become as predictable as every other. Whataboutery, evasion, hypocrisy, prejudice and personal point scoring. And y'know what? Not a single mind will be changed, either.

I just hope everyone has the basic honesty to admit who they voted for come July fifth and offer an intelligent insight into why they did...

Blimey - you're tying yourself in so many knots you'll garotte yourself on your own intestines, here.

The bloke who celebrated hundreds of thousands of white, quasi Christians from "similar economies" being sent home now welcomes folk from all over the world.

Then on one hand you want Muslims, but on the other you don't.

Then on one hand you want men, but on the other you don't.

Then on one hand you want those from "war torn" countries, but on the other you don't.

Then on one hand you want people arriving by boat, but on the other you don't.

And worst of all you have no way of differentiating between them because you want them immediately trafficked to Rwanda.

Looks to me as if you need several alphabets worth of initials to sum all that up. Or on the other hand one simple word ending in 'phobia'...

Stop squirming.

You've now stated an unspecified number of folk from all over the world are welcome regardless of sex or religion.

Which instantly gets rid of most your recently adopted initials.

Meanwhile you're happy to accept people from "war torn" countries like Ukraine.

Two more gone.

Then you've just said we should "look at" people turning up on boats if they have papers.

Even though they could quite easily be forged.

In fact you're only left spewing bigotry towards the tiny proportion of asylum seekers without documents, despite that being totally understandable given their circumstances.

So we're back to the simple question you're once again dodging - how do you decide which are legitimate cases or not without processing their claims....?

 Search & Destroy, on 29 May 2024 - 07:26 AM, said:

This really is some sorta turnaround for you.

Accepting Islam is compatible with western society after all these years insisting otherwise.

So now perhaps we can have a conversation over how we discover who does and doesn't fulfil your criteria if they're simply trafficked to Rwanda on arrival....?