Open racism is ok if it's for the progressive cause.

recedite wrote: »

To be an asylum seeker, you'd have to fleeing some kind of political persecution wouldn't you?].

One would think so, yes.

Half the AS coming into Ireland are Asian men arriving from the UK.

Are they fleeing persecution?


The hundreds of Asian men who became bogus AS in Ireland, and then got involved in sham marriages - were they all fleeing persecution?

No, they were not. They are criminals, and illegal immigrants.

They are not genuine AS, they are not refugees.

They are criminals taking advantage of our soft, and very slow, AS process.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The mind Boggles. There is an entire
Asylum seeking process does exactly that. It checks everything about their story. At the end of the process they are either granted asylum or sent home.

At no time during this process are they illegal immigrants

Note that although many bogus AS are refused refugee status, correctly, as they are bogus, they are then allowed leave to remain in Ireland.

We are awful soft.

We reward bogus AS, by allowing them to remain, even though their application failed!!

.Charlo wrote:

I am aware of that but that's not what I asked. If some fella comes from the back arse of Chad and claims to be seeking asylum because he is gay and being targeted in his country, how can that be verified with 100% certainty?

When a FG TD brings a compensation claim against a business how can we be 100 percent certain its a genuine case. We aren't even 100 percent certain that everyone in Irish jails are guilty. No more than we are 100 percent certain that everyone aquitted is innocent. We do live in a world if 100 percent certainly.

Geuze wrote:

Note that although many bogus AS are refused refugee status, correctly, as they are bogus, they are then allowed leave to remain in Ireland.

I'm not sure if this is true. They are usually held in Cloverhill prison (there is a dedicated wing there) until there is enough of them to deport. They are then accompanied by Gardai on the flight.

If they are allowed to stay (don't believe this activity happens ) then they still aren't illegal immigrants as the state allowed them to stay.

You throw the term bogus around very easily. If I apply for disability and I'm turned down that does not mean that my claim is was bogus.

Deleted User wrote: »

Aye. Attack the argument...

It's unfortunate that the level of debate was debased with publicity stunts like a giant baby hot air balloon effigy. But yeah, if you have nothing against someone other than the way they look you should probably keep your opinion to yourself, and if you do have something about their position that you object to, then you should focus on that instead.

Der Stier wrote: »

Just look at this fat disgusting pig of a woman at it ... it's all you need to know
Some other beauts there too, jesus christ-they always look the same.
I feel sorry for the kids there, imagine been brought to that to be brainwashed, utter lunatic parents.

Ah in fairness. I'd have little in common with those protestors, but I don't think personalising things achieves much. That woman doesn't look much like somebody who makes a career out of being outraged.



Her placard isn't the worst I've seen there, by a long shot. Some of them have personalised insults against Trump, and that's not on. But a call that he's "not above the law"? Whether or not one agrees, it's really not an insult.

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Well its very strange I've yet to hear anyone over in the lala Lefty land criticise it yet. But as soon as we find a balloon lookalike hiding out over there straight away we're out with 'ah come on now lads we can't be criticising people for their looks'.

Haven't heard you give any informed criticism either, to be fair. Just digs at the people and ad homeinem attacks on posters. Oh and some **** about balloons. For some reason, you seem to be against balloons. But that's about it.

Anteayer wrote: »

I think we sometimes, especially online, import US political talking points that aren't relevant here and you're seeing that on both ends of the spectrum here. It's also very easy to get sucked into online bubbles that then turn out to have no traction in reality and you see that on both sides, left and right, all the time.

So true.

Especially this whole "left" v "right" bull****. This insistence on categorising points of view with relation to a metric that is wholly out of date and was always inadequate anyway is stupid, demeaning, belittling, impertinent, brain-numbing, thought inhibiting, debate dumbing and has no place in any country with pretensions to being a generally educated civilised society. It endures, I believe, because of the bipolar political systems that obtain in the Anglosphere, especially in the UK and America.

Both countries have two party systems that are incapable of accommodating changing attitudes in a changing world. you have to align with one or other of the available choices: Republican (conservative/right wing) or Democrat (liberal/left wing) in America or Conservative (right) or Labour (left) in the UK.

There is of course NOTHING in the original agendas of either the Republicans or Democrats to justify such labels as are currently affixed to them. The Republicans were once a radical party of individual freedom and progressive values (anti slavery, anti trust, welfare state) whereas the Democrats were the party of slavery, secession, segregation and State Rights. The Democrats were the party of the ku klux klan yet are now the preferred party of most African Americans, one of whom became the first black president.

How did the tables get turned and one become "right wing" with the other being the "liberal leftie loonies"? They didn't. The choice is so arbitrary and the debate so dumb and the ability to articulate issues so polluted with label-baggage that issues that should not be ideological, such as climate change, are now being forced into a dangerously inappropriate prism of Left v Right partisanship.

Response to the scientific reality that man made climate change is a serious issue affecting our planet should be informed by fact and reason, not ideology, but instead it is being portrayed as a left v right issue. Just see even on this thread how some lame-brains equate opposition to Trump or support for gender equality with "tree hugging"! What the **** has that got to do with anything?

That's just by way of example. But look what the "left v Right" methodology of political discourse is doing to both Britain and America. The biggest issue facing Britain is its relations with the EU yet it is entirely unable to articulate this at the ballot box. Because not only the country, but both major parties, are hopelessly split on the issue and in a two party system such a division causes the whole system to break down.

In America, it has allowed the rise to power of a buffoon that is quite frankly a disgrace to the human race, not just "privileged" white men.

And seriously, do you think that the image of a ranting harridan screaming at men to know their place is going to cause many of us who voted to Repeal the 8th to change our opinions? Yeah: she's a fruitcake, a loony, a parody. But not like any of the people whose more measured and rational arguments helped to make my mind up.

MrFresh wrote: »

Because the right can be described in the same way, more so even. Trumpists are extremely cult like. Then you have followers of the likes of Shapiro and Peterson. The far left can be cult like but when it comes to the right it's a much bigger proportion of the spectrum.

The far anything tend to be cult like. The further away you get from center - left or right - the more likely you are to follow blindly rather than observe and inform yorurself.

MrFresh wrote: »

I didn't call [Jordan Peterson] right wing. .... His supporters, on the other hand, tend to be very much right wing, without the nuance

Some of them