British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Living in a bubble is about someone living a secluded life devoid of much impulses Jeez, Daisy.

Don't see how this is antithetical to what I wrote.

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, right, someone who gets triggered by someone in London being condescending to rural types, and replies by pointing out the beauty of rural region's monoculturalism, doesn't "provide [their] own environment preference" I suppose that post of yours was another of the 31,000 posts you have made here that says nothing about you, right? Just an empty thing that cannot be used by readers to ascertain what kind of human you are? How naive are you?

Nope. I have never, to my knowledge, said anything on mygnr pertaining to my preference of habitation, be that country, or level of urbanisation (farmstead, village, town, city, conurbation). You are obsessed with ascertaining subjectivity in my posting when none belong.

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Oh, poor you.

Nor have I ever specified desirable levels of immigration, but we again return to an earlier argument...

Just totally glossed over your ignorance of British history through editorial control I see?

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Really, are we having this discussion? You are going to proselytize over the beauties of monoculturalism and ethnically pure societies to me? No, thank you. It's enough to know what you are, I don't need to hear your reasonings for it.

I am merely pointing out the objective fact that homogeneous societies have the benefit of avoiding religious and ethnic tension. 

 

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think anyone is saying that. At least not here. Another argument you have imported from twitter, perhaps?

That being said, I do consider societies that accept an influx of refugees more sympathetic and humane than societies that don't. And I consider societies that accept economic immigration more forward-seeing and wise than those that don't. Similarly, I will always mistrust societies that refuse immigration to have a xenophobic/racist undercurrent. It just makes little sense why they wouldn't except in the light of a feeling of nationalistic, cultural or genetic superiority. Because the budget of immigration goes far beyond just the costs of (possible) ethnic tension, which can anyway be suppressed if immigration is done properly (demonstrated by multicultural societies with little to no ethnic tension).

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this but I would point out that historic chronology and geography has determined that certain societies are homogeneous, e.g., the Polynesian islands - and there you'll not find a friendlier welcome by all accounts. 

[soon]

Wikipedia says that many Polynesian Islands have some form of collectivity, colonial or statehood status with New Zealand, France, Britain, Chile and US. Hawaii is multicultural. And French Polynesia has a french slogan. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, soon said:

Old timey english buildings and streets actually just brings to mind like the plague, cramped conditions and outhouse toilets. And sword fighting. 

This sentence to me is antithetical. The urban environment you describe in bold - which would be called ''Dickensean'' - is not really what you'd call, ''Old timey english buildings and streets', the type tourists visit anyhow. Firstly, the houses with ''cramped conditions and outhouse toilets'' are not really that ''old timey'' as they were all built in the 19th-early 20th centuries so are relatively recent; secondly, they're not that characteristically ''English'' either in that they were built for utilitarian purposes and similar houses were built in non-English cities undergoing the 19th century industrial revolution, e.g., Glasgow, Belfast, Berlin, New York, Chicago.

When somebody says things like ''Old timey english buildings'' I think of this,

 

Spoiler

 

But it could even mean this if we are moving forward two hundred years,

 

But it certainly wouldn't be this,

But maybe this is just my (mis)interpretation on what you wrote. I suppose in the technical sense of the term the latter is as ''English'' as the above two examples, just that this is not the image that is conjured up when somebody says something like ''Old timey english buildings and streets''.

3 minutes ago, soon said:

Wikipedia says that many Polynesian Islands have some form of collectivity, colonial or statehood status with New Zealand, France, Britain, Chile and US. Hawaii is multicultural. And French Polynesia has a french slogan. 

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/least-ethnically-diverse-countries-in-the-world.html

[soon]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

This sentence to me is antithetical. The urban environment you describe in bold - which would be called ''Dickensean'' - is not really what you'd call, ''Old timey english buildings and streets', the type tourists visit anyhow. Firstly, the houses with ''cramped conditions and outhouse toilets'' are not really that ''old timey'' as they were all built in the 19th-early 20th centuries so are relatively recent; secondly, they're not that characteristically ''English'' either in that they were built for utilitarian purposes and similar houses were built in non-English cities undergoing the 19th century industrial revolution, e.g., Glasgow, Belfast, Berlin, New York, Chicago.

When somebody says things like ''Old timey english buildings'' I think of this,

 

It is pretty. I hope it has an indoor toilet.

Still evokes an austere vibe tbh. Im not accustomed to having to like sand down my outside walls or whatever every few years.  But no, it really is a beautiful building. Thanks!

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

I know you didnt highlight it, but this makes me wanna sword fight! Or like, toss Damiens nanny off the roof. The huge lawns seem like such a chore to traverse. Why no hot dog stand half way?

I bet they used to have to poo outside.

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

But maybe this is just my (mis)interpretation on what you wrote. I suppose in the technical sense of the term the latter is as ''English'' as the above two examples, just that this is not the image that is conjured up when somebody says something like ''Old timey english buildings and streets''.

This is definitely what I was picturing - and you absolutely called it on the Dickson influence on my perception! haha

But yeah that just makes me picture Jack The Ripper, consumption and the plague.

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/least-ethnically-diverse-countries-in-the-world.html

the same page says this:

"While this question has yet to be concretely answered, there is a strong negative correlation in the US and Canada between diversity and and trust: the more likely a community is to be diverse, the less trusting the individuals living in this community tend to be. Diversity can be argued to alienate people in dense urban centres." Which is un-sourced for very good reason - its bollocks. Thats propaganda! Im friends with neighbours who Ive never spoken with because we dont share any languages.

But lets still trust the hard numbers, where it lists Yemen and Palestine among the most ethnically homogenous.  Clearly that doesnt free them from major conflicts within their borders - including race based conflict. Israel's rejection of multiculturalism promotes the ongoing conflict in fact. Earlier you mentioned inter faith conflict to speak agasint multiculturalism (N Ireland). But Palestine has Christians and Muslims. 

It also lists Puerto Rico which is in the midst of a class war.

All this makes me think that Eco-Socialist Multiculturalism is the only way to abolish the conflicts that capitalism and the state create around gender, class, racism and ecological displacement?

Edited September 18, 2019 by soon

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Why no hot dog stand half way?

You are worse than the Americans! 

I was appalled - you'd be pleased - that there was a Mickey Dees on Whitehall just up from the Banqueting House so they definitely cater for you, the English. Follow-up staring at Rubens' ceiling and the place where the execution of Charles I, one of the most dramatic incidents in British history, took place before a bit of ''Big Mac, Fries and Coke please''. 

1 hour ago, soon said:

But lets still trust the hard numbers, where it lists Yemen and Palestine among the most ethnically homogenous.  Clearly that doesnt free them from major conflicts within their borders - including race based conflict. Israel's rejection of multiculturalism promotes the ongoing conflict in fact. Earlier you mentioned inter faith conflict to speak agasint multiculturalism (N Ireland). But Palestine has Christians and Muslims. 

It also lists Puerto Rico which is in the midst of a class war.

All this makes me think that Eco-Socialist Multiculturalism is the only way to abolish the conflicts caused by gender, class and racism and ecological displacement?

I am not saying homogeneous states are less prone to having wars with other states - the Empire of Japan (1937-45) would refute that theory immediately, nor that homogeneity removes civil conflict in toto, being that there is enough to fight over besides race, e.g., feudal power, kingship, constitutional power, ideology and class. I'm not even saying that homogeneity lessens conflict. Homogeneity does however inherently remove internal religio-ethnic conflict, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination, state punitiveness against ''others'' within the same polity etc.

Are you saying the violence in Ireland would have occurred if there had not been two religio-sectarian groupings? Remove the Anglo-Scottish Unionist Plantation communities, and consequentially ''Auntie's'' obligation in defending those said communities, then there is no reason to believe that the Six Counties would have not joined the Irish Free State in 1922 (if ''Home Rule'' had not been granted sooner?). No sectarian divide. No ''Troubles''. 

Let's look at Yugoslavia which ''Balkanised'' itself in bloody conflict, turning into a plethora of smaller states?

Would the Third Reich have risen if not for the presence of 522,000 Jews in the Weimer Republik, against whom the Nazis drummed up incessant antisemitism, in the pages of Der Stürmer for instance, propelling themselves to die Machtergreifung. The Jews were a convenient example of ''otherness'' in the German Reich, a scapegoat for Germany's ''misfortunes''. 

[soon]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are worse than the Americans! 

I was appalled - you'd be pleased - that there was a Mickey Dees on Whitehall just up from the Banqueting House so they definitely cater for you, the English. Follow-up staring at Rubens' ceiling and the place where the execution of Charles I, one of the most dramatic incidents in British history, took place before a bit of ''Big Mac, Fries and Coke please''. 

Worse than the Americans? 

I've never really considered what the proper 'historical execution site' cuisine pairing would be. In this case I believe its a Rueben sandwich though. With a respectful amount of space and time between ghost town and ultra english Ma and Pa sandwich shop. Neoliberal capitalism really is insidious and tentacled, claiming all space as its own. And the entire consumer marketplace is the Company Store. Its bullshit.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not saying homogeneous states are less prone to having wars with other states - the Empire of Japan (1937-45) would refute that theory immediately, nor that homogeneity removes civil conflict in toto, being that there is enough to fight over besides race, e.g., feudal power, kingship, constitutional power, ideology and class. I'm not even saying that homogeneity lessens conflict. Homogeneity does however inherently remove internal religio-ethnic conflict, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination, state punitiveness against ''others'' within the same polity etc.

I just meant to highlight that humans are so prone to conflict that 'even' an ethnically homogenous state like Palestine can still end up having race based conflict within its own borders. So why make a boogie man out of multiculturalism if ethno states have the exact same issues?

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Are you saying the violence in Ireland would have occurred if there had not been two religio-sectarian groupings? Remove the Anglo-Scottish Unionist Plantation communities, and consequentially ''Auntie's'' obligation in defending those said communities, then there is no reason to believe that the Six Counties would have not joined the Irish Free State in 1922 (if ''Home Rule'' had not been granted sooner?). No sectarian divide. No ''Troubles''. 

You had provided the list of ethically homogenous states which I took to represent your position, but you have been consistent in using the stricter term homogeneity. I gather you mean complete monoculture with no more than one religion. If thats the case then my point about Palestine being on the list and having two religions is mute. 

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Would the Third Reich have risen if not for the presence of 522,000 Jews in the Weimer Republik, against whom the Nazis drummed up incessant antisemitism, in the pages of Der Stürmer for instance, propelling themselves to die Machtergreifung. The Jews were a convenient example of ''otherness'' in the German Reich, a scapegoat for Germany's ''misfortunes''. 

Your using the example of the Nazis to demonstrate why you think state homogeneity is good? Im confused by that.

And Id also raise that the Nazis despised the disabled as well - even of their own race and potentially broader ideology. Is it hard to drum up a scape goat?

Edited September 18, 2019 by soon

[Dazey]

Just posting this to see all the UK posters get shocked at how expensive these are and all the US posters absolutely dumbfounded at how cheap.  

[SoulMonster]

Don't worry, BoJo is currently negotiating a brilliant deal with the EU that will make NHS much cheaper. 

[Dazey]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Don't worry, BoJo is currently negotiating a brilliant deal with the EU that will make NHS much cheaper. 

The same wonderful deal that the EU offered us three years ago but Theresa May turned down because this battleaxe was propping up her government at the time.

Looks like Bojo's about ready to throw the DUP under the bus.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/18/arlene-foster-signals-dup-shift-on-northern-ireland-border-issue

[DieselDaisy]

54 minutes ago, soon said:

Worse than the Americans? 

I've never really considered what the proper 'historical execution site' cuisine pairing would be. In this case I believe its a Rueben sandwich though. With a respectful amount of space and time between ghost town and ultra english Ma and Pa sandwich shop. Neoliberal capitalism really is insidious and tentacled, claiming all space as its own. And the entire consumer marketplace is the Company Store. Its bullshit.

I just meant to highlight that humans are so prone to conflict that 'even' an ethnically homogenous state like Palestine can still end up having race based conflict within its own borders. So why make a boogie man out of multiculturalism if ethno states have the exact same issues?

You had provided the list of ethically homogenous states which I took to represent your position, but you have been consistent in using the stricter term homogeneity. I gather you mean complete monoculture with no more than one religion. If thats the case then my point about Palestine being on the list and having two religions is mute. 

Your using the example of the Nazis to demonstrate why you think state homogeneity is good? Im confused by that.

And Id also raise that the Nazis despised the disabled as well - even of their own race and potentially broader ideology. Is it hard to drum up a scape goat?

I'm not saying it is ''good'' - that is an oversimplification. I am saying that there are benefits that homogeneous societies possess which heterogeneous societies do not possess such as avoiding religio-ethnic discord, as well as greater communications and participation in a shared vernacular culture and values. Palestine exists de jure, not de facto. The tension - Palestine indeed proves my exact point - is between two different religio-ethnicities, Islamic Arabs and the Israelite Jews. It is arguably (I don't want to get into the whole Palestine-Israel debate) a colonial relationship.

Antisemitism is the core of National Socialism. It is impossible to envision National Socialism arising without antisemitism driving it forth - an Italio-Austrian form of clerico-fascism perhaps, but never Nazism? 

[DieselDaisy]

An extreme and very different example of the negatives of acculturation exists in your very area, Soon: the Americas. When Europeans arrived, Old World epidemics and warfare decimated the indigenous population, including the destruction of sophisticated empires in the south, the Mayan, Aztec and Inca. But there was a ''multicultural'' smorgasbord on offer as compensation for the few remaining? The Jesuits; access to European weaponry; and of course European exports, livestock and crops.

I wouldn't care to make a value judgement on the benefits and disadvantages! Teleology besides. Anachronistic. Rot for serious historians. But something to ponder...

Edited September 18, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not saying it is ''good'' - that is an oversimplification. 

In a rant against Londoners you argued for why ethnically pure societies are better and pointed to less ethnic conflicts. But nooooo that doesn't mean you are against multiculturalism, you clever you deviously avoided stating explicitly that you are against it, so now we possibly can't know. 

You are funny. 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

An extreme and very different example of the negatives of acculturation exists in your very area, Soon: the Americas. When Europeans arrived, Old World epidemics and warfare decimated the indigenous population, including the destruction of sophisticated empires in the south, the Mayan, Aztec and Inca. But there was a ''multicultural'' smorgasbord on offer as compensation for the few remaining?

Wow. Now you are arguing against multiculturalism by pointing to the once in a lifetime, no, scratch that, once in a species time event of separate civilizations meeting across millenia of separation with ensuing catastrophic outbreak of diseases. How on earth is that at all relevant to the issues of multiculturalism and immigration in 2019? You fear the diseases of foreigners? 

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

In a rant against Londoners you argued for why ethnically pure societies are better and pointed to less ethnic conflicts. But nooooo that doesn't mean you are against multiculturalism, you clever you deviously avoided stating explicitly that you are against it, so now we possibly can't know. 

You are funny. 

Off on a tangent again I see? In an airport no less?

I said, and have reiterated multiple time that - in fact - rather than reiterate again, I'll merely quote them all so there should be no misunderstanding,

On 9/17/2019 at 10:13 PM, DieselDaisy said:

There is (and you can accuse me of all the names you want) nothing intrinsically wrong with living in homogeneous communities and there is much that is fine about such areas such as a shared vernacular making communication easier, and shared cultural values resulting in a lack of multi-ethnic tension. 

 

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

one ethnicity will avoid ethnic tension. Japan, a relatively homogeneous society, for instance has avoided the type of ethnic conflict seen in Sri Lanka. 

 

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Homogeneous societies such as Japan and Korea have avoided religio-ethnic tension, although not ideological tension in the latter example. 

 

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well you can't blame colonisation on Japan as the Tokugawa Shogunate kicked all of the Europeans out - well, all except the Dutch at Dejima - purged the Japanese Christians who had been proselytised by the Jesuits, and imposed national isolation for over 220 years!

I'm not denying the non-existence of economic and ideological tension in those societies, or tensions based on power and personalities, but a homogeneous society is going to be inherently free from ethnic tension. How would one ''ethnically cleanse'' one's own society afterall when you only possess one ethnicity? You cannot exactly blame the ''Poles taking wos jobs'' when there is no Poles in your country to begin with!

The assumption that homogeneous communities are somehow ''ill'', ''incorrect'', ''in need of reform'' in accordance with multi-cultural values, I find deeply sanctimonious, bigoted and an imposition - a form of cultural cleansing and imperialist values in itself. 

 

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am merely pointing out the objective fact that homogeneous societies have the benefit of avoiding religious and ethnic tension. 

 

 

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not saying homogeneous states are less prone to having wars with other states - the Empire of Japan (1937-45) would refute that theory immediately, nor that homogeneity removes civil conflict in toto, being that there is enough to fight over besides race, e.g., feudal power, kingship, constitutional power, ideology and class. I'm not even saying that homogeneity lessens conflict. Homogeneity does however inherently remove internal religio-ethnic conflict, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination, state punitiveness against ''others'' within the same polity etc.

Are you saying the violence in Ireland would have occurred if there had not been two religio-sectarian groupings? Remove the Anglo-Scottish Unionist Plantation communities, and consequentially ''Auntie's'' obligation in defending those said communities, then there is no reason to believe that the Six Counties would have not joined the Irish Free State in 1922 (if ''Home Rule'' had not been granted sooner?). No sectarian divide. No ''Troubles''. 

Let's look at Yugoslavia which ''Balkanised'' itself in bloody conflict, turning into a plethora of smaller states?

Would the Third Reich have risen if not for the presence of 522,000 Jews in the Weimer Republik, against whom the Nazis drummed up incessant antisemitism, in the pages of Der Stürmer for instance, propelling themselves to die Machtergreifung. The Jews were a convenient example of ''otherness'' in the German Reich, a scapegoat for Germany's ''misfortunes''. 

 

21 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not saying it is ''good'' - that is an oversimplification. I am saying that there are benefits that homogeneous societies possess which heterogeneous societies do not possess such as avoiding religio-ethnic discord, as well as greater communications and participation in a shared vernacular culture and values. Palestine exists de jure, not de facto. The tension - Palestine indeed proves my exact point - is between two different religio-ethnicities, Islamic Arabs and the Israelite Jews. It is arguably (I don't want to get into the whole Palestine-Israel debate) a colonial relationship.

Antisemitism is the core of National Socialism. It is impossible to envision National Socialism arising without antisemitism driving it forth - an Italio-Austrian form of clerico-fascism perhaps, but never Nazism? 

Nope, no mention of ''ethnically pure societies'' or those said societies being ''better''.

Stop lying Soul!

 

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Wow. Now you are arguing against multiculturalism by pointing to the once in a lifetime, no, scratch that, once in a species time event of separate civilizations meeting across millenia of separation with ensuing catastrophic outbreak of diseases. How on earth is that at all relevant to the issues of multiculturalism and immigration in 2019? You fear the diseases of foreigners? 

The meeting of the Old and New World, 1492-, is the great multicultural event in human history hahaha.

- Why does South America speak Spanish/Portuguese?

- Why does North America speak English/French?

- Why are there melons, squashes, potatoes, chocolate and coffee eaten/drank in the Old World

- Why is wheat, barley and lentils grown in the New World?

- Why is there cows, chickens, sheep and pigs in the New World, and turkeys and guinea pigs in the Old World.

It is the big seismic event in multiculturalism haha.

What an utter idiot you are!!!

[BrayWyatt]

On 17/09/2019 at 11:20 PM, DieselDaisy said:

In the Fenian sense or in the abolition of monarchy sense? He is both of those so I don't suppose it matters. 

Fenian sense, he is an IRA sympathiser

[DieselDaisy]

It furthermore completely altered our understanding on the plurality of our world. Suddenly new empires, societies, languages, religions, animals and foodstuffs which had flourished for centuries were opened up - vis-à-vis. European man was as affected by acculturation as Mesoamericans. It altered our comfortable conception of ourselves and our place in the world. Furthermore, eastern trade routes opened up renewed access to the - known during antiquity - east. Again, this opened up empires, societies, languages, religions, flora and fauna. Europeans came up against the sophisticated Chinese Empire and were found wanting, which triggered the Philosophes, people like Voltaire, spurning on secular-empiricist ways of thinking in the west.

The Age of Exploration crucially opened up new human exchanges, leading to ambassadorial contact, settlement plantations and/or colonization. 1492 was truly the pivotal year in modern multiculturalism.

(Not that multiculturalism didn't precede the Age of Discovery, cf., the Roman Empire which of course had contacts with the Han Empire via The Silk Road). 

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The meeting of the Old and New World, 1492-, is the great multicultural event in human history hahaha.

But it can never happen again and hence it has no value as an argument in the contemporary multiculturalism debate. Never again will civilizations separated over thousands of year with very different immunity to infections, meet. Bringing this up in a debate over the benefits of ethnically homogenous societies in 2019, is completely bizarre. I haven't even heard this argument from the most extreme right-wing anti-immigrants. They know how stupid it is. You have managed to outdone yourself.

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Off on a tangent again I see? In an airport no less?

I said, and have reiterated multiple time that - in fact - rather than reiterate again, I'll merely quote them all so there should be no misunderstanding,

Nope, no mention of ''ethnically pure societies'' or those said societies being ''better''.

Stop lying Soul!

You still seem to labor under the misunderstanding that only things that are explicitly stated forms the corpus of your opinions. You don't need to say, "I prefer less multicultural societies!". It is enough that you start listing all the great things about less multicultural societies, like less ethnic tension and lowered risk of dying from infectious diseases (!), for us to read you loud and clear. So although you think you have carefully avoided letting your dirty-brown opinions shine through in your 31,000 posts, remember they constitute a lot of lines to read between.

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It furthermore completely altered our understanding on the plurality of our world. Suddenly new empires, societies, languages, religions, animals and foodstuffs which had flourished for centuries were opened up - vis-à-vis. European man was as affected by acculturation as Mesoamericans. It altered our comfortable conception of ourselves and our place in the world. Furthermore, eastern trade routes opened up renewed access to the - known during antiquity - east. Again, this opened up empires, societies, languages, religions, flora and fauna. Europeans came up against the sophisticated Chinese Empire and were found wanting, which triggered the Philosophes, people like Voltaire, spurning on secular-empiricist ways of thinking in the west.

The Age of Exploration crucially opened up new human exchanges, leading to ambassadorial contact, settlement plantations and/or colonization. 1492 was truly the pivotal year in modern multiculturalism.

(Not that multiculturalism didn't precede the Age of Discovery, cf., the Roman Empire which of course had contacts with the Han Empire via The Silk Road). 

It's like you have no sensor for knowing what is relevant to the ongoing discussion or not. Like a historian without a sense of direction, you get triggered on certain words and off you go!

[spunko12345]

17 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You never should have reacted to my post in the first place, when it still could have been about anyone.

Also the post insinuates that he is a swan molester yet all he took issue was the teasing about the lisp 😂

[DieselDaisy]

Speechless at your idiocy, Soul, although you are not a history graduate so I cannot expect you to appreciate to any degree how the past shapes the present. 

[DieselDaisy]

Quote

'I don't have an erotic relationship to the backstop

- Jean-Claude Junker today

Been on the sauce again, or the lady doth protest too much methinks, and the thought of the Irish backstop get him incredibly horny?

Edited September 19, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

*Paints face brown, has an erotic relationship with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, becomes PM*

But sure, its the proposed alternatives to being governed by these fools that are silly. No one bother me until Im back from that new museum. 

[spunko12345]

22 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Off on a tangent again I see? In an airport no less?

I said, and have reiterated multiple time that - in fact - rather than reiterate again, I'll merely quote them all so there should be no misunderstanding,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, no mention of ''ethnically pure societies'' or those said societies being ''better''.

Stop lying Soul!

 

OOOR DUUUUR!

Edited September 19, 2019 by spunko12345