oughterard people - see OP for Mod warning 29/09/19

suicide_circus

Boggles wrote: »

The mass protest against the cash grab that was Irish Water says you are incorrect.

but that was good people power. this is bad people power.

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

but that was good people power. this is bad people power.

The bad people would have been the racists that spewed their boil on their Facebook page and forced them to take it down.

jmreire

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

What exactly are they fleeing. Crime n punishment I'd say.

Any Syrians fleeing the War in Syria, are considered "Criminal's", by the regime and as such, they will for sure be punished if or when they return to home.Which is one very good reason that most will never go home, at least while the Assad is in power.

Boggles

TeaBagMania wrote: »

and thats why ireland needs a 2nd amendment.

The right to bear arms and form militias?

We do have the right to bear arms, I don't think we should be forming any more militias though, didn't go too well.

What America needs is to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

May do something to stop the mass butchering of children.

Sand

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Build up. Not out.

There are some who wont be satisfied until Ireland represents Hong Kong or Tokyo, with the economically insecure living in micro-apartments stacked on top of each other. All to benefit the construction industry and rent seekers.

Ireland is under no obligation to sacrifice decent living conditions simply to reach some population target that someone considers optimal.

Wibbs

Seathrun66 wrote: »

We're underpopulated. Have been for 170 years.

By what metric? The mass consumerist finance led one that insists we need more people to make stuff for more people to buy it, while at the same time saying we need to go green? That idiotic metric? Oh and more people or go green. Pick one. You can't have both ted.

Reaction to refugees became an issue after the financial crisis of 2008. A handy distraction for politicians and bankers to avoid the focus on themselves. The intake of refugees from Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, etc was not an enormous issue before then.

Bollocks. Immigration and multicultural issues have been in play for many decades throughout Europe. Financial crashes just bring more of it to the surface, but even in times of plenty you have issues.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The space is there.

I remember as a kid reading that the whole world population could at the time fit on the Isle of man. Wouldn't exactly be optimal.. Ireland is already sprawled out as far as population goes, we don't need to add to that, on so many levels. We certainly don't need that equally fcuked up building up and up modernist idea of the 20's and 30's that screwed up so many cities over the years.

Seathrun66

Sand wrote: »

There are some who wont be satisfied until Ireland represents Hong Kong or Tokyo, with the economically insecure living in micro-apartments stacked on top of each other. All to benefit the construction industry and rent seekers.

Ireland is under no obligation to sacrifice decent living conditions simply to reach some population target that someone considers optimal.

Moderate extensions would work. Too restrictive for our housing needs at present.

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

By what metric? The mass consumerist finance led one that insists we need more people to make stuff for more people to buy it, while at the same time saying we need to go green? That idiotic metric? Oh and more people or go green. Pick one. You can't have both ted.

Bollocks. Immigration and multicultural issues have been in play for many decades throughout Europe. Financial crashes just bring more of it to the surface, but even in times of plenty you have issues.

I remember as a kid reading that the whole world population could at the time fit on the Isle of man. Wouldn't exactly be optimal.. Ireland is already sprawled out as far as population goes, we don't need to add to that, on so many levels. We certainly don't need that equally fcuked up building up and up modernist idea of the 20's and 30's that screwed up so many cities over the years.

More people on our island doesn't mean more people on our planet. Redistribution from other places is what I've advocated in a pro-immigration stance.

Please name any successful anti-immigration parties (bar Front National, who also never made it into power) before 2008. Precisely none.

JohnMc1

Boggles wrote: »

The right to bear arms and form militias?

We do have the right to bear arms, I don't think we should be forming any more militias though, didn't go too well.

What America needs is to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

May do something to stop the mass butchering of children.

The current behaviour of this Govt is the exact reason why America has the 2nd Amendment. Leo and co. wouldn't be so arrogant about this whole thing if they thousands of armed Irish would be storming the Dail or their homesteads[same thing for the other tyrants in Europe like Merkel, Macron, Juncker,etc]

Tyrants love an unarmed populace. You're seeing why now.

Seathrun66

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The current behaviour of this Govt is the exact reason why America has the 2nd Amendment. Leo and co. wouldn't be so arrogant about this whole thing if they thousands of armed Irish would be storming the Dail or their homesteads[same thing for the other tyrants in Europe like Merkel, Macron, Juncker,etc]

Tyrants love an unarmed populace. You're seeing why now.

The definitive keyboard warrior.

Will give you credit. The single most amusing post today.

Wibbs

Seathrun66 wrote: »

More people on our island doesn't mean more people on our planet. Redistribution from other places is what I've advocated in a pro-immigration stance.

Again why the hell would anyone advocate this? We're looking down the barrel of environmental issues on a global scale, more resources are at a premium, therefore the fewer people in a country the better. More and more personal and national self sufficiency will be in play and a lower population density is a massive advantage for bloody obvious reasons. And again, why the holy lanterin' fcuk would we seek to import more people, when we have the highest birthrate in the EU? Which squashes the usual mantra of "falling birthrates" as an excuse for this immigration/multiculturalist nonsense. More people - and again we're a growing population as is - means more resources, never mind importing the demonstrable social issues of and examples of every single European country that has suffered because of this multiculturalist ballsology? You may cry "Racism is the reason!!", and yep, you'd be mostly right, but the major difference between your mindset and mine is I look to the realities, you look to hope. This time it'll be different. A damned admirable quality, which I admire and wish I still had, but realism trumps blind hope.

Please name any successful anti-immigration parties (bar Front National, who also never made it into power) before 2008. Precisely none.

Have you even read the history of the 20th century where attacks, even genocide of the other have been in play, and popular? Never mind the 20th. Go right back.

Wibbling wonder

Despite Boggles questioning my motives for posting here as a relative newby to boards I go back to our motivation for protesting. We haven't been engaged or consulted regarding a potential 20% increase in our population in a rural part of Ireland not well served by most measures.

As most people who live here, from various cultural or ethnic backgrounds will likely attest, Oughterard is no better or worse than most towns in that we have our challenges but in the main are all doing our best to get on. Racists we aren't but fairly pissed off at the arrogance and indifference by those that allow a process that is unfair on both sides we are.

The DP centre may well go ahead despite our protest and if it does so be it but hopefully it will start a more meaningful and genuine debate as how best to deal with the increasing influx people Europe is likely to see over time.

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

Again why the hell would anyone advocate this? We're looking down the barrel of environmental issues on a global scale, more resources are at a premium, therefore the fewer people in a country the better. More and more personal and national self sufficiency will be in play and a lower population density is a massive advantage for bloody obvious reasons. And again, why the holy lanterin' fcuk would we seek to import more people, when we have the highest birthrate in the EU? Which squashes the usual mantra of "falling birthrates" as an excuse for this immigration/multiculturalist nonsense. More people - and again we're a growing population as is - means more resources, never mind importing the demonstrable social issues of and examples of every single European country that has suffered because of this multiculturalist ballsology? You may cry "Racism is the reason!!", and yep, you'd be mostly right, but the major difference between your mindset and mine is I look to the realities, you look to hope. This time it'll be different. A damned admirable quality, which I admire and wish I still had, but realism trumps blind hope.

Have you even read the history of the 20th century where attacks, even genocide of the other have been in play, and popular? Never mind the 20th. Go right back.

More people on the island equals greater economic growth. What just happened to the British pre-2008. What happened to the Germans post-1945 and will again shortly.

More resources required is easily sorted out by more taxation from a greater populace. Simple logistics.

I don't seek an enormously increased population. I just don't want to turn away refugees. As people didn't turn away the Irish over the past two centuries.

And apologies, but can you please clarify your last sentence?

jmreire

Seathrun66 wrote: »

More people on the island equals greater economic growth. What just happened to the British pre-2008. What happened to the Germans post-1945 and will again shortly.

More resources required is easily sorted out by more taxation from a greater populace. Simple logistics.

I don't seek an enormously increased population. I just don't want to turn away refugees. As people didn't turn away the Irish over the past two centuries.

And apologies, but can you please clarify your last sentence?

In general, and using broad brush stroke's, as I see it:- More people means more economic growth...OK, ( for now maybe) but what about the growing trend of replacing people with robot's and AI in the workplace? Less workers needed if we continue along this path...and this is the path we are on. So what happens when we have more workers than we need? Or do you think that is an impossibility?? likewise food production...we have finite resources on the planet, even in the best case scenario, so even at that, at some point, the planet will not be able to sustain an ever increasing world population. And I am not factoring in climate change at this point. When that's added, and the effects begin to be felt ( as they are presently ) where are you going with an enlarged population in any country, let alone on this small Island? In the not too distant future, the two most valuable thing's on the planet will be arable land, and clean water. And the competition for these will cause major war's.

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

More people on the island equals greater economic growth

What a nonsense.

Importing the unsklled, undocumented and often illiterate into welfare is a recipe for disaster. Bangladesh is one of the most densly populated countries in the world with 164m folks, their economy is pants.

100k jobs will be lost after hardbrexit, automation will wipe out circa 40% of all roles by 2030s. Ireland's sweet 12.5%CT advantage will likely cease, and of course now a global recession is overdue.

The only new jobs in this 4th industrial reveloution will be for the most highly skilled, literate and educated.

Wibbs

Seathrun66 wrote: »

More people on the island equals greater economic growth. What just happened to the British pre-2008. What happened to the Germans post-1945 and will again shortly.

More resources required is easily sorted out by more taxation from a greater populace. Simple logistics.

Spoken like a true blue globalist consumerist. If you also consider yourself anyway an environmentalist, look in the nearest reflective surface all Narcissus like and muse on the cross purposes irony.

I don't seek an enormously increased population. I just don't want to turn away refugees. As people didn't turn away the Irish over the past two centuries.

Bloody hell. And yet again that utterly retarded and trite and woefully inaccurate nonsense about the Irish diaspora. They were needed in European colonies to swell numbers to conquer and exploit the new lands. They weren't exactly welcomed in many of them. Many of them were "transported" often for petty crime to Australia. New Zealand was very dubious about Irish Catholic migrants well into the 1950's. In America anti Irish feeling was extremely strong at the height of migration there. "No dogs, Blacks, or Irish" was a meme in a few quarters with our nearest neighbour England. And none save the English after WW2 had any form of social welfare and protection for them. So no, FFS, please stop with that complete ballsology in lieu of whatever argument you think you hold.

And apologies, but can you please clarify your last sentence?

If you don't understand that I really don't know what to say tbh.

Never mind you avoided my point of the example of every single other European nation and their demonstrable problems with "multiculturalism" over decades and generations. One day you might remove your index fingers from your ears.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

What a nonsense.

Importing the unsklled, undocumented and often illiterate into welfare is a recipe for disaster. Bangladesh is one of the most densly populated countries in the world with 164m folks, their economy is pants.

100k jobs will be lost after hardbrexit, automation will wipe out circa 40% of all roles by 2030s. Ireland's sweet 12.5%CT advantage will likely cease, and of course now a global recession is overdue.

The only new jobs in this 4th industrial reveloution will be for the most highly skilled, literate and educated.

Given your spelling you'll likely be accommodated in that mentioned group.

And where did you get the idea that those refugees are lacking training and skills? Those fleeing Syria come from across all social classes and educational levels.

Seathrun66

jmreire wrote: »

In general, and using broad brush stroke's, as I see it:- More people means more economic growth...OK, ( for now maybe) but what about the growing trend of replacing people with robot's and AI in the workplace? Less workers needed if we continue along this path...and this is the path we are on. So what happens when we have more workers than we need? Or do you think that is an impossibility?? likewise food production...we have finite resources on the planet, even in the best case scenario, so even at that, at some point, the planet will not be able to sustain an ever increasing world population. And I am not factoring in climate change at this point. When that's added, and the effects begin to be felt ( as they are presently ) where are you going with an enlarged population in any country, let alone on this small Island? In the not too distant future, the two most valuable thing's on the planet will be arable land, and clean water. And the competition for these will cause major war's.

All very good points. The answer unfortunately requires a look at history, wars and disease bringing about a culling of the population. I don't want to see it but pre-robotic takeover we'll be living in interesting times.

Wibbs

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Given your spelling you'll likely be accommodated in that mentioned group.

An old Chinese saying holds; the man who strikes the first blow has already lost the argument. You're demonstrating this most aptly.

And where did you get the idea that those refugees are lacking training and skills? Those fleeing Syria come from across all social classes and educational levels.

If it were only Syrian doctors and engineers fleeing from an actual war with their families. The Nigerians, Albanians, Georgians et al, well...

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Given your spelling you'll likely be accommodated in that mentioned group.
And where did you get the idea that those refugees are lacking training and skills? Those fleeing Syria come from across all social classes and educational levels.

A single keyboard typo on a mobile device does not invalid my degree.

And where did you get the idea they were all only from Syria? Syria didn't even feature in the top5 sources of applicants in the last few months.

Even if some of them were 'skilled' in some arena, there would still be costs in conversion to European standards, language, literacy and so on.

Also, notice you skipped over your 'wacko equation' of 'more people = better economy', did it come from the '101 Basic Economic Mistakes' handbook?

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

Spoken like a true blue globalist consumerist. If you also consider yourself anyway an environmentalist, look in the nearest reflective surface all Narcissus like and muse on the cross purposes irony.

Bloody hell. And yet again that utterly retarded and trite and woefully inaccurate nonsense about the Irish diaspora. They were needed in European colonies to swell numbers to conquer and exploit the new lands. They weren't exactly welcomed in many of them. Many of them were "transported" often for petty crime to Australia. New Zealand was very dubious about Irish Catholic migrants well into the 1950's. In America anti Irish feeling was extremely strong at the height of migration there. "No dogs, Blacks, or Irish" was a meme in a few quarters with our nearest neighbour England. And none save the English after WW2 had any form of social welfare and protection for them. So no, FFS, please stop with that complete ballsology in lieu of whatever argument you think you hold.

If you don't understand that I really don't know what to say tbh.

Never mind you avoided my point of the example of every single other European nation and their demonstrable problems with "multiculturalism" over decades and generations. One day you might remove your index fingers from your ears.

Your previous post was so befuddled that it'd be a rare intellectual giant that could interpret it. Your first point above continues in that vein. You may have conceived a point in your head but it's of little worth if coherent expression is put to one side.

The Irish were historic refugees in the 1840s. Regardless of the welcome they made their homes elsewhere and were able to benefit. I'd like to extend the same welcome to those suffering elsewhere at this moment in time.

Since then we've been economic emigrants and have made progress throughout the planet. Again I'd like to welcome those from other nations who wish to make a home here.

In terms of other nations experiencing problems with multiculturalism why then had there been no political or electoral success prior to the recession of 2008? Your insistence on resistance to multiculturalism elsewhere isn't borne out by factual evidence. That satisfy you?

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Those fleeing Syria come from across all social classes and educational levels.

Syria is it, you say?
Do you spell that with an A,l,b,a,n,i and a?

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The Irish were historic refugees in the 1840s.

Yawn: Look^, it's ye olde desperate whaboutery, yet again.

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

An old Chinese saying holds; the man who strikes the first blow has already lost the argument. You're demonstrating this most aptly.

If it were only Syrian doctors and engineers fleeing from an actual war with their families. The Nigerians, Albanians, Georgians et al, well...

Got to counteract ignorance. Particularly with an analphabetic poster using crude and incorrect stereotypes that they themselves are more suited to.

And why the stated nationalities? You're privy to recent claims by citizens of those states, or have numbers on such claims?

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And why the stated nationalities? You're privy to recent claims by citizens of those states, or have numbers on such claims?

Fig.1: Pie chart: Syria registers somewhere below 6.5% for IPO 2019(06+07...)

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

A single keyboard typo on a mobile device does not invalid my degree.

And where did you get the idea they were all only from Syria? Syria didn't even feature in the top5 sources of applicants in the last few months.

Even if some of them were 'skilled' in some arena, there would still be costs in conversion to European standards, language, literacy and so on.

Also, notice you skipped over your 'wacko equation' of 'more people = better economy', did it come from the '101 Basic Economic Mistakes' handbook?

Four errors, two spelling. Go back and check.

For the increased population, greater economy see 1960s/1970s Germany, 1990s/2000s UK, the USA and nearly every successful nation over the past century. It's simple non-disprovable stuff.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Syria is it, you say?
Do you spell that with an A,l,b,a,n,i and a?

Source please.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Yawn: Look^, it's ye olde desperate whaboutery, yet again.

Then challenge the point my good sir. The simple response is that you can't. We've been accommodated throughout the planet. We still are being welcomed. Operating double standards ain't cool.

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Source please.

International Protection Office.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Syria is it, you say?
Do you spell that with an A,l,b,a,n,i and a?

You should also be aware that the rejection rate for Albanian applications is 99%, Georgia 97%, Syria 1.75%, Nigeria 94.4% (Asylum Information Database from 2018 applications).