LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAgain, and I know you are having difficulty with the this fact, we are talking here about a family, a woman and two small children. Why in god's name would anyone just want rid of them? You really are a sad case.Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach
Again, and I know you are having difficulty with the this fact, we are talking here about a family, a woman and two small children. Why in god's name would anyone just want rid of them? You really are a sad case.
Go back to bed, it's all going over your head. If you have a sudden urge to anaylise, try the cat.
We are all from a family. The law is the law and it must be enforced. We made clear in the 20044 referendum that as dar as the Irish people were concerned, asylum-seekers using their children to help their applications had to stop. Being part of a family does not give you an exception from adherance to the law.
BTW, if the issue was colour, why in 2006 did I call for the reintroduction of restrictions on the 10 Accession states that joined the EU in 2004?
I am not saying there is no thrweta. yOU ARE SAYING THERE IS, I am asking you what on earth makes you think there is. You ar5e the only one making definitve sattements, when you sauid there is 'considerable evidence', thats a definitive statement you have nothing to back it up. You said there is a threta. You have nothing to back it up. I cannot say and have never said with certainity there is not threat, I dont have to, you said there is, its your job to back up your claim, and the Irish state is not saying there definitely isnt, the lady is satyiong there is, therefore its her duty to back it uop.
There is due process at work here, and that canm rarely operate with certainth, but can operate on the balance of 'beyond reasonable dounbt' not certain, but ebyond reaosnabnle doubt. This lady is offering nothing to say there is a threat. Nothing. And neither are you. But its not the state job to prove anything, the lady is taking a case agisntt ehs tate its her job to prove a point not the sattes. And who are the others to decide if theirs a rthreta. A minuetas gno you wreent leaving it to them to decide you were deciding for yourself when you said there was a threta, now its for others to decide? And no matter whether there is a threat or not, the lady should be granted asylum, wghich is an insuklt ot allt eh genuine asylum claimants int he world.
You'll be waiting FT. hopi does not like to answer straight questions
So now you're invoking "God " into the debate! Who cares about them. Their mother is shown to be a liar and made fools of all the idiots (that's you!) that supported her false claims. I really hope people like you get what you deserve.
Maybe hopi watcher includes the risk of getting a cold or a chesty cough in his definition of a "threat".A visit to the pharmacy should sort that one out.
why in gods name would we want rid of a mother and two children?
Okn so all mothers and children should be permitted to come and stay, never mind whether there is or is not a threat or danger,. never mind if they are refugees, just everty mother and children should be allowed to stay. Thats now the substance of your argument.
Must have hit a nerve here. Oooohhhhh! I've been up since 9 this morning if you must know. Don't have a cat. Are you into self-harm also? Maybe they'll find you on the back of a door ala Michael Hutchence.
Natürlich, mein Furher
