Faugheen wrote: » When people who are in Direct Provision in order to get out of whatever they’re facing in their own country are being called ‘freeloaders’ then I wouldn’t call that a ‘discussion’, it’s a rant.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Sorry, "whatever" doesn't cut it as a valid reason. People should only be in direct provision if they are escaping war/persecution. The system is not meant to house those fleeing for economic reasons. The reason many might legitimately raise an eyebrow at anyone claiming asylum here is the fact that Ireland is located a great distance from active war zones with no direct transport links. One would have to transit (many) safe countries to reach the island. The bogus nature of the vast majority of applicants is borne out by the statistics, something like 1 in 10 are considered genuine. Everyone has their case heard within 18 months. Anyone in the system longer has been rejected and is appealing.
Charles Ingles wrote: » I just watched him on the week in politics calling DP centres prisons. He said Genuine refugees should be treated with respect and the applications dealt with in a timely manner. He also said we should concentrate on taking our refugees from war torn countries, what is racist about that . He never called them freeloaders
Faugheen wrote: » I’m not talking about what he said on TWIP. I asked you were you paying any attention to the thread and quite clearly you’re not. He may not have called them freeloaders on TWIP but he has called them freeloaders.
Charles Ingles wrote: » I'm just not paying attention to your nonsense
Charles Ingles wrote: » Ireland is a soft touch, Irish citizens the heavy price
Faugheen wrote: » Good one. Can tell you stayed up all night to come up with that zinger. He called them freeloaders. It’s a fact. It’s in this thread. Go and find it.
FrancieBrady wrote: Yeh, and you are not really trying to demean women either by plucking one thing about their life out to highlight or to highlight their sexuality.
Charles Ingles wrote: » The man spoke on television in the last hour and spoke on direct provision I'll think I'll take him on his word if that's ok with you.
Faugheen wrote: How is that post any different to what you said about Maria Walsh and the voters she might represent?
alchemist33 wrote: » The post that started this whole conversation off linked to an IT article where Casey used the term.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Are you going to address the lies you posted about me? A simple yes or no.
Charles Ingles wrote: » Yes but he had changed his mind or articulated himself better in the last hour. So I'll take what he said today as genuine. From what he said today was he is favour of helping genuine refugees.
Faugheen wrote: You don't like foreigners and you're voting Casey for 'telling the truth' about foreigners.
Faugheen wrote: Therefore I believe you are a racist.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » You claimed I said the above, kindly link where I posted the above.
Faugheen wrote: » He didn’t change his mind. He didn’t address the ‘freeloaders’ comment at all. Either way, what’s he going’s to do about it? F*ck all.
Faugheen wrote: Explain how I’m lying and we’ll talk about it. Until then my belief remains based on your posts and your continued defence of Casey and his views.
Charles Ingles wrote: Your no racist plumb, you were just winning the argument
Plumbthedepths wrote: » You have attributed comments to me I never uttered and further to this you have called me a racist based on lies you have attributed to me. A disgusting pathetic means of discussion.
Faugheen wrote: Give me a reason to believe otherwise and I’ll apologise. So far all you’ve done is call me a liar but you haven’t actually disputed what I’ve said.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » I have disputed the comments you attributed to me. All you have done now is reinforced in my mind and that of others that you are openly willing to lie. As I said pathetic behaviour.
Faugheen wrote: You haven’t disputed them.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » I didn't say them, you claimed I did but have so far being unable to back up your claim. Now I'm putting you on ignore, I don't engage with liars.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » She's openly gay and won the ROT, both facts. Now are you going to apologise for telling lies?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Look, you might think you are getting away with the disparaging remarks but it is clear what you are trying to do. That she is gay and won a contest does not define her. Casey did the same thing, came out with a generalised rant and let the rabble do the rest.
Faugheen wrote: » You haven’t disputed them. Tell me why you’re voting Casey but you’re not a racist? Did you expect the conversation to go like: “You’re a liar” “Oh, ok, sorry.”
FrancieBrady wrote: Look, you might think you are getting away with the disparaging remarks but it is clear what you are trying to do. That she is gay and won a contest does not define her.
MrMusician18 wrote: » In fairness if you're laying an accusation it's up to you to demonstrate proof. If you can't prove it then yes, you should apologise.
Faugheen wrote: No, people who vote for someone who rants about foreigners and travellers with no actual plans to tackle those 'issues' are the fools. What are those people voting for? People are very quick to ask me what I vote for when nobody likes to give me any answers themselves.
