27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well, just as an observation, of course, at least here you do acknowledge that it is actually cackle. 

 

Q.E.D.

 

You simply can't resist.

35 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well, just as an observation, of course, at least here you do acknowledge that it is actually cackle. 

you seem to complain a lot about cackle - 2nd time on this page now

 

a lot of cackles frequently ends up with animals performing the lay of eggs

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well, just as an observation, of course, at least here you do acknowledge that it is actually cackle. 

 

raw eggs on steak tartar, soft boiled eggs, hard boiled eggs, eggs Benedictine - 

scrambled eggs - omelette - bleeding eggs - poached eggs - fried eggs,

sunny up/over easy or whatever

 

all good stuff  cackle is OK

 

Please stay on topic.

 

15 hours ago, samran said:

Strange and very long bow you are drawing there.

 

If Australia and the UK decide that each other’s nationals should be allowed to live and work in each other’s country, and that people can come and go regardless of their colour, religion etc etc, then how you can equate that with bigotry is beyond me. 

 

 

It's beyond me how someone who purports to be a champion for equal rights and a believer in egalitarianism, someone who opposes any sort of selection or discrimination when it comes to colour, religion, sex, race etc, sees no contradiction in also believing that it's perfectly acceptable for a nation to pick and choose when it comes to nationality.

 

Actually you do see the contradiction, as you yourself admitted just as much a few posts ago, but then tried to argue something along the lines of it being petty for me to have mentioned about it, and that it was only a contradiction "technically" speaking, whatever that means.

6 minutes ago, rixalex said:

It's beyond me how someone who purports to be a champion for equal rights and a believer in egalitarianism, someone who opposes any sort of selection or discrimination when it comes to colour, religion, sex, race etc, sees no contradiction in also believing that it's perfectly acceptable for a nation to pick and choose when it comes to nationality.

 

Actually you do see the contradiction, as you yourself admitted just as much a few posts ago, but then tried to argue something along the lines of it being petty for me to have mentioned about it, and that it was only a contradiction "technically" speaking, whatever that means.

Wow, do you know me? Sounds like you pay special attention to my posts! I have a fan! Yay for me...

 

I believe is meritocracy, equality in opportunities that aren’t decided by gender or race. 

 

Do do we all end up equal? No.

 

When it comes to trade deals, why should only companies or corporations benefit? Most only have the fruit of their Labours to offer, you seem to want to hold them back. I don’t. Must be the libertarian in me. 

14 hours ago, Spidey said:

The whole reason for Brexit was to get rid of Johnny Foreigner, especially the brown ones.

One of your fellow remainers on here describes himself as an anti-Muslim bigot who is keen to stay in the EU because immigrants from the EU are more "his kind of people".

 

Would it therefore be fair to say that the whole reason for remaining in the EU was to keep out Asians and Africans, especially the Muslim ones?

 

I suspect not.

 

You know this obnoxiously insulting business of calling people who don't happen to share you opinion, racists, does absolutely nothing to further your cause - quite the reverse actually - and demonstrates that actually, if you are really against bigotry, you need to start with yourself.

3 minutes ago, samran said:

Wow, do you know me? Sounds like you pay special attention to my posts! I have a fan! Yay for me...

 

I believe is meritocracy, equality in opportunities that aren’t decided by gender or race. 

 

Do do we all end up equal? No.

 

When it comes to trade deals, why should only companies or corporations benefit? Most only have the fruit of their Labours to offer, you seem to want to hold them back. I don’t. Must be the libertarian in me. 

Not sure how you extrapolate from me reading what you are saying and responding, as being me paying special attention to you or claiming to know you. Quite bizarre. Are you not reading what i am saying and then responding to me? Seems that you are. Or is this one of those parallel universe things?

 

Anyway, as far as what you believe is concerned, yes, i think we have established that when it comes to discrimination, you and I have a different idea of what counts for it and what doesn't. Not a lot more to be said on that, besides from the fact that the next time you casually slip out one of your anti-foreign insults against anyone who doesn't share your pro EU sentiment, remember which of us, in this pro EU vs anti EU discussion, was arguing for more equality and who was arguing for less.

40 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Not sure how you extrapolate from me reading what you are saying and responding, as being me paying special attention to you or claiming to know you. Quite bizarre. Are you not reading what i am saying and then responding to me? Seems that you are. Or is this one of those parallel universe things?

 

Anyway, as far as what you believe is concerned, yes, i think we have established that when it comes to discrimination, you and I have a different idea of what counts for it and what doesn't. Not a lot more to be said on that, besides from the fact that the next time you casually slip out one of your anti-foreign insults against anyone who doesn't share your pro EU sentiment, remember which of us, in this pro EU vs anti EU discussion, was arguing for more equality and who was arguing for less.

Phew! Glad we got that sorted.

 

Any other personal criticisms, predicted future faux pas and misinformation you want to get off your chest? 

 

 

Edited February 22, 20197 yr by samran

30 minutes ago, samran said:

Any other personal criticisms, predicted future faux pas and misinformation you want to get off your chest? 

Yes, whilst we're on the subject, can you change your avitar? I hate men with beards.

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Yes, whilst we're on the subject, can you change your avitar? I hate men with beards.

My wife says the same thing. 

 

Thing is, he’s an Australian champion. Hard to take him down.

 

 

4 minutes ago, samran said:

My wife says the same thing. 

 

Thing is, he’s an Australian champion. Hard to take him down.

 

 

Nice shorts.

 

Although this is an anonymous forum, I've always imagined Brexiteers having beards.

36 minutes ago, wayned said:

Kenny Everets sister?

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

Nice shorts.

 

Although this is an anonymous forum, I've always imagined Brexiteers having beards.

That's funny. I've always imagined remainers as people with an appreciation for men in skimpy little shorts.

4 hours ago, rixalex said:

That's funny. I've always imagined remainers as people with an appreciation for men in skimpy little shorts.

Don’t flatter yourself...

16 hours ago, rixalex said:

It's beyond me how someone who purports to be a champion for equal rights and a believer in egalitarianism, someone who opposes any sort of selection or discrimination when it comes to colour, religion, sex, race etc, sees no contradiction in also believing that it's perfectly acceptable for a nation to pick and choose when it comes to nationality.

 It is not a question of picking and choosing; it is a matter of an agreed international treaty. Each and every nation state is perfectly at liberty to sign treaties with other nation states giving reciprocal rights to their citizens in each other's state. As long as these rights do not exclude anyone on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc., then I certainly have no problem with that.

 

The Freedom of Movement directive is part of a treaty signed by all EU members, all EEA members and Switzerland which allows their nationals certain, but not unlimited, rights in the other signatory states; a reciprocal agreement.

 

Do you also consider the Common travel area between the UK, RoI, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, which has been in existence since 1923, to be equally or, as it gives more rights, even more discriminatory than the FoM directive?

Edited February 22, 20197 yr by 7by7

^^^^^^^^

 

Self portrait?

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

^^^^^^^^

 

Self portrait?

Not quite that big and a far lot older with no hair!

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 It is not a question of picking and choosing; it is a matter of an agreed international treaty. Each and every nation state is perfectly at liberty to sign treaties with other nation states giving reciprocal rights to their citizens in each other's state. As long as these rights do not exclude anyone on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc., then I certainly have no problem with that.

 

The Freedom of Movement directive is part of a treaty signed by all EU members, all EEA members and Switzerland which allows their nationals certain, but not unlimited, rights in the other signatory states; a reciprocal agreement.

 

Do you also consider the Common travel area between the UK, RoI, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, which has been in existence since 1923, to be equally or, as it gives more rights, even more discriminatory than the FoM directive?

I've stated my position very clearly, multiple times. I don't agree with discriminating immigrants based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc... and nationality. Your position is that all discrimination is wrong, except for when it comes to nationality, and then it's ok because, "this is the way the world works", or "this is how it's always been" or "this is what every country does".

 

It's hard, i admit, to argue with such compelling arguments.

 

Tebee is the only consistent remainer on this forum i am aware of, when it comes to FoM. He thinks it should be extended to all immigrants, not just those in the EU. I don't agree as i don't think for one, it is sustainable to simply open your door to all and sundry, but i will say this, at least his position is consistent and doesn't discriminate in any way, rather than the position of all the other remainers who simply abhor certain types of discrimination, but not all.

14 hours ago, samran said:

Don’t flatter yourself...

This from the man who recently asked of me, "wow, do you know me?".

 

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

This from the man who recently asked of me, "wow, do you know me?".

 

555

 

You are very good at giving it. Less good as taking it. 

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 It is not a question of picking and choosing; it is a matter of an agreed international treaty. Each and every nation state is perfectly at liberty to sign treaties with other nation states giving reciprocal rights to their citizens in each other's state. As long as these rights do not exclude anyone on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc., then I certainly have no problem with that.

 

The Freedom of Movement directive is part of a treaty signed by all EU members, all EEA members and Switzerland which allows their nationals certain, but not unlimited, rights in the other signatory states; a reciprocal agreement.

 

Do you also consider the Common travel area between the UK, RoI, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, which has been in existence since 1923, to be equally or, as it gives more rights, even more discriminatory than the FoM directive?

I guess people who don’t agree with discrimination based on nationality therefore  - to be consistent of course - would apply for tourist visas when going traveling in the same way those from countries who don’t have such flexible visa on arrival arrangements. 

 

Shlepping down to the embassy each time you want to go somewhere with rhemes of documents and financial statements. 

 

Of how liberating and egalitarian of one! 

1 hour ago, samran said:

555

 

You are very good at giving it. Less good as taking it. 

Taking what?

 

The fact that you've gone from accusing me of having some sort of peculiar interest in you (an accusation i have since notice you like to make of others too - some sort everyone is interested in me complex perhaps?), to then claiming to know how i dress and appearing on my list of recent visitors to my profile page.

 

I have no problem taking that. At least you're being consistent with the double standards and hypocrisy expressed on other matters.

 

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

Taking what?

 

The fact that you've gone from accusing me of having some sort of peculiar interest in you (an accusation i have since notice you like to make of others too - some sort everyone is interested in me complex perhaps?), to then claiming to know how i dress and appearing on my list of recent visitors to my profile page.

 

I have no problem taking that. At least you're being consistent with the double standards and hypocrisy expressed on other matters.

 

Dunno mate. You were the one who saw fit to crown me some sort of human rights hero - though I’ve never claimed to be one.

 

Maybe with your man-crush on me shattered when i turned out not to be the short-shorted man of your dreams? 

 

As for looking at your profile. Wow...you got me.

 

Given you were so sure that all my previous posts have been examples of human rights purity, I did indeed go back and look after asking myself ‘who the f%^# pays that much attention to what i write?’.  

 

But only you know the real answer to that question....

 

But enough of that now. Back on topic, as I’m sure you’ve read once or twice - no doubt - you’ll remember I’m actually pro-brexit.

 

Bring on a no deal end of March. Someone like me stands to gain most out of it.  It’s all upside for me.

 

I just think you are wrong for doing so, and for the most part have laid out why. 

 

But i leave you with another picture at the risk of it leaving you flustered. 

 

 

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by samran

23 minutes ago, samran said:

 

 

 

Wow! Is that really you? That's one serious lunchbox. Respect.

 

I can see now why @rixalex has a crush on you.

25 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Wow! Is that really you? That's one serious lunchbox. Respect.

 

I can see now why @rixalex has a crush on you.

Me on a good day. I don’t always scrub up so well! 

 

Interesting that a picture of a bloke in short shorts get posted and we have replies wondering who fatasizes about whom wearing these shorts? 

 

Strange that it is usually the mullet that gets people hot and heavy. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, samran said:

Strange that it is usually the mullet that gets people hot and heavy. 

The very same people who have secret liaisons with ladyboys.

19 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The very same people who have secret liaisons with ladyboys.

Not that there is anything wrong with that of course...

 

Just it is a bit like brexit, you have to know what you are taking home! 

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by samran

9 hours ago, rixalex said:

I've stated my position very clearly, multiple times. I don't agree with discriminating immigrants based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc... and nationality. Your position is that all discrimination is wrong, except for when it comes to nationality, and then it's ok because, "this is the way the world works", or "this is how it's always been" or "this is what every country does".

 That is not what i said; why do you continually misquote?

 

I said that what you call discrimination based upon nationality is in fact rights extended to thos nationalities due to bi or multi national agreements between countries.

 

Such as the 1923 agreement which set up the CTA. If you have previously answered a question on that I must have missed it, so perhaps you will indulge me by answering mine

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Do you also consider the Common Travel Area between the UK, RoI, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, which has been in existence since 1923, to be equally or, as it gives more rights, even more discriminatory than the FoM directive?

 

Samran has raised the issues of visit visas.

 

As a Brit I am one of those 55 nationalities who can enter Thailand for up to 30 days as a tourist without a visa. Are you saying that is discrimination which should be stopped? If so, I doubt you'll find many on here who would agree; especially amongst the visa runners!

 

I'm not sure if you were among them, but when the issue of post Brexit freedom of movement for Brits has been discussed before many Brexiteers were convinced us Brits would still be able to holiday in the EU without a visa post Brexit; and they are probably right. Do you consider that to be discrimination? Do you believe that we Brits should be made to obtain a Schengen visa for a fortnight on one of the Costas? After all, most non EU, EEA or Swiss nationals, including Thais, have to.

 

But as you feel so strongly about this, whenever you travel internationally you doubtless always in future apply and pay for a visa, even when you do not require one for your destination because of your nationality.

 

Yeah, of course you will; when

Edited February 23, 20197 yr by 7by7
Addendum