Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What is the appeal of liberalism?
Options
Comments
-
Yes.
I note that some cousins of mine support BLM.
Maybe they don't realise that BLM are communists?
I often think the best argument against this is to look at the fall of the Berlin wall.
People were trying to escape from communism, not to it!!!
BLM also seem to want babies/children reared collectively, instead of in families. Do their supporters realise this?
Being opposed to a movement like BLM is like opposing world peace or sunshine and lollipops
People don't want to come across as lacking respectability, most know little about the groups real agenda0 -
Being opposed to a movement like BLM is like opposing world peace or sunshine and lollipops
no its not , BLM is a political organisation, not an idea. One can say black lives matter but be against the BLM movement, perfectly compatibleA belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »I could use the save argument to portray the IRA as imperian Roman conquerers.
It's common knowledge that BLM stands for Blacks Love Marxism in just the same way as IRA is the Imperial Roman Army.
Check and mate, I've sunk your battleship. :cool:0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Is there any evidence to suggest that BLM is Marxist (not communist - theres a difference) than 'the organizers studied it and used it for organization'? I mean, the idea that they want a Soviet-style regime installed is stretching things a bit, surely; to the point you're using this as a technicality to condemn them because it's all you've got?
I could use the save argument to portray the IRA as imperian Roman conquerers.
Fair enough.
Their website has changed. It used to have a list of polices/aims. I can't see that list anymore.
Their current website seems vague on what exactly they want.
Based on what they say here:
"Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes."
They want to eradicate something whose existence is debateable, and which definitely doesn't exist in most countries.0 -
Fair enough.
Their website has changed. It used to have a list of polices/aims. I can't see that list anymore.
Their current website seems vague on what exactly they want.
Based on what they say here:
"Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes."
They want to eradicate something whose existence is debateable, and which definitely doesn't exist in most countries.
For a specific reason - they want to handle social and raical disputes on a community level, where they feel they have more control and a more valid and accurate input; rather than being mandated to.
I think you'll find racism exists in pretty much every country (on varying scales of course) and it's not just cops killing unarmed black men that they want to address.
Incidently, there was a fake website at one point that did make them look a lot more totalitarian, but it was taken down (not saying this is what you saw, though, obviously)
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/17/fake-blm-manifesto-fascist/Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Advertisement
-
CharlesMartel wrote: »just wow. I could say manchester united footballers are good soccer players, and you would take the meaning that i said all manchester united footballers. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin again?
But that's exactly what that means.
If it's not what you mean then be specific. Say "Some/many/a few Manchester United footballers are good soccer players"
If I said "Women naturally like dancing" I'd hazard that you might pull me up on my statement to inform me of some women you know who don't like dancing or simply have two left feet and zero rhythm.0 -
olestoepoke wrote: »I think a great many people are somewhere in the middle. It's the extremists that really bother me either way, the looney far left out of control PC brigade or the crazy far right racists. I think they are both as bad as each other.
Except conservatives conflate all progressive thinkers with a lunatic fringe. Conservatives generally besmirch liberals with people who generally don't exist. Conservatives claim liberals promote the idea of unchecked immigration. They don't. I don't think anybody does. Conservatives claim that people in the country "5 minutes" get dole and a free house. and that liberals again promote this. Nobody in Ireland gets a free house and you have to jump through hoops before you get government assistance. This point has been hammered home ad infinitum and they just can't get it into their heads. They repeat the lie time and time again. Maybe they're going for the old Goebbels mantra, i.e. repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.
Conservatives can't verbalise their own core beliefs other than vague cliches about "family values" and "small government" yet can't explain what they mean by these worn out slogans so they make up ridiculous claims such as "liberals think nobody should work and everyone should be allowed to doss around all day drinking cans in the park and having sex and have the government pay for it."0 -
I too am happy to pay tax to redistribute to people who face a risk/contingency that I will not (hopefully) ever face:
unemployment / illness / disability / permanent injury
However, I am not happy to pay tax to redistribute my income to the many, many able-bodied adults in Ireland who fraudulently claim welfare.
Nobody is. Including liberals. But it's a fact of life that some people scam the system. BUT because some people scam the system conservatives think that EVERYONE does and they peddle the inane notion that liberals want people to scam the system.
There are plenty of hypocrites in the conservative camp who cry foul at anybody getting a legitimate break yet they themselves avail of all kinds of social programs. They lowball or understate their taxes, they work for black money, they would never say a word if they were given more change in a shop than they should have been given, etc., etc.0 -
Yes.
I note that some cousins of mine support BLM.
Maybe they don't realise that BLM are communists?
I often think the best argument against this is to look at the fall of the Berlin wall.
People were trying to escape from communism, not to it!!!
BLM also seem to want babies/children reared collectively, instead of in families. Do their supporters realise this?
The Berlin Wall was not constructed to keep people in it was to keep spies, agitators, agents provocateur and saboteurs out. How else do you explain the tens of thousands of East Berliners who from 1945 to 1961 commuted everyday into West Berlin to do their jobs and then went back to East Berlin at the end of the working day. How else do you explain the tens of thousands of East Berliners who were given travel visas to go to West Berlin, the majority of whom actually moved back?
Have you ever spoken to anybody who lived/grew up in the former East Germany? I have, many times and their account of things is markedly different to the narrative we are fed in the West.0 -
Of course there are. Programmers with 5 years experience are earning 70k and up in Dublin. If you think that's 'poverty' you might want to consider personal finance lessons.
You're making the dangerous assumption that this radical change would improve things. We've been through every conceivable form of government over the past few hundred years and as flawed as it is, the status quo is still demonstrably the best of the lot.
In Dublin that IS poverty :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Are there any limits to this?
Can she cut off her own arm?
Can she go into the hospital and demand that her own arm be cut off?
Stupid question.
I suppose she can if she wants to but this would doubtlessly be a symptom of some kind of chronic mental disorder. Very few people want to maim and mutilate themselves just for the fun of it.
Conservatives are fond of championing the sanctity of life as well as eradicating social protections. It's completely lost on them that they are lending their illusion of "protection! to a foetus but once that foetus is delivered as an infant they don't give a damn about it. It can starve for all they care.0 -
silverharp wrote: »no its not , BLM is a political organisation, not an idea. One can say black lives matter but be against the BLM movement, perfectly compatible
perhaps i was clumsy in making my point
i meant on a superficial level , " BLM " sounds great to everyone and nobody could disagree no more than " world peace " etc
its easier to get behind it for fear of not looking respectable0 -
Appeal of liberalism.
Consent of the governed.
Equality before the law.
Individualism.
Appeals of conservatism
Private ownership
Free enterprise. (not the same as personal liberty)
To answer the OP a lot of the appeal is cultural.
The culture of liberalism seems more interesting to some.0 -
I would say its not that conservatism is not appealing. Its just it doesn't hold itself up to its own standards.
You could say the same with liberalism.0 -
ILoveYourVibes wrote: »Appeal of liberalism.
Consent of the governed.
Equality before the law.
Individualism.
Appeals of conservatism
Private ownership
Free enterprise. (not the same as personal liberty)
To answer the OP a lot of the appeal is cultural.
The culture of liberalism seems more interesting to some.
How are the concepts of free enterprise and liberalism mutually exclusive?
Panti Bliss would be, I'd imagine, as liberal as they come and is a successful business entrepreneur.
Artists like The Clash, Pearl Jam, Rage Against The Machine, John Mellencamp, Bruce Springsteen, Public Enemy etc are all in the liberal camp and would wear the badge with honour if you were to call them pinkos. They have no issue with private ownership or free enterprise as long as it's not exploitative or misappropriation.
You can be wealthy and liberal. You can also be wealthy and socialist.
People who don't know any better think that once they hear the word liberalism, that means a labour camp in Siberia. This is the depths of their ignorance.
The OP asks the question "What is the appeal of liberalism?" It's a pretty stupid question since he/she can't pinpoint what liberalism is other than to try and equate the concept with some outlandish ideas about freeloading, immigrant floodgates and baby killing.
They then go on about believing in god and dying for your country. Why should anyone die for their country? What does that achieve exactly?
"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." - E.M. Forster.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »How are the concepts of free enterprise and liberalism mutually exclusive?
You have to go back into history.
Laissez faire.
The idea that the less the govt is involved in the economy the better.
The idea that transactions from two parties should be free from regulation.
Whereas laissez faire was an integral part of classical libralism.
Today what most people understand as libralism doesnt include this definition of a free economy.
Even today most conservatives really favor a mixed economy instead of a true laissez faire economy.
Trump's mantra of 'USA first' in fact is not traditional conservative economics. Its protectionism. Which is very 'BIG GOVT'. It has to be.
That is not to say NO protectionism is bad. But it is often what creates bubbles or an antiquated economy.
Ayn Rand for example would have been a huge proponent of Laissez Faire.
The fact that suddenly many people who followed Rand started to become Trumpers is and isn't confusing. One the one hand the two ideologies ARE mutually exclusive here. On the other they both attract far righters.
Left wing laissez fair ..ism? Exists in theory. But i can't think of any actual examples of it in the real world.You can be wealthy and liberal. You can also be wealthy and socialist.
Yes. Of course.They have no issue with private ownership or free enterprise as long as it's not exploitative or misappropriation.
This is against traditional ideas of conservative capitalism. Laissez faire ..is exactly that. The govt should not protect parts of society. That is 'protectionism'.
Funnily enough ...Trump's America first ...is also protectionism.
But part of the reason he was popular ..is because he didnt talk about it like the above.
You are a protectionist ..TRUMP : Yes i am protecting jobs. Crowd cheers.0 -
perhaps i was clumsy in making my point
i meant on a superficial level , " BLM " sounds great to everyone and nobody could disagree no more than " world peace " etc
its easier to get behind it for fear of not looking respectable
Yeah, I know what you mean: if you don't support BLM then you can appear to be racist.
The problem is the reasoning. People who don't support them just label them Marxist, raise their noises and move on.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
ILoveYourVibes wrote: »You have to go back into history.
Laissez faire.
The idea that the less the govt is involved in the economy the better.
The idea that transactions from two parties should be free from regulation.
Whereas laissez faire was an integral part of classical libralism.
Today what most people understand as libralism doesnt include this definition of a free economy.
Even today most conservatives really favor a mixed economy instead of a true laissez faire economy.
Trump's mantra of 'USA first' in fact is not traditional conservative economics. Its protectionism. Which is very 'BIG GOVT'. It has to be.
That is not to say NO protectionism is bad. But it is often what creates bubbles or an antiquated economy.
Ayn Rand for example would have been a huge proponent of Laissez Faire.
The fact that suddenly many people who followed Rand started to become Trumpers is and isn't confusing. One the one hand the two ideologies ARE mutually exclusive here. On the other they both attract far righters.
Left wing laissez fair ..ism? Exists in theory. But i can't think of any actual examples of it in the real world.
Yes. Of course.
This is against traditional ideas of conservative capitalism. Laissez faire ..is exactly that. The govt should not protect parts of society. That is 'protectionism'.
Funnily enough ...Trump's America first ...is also protectionism.
But part of the reason he was popular ..is because he didnt talk about it like the above.
You are a protectionist ..TRUMP : Yes i am protecting jobs. Crowd cheers.
We are now drifting into the territory of economic models rather than social concepts. And I get it. You clearly know about economic structures and strictures. Most don't. I studied Economics in secondary school.....hated it. To me it was too fuzzy as opposed to Mathematics or Physics. I learned about the policies of laissez-faire, monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly, Keynesianism, etc.
But to me this discussion is not about monetary policy but about social and societal norms and concepts.
Most conservatives will hitch their wagon to the idea of fiscal doctrine without having a clue what it means. They could be living in debt, squalor and penury but will insist that they are living the dream because the Dow has hit record highs yet the only stock they'll ever own is an Oxo cube.
Let's move back to liberalism outside the confines or purely fiduciary parameters. What is the appeal? I would ask "what's not to favour?"
If you are a conservative and decry assisting anyone in need then sign an affidavit stating that you yourself will never call on the state or your fellow citizens to help you.
If you oppose same sex marriage then don't marry someone of your own sex.
If you oppose unchecked immigration then get in line with everyone else, liberals included, who feel the same way.
It's not difficult.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »Nobody is. Including liberals. But it's a fact of life that some people scam the system. BUT because some people scam the system conservatives think that EVERYONE does and they peddle the inane notion that liberals want people to scam the system.
There are plenty of hypocrites in the conservative camp who cry foul at anybody getting a legitimate break yet they themselves avail of all kinds of social programs. They lowball or understate their taxes, they work for black money, they would never say a word if they were given more change in a shop than they should have been given, etc., etc.
Nobody in Ireland thinks that all welfare recipients "scam the system".
It seems that even mentioning that some recipients are defrauding the system is frowned upon by socialists/RTE.
It's hardly allowed to even question the continued rise in DA recipients. I have rarely seen it discussed.
Example: PBP state "don't hassle the unemployed".
Given that some of the unemployed choose long-term welfare, and make no effort to get a job, while thousands of immigrants manage to find one, then of course we should help/support/challenge the unemployed to get a job. (I mean outside of COVID)0 -
Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »This might rattle the cage a bit, but hear me out.
I could never really understand the appeal of having a liberal outlook on life. The US election got me thinking about this again. To give a bit of background, I grew up in a conservative household. Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. And I get it. I have thought through their positions and they just make sense. I suppose classical conservatism, as I understand it, is that some values never change. These values are paramount to society.
You work hard to get a good job to support your family. You love your country, even if it means you have to sacrifice your life for it. You love and honour God as your creator and (hopefully) your final destination.
Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).
On the other hand, my view of liberalism is that we just do whatever we want; we redefine social values (many of which have been established for 1000s of years, going back to Ancient Greece) and create totally new ones.
Then I see the so-called 'liberal darlings': spending lots and lots of money, unrestrained immigration (especially from non-European countries), ecology and an emphasis on elevating various minorities onto a pedestal. Sometimes these 'darlings' seem to conflict with one another - this was shown when #Muslims are right about women was trending on Twitter.
And liberalism's greatest achievements, gay marriage and abortion, frankly disturb me. Especially abortion. I mean, when we get to the very bottom of it, past all the jargon, past 'fetus' this and 'termination' that, what are we really left with?
That is my take on the issue. I share it to start a discussion. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what is the appeal of liberalism?
Obviously people's values change.
People generally don't accept the value of slavery, the value of racism, value of absolute monarchy, the value of imperialist conquest, the value that only the privileged classes could engage in politics, the value that women were second class citizens and plenty of other horrible values that up until fairly recently where just widley accepted by many societies & the vast majority of the populations.
Then Enlightenment ideals started spreading, American & French revolutions, the revolutionary wave of 1848.
The Industrial revolution raised serious questions of workers' rights, especially in America, like the Lowell Mill Girls who hated the idea of renting themselves to a boss for wages, they regarded it as an attack on their liberty, personal integrity & individuality, and the hated what they called "The new spirit of the age. Gain wealth, forgetting all but self"
Here's a flavour of their radically anti-capitalist & anti-corporate sentiment & pro-workers control of production from their Voice of Industry newspaperWhen you sell your product, you retain your person. But when you sell your labour, you sell yourself, losing the rights of free men and becoming vassals of mammoth establishments of a monied aristocracy that threatens annihilation to anyone who questions their right to enslave and oppress. Those who work in the mills ought to own them, not have the status of machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching monarchic principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards freedom and rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality in the new commercial feudalism
This was long before basically Marx or Engels became well known names. And in my opinion the American Labour movement was a lot closer to real the essence of Socialism (even tho they didn't know the word) which is workers control the means of productions, it's that simple, the Bolsheviks called themselves socialists even tho there actions were very anti-socialism, the first things they did after the October Coup, was to surpress & liquadate the socialist institutions which were devoloped during the course of the mass revolution, the Workers' Councils & Factory Committees which were organs of workers control over production were destroyed, that mean't Lenin was destroying Socialism if at it's core socialism has control of the means of production, and after 1918 I don't think anything remotely like socialism existed in Russia.
War Communism, NEP, Labour Armies, secret police - Cheka, 5 year plans which caused a famine, death squads to murder (not execute) royalists most notably the Tsar & his family, I think there was enough evidence to put the Tsar & to a lesser extent his wife, but not the cripple son & his 4 sisters. The Soviet union was a Red Terror state, that had nothing to do with workers' control, it was a precurser to later forms of Totalitarian systems.
I am a Democratic Socialist, I was very influenced by Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, Sir Gerald Kauffman, Noam Chomsky, Chavez, Evo Morales, Malcolm X, MLKjr, Arbenz, Allende, General Giap, people like that, who stand up to imperialist bullies & struggle for workers rights.
But unlike Marxist-Leninist's I don't agree 100% with every thing they say & l am sometimes opposed what they did...
Like Galloway went to Iraq to meet Saddam, he made that famous speech praising the Iraqi people which was spun by media to try & say he was praising Saddam.
But Galloway was spot on about the Iraqi war, the reason US "experts" knew Saddam had the ability to make chemical weapons was because Iraqi scientists were being trained to create & use chemical weapons against Iran, because Saddam was "America's man". Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq too meet, but that was to give him money & weapons to target Iraq, Galloway went to try to
deescalate the situation0 -
Advertisement
-
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »which is workers control the means of productions, it's that simple,
If that means more co-ops, great idea.
John Lewis, dairy co-ops here, great.
Is that what is meant?0 -
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »Here's a flavour of their radically anti-capitalist & anti-corporate sentiment & pro-workers control of production from their Voice of Industry newspaper
This suggests that workers become shareholders?
So people would be workers and capitalists at the same time, like sole traders already are?
An Irish farmer works the land, and owns the land.
They are a worker and a capitalist.0 -
-
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Eric Cartman must come close!
Of the 2 million recipients / 3.25 million beneficiaries, I'd say maybe 10% are fraudulent?0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »Except conservatives conflate all progressive thinkers with a lunatic fringe. Conservatives generally besmirch liberals with people who generally don't exist. Conservatives claim liberals promote the idea of unchecked immigration. They don't. I don't think anybody does. Conservatives claim that people in the country "5 minutes" get dole and a free house. and that liberals again promote this. Nobody in Ireland gets a free house and you have to jump through hoops before you get government assistance. This point has been hammered home ad infinitum and they just can't get it into their heads. They repeat the lie time and time again. Maybe they're going for the old Goebbels mantra, i.e. repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.
Conservatives can't verbalise their own core beliefs other than vague cliches about "family values" and "small government" yet can't explain what they mean by these worn out slogans so they make up ridiculous claims such as "liberals think nobody should work and everyone should be allowed to doss around all day drinking cans in the park and having sex and have the government pay for it."
Small government to me is a liberal idea. Feck off out of the way and leave me be to live how i want (once i dont harm others).0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »How are the concepts of free enterprise and liberalism mutually exclusive?
Panti Bliss would be, I'd imagine, as liberal as they come and is a successful business entrepreneur.
Artists like The Clash, Pearl Jam, Rage Against The Machine, John Mellencamp, Bruce Springsteen, Public Enemy etc are all in the liberal camp and would wear the badge with honour if you were to call them pinkos. They have no issue with private ownership or free enterprise as long as it's not exploitative or misappropriation.
You can be wealthy and liberal. You can also be wealthy and socialist.
People who don't know any better think that once they hear the word liberalism, that means a labour camp in Siberia. This is the depths of their ignorance.
The OP asks the question "What is the appeal of liberalism?" It's a pretty stupid question since he/she can't pinpoint what liberalism is other than to try and equate the concept with some outlandish ideas about freeloading, immigrant floodgates and baby killing.
They then go on about believing in god and dying for your country. Why should anyone die for their country? What does that achieve exactly?
"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." - E.M. Forster.
Sure but you can't say you want communism while earning a living from some capitalist platform.
Those scumbags bother me.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »Conservatives claim liberals promote the idea of unchecked immigration. They don't. I don't think anybody does. Conservatives claim that people in the country "5 minutes" get dole and a free house. and that liberals again promote this. Nobody in Ireland gets a free house and you have to jump through hoops before you get government assistance.
While SF and PBP don't use the term "unchecked immigration", clearly they wish for more immigration / looser laws.
Example - when discussing AS, they never, ever state that the vast majority of AS are bogus.
The entire SF / PBP / RTE discussion presumes that the AS are genuine.
The one thing I don't like about SF / PBP is that they have an ability to ignore the truth facing them.
I suppose I consider myself "centre-right", and I support capitalism, but I am quick to point out its problems.
Yet, with Irish socialists (SF / PBP / Greens), they always skip around the truth.
Example: healthcare waiting lists
Socialist answer: we are underspending on h/care, we should spend more
Truth: there have been huge increases in h/c expenditure and employment in the HSE, all data easy to find
They seem unwilling to accept that the workers/voters could be part of the
problem, resistance to change, too many hosps, etc.
There are other examples.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »The Berlin Wall was not constructed to keep people in it was to keep spies, agitators, agents provocateur and saboteurs out.
Oh for fûcks sake, that is stupid beyond belief :rolleyes: Over 300 people shot trying to escape to the west. Not spies or agents just ordinary people who wanted to live in freedom.How else do you explain the tens of thousands of East Berliners who from 1945 to 1961 commuted everyday into West Berlin to do their jobs and then went back to East Berlin at the end of the working day.
Wages were higher in the West, housing and food were subsidised in the East. So win-win for the commuters, until the wall went up... Another way people took advantage of the system pre-wall was to wait until they graduated then defect to the West.How else do you explain the tens of thousands of East Berliners who were given travel visas to go to West Berlin, the majority of whom actually moved back?
Yeah because if they wanted to see their families ever again, they had to. They would give one spouse an exit visa but not the other, for example. Of course many others were just refused permission with no reason given (and merely applying to travel to the West could put you under suspicion.)
They also generally gave pensioners permission to travel, as if they stayed in the West then they'd no longer be a burden on the state.Have you ever spoken to anybody who lived/grew up in the former East Germany? I have, many times and their account of things is markedly different to the narrative we are fed in the West.
Yes I have. You need to bear in mind it all ended over 30 years ago now, people tend to remember the favourable things about the past (we see this about our own country too), and overlook the less good. They even coined a word for it - Östagie - nostalgia for the East. Also anyone who was in their teens / early 20s when communism ended would have been unlikely to have experienced personally many of the downsides of the system. The experience of being a child, going to school and going to college isn't that different no matter what country you're in. They had the marxist BS to pay lip service to in school, we had the catholic BS to do the same...Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Nobody in Ireland thinks that all welfare recipients "scam the system".
It seems that even mentioning that some recipients are defrauding the system is frowned upon by socialists/RTE.
It's hardly allowed to even question the continued rise in DA recipients. I have rarely seen it discussed.
Example: PBP state "don't hassle the unemployed".
Given that some of the unemployed choose long-term welfare, and make no effort to get a job, while thousands of immigrants manage to find one, then of course we should help/support/challenge the unemployed to get a job. (I mean outside of COVID)
Well what is it now?
Immigrants being able to find a job?
Indigeneous Irish not being able to get that job?
Immigrants being given a "free" house?
Either you want Brazilians to wait tables and collect glasses and chop up chickens in abattoirs in the west or you don't. Many come on English learning visas and then go to work in restaurants or clubs, on top of their existing income.
In reality, how much money are they generating and how much are they draining?
I would love to see the numbers.
In conclusion.....why would you bring up RTE?0 -
Advertisement
-
Small government to me is a liberal idea. Feck off out of the way and leave me be to live how i want (once i dont harm others).
Then FECK OFF out of the way.
Nobody's stopping you. Go where you want. That's liberalism.
Just don't try to stop others doing the same thing whether they live in a tree house, cover themselves in tattoos or eat lentils.0
Advertisement