otb,

What about your rudeness directed at me?
Your consistent personal attacks?
Your putting words into my mouth and then
attacking me for them?
Your making statements with the sole intention
of getting a response?
Your troll-like behaviour that never ceases?
And the list goes on.

How many people have pointed out your atrocious double-
standards of picking on women and letting the men on
not a word about some of the atrocious comments from
the males on this forum. Talk about cherry-picking
and being selective in what you choose to pick on and
what you choose to ignore.

As for runner, don't flatter yourself.
All I did was respond to his nasty and inappropriate
comment of -

"...measure everything by the untrustworthy, slimy, feminist
government, of the last 5 years..."

asking him why he seemed to have such a negative attitude
towards women. You did not pull him up on his comment
perhaps it agreed with your take on things.

I have no further wish to interact with you and I would
appreciate it if you did not address me in your posts.
Find someone else to bait and condemn.

Foxy,

The point is that you broken record and where that doesn't work you divert the thread. A flurry of posts to bury any opinion or question you don't like.

Now what about some answers to those questions I put to you? See here,

<You keep avoiding the questions I have put to you, preferring to blame what you allege to be unfair publicity - that you claim doesn't recognise what 'moderates' do. How you imagine that explains the violence in Sydney, or the ethnic criminal take-over of OMG bikies gangs goodness only knows, or the violence in the UK and Europe. However you probably excuse wrong-doers for their behaviour anyway, postulating it is ultimately all society's fault. 'Educate' society, eh Foxy?

While the public perception of violence and terrorism is affected by the reporting of offences, and doubtless you would like censorship that doesn't mention ethnicity of offenders sought by police, none of that explains why some are more implicated in crime and specifically, violence.

While I do not suggest bans, I repeat what I said that the federal government has not done its job in screening migrants and I gave the example of a very stupid decision of Liberal PM,Malcolm Fraser. My comment regarding poor screening certainly includes the economic migrants who arrive courtesy of the criminal gangs involved in people smuggling>
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 26 November 2013 8:40:45 PM

david f "I am not just talking about citizenship. I am talking about humanity."

You referred to "an *Australian* of any blah, blah, blah"
Not a "human", an "Australian".
"Australians" can only mean two things: (a) citizens of Australia, or (b) the ethnic group "Australians", who have always been White.

"Apparently you would reject a person whose skin colour, religion or ethnicity doesn't match yours."

I question them entering our country and changing the population.
I don't "reject" who they are intrinsically.

There nothing "wrong" with being Turkish in Turkey or Malay in Malaysia.
But that's not the issue.
They're moving *here*, out of their own context and into ours.
That's what I "reject".

Is Mise "don't you find it inconvenient that so many English and other European people have Negroid ancestors?"

No genuine European is Negroid.
Are you referring to the Mitochondrial Eve?
That was a looooong time ago.
And the ancient first humans were not the Negroids of today.

Indic and Iranian people are historically related to Europeans, but 6000 years of separation means their cultures bear almost no resemblance to ours.

How more so ancestors with 60,000 years distance?

Sharing ancient ancestors is meaningless.
Many of the modern peoples/cultures of today are only a few centuries old.

IF..YOU BAN..RELIGION...[NOW*]
this is what you will miss

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

i do it this way
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0#176858

you do it your way
[all ways lead to..god]
the great thing..is no-one is ALL..right..NOR ALL/wrong

great/evil..is made/better/wiser..
yet..kit is the greater..good..that ends it*

and we only..KNOW..there is a problem
[by talking..about it..a problem..shared..is a problem halved

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040#177111

it would..be nice
if you could...join-in
even critique..this discussion...thread..guys

on..the joy*
we share..with/our..brothers
if no one replies..then what..?

what..your fightend?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6119&page=0

please..pick..up/on..the flow
look at it as a sign..speak..on your own thread..or mine

lets get it right..[this isnt about zionists
yet it might be about zion]..where were you daddy..before the messiah..didst come?

the watchmen..awake*
what..says the small..scroll.

*ITS/TIME*[this time]..now*

Shokadelic,

No need to go back 60,000 years.
The Romans recruited from all over the Empire but were loathe to employ soldiers in their native areas so British recruits could serve in Africa and vice versa. When their time was served these soldiers could opt for home or stay and, human nature being what it is, some of them already had families, having paired off with local women.

"The finding suggests that black people have contributed to the "indigenous" British gene pool....Africans were first recorded in England some 1,800 years ago, part of a Roman garrison defending Hadrian's Wall against raids by tribes in what is now Scotland.

But slaves from West Africa....likely source of the African DNA revealed in the study.

"The first....slaves showed up in 1555....and....from that time on their numbers increased," ....In 1601 Elizabeth I issued an edict "that black people should be expelled from Britain because there were too many of them around, which everybody ignored,"....Historian Ron Ramdin, author of Reimaging Britain: 500 Years of Black and Asian History, said that by the end of the 18th century an estimated 10,000 black people were living in Britain, mostly concentrated in cities.....The University of Leicester's Jobling concedes that African DNA probably exists "at a very low level" in the native British gene pool. But, he said, the latest findings show that "what it means to be British is complicated and always has been."
See <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/early_times/elizabeth.htm

Mark Thomas, from the Centre for Genetic Anthropology, University College London, said other Y-chromosome lineages in Britain from the last 1,000 to 2,000 years probably also have an African origin.

"For example, there's a lineage that's very common in North Wales that's usually found in places like North Africa and Ethiopia," he said.

The new study, Thomas added, "makes the point that we do all have very mixed ancestry."

See <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070124-british-genes_2.html>