Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Immigration in South Korea

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:09 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:


Terrorism is also a significant problem, of course, but its link to the mass migration of recent years has not been demonstrated (and even if it had been exacerbated by it, to pin the blame for it on the 99.999% of Muslim migrants who don't participate in it would, of course, be odious to any reasonable person). So no, I don't think Muslim migrants are the cause of most of the world's woes, just as I don't think Jewish people or African-Americans are. I didn't necessarily think that view needed to be justified, but here we are.


This is the classic elision. It’s not about “pinning blame on the 99.99% who do not participate in terrorism”. It is about recognising that Islam is an ideology, and declining to import it en masse, as we have been, to dangerous and divisive effect. Every Muslim who is here now, the great majority of whom are law-abiding, must be treated as fellow citizens with all of the same consideration as anyone else. It is not victimizing anyone, however, to be selective about whom you admit to your country based on the percentage of certain population groups which commit heinous crimes. It might be a cute debating tactic to pretend that immigration policy, and reservations about a particular ideology mean being nasty to individuals who are here now, but it is simply not true.

As for your “here we are”, you set up your own straw man and then decided to justify it. It doesn’t negate the problems with Islamic assimilation and terrorism one iota. How many dead little girls at a concert, how many journalists, how many office workers, would make you question whether the clear cost (to us and our society) is worth the very unclear benefit of more Islamic immigration ?

_________________
Two more flags before I die!


Last edited by Mugwump on Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:19 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
And how many muslim refugees did India and the others take in?


There is nothing so obvious that it cannot be misinterpreted when inconvenient.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:32 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump, I simply reject your premise. That’s not obstinance or virtue-signalling on my part; I genuinely believe that the paradigm you are advancing, that increased levels of Muslim immigration correlates with increased levels of domestic terrorism, is false. You could shut the gates to all Muslim immigration tomorrow and, under certain conditions, still see the problem dramatically worsen at home; equally, you could maintain normal levels and find ways of effectively snuffing out that threat. This problem is too complex for One Nation–style solutions, and measured approaches to it have so far proven to be effective. To call for immigration bans would not only lead to a more fearful and segmented culture; it would undermine the progress that is being made right now.

Stui, I apologise if you were referring to Syrian refugees as opposed to Muslims as a whole; India has indeed failed to contribute in that area amd does seem to practise religious discrimination in its refugee policies. Anyone who knows anything about the country and its current administration would be able to immediately guess why that is the case – the question is what pointing to such obvious sectarianism proves.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:55 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ fair enough, David, and that seems to me a reasonable position to take in principle, but in practice I think it is almost unarguable that intake numbers drive the threat. When .1% (your number) of a population are prepared commit mass murder, that is 1000 people out of Germany’s 2015-2016 intake of ~ 1 million. It takes a lot of faith to believe that this won’t matter.

I live in London. Several times we have had the experience of trying to find our children after some crazed Islam-inspired attack in places where they might well have been. Perhaps you do not sense what is at stake in relatively peaceful Melbourne, but it will come.

It’s about more than murderous Islamists, of course. The Chinese (to choose a good Melbourne example) arrive, they work, they contribute, and they make very few claims for change in the host culture. They make no threats, they press no contrary values to ours. At the population level,this is simply not true of Islam, and indeed, given the tenets of the religion, its texts and its observances, it is not likely to be. I would not import a large number of Scientologists, on the same principle.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:50 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

No terrorism issue in Poland, why is that?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:53 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Ummmm - because Poland is in South Korea?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:34 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
^ fair enough, David, and that seems to me a reasonable position to take in principle, but in practice I think it is almost unarguable that intake numbers drive the threat. When .1% (your number) of a population are prepared commit mass murder, that is 1000 people out of Germany’s 2015-2016 intake of ~ 1 million. It takes a lot of faith to believe that this won’t matter.

I live in London. Several times we have had the experience of trying to find our children after some crazed Islam-inspired attack in places where they might well have been. Perhaps you do not sense what is at stake in relatively peaceful Melbourne, but it will come.

It’s about more than murderous Islamists, of course. The Chinese (to choose a good Melbourne example) arrive, they work, they contribute, and they make very few claims for change in the host culture. They make no threats, they press no contrary values to ours. At the population level,this is simply not true of Islam, and indeed, given the tenets of the religion, its texts and its observances, it is not likely to be. I would not import a large number of Scientologists, on the same principle.


I think that maths only applies if we see a “terrorist” as a concrete entity: a person who will and must devote their lives to concocting a major terrorist incident, and cannot be deterred, regardless of personal circumstances, cultural context, law enforcement responses or broader geopolitical events. On the contrary, I see all of those variables as important factors in whether or not terrorist acts will be committed.

Many of these come down to quite mundane questions: Do people have stable employment? Are they healthily integrated within their local religious community, and do they have good people around them? Are psychological problems being dealt with? Are convicted terrorist plotters being effectively rehabilitated?

The flipside to that is the work of authorities: Are dangerous individuals being monitored? Are plots being uncovered and plotters being intercepted? Conversely, are draconian responses having counterproductive effects and only alienating people?

Furthermore, is anti-Islamic right-wing extremism fuelling an us vs them discourse? Are politicians exploiting that, and profiting off increased tension and hatred? Are media outlets reporting irresponsibly?

And then there’s the geopolitical factor: already, from all appearances, ISIS’ failure in Syria and Iraq has seen a reduction in the scope and frequency of these international terrorist events, much as seemed to occur when Al Qaeda petered out in the mid-to-late 2000s. In capturing large sections of northern Syria and crossing the border into Iraq, ISIS were able to claim the creation of a fundamentalist caliphate; that was a period as undoubtedly inspiring as it was, in the end, brutally disillusioning. There may be future flashpoints that will serve as a flag for extremists to rally around; but that can be avoided, and international powers should be – and undoubtedly already are – trying to find ways to avert that. Let us hope, then, that the Trump administration restrains its violent impulses on Iran, and that its allies and apologists – such as our own government – don’t enable and encourage them, as (beyond all the other obvious reasons) that’s exactly the sort of conflict that could act as the type of flashpoint I’m talking about.

There are many things we can do to reduce the prospect of a terrorist attack here, and many things that we are already doing in all of these categories – and, indeed, the fact that we have not yet had an organised terrorist attack in Australia (touch wood) suggests that we are doing a lot of things right. On the contrary, I don’t think that any ban on Muslim migration – something that, let us remind ourselves, would be anathema to our cultural values and a throwback to a more fearful and discriminatory past – would make a meaningful difference in any of the above areas, and I do think it’s clear that it would most certainly ensure an increase in alienation and division (I presume our security agencies aren’t messing around when they tell us that those are dangerous factors). So let’s not give in to the cynical, xenophobic agenda of populists and bigots.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:07 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Why exacerbate a risk that you then have to work so hard to mitigate ? You may well be right that putting up barriers to immigration from Muslim countries will inflame even more violence against us - but where does that end ? So will support for Israel, so may failing to support a given foreign policy which the Umma deems important. We do have a problem with this type of blackmail now - and you want to enlarge the population ? For what benefit to us ? That we won’t be bombed if we take no position on who can come into our home ?

The overwhelming question begs an answer ; Why do we “need” many more Muslim immigrants, unless they have very high end skills ? When did our right to decide who comes here become subordinated to threats ? Above all, Why, why, why ? Why do something that increases the risk to your children’s future (not to mention your Jewish populations, who are rightly increasingly fearful in London and France) for no significant benefit ? Would you do the same for a very large number of Scientologists ?

As for your reference to “anathema to our cultural values”, these, I’d suggest, are more threatened by Islam than enhanced by it. Read the Koran, consider the observance and customs in most Islamic countries, and tell me how this ideology fits with our cultural values. The only way it can fit with them, I think, is if one relativises values away to near-annihilation. Or adopts the default Leftist position that whatever is “not us” is good thing. What is the counterpart of xenophobia ? Nostrophobia ? A fear of us and ours ?

As a matter of practical politics, I think there are probably ways to reduce Islamic immigration sharply, without causing more offence than is necessary. Reducing almost all migration to more modest levels is key to this, with such immigration as there is being justified by tight vetting as to skill requirements and character. If that requires a significantly larger bureaucracy to deal with it, well, that’s a price well worth paying.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Mugwump, I simply reject your premise. That’s not obstinance or virtue-signalling on my part; I genuinely believe that the paradigm you are advancing, that increased levels of Muslim immigration correlates with increased levels of domestic terrorism, is false. You could shut the gates to all Muslim immigration tomorrow and, under certain conditions, still see the problem dramatically worsen at home; equally, you could maintain normal levels and find ways of effectively snuffing out that threat. This problem is too complex for One Nation–style solutions, and measured approaches to it have so far proven to be effective. To call for immigration bans would not only lead to a more fearful and segmented culture; it would undermine the progress that is being made right now.

Stui, I apologise if you were referring to Syrian refugees as opposed to Muslims as a whole; India has indeed failed to contribute in that area amd does seem to practise religious discrimination in its refugee policies. Anyone who knows anything about the country and its current administration would be able to immediately guess why that is the case – the question is what pointing to such obvious sectarianism proves.


I was referring to muslim refugees, not the native population that India has, and the reason for mentioning it was that it seems it's the west that has the pressure imposed to take in refugees with a culture incompatible with their own, yet the most populated countries on earth who have the capacity to absorb 100,000 refugees without a blink, take none.

I mentioned Japan in that context as it's one of the most protective countries of it's own culture in the world. You could probably call it institutionalised xenophobia.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:15 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I could but let's get back to that later.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:10 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
^ Why exacerbate a risk that you then have to work so hard to mitigate ? You may well be right that putting up barriers to immigration from Muslim countries will inflame even more violence against us - but where does that end ? So will support for Israel, so may failing to support a given foreign policy which the Umma deems important. We do have a problem with this type of blackmail now - and you want to enlarge the population ? For what benefit to us ? That we won’t be bombed if we take no position on who can come into our home ?

The overwhelming question begs an answer ; Why do we “need” many more Muslim immigrants, unless they have very high end skills ? When did our right to decide who comes here become subordinated to threats ? Above all, Why, why, why ? Why do something that increases the risk to your children’s future (not to mention your Jewish populations, who are rightly increasingly fearful in London and France) for no significant benefit ? Would you do the same for a very large number of Scientologists ?

As for your reference to “anathema to our cultural values”, these, I’d suggest, are more threatened by Islam than enhanced by it. Read the Koran, consider the observance and customs in most Islamic countries, and tell me how this ideology fits with our cultural values. The only way it can fit with them, I think, is if one relativises values away to near-annihilation. Or adopts the default Leftist position that whatever is “not us” is good thing. What is the counterpart of xenophobia ? Nostrophobia ? A fear of us and ours ?

As a matter of practical politics, I think there are probably ways to reduce Islamic immigration sharply, without causing more offence than is necessary. Reducing almost all migration to more modest levels is key to this, with such immigration as there is being justified by tight vetting as to skill requirements and character. If that requires a significantly larger bureaucracy to deal with it, well, that’s a price well worth paying.


Because Muslims are engineers, doctors, artists, IT workers, supermarket cashiers, small business owners, community volunteers and entrepreneurs. Because they pay taxes, because they are ordinary people – not a “social problem” or (in some of the more blatantly prejudicial language of the right) a “plague” or “an enemy invasion force”.

In a multicultural liberal democracy within a globalised world with relatively free movement, immigration of people with differing religious beliefs is the norm – it’s only you and others on the right who are saying that we should retreat into a more sectarian world in which our countries put up fences to keep out people because of the religion they practise or the part of the world they come from. That is the radical ideology that is traipsing over the values we hold dear, and it’s true that some countries, from China to Poland, have chosen that path. Forgive me if I’m less than enthused about that direction.

Yes, spine-chilling terror attacks have occurred in the West in the past few years. Elsewhere, scores of disaffected white men in the US have gone on shooting rampages, a Greek guy in Melbourne has driven down a footpath and killed pedestrians, and women walking home occasionally get raped and murdered by strangers. We live in dysfunctional times; yet it’s almost as if people think that shutting the gates to Muslim immigration, as Poland has, will solve all a country’s social problems, and somehow protect us from random acts of violence, social dysfunction, and the steady march away from the idealised 1950s society that many cling on to. I wonder where that mentality comes from? It’s almost like a group of people is being scapegoated – almost.

Talking about blackmail is missing the point entirely. The fact is that marginalisation, institutionalised discrimination and demonisation do tend to cause the kinds of disaffection that breed radicalism. That’s not a threat, as if people are demanding “adopt this policy or we will become disaffected”; it’s just how people’s psyches get organically shaped. A sensible response to that fact is “maybe we should try not to marginalise”. A hysterical response would be to dig in and demand the right to treat people like vermin, and then take the moral high ground and cry blackmail when any possible negative social consequences are pointed out. Our government are old hands at that.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:08 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

As someone who knows South Korea and Korean culture, society and politics at depth, has lived in culturally-contrasting countries as an adult, has travelled Asia extensively, lives in a multicultural working class suburb side-by-side with Muslims, and lives in close proximity to troubled neighbours, many of whom are white, I...don't have enough the time or even motivation to comment in depth.

I would just say one's imagination of how things are elsewhere, including in sub-communities just down the street, can be extremely deceiving. It takes a concerted effort to go beyond the silly metaphors we store in our brains about ourselves, let alone the ones we store about distant others. As we saw with Iraq, it's very easy to get sucked into a whole world of fancies that don't accord with reality.

Recently, I've started to get a better sense of Muslim, Hindu, and West Indian families in my neighbourhood, among other groups. I find these folks to be warm and reassuring, reminisce of the Italian and Greek families I grew up with. I also encounter these folks in my work on a daily basis, and don't see anything unusual about them through these interactions. There's very little to see except the same old challenges of settlement, generational change and financial pressure I saw in immigrant communities as a kid, and which seem to have to turned out fine.

Last week, China was being unloaded upon in one thread. One thing I'm certain about is that everyday reality in China is nothing like the wild extrapolations we make from a few lines in the media. We don't judge Brits by Blair's invasion of Iraq, or the US by Trump's tweets, so why would we wave away the complexity of the lives of 1.4B Chinese folks on the basis of a report about Chinese government actions somewhere?

It seems to be understood that in our personal psychology we need to think optimistically and positively about things lest we fall into a destructive pit of despair. What seems less understood is that the same applies to the way we view the wider world around us. It is far too easy to whip ourselves into a paranoid frenzy by filtering in the negative about everything and everyone.

I speak with some experience on the latter. Yesterday, I lost it at the pub over the debacle which is Brexit. But the minute I bought into bitter conclusions about people who voted for Brexit, the minute I got sucked into unnecessary dark thoughts about others. That was a mistake on my part, and a waste of emotional energy best spent on something else.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm


Last edited by pietillidie on Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:10 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
I was referring to muslim refugees, not the native population that India has, and the reason for mentioning it was that it seems it's the west that has the pressure imposed to take in refugees with a culture incompatible with their own, yet the most populated countries on earth who have the capacity to absorb 100,000 refugees without a blink, take none.

Do you really think it's easier for the poorer and overcrowded to take on more refugees?

Also, you greatly underestimate the contribution of both Muslim and lower-income countries on this matter, if memory serves me correct.

Bad global contributors such as Japan don't lessen our responsibility; there is plenty of condemnation to go around, particularly after the mess of Afghanistan and Iraq.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm


Last edited by pietillidie on Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:29 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:20 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Mugwump wrote:
^ Why exacerbate a risk that you then have to work so hard to mitigate ? You may well be right that putting up barriers to immigration from Muslim countries will inflame even more violence against us - but where does that end ? So will support for Israel, so may failing to support a given foreign policy which the Umma deems important. We do have a problem with this type of blackmail now - and you want to enlarge the population ? For what benefit to us ? That we won’t be bombed if we take no position on who can come into our home ?

The overwhelming question begs an answer ; Why do we “need” many more Muslim immigrants, unless they have very high end skills ? When did our right to decide who comes here become subordinated to threats ? Above all, Why, why, why ? Why do something that increases the risk to your children’s future (not to mention your Jewish populations, who are rightly increasingly fearful in London and France) for no significant benefit ? Would you do the same for a very large number of Scientologists ?

As for your reference to “anathema to our cultural values”, these, I’d suggest, are more threatened by Islam than enhanced by it. Read the Koran, consider the observance and customs in most Islamic countries, and tell me how this ideology fits with our cultural values. The only way it can fit with them, I think, is if one relativises values away to near-annihilation. Or adopts the default Leftist position that whatever is “not us” is good thing. What is the counterpart of xenophobia ? Nostrophobia ? A fear of us and ours ?

As a matter of practical politics, I think there are probably ways to reduce Islamic immigration sharply, without causing more offence than is necessary. Reducing almost all migration to more modest levels is key to this, with such immigration as there is being justified by tight vetting as to skill requirements and character. If that requires a significantly larger bureaucracy to deal with it, well, that’s a price well worth paying.


Because Muslims are engineers, doctors, artists, IT workers, supermarket cashiers, small business owners, community volunteers and entrepreneurs. Because they pay taxes, because they are ordinary people – not a “social problem” or (in some of the more blatantly prejudicial language of the right) a “plague” or “an enemy invasion force”.

In a multicultural liberal democracy within a globalised world with relatively free movement, immigration of people with differing religious beliefs is the norm – it’s only you and others on the right who are saying that we should retreat into a more sectarian world in which our countries put up fences to keep out people because of the religion they practise or the part of the world they come from. That is the radical ideology that is traipsing over the values we hold dear, and it’s true that some countries, from China to Poland, have chosen that path. Forgive me if I’m less than enthused about that direction.

Yes, spine-chilling terror attacks have occurred in the West in the past few years. Elsewhere, scores of disaffected white men in the US have gone on shooting rampages, a Greek guy in Melbourne has driven down a footpath and killed pedestrians, and women walking home occasionally get raped and murdered by strangers. We live in dysfunctional times; yet it’s almost as if people think that shutting the gates to Muslim immigration, as Poland has, will solve all a country’s social problems, and somehow protect us from random acts of violence, social dysfunction, and the steady march away from the idealised 1950s society that many cling on to. I wonder where that mentality comes from? It’s almost like a group of people is being scapegoated – almost.

Talking about blackmail is missing the point entirely. The fact is that marginalisation, institutionalised discrimination and demonisation do tend to cause the kinds of disaffection that breed radicalism. That’s not a threat, as if people are demanding “adopt this policy or we will become disaffected”; it’s just how people’s psyches get organically shaped. A sensible response to that fact is “maybe we should try not to marginalise”. A hysterical response would be to dig in and demand the right to treat people like vermin, and then take the moral high ground and cry blackmail when any possible negative social consequences are pointed out. Our government are old hands at that.


Marginalization ? We have been the most inclusive societies in the history of the planet for many years now. And you blame us for the fact that some people we have invited into our country for their betterment murder our children for their ideology ? I suggested nostrophobia, but rather than mixing root languages, autophobia is a better term : a hatred of the self and its likenesses.

As for “demanding the right to treat people like vermin”, of course I do no such thing. This rhetoric of the hateful smear is trademark Leftist discourse nowadays. It kills any chance of democratic exchange.

Your point about white men committing massacres in the US is a good one. Like most sensible people, I would like guns banned as a rational response to the evidence. When there is a problem, one considers a range of sensible policy responses, including restricting the source of a problem as far as possible. But because it involves autophobia, you consider this problem one where we can only blame ourselves and double down on importing the population group with the dangerous ideology. It’s like you want more guns and hope that counseling will remove the results.

I notice the old reflex elisions still at work. Muslims are indeed tax payers and professionals when they are here. And of course those who are here, must be strongly embraced and protected. I have no problem with treating any racially motivated attacks as aggravated, and increasing the sentences for the perpetrators. Those who are not here, however, have no claim on our responsibility other than that we leave them alone. The immigration policy I sketched out above will manage to populate our professions, including with capable Muslims, where necessary.

It’s fairly obvious that everything you say is based on an a priori commitment to the fact that we must have mass immigration. Nothing , it seems, will shake your passionate conviction that we must be allowed to have no real control over our borders and our home. It is an extreme ideology which would once have been dismissed as unthinkable, but now often passes for the only respectable course. The world is seeing the consequences, and much of Europe is now mobilizing against it. This flight from sensible policy, and the autophobia that underpins it, is sadly emboldening the nasty side of human nature, and ushering in a far more dangerous world. No doubt, when the fighting in the streets starts and worse follows, you (the generic you) will blame the other side, secure in the sanctity of your purpose.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!


Last edited by Mugwump on Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:00 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^What do you mean when you use the term "mass immigration", Mugwump? You use it quite a lot.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group