Question and debate with Ironside

[Reg Smeeton]

You on the other hand, along with the rest of the Righteous Brothers (Reg the soon to be Cadaver, Lumpy the left wing thug nut job, and Mex bandit) have actually said anything consructive which could well be the reason why you haven't received constructive answers.

 One thing's for sure....You've lost That Loving Feeling.

[mexico red]

Ironside I have never insulted you personally, i think your views are poisonous as ive stated before, and i took what you said to me earlier in this thread with a pinch of salt all be it pretty vindictive.

I have tried to ask you straight forward questions in this thread, yes i am left wing, however i believe in freedom of speech, something i think you believe in strongly, however my fear is if the BNP got into power that basic freedom of speech for all would be taken away. There is a fear and a well founded fear that when far right parties gain power the shit hits the fan. Im sure you can see that?

The question about the english living abroad, i was wondering how you feel about it personally, i wasnt trying to trap you or anything, im actually quite intrigued. We talk about tougher immigration policies yet there are countless bloody programmes on tv showing us how to live abroad, it seems to me the average person who wants tougher immigration laws wouldnt think twice about living in spain. if you see what im getting at..

[Don Rogers Shop]

Half of them want to move though mex due to our immigration issue

[mexico red]

and isnt that the most hypocritical thing fucking ever! we left to become immigrants because we dont like immigrants.

[chalkies_shorts]

Thats what the EU allows - freedom to live and / or work within its boundaries - hypocricy or not. .

[mexico red]

i reckon most people leave because they want warmer weather, is this a more valid reason to move countries than wanting a better standard of living?

[Talk Talk]

i reckon most people leave because they want warmer weather, is this a more valid reason to move countries than wanting a better standard of living?

Ohhhhh. Warmer weather...

[url width=96 height=110]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:cXm845qCXPcK7M:http://www.geekzone.co.nz/imagessubs/a4d5ed9f4988b3692a5ce940b516f57d.jpg[/url]

[Talk Talk]

he won't be soon

I've only just understood that.

Brilliant.

[Ardiles]

Slightly less so if you're 27 and about to die of cancer, I'd have thought.

At least you got a laugh though.  That's the main thing.

[pauld]

Of ffs, you can vote for a party without believing everythnig they say, if what they are saying hits the tick boxes more than the others.

Of course you can. I do, so does everyone else. Very few people agree with everything a party they vote for says. But in this instance, we're talking about a party who's core statement of principles as defined by their constitution is racist, whose membership is defined on explicitly racist lines and who's leader (and most of the top officers) are, in your words, "racist nutjobs". Now, for Joe Average who feels let down by the mainstream parties, for precisely the reasons you've outlined, I can see that yeah, sure they might not be aware of that. And so, no I wouldn't call them all Nazis. But Ironside is aware of all that, has defended it in the past, and in this thread, and has said he's not bothered by it?

And as for voting for a party with a criminal element then you'd never vote for anyone. Aitken, Archer, Harvey Proctor, Jeremy Thorpe, the labour lord who killed someone whilst engagned in the very important work of texting.

There's a bit of difference isn't there between the few and far between examples you quote and both the scale and nature of the kind of criminals that are prevalent throughout the BNP. The leader's got a conviction for inciting racial hatred, his former number 2 (who was a paid employee of the party until a couple of years ago when they had to take him off the official payroll due to some embarassment over him being caught out apparently trying to secure "hits" on leading politicians/public figures he regarded as "race traitors" and is still in the inner circle) has a conviction for possesion of explosives, the guy who runs their website is a former(?) terrorist who did time for trying to blow up a black school in South Africa. I could go on - Lumps has already posted plenty of other examples, as have I in other threads discussing this. That's a bit different from Archer, Aitken, Proctor et al. Don't see the Tories letting an ex-terrorist who tried to murder school kids run their website, do you?

[Ironside]

Been reading searchlight again Oh Righteous one? That bastion of honesty and trufhfulness run by a convicted criminal and funded by the Labour Party? Not exactly impartial are they and they make it clear what their agenda is.

I wasn't going to comment further but you're just repeating the same old stuff. Carry on Oh Righteous one.  You've come out of this far worse than I could have possibly imagined. Good work!

[Talk Talk]

Of course you can. I do, so does everyone else. Very few people agree with everything a party they vote for says. But in this instance, we're talking about a party who's core statement of principles as defined by their constitution is racist, whose membership is defined on explicitly racist lines and who's leader (and most of the top officers) are, in your words, "racist nutjobs". Now, for Joe Average who feels let down by the mainstream parties, for precisely the reasons you've outlined, I can see that yeah, sure they might not be aware of that. And so, no I wouldn't call them all Nazis. But Ironside is aware of all that, has defended it in the past, and in this thread, and has said he's not bothered by it?
There's a bit of difference isn't there between the few and far between examples you quote and both the scale and nature of the kind of criminals that are prevalent throughout the BNP. The leader's got a conviction for inciting racial hatred, his former number 2 (who was a paid employee of the party until a couple of years ago when they had to take him off the official payroll due to some embarassment over him being caught out apparently trying to secure "hits" on leading politicians/public figures he regarded as "race traitors" and is still in the inner circle) has a conviction for possesion of explosives, the guy who runs their website is a former(?) terrorist who did time for trying to blow up a black school in South Africa. I could go on - Lumps has already posted plenty of other examples, as have I in other threads discussing this. That's a bit different from Archer, Aitken, Proctor et al. Don't see the Tories letting an ex-terrorist who tried to murder school kids run their website, do you?

Easy Paul. I suggest that you don't vote for the BNP at any future election.

I don't think you stand a cat in hell's chance of convincing any of their members to change their minds with an argument that just repetitively says that they are all racists, Nazis and completely wrong. It is water off a duck's back and will just reinforce their views that they are right to think you are a dick.

Give an alternative that can be reasoned and debated or please do me a favour and just shut up.

[mexico red]

but there are thugs and racists leading the BNP, all paul has been asking is does Ironside think this is ok to elect these people?

[flammableBen]

Do you think that Arthur Kemp (BNP Website guy) should be sent back to South Africa as he's not born in Britain and has a criminal past?

[Talk Talk]

but there are thugs and racists leading the BNP, all paul has been asking is does Ironside think this is ok to elect these people?

Well yes, Ironside must. He has stated that he will vote BNP. I don't think he has said any different has he? They represent his views the closest according to him.

What I am getting to is that ranting about how awful the BNP is (in his opinion) is all well and good but it gets you nowhere. It polarises people even more.

Surely reasonable debate and argument is a better way to suggest alternatives that might convince Ironside to look at different places to put his cross on the ballot paper if that is Paul's aim?