It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UK has hit rock bottom - detaining a US citizen because she was to interview Tommy Robinson

page: 17
79
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm not from the Uk so I cannot comment on the degree to which those that do speak there are 'radical'.
Surely they should be allowed the same rights to speak?
As I have said previously, no one will be forced to stand there and listen. No one has to agree. People have the right to reject whatever they say.
But banning them for even thinking about speaking out against the UK's precious Islam is not a path we want to go down.




posted on Mar, 14 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Today the leftists think "yeah, we've pressured the government into doing what we want through force of law, albeit that it's unjust - but we don't care because we don't like the people they've done it to."

That precedent is then set.

Tomorrow the leftists are screaming "Hey! this isn't fair that you're locking me up for my beliefs, I demand my rights to free speech" etc.

Problem is, there's no one left to listen, and no one cares, they're showing you the same tolerance you showed them - i.e. none.

End result - the government has total control over who says what, when and where they say it, and what the correct way of thinking is.

Disobey - you die.

Essentially that's where the "radicals" are leading us - not to Utopia, but to death in a Distopia that not even they want.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Xenogears

Do you have your own opinion or does YouTube do your thinking for you?

ad hominen.

Attacking the source and not the merits of the argument, classic logical fallacy


Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself-wiki


Wasn't attacking the source. Was attacking your inability to make a coherent on topic point.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.



No, you were clear - but by being so showed you have no argument.


Cool, maybe you can explain on Xenogears behalf the relevance of a youtube video on race & IQ to this thread?

Maybe you would like to share your views on that topic as well?


It doesnt only cover race and iq. But the real world consequences of IQ in life.

As for relevance, one of the consequences is being able or not able to understand arguments made in a thread.
edit on 15-3-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Xenogears

Do you have your own opinion or does YouTube do your thinking for you?

ad hominen.

Attacking the source and not the merits of the argument, classic logical fallacy


Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself-wiki


Wasn't attacking the source. Was attacking your inability to make a coherent on topic point.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.



No, you were clear - but by being so showed you have no argument.


Cool, maybe you can explain on Xenogears behalf the relevance of a youtube video on race & IQ to this thread?

Maybe you would like to share your views on that topic as well?


It doesnt only cover race and iq. But the real world consequences of IQ in life.

As for relevance, one of the consequences is being able or not able to understand arguments made in a thread.


Yes it is pretty clear you don't understand the arguments made in a thread. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting completely off topic videos.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980

Refugees are a completely different matter. Their ability to enter another nation is guided by a completely different set of rules and laws.




So what about the thousands flooding the UK with no paperwork whatsoever? 
You are aware of the double standard you harbor right?


No not really. I'm not a border agent and I don't make the laws upon the free travel of foreign citizens within my nation. Not that anyone without documentation are legally roaming the nation...

Maybe your frustration and perceived hypocrisy would be better angled at the officials that run our country... Or education in regards to what you speak?



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Power_Semi

That's a load of genuine bs.

British laws and rights cover British citizens. Now maybe you'd have a point if you were bringing up the universal declaration if human rights but you didn't.

As far as I am aware, the universal declaration of human rights has no mention of the free movement of non-citizens within sovereign nations.

These people refused entry were not seeking entry on grounds of asylum.

This thread has been a genuine source of amusement... Because of all the "victimisation" and perceived loss of rights... In regards to non-citizens.

Nobody lost any rights, I'm still free to say organised religion is a pile of crap, alt-right politics is full of idiots and that the majority of people are happy little sheep bleating on about things they neither want to understand or care to understand.

Baaaa Baaaa!



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: JAY1980

Refugees are a completely different matter. Their ability to enter another nation is guided by a completely different set of rules and laws.




So what about the thousands flooding the UK with no paperwork whatsoever? 
You are aware of the double standard you harbor right?


No not really. I'm not a border agent and I don't make the laws upon the free travel of foreign citizens within my nation. Not that anyone without documentation are legally roaming the nation...

Maybe your frustration and perceived hypocrisy would be better angled at the officials that run our country... Or education in regards to what you speak?


Couldn't have put it better myself - this threasis perfect example of people not knowing what jail, charges, laws, bans, immigrants, visitors, asylum seekers, refugees, people failing to fill in their visas...

But we're meant to let in a couple who were so criminally thick the entrered the UK in possesion of material stating if they were grantedentry violence would ensue and aimed to stoke division on supremacist/religious lines -------yet in lala land on ATS they must be poor innocenhts and not guilty of same laws other extremists are held to.

Fail to read entry regs, fail to come up with reasonable entry, carry leaflets saying your prosecute will lead to violenceand suprise suprise you'll you'll be told to f*ck off - same as any county.

The US is far stricter than this, was held at gunpoint lying on my front for giggling at Fox news and how retarded the US 'seasame strret' geo-political worldview is.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Exactly.

I try going to another nation and subsequently I'm found to be unfit for entry on whatever grounds then it is down to me.

Sometimes you've just got to laugh... I mean, I love it when someone genuinely shines a light on something that was not perceptible to me. In some abstract way this thread has seen a group of people go back on a very fundamental belief within their ranks. Sovereignty.

I don't weep at such irony.

Maybe one day when the world has one government and each human has a carbon-copy of laws and rights that are equally protected... Or rejected. Then maybe I'd say wtf?

Till then though I'll always argue for sovereignty, that of the nation and of the person.

This is not Russia, it's England. We don't label our own citizens foreign agents. But even if we did I dare say many would have outrage at that prospect, I know I would. All citizens should reap the rewards of citizenship, equally. This is why I was fundamentally against new laws/charges that were proposed for killers of those in uniform. It's unenforceable, it would be unjust. That's for another thread though.




Fail to read entry regs, fail to come up with reasonable entry, carry leaflets saying your prosecute will lead to violenceand suprise suprise you'll you'll be told to f*ck off - same as any county. 


Precisely.

Now if they were British citizens it would be a different matter. But they weren't.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

This episode had nothing to do with sovereignty. What in gods name are you on about???



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Iwant to say something on why British people hardly question the leadership. They are SUBJECTS. a sbject keeps their head down and does as told.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: RAY1990

This episode had nothing to do with sovereignty. What in gods name are you on about???




The sovereignty of a nation is paramount in regards to receiving guests.

It's down to a nation to chose who enters it's own borders. A nation has no responsibility in terms of allowing people to enter it's borders, political refugees and those seeking asylum on grounds such as "risk to life" are a different matter.

So yes, it has everything to do with sovereignty... Because a sovereign nation refused entry to a bunch of nitwits whom hold no rights within the UK because they are not UK citizens.

But meh.... It's all about freedom of speech isn't it?

But foreign nationals are not covered by UK laws, I can't really make that statement any simpler for you.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990


Now flip what you said for the US. So as a nation you see no problem with us keeping out or deporting illegals then.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

So why the great upset when Trump 'wanted to ban Muslims' ?
You agree he is entitled to ban whoever he wants, right?
Same as Britain, right?


edit on 16/3/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: RAY1990


Now flip what you said for the US. So as a nation you see no problem with us keeping out or deporting illegals then.







You are very confused, what has keeping out and or deporting illegals have to do with this story?



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: RAY1990


Now flip what you said for the US. So as a nation you see no problem with us keeping out or deporting illegals then.







You are very confused, what has keeping out and or deporting illegals have to do with this story?


Nothing - however the response was to an over riding excuse of 'sovereignty' in order to diminish the outrageous action by the UK in this case.
You, yourself, might be less confused if you read up a little to understand the context of a response.
edit on 16/3/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: RAY1990


Now flip what you said for the US. So as a nation you see no problem with us keeping out or deporting illegals then.







You are very confused, what has keeping out and or deporting illegals have to do with this story?


Nothing - however the response was to an over riding excuse of 'sovereignty' in order to diminish the outrageous action by the UK in this case.
You, yourself, might be less confused if you read up a little to understand the context of a response.







The UK have every right to pick and choose who visits and who stays, just because you don't like is irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Xenogears

Do you have your own opinion or does YouTube do your thinking for you?

ad hominen.

Attacking the source and not the merits of the argument, classic logical fallacy


Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself-wiki


Wasn't attacking the source. Was attacking your inability to make a coherent on topic point.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.



No, you were clear - but by being so showed you have no argument.


Cool, maybe you can explain on Xenogears behalf the relevance of a youtube video on race & IQ to this thread?

Maybe you would like to share your views on that topic as well?


It doesnt only cover race and iq. But the real world consequences of IQ in life.

As for relevance, one of the consequences is being able or not able to understand arguments made in a thread.


Yes it is pretty clear you don't understand the arguments made in a thread. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting completely off topic videos.


Again, that was in response to you clearly showing you were unable to comprehend my post as evidenced by your previous reply prior to that video.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: andrewh7
a reply to: UKTruth

You guys are all about controlling the US borders. Here, however, the UK decides that it doesn't want this person entering their country, it's a travesty. So, they didn't want a racist coming into their country. That's their prerogative. The US can refuse entry to whoever they want as well. Someone in her group clearly tipped off the border agents so she could play the martyr. Well done. I'm sure some of you bought it.


Arrests are one thing, barring travel is another, and illegal immigration yet another still. No one is saying Mexicans should be barred from travelling to the U.S. They can take a plane ticket and come here whenever they like. The issue is with them permanently staying here with no qualification, and neither legally immigrating nor taking the procedures to legally extend their stay.

Also I hear like 90% of girls and women are raped if they journey with people smugglers across the desert. That stuff should be barred, if only to reduce the rapes.

The UK is a police state becoming ever more totalitarian day by day.


You do know the US also has rules about barring people from entering?


Last I heard Trump was in trouble in the MSM for barring entry from terrorist hotbed countries.

As for the UK isn't this the silly police state that is even considering blocking online porn? Such audacity, they may bar the weak but never those who are truly strong. Once the core of the body of truth is written down in the proper medium, they will learn the true meaning of submission.


You mean this post? You are right, sadly I am not fluent in drivel.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: RAY1990


Now flip what you said for the US. So as a nation you see no problem with us keeping out or deporting illegals then.







You are very confused, what has keeping out and or deporting illegals have to do with this story?


Nothing - however the response was to an over riding excuse of 'sovereignty' in order to diminish the outrageous action by the UK in this case.
You, yourself, might be less confused if you read up a little to understand the context of a response.







The UK have every right to pick and choose who visits and who stays, just because you don't like is irrelevant.


yes it can be inconsistent and a hypocrite by accepting some extremists and banning others. IT can also protect rapists in grooming gangs for fear of being politically incorrect, while disregarding the rights of the British citizen minors that are raped.

It can seek to jail for forgetting a password, and put a camera in every corner, while letting religious radicals through like an open floodgate, while at the same time persecuting those who make any minor online comment regards the increased terror activities.

IT is a land ruled by savages, it needs to be dominated by higher lifeforms able to bring order and peace to their troubled land. And so it shall be, their land will be fixed in due time, leadership taken from their corrupt leaders and into the hands of those who're fit to lead.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?

All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia2 and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These man be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.

The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all mankind. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all mankind, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.




top topics



 
79
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join