Renton

Btw.

Loving the safety wink! makes me think you really dont mean the words you type! ....and i'm not a BNP supporter. I've never voted for them or been a member of the party. ...but of course you didnt mean that either did you? (safety wink and all that) I know you're not necessarily a BNP supporter, you're just a thick cunt.

Home speed is canny for the money, Virgin cable is the dog's bollocks.

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. when did i attack you personally?? i thought we were just having a bit of friendly banter.... seriously tho, i find it bizarre in the extreme that you can suggest or agree with something so sweeping as everyone who supports an officially elected party is 'a little bit thick' then get all precious when you percieve an attack on yourself. and i didnt attack Parky cos he hasnt set himself up as an 'opponent' in this friendly battle of wits! Edit: and parky says he'll rip my fuckin head off!!11!!22£2454%2"££"$ precisely, and Renton himself is "so thick" he can't see it ............ It'd be interesting to know how many times you mention me in posts involving a third party. you have mentioned me twice to a third party in the last 15 minutes It's a matter of context though. The same type of context that means you can't tell the difference between calling an individual a cunt out of the blue, and me agreeing with one of Parky's tongue in cheek posts. aye, its different for you, because you're clever, and read "left wing publications" instead of "right wing rags", blah blah omg....... I've told you I read the Times. I'm not even particualrly left wing ffs! The Mail is a rag imo though, I stand by that, worst UK paper by a country mile. You're the only one who has stated I am clever, I never have anyway. Just what is the wierd obssession about my intelligence about anyway? You've been going on about it for literally YEARS now and I've never even met you to my knowledge. However, you have stated before you're never wrong and the sad thing is I think you actually believe that.

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. when did i attack you personally?? i thought we were just having a bit of friendly banter.... seriously tho, i find it bizarre in the extreme that you can suggest or agree with something so sweeping as everyone who supports an officially elected party is 'a little bit thick' then get all precious when you percieve an attack on yourself. and i didnt attack Parky cos he hasnt set himself up as an 'opponent' in this friendly battle of wits! Edit: and parky says he'll rip my fuckin head off!!11!!22£2454%2"££"$ precisely, and Renton himself is "so thick" he can't see it ............ It'd be interesting to know how many times you mention me in posts involving a third party. you have mentioned me twice to a third party in the last 15 minutes It's a matter of context though. The same type of context that means you can't tell the difference between calling an individual a cunt out of the blue, and me agreeing with one of Parky's tongue in cheek posts.

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. when did i attack you personally?? i thought we were just having a bit of friendly banter.... seriously tho, i find it bizarre in the extreme that you can suggest or agree with something so sweeping as everyone who supports an officially elected party is 'a little bit thick' then get all precious when you percieve an attack on yourself. and i didnt attack Parky cos he hasnt set himself up as an 'opponent' in this friendly battle of wits! Edit: and parky says he'll rip my fuckin head off!!11!!22£2454%2"££"$ precisely, and Renton himself is "so thick" he can't see it ............ It'd be interesting to know how many times you mention me in posts involving a third party. You're literally obsessed by me but you can't see it. I've actually always fancied having a stalker, I was kind of hoping more for the attractive female fruitcake variety mind.

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. when did i attack you personally?? i thought we were just having a bit of friendly banter.... seriously tho, i find it bizarre in the extreme that you can suggest or agree with something so sweeping as everyone who supports an officially elected party is 'a little bit thick' then get all precious when you percieve an attack on yourself. and i didnt attack Parky cos he hasnt set himself up as an 'opponent' in this friendly battle of wits! Fair enough AA, I just picked up on it because usually you're willing to argue the point rather than argue with the person, just in this case I didn't think you did, that's all. Plus I correctly realized that Leazes would join in with you. No probs you thick BNP supporting cunt.

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. how do you know ? Know what? that. I thought you knew everything ? Eh? What are you on about? Aren't you always right btw? yep. Always. Smart eh ? Why are you anonymous btw, literally ? So anonymous that you have half your sig dedicated to me. The reason I'm hidden is because of you actually. In the past just being visible browsing this site was enough to prompt a tirade of abuse from you, one click of my mouse and I can avoid it. You still do that to Dave from NO. That is how sad you are, you big bairn. apart from being complete rubbish [as usual], who's a big bairn now then ? Righto, you never spout abuse at Dave when he's merely browsing on here then. You're the board's bairn Leazes, deep down you know it, everyone does. You mock the kids on NO but the reality is most of them show a degree of maturity that you'll never possess.

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. how do you know ? Know what? that. I thought you knew everything ? Eh? What are you on about? Aren't you always right btw? yep. Always. Smart eh ? Why are you anonymous btw, literally ? So anonymous that you have half your sig dedicated to me. The reason I'm hidden is because of you actually. In the past just being visible browsing this site was enough to prompt a tirade of abuse from you, one click of my mouse and I can avoid it. You still do that to Dave from NO. That is how sad you are, you big bairn.

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. how do you know ? Know what? that. I thought you knew everything ? Eh? What are you on about? Aren't you always right btw?

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. how do you know ? Know what?

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party.

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. ah, the man who is in the "centre of politics" but doesn't read "right wing rags" and does read "left wing publications" Read the quote in the correct context Leazes, the Mail is a dishonest paper, hence the rag terminology. What 'left wing publications' do you think I read anyway? Do you think the Times (my main paper) is left wing? I took your own quote. Basically, you're a boring cunt. Edit. wtf do you mean by "dishonest paper" anyway If I'm boring what does that make you, you cyber stalking weirdo? You big bitter bairn. oh dear. Here we go again. What is a "dishonest paper" One that publishes opinion pieces which are blatantly untrue. For instance, one that campaigns against the cervical cancer jab in the UK but campaigns for it in Ireland. Thus putting human lives at risk simply because they don't like the government. Is that dishonest or not? oh, I would quite confidently say that most papers would do something like that now and again wouldn't you ? Or is this you in your idealistic left wing world again today. I take it that you read it then ? As AA says, you're a smug righteous arsehole. If you can name another example as blatent as that then feel free. The Mail is pretty well known as being a particularly politically motivated paper, most people with an ounce of sense know that. More 'banter' from you again I see. What a sad bitter bairn you are, what's gone wrong in your life that you've become such a sad pathetic cyber stalker? haha, you just can't help yourself can you ? What a wanker. By the way, are you at work today ? Why should I divulge any information like that to you? Are you lying in wait for me? Btw, in this nest alone you've called me a wanker, cunt, and an arsehole. That's not very nice is it? Glad to know I don't bother you. Edit: I'd like to know if the mods and admin think LM's abuse is acceptable. Because I've got to admit it puts me off posting on here when whatever I post (not normally even directed at him) ends up in pointless slagging off like this. If it's acceptable then I think I may be better off on another board tbh. That's not a flounce, I just think the whole thing is becoming extremely boring. who's a big bairn now then ? You see what gets me about this is you think I am the most tedious poster on here but whatever I post, usually in response to someone else, draws this extreme reaction from you where you bascially become foul mouthed and abusive. You behave exactly like a bairn and you know it. Christ knows what you get out of it like. You deserve to be banned in all honesty, just like you were on N-O (and didn't you take that well ). But the admin here are incredibly forgiving so you won't be. Shame, you've got your own board after all, you could slag me off to your hearts content there, perhaps you could even name a subforum 'Renton is a wanker' on it. You big pathetic bairn.

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. ah, the man who is in the "centre of politics" but doesn't read "right wing rags" and does read "left wing publications" Read the quote in the correct context Leazes, the Mail is a dishonest paper, hence the rag terminology. What 'left wing publications' do you think I read anyway? Do you think the Times (my main paper) is left wing? I took your own quote. Basically, you're a boring cunt. Edit. wtf do you mean by "dishonest paper" anyway If I'm boring what does that make you, you cyber stalking weirdo? You big bitter bairn. oh dear. Here we go again. What is a "dishonest paper" One that publishes opinion pieces which are blatantly untrue. For instance, one that campaigns against the cervical cancer jab in the UK but campaigns for it in Ireland. Thus putting human lives at risk simply because they don't like the government. Is that dishonest or not? oh, I would quite confidently say that most papers would do something like that now and again wouldn't you ? Or is this you in your idealistic left wing world again today. I take it that you read it then ? As AA says, you're a smug righteous arsehole. If you can name another example as blatent as that then feel free. The Mail is pretty well known as being a particularly politically motivated paper, most people with an ounce of sense know that. More 'banter' from you again I see. What a sad bitter bairn you are, what's gone wrong in your life that you've become such a sad pathetic cyber stalker? haha, you just can't help yourself can you ? What a wanker. By the way, are you at work today ? Why should I divulge any information like that to you? Are you lying in wait for me? Btw, in this nest alone you've called me a wanker, cunt, and an arsehole. That's not very nice is it? Glad to know I don't bother you. Edit: I'd like to know if the mods and admin think LM's abuse is acceptable. Because I've got to admit it puts me off posting on here when whatever I post (not normally even directed at him) ends up in pointless slagging off like this. If it's acceptable then I think I may be better off on another board tbh. That's not a flounce, I just think the whole thing is becoming extremely boring.

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. ah, the man who is in the "centre of politics" but doesn't read "right wing rags" and does read "left wing publications" Read the quote in the correct context Leazes, the Mail is a dishonest paper, hence the rag terminology. What 'left wing publications' do you think I read anyway? Do you think the Times (my main paper) is left wing? I took your own quote. Basically, you're a boring cunt. Edit. wtf do you mean by "dishonest paper" anyway If I'm boring what does that make you, you cyber stalking weirdo? You big bitter bairn. oh dear. Here we go again. What is a "dishonest paper" One that publishes opinion pieces which are blatantly untrue. For instance, one that campaigns against the cervical cancer jab in the UK but campaigns for it in Ireland. Thus putting human lives at risk simply because they don't like the government. Is that dishonest or not? oh, I would quite confidently say that most papers would do something like that now and again wouldn't you ? Or is this you in your idealistic left wing world again today. I take it that you read it then ? As AA says, you're a smug righteous arsehole. If you can name another example as blatent as that then feel free. The Mail is pretty well known as being a particularly politically motivated paper, most people with an ounce of sense know that. More 'banter' from you again I see. What a sad bitter bairn you are, what's gone wrong in your life that you've become such a sad pathetic cyber stalker?

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. ah, the man who is in the "centre of politics" but doesn't read "right wing rags" and does read "left wing publications" Read the quote in the correct context Leazes, the Mail is a dishonest paper, hence the rag terminology. What 'left wing publications' do you think I read anyway? Do you think the Times (my main paper) is left wing? I took your own quote. Basically, you're a boring cunt. Edit. wtf do you mean by "dishonest paper" anyway If I'm boring what does that make you, you cyber stalking weirdo? You big bitter bairn. oh dear. Here we go again. What is a "dishonest paper" One that publishes opinion pieces which are blatantly untrue. For instance, one that campaigns against the cervical cancer jab in the UK but campaigns for it in Ireland. Thus putting human lives at risk simply because they don't like the government. Is that dishonest or not?

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. Renton, it must keep you lovely and warm that smug, self delusional but satisfied feeling of superiority! he's a well adjusted intellectual you know Fuck me Leazes. Why would someone who claims I am the most tedious poster on here stalk me like you do? I even get a mention in your sig - again. What a strange man you are. ironic. Answer my question if you like.

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. ah, the man who is in the "centre of politics" but doesn't read "right wing rags" and does read "left wing publications" Read the quote in the correct context Leazes, the Mail is a dishonest paper, hence the rag terminology. What 'left wing publications' do you think I read anyway? Do you think the Times (my main paper) is left wing? I took your own quote. Basically, you're a boring cunt. Edit. wtf do you mean by "dishonest paper" anyway If I'm boring what does that make you, you cyber stalking weirdo? You big bitter bairn.

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. Renton, it must keep you lovely and warm that smug, self delusional but satisfied feeling of superiority! he's a well adjusted intellectual you know Fuck me Leazes. Why would someone who claims I am the most tedious poster on here stalk me like you do? I even get a mention in your sig - again. What a strange man you are.

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. ah, the man who is in the "centre of politics" but doesn't read "right wing rags" and does read "left wing publications" Read the quote in the correct context Leazes, the Mail is a dishonest paper, hence the rag terminology. What 'left wing publications' do you think I read anyway? Do you think the Times (my main paper) is left wing?

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell. Renton, it must keep you lovely and warm that smug, self delusional but satisfied feeling of superiority! if i was LM i would suggest its all down to a university education!! Oh dear. If you can't win the argument, attack the person who's delivering it. Well done.

.....so does the BBC. do you think that particular corporation is a right wing facist hotbed as well?? ffs, poor effort there Renton! 1st you provide blatently out of date and incorrect info, and then you suggest a political link when its already been stated that the info provided has been independently refereed and judged by both sides of the argument. Even the current government of the day uses migration watch when the figures show a positive spin for their cause. Read that particular post again. I stated at the time that the data was (slightly) out of date but it's the best I could find. However, unlike your figure of over £40 Billion, at least its properly referenced. Now, where and how did Civitas get their figure? Both Migration Watch and Civitas are self-admitted right wing think tanks. I think this is relevant for putting their statements in a correct context, don't you?

Never normally agree with you Parky but that's spot on, you've summed up this thread in a nutshell.

Hate to tell you bud but your chart is 6 yrs out of date as are your figures I'm not certain if Civitas are impartial and quite frankly im not bothered if they are or not. http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/ They say it has been, in their words 'refereed by experts' from both sides of the european debate. link for said experts: http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/credits.html . How do Civitas 'seemingly' have close ties with Migration watch? would need a source to give that statement any creedence whatsoever. Tbh Renton imo you are so far 'left wing' you see the middle ground as 'right wing'. Thats not a dig at you btw, I admire your dedication to your beliefs, just not your politik I love this impression you have that I am some how 'far left'. I'm a new Labour supporter with a leaning towards the liberal democrats man. How much more centrist could I be? Tell you what my socialist grandad would be turning in his grave at some of my right wing views. As for Civitas, they make the claims you state but nothing is referenced so it's not really possible to trust them. Thery constantly cite data from Migration Watch. I think you need to be aware of the spin they put on things. Also, why do you think they exist? Serious question, think about it.

Stevie, just post as yourself man if you're going to post at alll. I've no idea why you stopped posting in the first place tbh but I admit have enjoyed the break... Apologies, no idea now why I posted that last night. Perhaps my account was hacked.