Right Wing Grifters

rgossip30

The fact that larry Murphy is a criminal and can travel freely does not mean someone without a passport can travel freely .

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

No it isn't.

I'm not worried about Larry Murphy or anyone, foreign or otherwise.

Largely because I am not an utter paranoid simpleton, which who these grifters pray on.

You may not be a "paranoid" simpleton but advocating for an open doors policy would make you a very naïve simpleton.

Imagine thinking it is paranoid or xenophobic to actually want to know who is entering your country.

Use name is apt. The mind boggles.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I suppose you are right, statically Irish White Male, he was more likely to harm me then some fordiner.

Naturally. You live in a nation with a predominately white Irish population.

Your objections are awfully bizarre at times.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

You may not be a "paranoid" simpleton but advocating for an open doors policy would make you a very naïve simpleton.

What fúcking turnip is advocating for an open doors policy?

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine thinking it is paranoid or xenophobic to actually want to know who is entering your country.

You haven't a ****ing clue who is entering our country, having a "legal" passport doesn't change that. It doesn't mean they are less likely to commit crimes.

The paranoia stems from focusing in on one group of individuals. I never mentioned "xenophobic", odd you would though.

Deleted User wrote: »

Use name is apt. The mind boggles.

Yours isn't.

Dunne is an Irish surname, derived from the Irish Ó Duinn and Ó Doinn, meaning "dark" or "brown."

:pac:

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I'm highlighting your paranoia by singling out another section of people.

The only section of people I am singling out are people who do not have the correct documentation to be here. You are bringing race into it.

Boggles wrote: »

Sure, but that doesn't make anyone more safer does it?

Asylum Seekers could have documentation identifying them, but it may not be our definition of "legal".

Well technically it does. We are not allowing people who we don't know into the country. That by any metric is making the border more secure and safe.

If it is not our definition of legal, then it is illegal. Which is why someone coming to this country should have documentation which is legal here. Not rocket science.

Boggles wrote: »

Yet he is free to come and go as he chooses.

There is a point there, surely you have twigged it by now?

Because, like it or not, he is a free man who is a citizen of Ireland. He is on a register for crimes he has committed and has been punished for. What do you suggest we do with criminals that have served their sentence?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

The only section of people I am singling out are people who do not have the correct documentation to be here. You are bringing race into it.

No I didn't. I brought statistics into.

But it all depends how far you want to go with the Paranoia.

Statistically you* are more of danger to your love ones than anyone else.

* not you specifically, I'm sure your grand.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well technically it does. We are not allowing people who we don't know into the country. That by any metric is making the border more secure and safe.

Just because someone enters the state with a "legal" passport that does not mean we "know them".

It just means they have the requested piece of paper to clear the port.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because, like it or not, he is a free man who is a citizen of Ireland. He is on a register for crimes he has committed and has been punished for. What do you suggest we do with criminals that have served their sentence?

Like I said I couldn't give a fúck about Larry.

I'm just pointing out your criteria to frame the bogey man is not based on anything resembling reality.

Basically Asylum Seekers are grand, we have had them for decades, they pose no more threat than anyone else in the country, fordiners or otherwise.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

What fúcking turnip is advocating for an open doors policy?

Let me see, you are opposed to non documented immigrants being vetted to a high level.... so judging on that, you are.

Boggles wrote: »

You haven't a ****ing clue who is entering our country, having a "legal" passport doesn't change that. It doesn't mean they are less likely to commit crimes.

The paranoia stems from focusing in on one group of individuals. I never mentioned "xenophobic", odd you would though.

I don't work for border security so of course I don't know.

Well because we can't guarantee that legal passport holders aren't going to misbehave, we might as well let anyone in?

What group am I focussing on other than those who don't have the right documentation to be here?

You claimed I was paranoid about "fordiners". That is accusing me of xenophobia

Boggles wrote: »

Yours isn't.

:pac:

Because my surname derives from the Irish for brown. Is that a not so subtle inference that I am racist?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me see, you are opposed to non documented immigrants being vetted to a high level.... so judging on that, you are.

I never said that.

I merely pointed out focusing on one type of foreigner over an other does not make us any safer.

I'm all for checks and asylum seekers are checked far and beyond and other "visitors" to our shores or ones that leave our shores.

Deleted User wrote: »

You claimed I was paranoid about "fordiners". That is accusing me of xenophobia

No I didn't, I said you were paranoid about one type of foreigner who judging by your history on here you constantly focus on.

Why exactly? Asylum Seekers in Ireland pose no more of threat than any other section of society?

Deleted User wrote: »

Because my surname derives from the Irish for brown. Is that a not so subtle inference that I am racist?

So you get to jest about my username and when I reciprocate it's not funny?

Cool.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I never said that.

I merely pointed out focusing on one type of foreigner over an other does not make us any safer.

I'm all for checks and asylum seekers are checked far and beyond and other "visitors" to our shores or ones that leave our shores.

So you ARE for high levels of checks on non documented immigrants? We are in agreement then.

Boggles wrote: »

No I didn't, I said you were paranoid about one type of foreigner who judging by your history on here you constantly focus on.

Why exactly? Asylum Seekers in Ireland pose no more of threat than any other section of society?

What history is that? I never said they do. Once the documentation is legal and verified and they have gone through whatever checks and processes are required, I have no issue with immigration from anyone.

Boggles wrote: »

So you get to jest about my username and when I reciprocate it's not funny?

My joke about your username was to highlight how I found your reasoning mind boggling.

Your "joke" was a nasty way of inferring that I am a racist. If you think that (and judging from your comments you do), I would prefer that you would just come out and say it rather than little sly remarks. If you don't, then an apology would be appreciated.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

So you ARE for high levels of checks on non documented immigrants? We are in agreement then.

But it all ready exists, is the point.

Deleted User wrote: »

Once the documentation is legal and verified and they have gone through whatever checks and processes are required, I have no issue with immigration from anyone.

What do you mean by "legal", you keep saying that.

I mean the Kurds are stateless, are not recognized internationally.

So they will never have a "legal" document, so they don't get in?

Deleted User wrote: »

My joke about your username was to highlight how I found your reasoning mind boggling.

Your "joke" was a nasty way of inferring that I am a racist. If you think that (and judging from your comments you do), I would prefer that you would just come out and say it rather than little sly remarks. If you don't, then an apology would be appreciated.

I'm sorry if my joke offended your fragility.

Now your "joke" was neither original or funny.

Could I get an apology please?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

But it all ready exists, is the point.

I'm sorry if my joke offended your fragility.

Now your "joke" was neither original or funny.

Could I get an apology please?

My whole point that started this (which you proved) was that holding the opinion that undocumented immigrants should be held to the highest level of vetting to ensure they are who they say they are is seen as bigoted by a lot of posters on here.

That was all I said.

Then you ranted on about Larry Murphy, white people, paranoia, implications of racism etc.

And it isn't "fragile" to respond to baseless accusations of being a racist be asking for an apology. This is another tactic you and people like you love to use.

"Hey everyone, this guy I don't agree with is a racist"
"No I am not, please take that back"
"ooooooh TRIGGERED racist!"

I'll leave you to it. My point has been proven.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

My whole point that started this (which you proved) was that holding the opinion that undocumented immigrants should be held to the highest level of vetting to ensure they are who they say they are is seen as bigoted by a lot of posters on here.

That was all I said.

Then you ranted on about Larry Murphy, white people, paranoia, implications of racism etc.

And it isn't "fragile" to respond to baseless accusations of being a racist be asking for an apology. This is another tactic you and people like you love to use.

"Hey everyone, this guy I don't agree with is a racist"
"No I am not, please take that back"
"ooooooh TRIGGERED racist!"

I'll leave you to it. My point has been proven.

Huh?

Anyway.

The Cretins as the OP highlights peddle unfounded fear to dullards who lap it up because they have large amounts of inadequacies in their own lives offsetting their own failings on the marginalized and less fortunate in society bizarrely it makes them feel better about their own patheticness.

So when this combination of fear and perceived acceptance is married together it results in consumption.

That's why these ne'er-do-well have a dozen ways to "donate".

Is just a classic grift.

It's not new or clever, it has just shifted platforms.

20Cent

The other thing you see on the right which doesn't have a left wing equivalent is the fake lefty on the fence who constantly attacks the left. Pretending to be liberal or left wing but spends all their time attacking the left and supporting the right. Someone like Tim Pool or Dave Rubin.

marieholmfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Your "joke" was a nasty way of inferring that I am a racist. If you think that (and judging from your comments you do), I would prefer that you would just come out and say it rather than little sly remarks. If you don't, then an apology would be appreciated.

But you are a racist and you're pretty upfront about it.

marieholmfan

That's it they are losers and toadies.

Boggles wrote: »

Huh?

Anyway.

The Cretins as the OP highlights peddle unfounded fear to dullards who lap it up because they have large amounts of inadequacies in their own lives offsetting their own failings on the marginalized and less fortunate in society bizarrely it makes them feel better about their own patheticness.

So when this combination of fear and perceived acceptance is married together it results in consumption.

That's why these ne'er-do-well have a dozen ways to "donate".

Is just a classic grift.

It's not new or clever, it has just shifted platforms.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

But you are a racist and you're pretty upfront about it.

You need to back up that accusation or take it back.

That's a disgusting accusation.

WrenBoy

marieholmfan wrote: »

That's it they are losers and toadies.

You can't sit with us ...

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

You need to back up that accusation or take it back.

That's a disgusting accusation.

Meh, I got the same stuff from the same poster. Water off a duck's back. Zero fecks on my part are given any more by such a label when it comes from a position of desperation. If that's the level of rebuttal it says much for the basic position. The position certainly doesn't take much in the way of prodding before it falls over.

Look, the sooner the wind is taken out of the "I have feck all by way of an argument any more, so will shout RACIST! to shut things down" the better. The "inadequacies in their own lives" guff comes from the same place. Both amount to little more than a barely disguised "No! You smell!" and best left in the schoolyard and even better ignored.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Meh, I got the same stuff from the same poster. Water off a duck's back. Zero fecks on my part are given any more by such a label when it comes from a position of desperation. If that's the level of rebuttal it says much for the basic position. The position certainly doesn't take much in the way of prodding before it falls over.

Look, the sooner the wind is taken out of the "I have feck all by way of an argument any more, so will shout RACIST! to shut things down" the better. The "inadequacies in their own lives" guff comes from the same place. Both amount to little more than a barely disguised "No! You smell!" and best left in the schoolyard and even better ignored.

I completely agree Wibbs. I am not offended by it, but I think that unless you call out the cowards that hide behind baseless accusations, they will never stop doing it.

I mean, I openly stated on this thread that ridiculous people will call me racist and bigoted for advocating for a secure border policy. Then within the space of 24 hours two posters did that exact thing for saying that!

I hate racism. But because I don't believe that opposing ideologies or that I don't stand behind virtue signalling, I am a racist?

Again, I'm not offended. I just can't see how they don't realise they are hurting their cause.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

You need to back up that accusation or take it back.

That's a disgusting accusation.

Deleted User wrote: »

I completely agree Wibbs. I am not offended by it,

Again, I'm not offended. .

Why are you demanding a retraction and calling it disgusting so?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Why are you demanding a retraction and calling it disgusting so?

Same reason you'd be disgusted about being called a paedophile. It's not true (I assume). But can you disprove that you aren't? I shouldn't be allowed call you that without proof.

I'm not offended. But I feel that an accusation like that should be able to be proven.

I wouldn't like to be thought of as a racist. Because I am not.

But if someone says I am, they should have an onus to prove that I am.

Or, do you feel that I am a "snowflake" if I don't just accept that some dick on the internet can call me a racist with no proof?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Why are you demanding a retraction and calling it disgusting so?

I'm also calling it disgusting because I find racism disgusting. I am demanding a retraction because the poster said I was a racist.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Same reason you'd be disgusted about being called a paedophile. It's not true (I assume). But can you disprove that you aren't? I shouldn't be allowed call you that without proof.

I'm not offended. But I feel that an accusation like that should be able to be proven.

I wouldn't like to be thought of as a racist. Because I am not.

But if someone says I am, they should have an onus to prove that I am.

Or, do you feel that I am a "snowflake" if I don't just accept that some dick on the internet can call me a racist with no proof?

I don't really feel anything TBH.

Grand, your not offended, your disgusted and want a retraction.

Fair enough.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I don't really feel anything TBH.

Grand, your not offended, your disgusted and want a retraction.

Fair enough.

Yup. I'd like a retraction because someone called me a racist when I am not.

Thanks for your contribution.

Slowyourrole

marieholmfan wrote: »

But you are a racist and you're pretty upfront about it.

Careful now. They get very upset when this is pointed out to them. It's the most offensive thing they can imagine.

Lefty Bicek

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Careful now. They get very upset when this is pointed out to them. It's the most offensive thing they can imagine.

It's a genuine fear, to be terrified of being labelled a racist. No one wants to be called a racist, least of all someone who isn't a racist.

- Ann Cryer MP

This might be just passing the time of day for you, goading people from behind your screen, but people who conduct debate in the mindless PC fashion you display here, have facilitated crimes against children.

Sexual predatory crimes against girls.

That is an absolute fact.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Careful now. They get very upset when this is pointed out to them. It's the most offensive thing they can imagine.

Who is "they"?

Nothing was pointed out. A vile insult was thrown about and I have asked for clarification or a retraction.

And yes, an unfounded accusation of racism is disgusting.

Slowyourrole

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

- Ann Cryer MP

This might be just passing the time of day for you, goading people from behind your screen, but people who conduct debate in the mindless PC fashion you display here, have facilitated crimes against children.

Sexual predatory crimes against girls.

That is an absolute fact.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

This isn't a place for debate. There is no factual exchange of information going on here. You're on here claiming that calling out racists causes children to be assaulted. I'm not the one to be ashamed. I'm not the one who tries to use child abuse victims to support my hateful political views. My conscience is clear.

Lefty Bicek

Slowyourrole wrote: »

This isn't a place for debate. There is no factual exchange of information going on here. You're on here claiming that calling out racists causes children to be assaulted. I'm not the one to be ashamed. I'm not the one who tries to use child abuse victims to support my hateful political views. My conscience is clear.

No. Not 'claiming' anything.

I am stating factually, that the scurillous tactic of shouting 'racist' at people who say things you don't want to hear, has factually had toxic consequences.

Factually, it facilitated the exploitation in vast numbers of factually underage white girls by young men who factually, were already married to a cousin from Pakistan.

Those are facts, not claims.

So there is plenty of factual information here, and anyone with a bit of nous or integrity will simply ask, rather than fulminate ignorantly.

Hopefully your conscience clear only because you are oblivious to the Rotherham Report.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

A vile insult was thrown about and I have asked for clarification or a retraction.

And yes, an unfounded accusation of racism is disgusting.

Again I say meh. About the only times I might take an insult to heart is if it comes from a friend, or if it strikes home in some way. Being called a racist by some right on type is akin to being called a martian. It's an inaccurate statement. There's eff all weight behind it.

If someone were to label me being very much anti the currently in vogue multiculturalist/"diversity"/"cultural enrichment" nonsense then game ball, it's an accurate statement and one I have zero problems with being labelled. If anything I'd take it as a compliment of sorts and an acknowledgement of my position.