Pathetic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Pathetic

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 12 of 19 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Kermit8 Hevon 04 Nov 17 3.34pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I hold firm to my principles yes. I don't push myself forward in sanctimony. I take it after you have written that then you are taking in a child refugee? This country provides considerable help to those that it holds no responsibility for. I'm proud to be apart of that. By your comments, you evidently should be doing more. No but strangely I wouldn't mind some other loving wannabe parents giving a home to a little kid. Isn't that ridiculous? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 04 Nov 17 3.34pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I hold firm to my principles yes. I don't push myself forward in sanctimony.

I take it after you have written that then you are taking in a child refugee?

This country provides considerable help to those that it holds no responsibility for. I'm proud to be apart of that.

By your comments, you evidently should be doing more.

No but strangely I wouldn't mind some other loving wannabe parents giving a home to a little kid. Isn't that ridiculous?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Nov 17 3.39pm
Originally posted by Park Road no terror attacks since 1995 that's 20 + years. Who are these Japanese terrorists? can't find any names or references about them. There was a sarin attack on the metro described as domestic terrorism in 1995 the most deadliest attack in japan since WW II. Finally, Jihad is v the world not just the west which is common knowledge. [Link] Granted they have less of an issue now and Islamist terrorism is unheard of. Of course, if you went back to the 70s to early 2000, Japan had massive problems with domestic terrorism whilst the UK had no problems with Islamist terrorism. Also I think in 2002 there was a murder of an MP for political reasons. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Nov 17 3.39pm

Originally posted by Park Road

no terror attacks since 1995 that's 20 + years.
Who are these Japanese terrorists? can't find any names or references about them.
There was a sarin attack on the metro described as domestic terrorism in 1995 the most deadliest attack in japan since WW II.
Finally, Jihad is v the world not just the west which is common knowledge.

[Link]

Granted they have less of an issue now and Islamist terrorism is unheard of. Of course, if you went back to the 70s to early 2000, Japan had massive problems with domestic terrorism whilst the UK had no problems with Islamist terrorism.

Also I think in 2002 there was a murder of an MP for political reasons.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 04 Nov 17 3.44pm
Originally posted by silvertop Eugh! My stomach turns at the immorality of your collective view. Truly disgusting. 30,000 i could almost see your view. However, 3000 kids you could introduce into one london borough and barely notice it. Seriously, your view echos those who were vigorously opposed to taking in jewish refugee children before the war. Vile. You can get something at the chemist for that. If it were 3000 and only 3000, that might be OK, but it won't be will it. It is remarkable how often one can repeat the reason behind an opinion only to be ignored and receive some emotive nonsense or criticism in return. It's like one wants children to suffer.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

04 Nov 17 3.44pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by silvertop

Eugh! My stomach turns at the immorality of your collective view. Truly disgusting. 30,000 i could almost see your view. However, 3000 kids you could introduce into one london borough and barely notice it. Seriously, your view echos those who were vigorously opposed to taking in jewish refugee children before the war. Vile.

You can get something at the chemist for that.
If it were 3000 and only 3000, that might be OK, but it won't be will it.

It is remarkable how often one can repeat the reason behind an opinion only to be ignored and receive some emotive nonsense or criticism in return.

It's like one wants children to suffer.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Nov 17 3.44pm
Originally posted by serial thriller But we aren't helping ourselves. We are leaving millions of people in refugee camps and detention centres where resentment to us in the West is rising every day. We are continuing our policies in the Middle East (supporting the Saudis, bombing Libya and Syria, selling weapons to whoever wants them) which are exacerbating the problem. How is this helping you and me mate? It's making us less safe, all while threatening the lives of millions who, like you say, shouldn't even have anything to do with our lives. The only people it's benefitting is the people selling the weapons in our society, the politicians and the fcking corpocrats. You say Islam is 500 years behind Christianity. You realise you're talking about a Chruch which may well excommunicate their Pope for heresy, because he dares challenge their views on abortion and homosexuality? Islam for most of history has been way ahead of Christianity. It produced great astronomical findings while we were convinced that the sun went round the earth. The Ottoman Empire legalised homosexuality while we were still killing people who were gay! We can't do sht about people's religion. We can do something about helping the poor and needy in the world, as Jesus correctly said. As it is, we are walking on the other side of the road because we aren't brave enough to help. It won't end well. A mixture of emotive hyperbolic statements and half truths. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Nov 2017 3.45pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Nov 17 3.44pm

Originally posted by serial thriller

But we aren't helping ourselves. We are leaving millions of people in refugee camps and detention centres where resentment to us in the West is rising every day. We are continuing our policies in the Middle East (supporting the Saudis, bombing Libya and Syria, selling weapons to whoever wants them) which are exacerbating the problem.

How is this helping you and me mate? It's making us less safe, all while threatening the lives of millions who, like you say, shouldn't even have anything to do with our lives. The only people it's benefitting is the people selling the weapons in our society, the politicians and the f*cking corpocrats.

You say Islam is 500 years behind Christianity. You realise you're talking about a Chruch which may well excommunicate their Pope for heresy, because he dares challenge their views on abortion and homosexuality? Islam for most of history has been way ahead of Christianity. It produced great astronomical findings while we were convinced that the sun went round the earth. The Ottoman Empire legalised homosexuality while we were still killing people who were gay!

We can't do sh*t about people's religion. We can do something about helping the poor and needy in the world, as Jesus correctly said. As it is, we are walking on the other side of the road because we aren't brave enough to help. It won't end well.

A mixture of emotive hyperbolic statements and half truths.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Nov 2017 3.45pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 04 Nov 17 3.45pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 [Link] Granted they have less of an issue now and Islamist terrorism is unheard of. Of course, if you went back to the 70s to early 2000, Japan had massive problems with domestic terrorism whilst the UK had no problems with Islamist terrorism. Also I think in 2002 there was a murder of an MP for political reasons. No we had the Irish instead. No we had the Irish instead. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Nov 2017 3.46pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

04 Nov 17 3.45pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

[Link]

Also I think in 2002 there was a murder of an MP for political reasons.

No we had the Irish instead.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Nov 2017 3.46pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 04 Nov 17 3.48pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 No but strangely I wouldn't mind some other loving wannabe parents giving a home to a little kid. Isn't that ridiculous? It isn't the sentiment that is at fault but sentimentality is not a basis for foreign policy.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

04 Nov 17 3.48pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

No but strangely I wouldn't mind some other loving wannabe parents giving a home to a little kid. Isn't that ridiculous?

It isn't the sentiment that is at fault but sentimentality is not a basis for foreign policy.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Nov 17 3.48pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 No but strangely I wouldn't mind some other loving wannabe parents giving a home to a little kid. Isn't that ridiculous? So you put yourself forward as deciding who they should be taking in then. You wrote a lot of emotional sanctimony but the upshot is that you won't take in a child yourself. So in practical affect what have you done towards this issue that justifies your scorn? As I say, I support your right to live by your personal principles. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Nov 17 3.48pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

No but strangely I wouldn't mind some other loving wannabe parents giving a home to a little kid. Isn't that ridiculous?

So you put yourself forward as deciding who they should be taking in then.

You wrote a lot of emotional sanctimony but the upshot is that you won't take in a child yourself. So in practical affect what have you done towards this issue that justifies your scorn?

As I say, I support your right to live by your personal principles.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 04 Nov 17 3.50pm
Originally posted by elgrande Because if we cannot provide homes for the children in care now,how are we suddenly going to find homes for 3000 extra. If you read my post I think we should help as much as we can ...but not at cost to the 1000s of children who seek safety from abusive parents/careers here. In the system about 7.5% of kids in care are actually up for adoption. This may interest you from a few years back. "Figures reveal just one of every eight couples or individuals who try to adopt are approved by social workers In the year to March 25,380 couples and individuals made inquiries about adopting a child, according to Ofsted figures Of those, just 4,145 went on to make applications to adopt, and only 3,048 were actually approved as prospective parents" Daily spit Mail. Something is fundamentally flawed. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 04 Nov 17 3.50pm

Originally posted by elgrande

Because if we cannot provide homes for the children in care now,how are we suddenly going to find homes for 3000 extra.
If you read my post I think we should help as much as we can ...but not at cost to the 1000s of children who seek safety from abusive parents/careers here.

In the system about 7.5% of kids in care are actually up for adoption.

This may interest you from a few years back.

"Figures reveal just one of every eight couples or individuals who try to adopt are approved by social workers
In the year to March 25,380 couples and individuals made inquiries about adopting a child, according to Ofsted figures
Of those, just 4,145 went on to make applications to adopt, and only 3,048 were actually approved as prospective parents"

Daily *spit* Mail.

Something is fundamentally flawed.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 04 Nov 17 3.53pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 In the system about 7.5% of kids in care are actually up for adoption. This may interest you from a few years back. "Figures reveal just one of every eight couples or individuals who try to adopt are approved by social workers In the year to March 25,380 couples and individuals made inquiries about adopting a child, according to Ofsted figures Of those, just 4,145 went on to make applications to adopt, and only 3,048 were actually approved as prospective parents" Daily spit Mail. Something is fundamentally flawed. Sure is, a foster couple had children removed from their care when it was found that they voted for UKIP. Vote for a crypto-communist party? Fine, have half a dozen. Edited by hedgehog50 (04 Nov 2017 3.54pm) We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 04 Nov 17 3.53pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

In the system about 7.5% of kids in care are actually up for adoption.

This may interest you from a few years back.

Daily *spit* Mail.

Something is fundamentally flawed.

Sure is, a foster couple had children removed from their care when it was found that they voted for UKIP. Vote for a crypto-communist party? Fine, have half a dozen.

Edited by hedgehog50 (04 Nov 2017 3.54pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 04 Nov 17 3.54pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Sure is, a foster couple had children removed from their care when it was found that they voted for UKIP. There are people on here don't want same sex couples to adopt.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 04 Nov 17 3.54pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Sure is, a foster couple had children removed from their care when it was found that they voted for UKIP.

There are people on here don't want same sex couples to adopt.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 04 Nov 17 4.01pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays So you put yourself forward as deciding who they should be taking in then. You wrote a lot of emotional sanctimony but the upshot is that you won't take in a child yourself. So in practical affect what have you done towards this issue that justifies your scorn? As I say, I support your right to live by your personal principles. You don't always have to partake directly in an action to support it. How was your Tour of Duty in Northern Ireland? Tough? MPs vote for such things as we are talking about. They aren't all going to take in a child refugee the ones who say 'aye', are they? Does that make them hypocritical or more humanitarian? Opening doors for others. Such a shallow and thoughtless action. We are too old to adopt and too bogged down but I don't believe our unsuitability should hinder those who have the desire, energy and inclination. Another daft principle you can chew on. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 04 Nov 17 4.01pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

So you put yourself forward as deciding who they should be taking in then.

You wrote a lot of emotional sanctimony but the upshot is that you won't take in a child yourself. So in practical affect what have you done towards this issue that justifies your scorn?

As I say, I support your right to live by your personal principles.

You don't always have to partake directly in an action to support it. How was your Tour of Duty in Northern Ireland? Tough?

MPs vote for such things as we are talking about. They aren't all going to take in a child refugee the ones who say 'aye', are they? Does that make them hypocritical or more humanitarian?

Opening doors for others. Such a shallow and thoughtless action.

We are too old to adopt and too bogged down but I don't believe our unsuitability should hinder those who have the desire, energy and inclination. Another daft principle you can chew on.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 04 Nov 17 4.05pm
Originally posted by nickgusset There are people on here don't want same sex couples to adopt. That well may be the case, but have same sex couples had foster children taken away from them because they are a same sex couple? A couple had foster children taken away from them purely because they had voted UKIP. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 04 Nov 17 4.05pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

There are people on here don't want same sex couples to adopt.

That well may be the case, but have same sex couples had foster children taken away from them because they are a same sex couple? A couple had foster children taken away from them purely because they had voted UKIP.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 12 of 19 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Pathetic

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors