Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
did you know the brits spent nearly 2 million on their licensing committee this year.......yes, that licensing thing we go on about!
I wonder what in the name of fucck they spend it on, and I though the FAI had junketeering committees down to a fine art
I couldn't give a flying one what you think about our fans I was just pointing out that you resorted to personal abuse in your response to Anto. I was under the impression that sort of post was considered uncool on foot.ie. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
KOH
newfoundland i think,somewhere round that area has a bizarre irish accent alrightQuote:
Originally Posted by Junior
not irish but welsh.thats only a couple of hundred or so people in remote areas that can speak it.not like you go into shops in BA and have bilingual staff selling you goods in welsh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
I wasn't blaming rovers, merely stating a fact.
There's trouble when they're in town.
I spent enough years in Dublin to know what a scally is, don't you worry about that.
It was in response to his "personal abuse."Quote:
Originally Posted by WeAreRovers
So if Rovers have an element that come out for trouble for Bohs gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
And Cork have an element that only come out for Rovers games
Conclusion: Both are as bad as each other, but Rovers have the reputation. That seems about right
and dublin has scallys but cork doesnt? anyway dont call me it.theres penty of names id rather be called than scally. i consider it highly offensive. and btw i dont like the use of scally itself, the correct hiberno-english term is skanger.im certainly no skanger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
btw isnt "attack-the-poster-not-the-post" stuff meant to get deleted on here??
nb i told you to cop on- thats not abuse, its advice ;)
as for me "flying off the handle", its because cork fans moreso than any other have this crazy chip on the shoulder hyseterical reaction to anything Rovers fans do. i remember one cork fan claiming he had never been ntimidated as mush in his life after one Rovers v cork game at rihmond park, when Rovers fans had the sheer audacity to A: sing abuse at the away fans and B:take the p!ss out of them. many many cork fans hysterically over-react to Rovers fans. thats why i started replying to this thread in the first place,something fairly rare as i dont usually post here
Look you need your heads banging together...
There is and always will be a few bad eggs in every group but you cannot tar everyone with the one brush...
I'm sure none of you cause any trouble at the matches and that none of you are scallys..
Angels the lot of you
Now kiss\ shake hands (whatever your into) :p and make up please and get back to discussing the beautiful game..
There's an element which surfaces for the Rovers game.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeraki
We're aware of it and not proud of it.
I felt abused! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
The term "scally" comes from "scallywag", non???
yeah. scally is more commonly used in england. as is chav btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
but the irish hiberno-english word is skanger,which is not something youd hear on the streets of lacostepool or bradford:)
Eanna - there's no Irish speaking communities in Argentina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Only 2 long-lived Celtic-speaking communities remained in the world following the mass Celtic emigrations that occured between the late 18th and early 20th Century.
The first is in the Chubut Valley of Patagonia in southern Argentina, set-up in 1865 by Welsh emigrants escaping persecution of their language. The colony (it was literally called that in Welsh) was set-up deliberately to preserve the language. They also tried and failed to do similar in Russia and Brazil, as when they'd earlier tried in English-speaking parts of North America they got swamped by English-speakering settlers, so decided instead to focus on non-English speaking countries instead. A small but significant Welsh-speaking community remains in Patagonia. They hold an annual Eisteddfod, and Welsh-speaking employers in Wales have started recruiting amongst them for jobs they can't fill in Welsh-speaking Cymru.
The other area is Nova Scotia/Newfoundland in Canada, which received large numbers of Scottish Highlander emigrants during the Highland Clearances. A few thousand Scottish Gaidhlig speakers still remain there - primarily on Cape Breton island - but they are slowly dying out.
No Irish-speaking communities remain outside of Ireland (although, for example, there were an estimated 200,000 Irish-speakers in New York alone in 1850).
The Irish-sounding accent in Canada is in the extreme East of Labrador, within fishing communities that are physically cut-off from the rest of Canada. They do indeed have Irish accents, which is truly wacky when you hear it.
There is also an island in the Pacific (can't recall it's name) where the natives speak English with an Irish accent, thanks to an Irish priest who brought them Christianity and the English language.
Ireland - over the centuries the world's greatest provider of emigrants and asylum seekers. How times change.....
Was there not a small community in Springfield in Massachussets?Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
No - that's the Simpsons...... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
Irish speaking 'communities' existed for a shortwhile in various parts of North-East America, through sheer weight of numbers.
They didn't last long though, and assimilated into English-speakers pretty much within a generation.
No, it is not an "accepted fact". Economists are wholly divided about the benefits of immigration. George Bjoras, Chariman of the Department of Economics at the Kennedy School of Business in Harvard has come out quite clearly against mass-immigration as a economic panacea. He rightly notes that real wages in California have fallen significantly due to Mexican immigration. Large-scale immigration has a deflationary affect on wages. Even the Economist, the ultimate flag waver for open borders, admits that there is almost no benefit to letting in massive amounts of unskilled labour. Moreover, the indirect costs of immigrants more than outweighs any benefits they might add to the tax base. This indirect costs include education, health services and housing. So no, Europe will survive without massive immigration. Further, if you let in enough citizens from another country is it still that country? France will be majority Moslem by 2045, is it still France?Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
The number of English moving to France is de minimis by comparison. They also tend to be pensioners so they are not having kids and they are not deflating wages.
Also, Moslem is the correct term and is the term used by Moslem's themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fergie's Son
Fergie - your points above relate to immigration in general. My point related to immigration in Western Europe alone, and was not talking about letting any aul fecker in. My post related to Western Europe. The US is in no way comparable to W. Europe on this issue, as the fundamentals are completely different (America has a rapidly expanding population that is maintaining it's balance between the ages, whereas the root of Europe's problem is that it doesn't). Europe will indeed 'survive' without immigration - but it won't prosper - and certainly not along the lines that it currently does. The facts are as follows :
- The 5 Major Western European nations have an ageing population and a low birthrate. Their pool of economically-active individuals is therefore declining at the same time that their number of economic dependents is increasing significantly.
- This therefore places a much greater economic burden upon the increasingly smaller numbers within employment, as they have to fund (directly or indirectly) the increasingly aging population.
- Lower productivity due to a declining workforce, combined with a larger number of dependents within a state to soak-up resources, leads to lower growth. Economic fact.
- A reduction in growth - particularly ongoing - effectively means a reduction in the wealth of a nation. Economic fact.
- A very recent study states that total household financial wealth within ageing countries will be a whopping 36% lower by 2025 than if the age structure were to remain as it is now (Source : McKinsey).
- Growth in household financial wealth in France and Germany will slow from current annual average of 4.5% to 1.3% (source : McKinsey).
- Immigration offers a way round this. (Note - I'm not talking about random or unskilled immigration here. You're the only one again who's talked in such general terms).
- Immigration offers an opportunity to boost the workforce - particularly within vital areas that indigneous workers don't want to be employed in (transport, health, lesiure etc). This is doubly important in the area of Health provision - aging populations will require more and more people to look after them, yet indigenous populations in Western Europe are consistently unwilling to work in the Health sector (hence all the Phillipino nurses, Indian doctors etc).
- Of the Big 5 European economies, it is predicted that only the UK's rate of growth will be relatively unscathed by this demographic change (dropping from 5.1% to 3.2% average). The reason for this ? The UK's rate of immigration means that its median age will have only risen by 3yrs by 2005 (compared to 9 years in Italy, for example).
Would be happy for you to point out the economic inaccuracy in the above Fergie. As mentioned above, I haven't been talking about unskilled immigration - you've decided to focus on such general terms, not me. Western Europe needs people to fill the roles within it's countries that it's locals either won't or can't fill. It really is that simple.
As for wage deflation - you seem to think it can only be a bad thing !? Even when it does occur (and I see no evidence of it having happened in W. Europe to-date) it can also be a positive force economically. The UK could certainly do with a healthy dose of it in certain industries that immigrants gravitate towards (e.g. construction, general building)
And for the record, English immigration to France is NOT primarily pensioners. Far from it - it's predominantly young families and middle-aged couples looking to set-up businesses and take advantage of better schooling. English pensioners almost entirely gravitate towards warmer countries like Spain.
As for your insistence on using the spelling 'Moslem' - I'll take your word that that is how Muslims themselves spell it in the English language, even though I've never once seen it spelt that way even amongst my Muslim friends/colleagues. If you're so insitent on using 'Moslem' words to refer to things, then I suggest you familiarise yourself with the word 'Infidel' as well. Your posts are leading me to the conclusion that you, sir, are indeed an infidel...... :) :p
Are the native Americans still wondering who called it America?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fergie's Son
There is no "correct" english translation as their alphabet is completely different and is translated phon-et-ic-ally. Note the total confusion over Osama/Usama/Bin Laden/Ben Ladin etc......Quote:
Originally Posted by Fergie's Son
Well Moslem is listed in Dictionary.com as a variant spelling of Muslim. The variation arises over translating the individual letters from Arabic to English (ie character to character or character to phonetic equivalent) other examples are Quran/Koran, or the names Mohammed/Muhammed/Mahammed. I think there were (at the last count) around 30 different varients of spelling Muammar Gaddafi. A similar thing happens with names which are taken from Cyrillic (eg Ельцин = Eltsin, Ieltsin or Yeltsin), similarly Tsar,Czar and now even Tsar. When writing your name in Cyrillic you have to decide if you want it spelt correctly in terms of letters, or pronounced correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
I guess I'll respond to your points one by one and as best as I can. The numbers of Enlish emmigrating to France is de minimis when compared with immigration from the middle-east and Africa. It's no where near the same scale and it is a red herring to suggest otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
Most of the immigration to France has been of the unskilled variety. It has been via asylum seekers who then become an "anchor" immigrant attracting additional immigrants through family members, arranged marriages etc. Skilled immigration is not the issue here but unskilled, "mass" immigration.
There are very few students of the dismal science who would ever say that anything is an economic "fact". I do hope you'll publish. While it is true that the 5 major European countries do indeed have ageing populations that is not irreversible or reason enough to flood the country with citizens of a different country. One of the fundamental flaws in your arguments are that they do not take into account technological developments. Such developments continue to reduce the need for manual labour as a driver of capital. Moreover, by importating large numbers of unskilled labourers it actually retards technoligical development as businesses become dependent on cheap labour and do not invest the necessary R&D or capital in producing or purchasing better tech.Quote:
- - The 5 Major Western European nations have an ageing population and a low birthrate. Their pool of economically-active individuals is therefore declining at the same time that their number of economic dependents is increasing significantly.
- This therefore places a much greater economic burden upon the increasingly smaller numbers within employment, as they have to fund (directly or indirectly) the increasingly aging population.
- Lower productivity due to a declining workforce, combined with a larger number of dependents within a state to soak-up resources, leads to lower growth. Economic fact.
.
Importing cheap labour, again stick to the real issue, will not solve any alleged pension crisis. Firstly, immigrants age themsleves. They also tend to bring aged parents with them and tend to use disproportionately more services than natives (for a variety of reasons) so the indirect costs are enormous raising doubts about any benefits they may bring. Secondly, with wage deflation they will never make enough money to pay the benefits of the ageing population. So they'll never had enough money to pay for the services for the older population and they'll actually increase the burden on the system through indirect payments.
Thirdly, as immigrants gain political power through sheer weight of numbers who is to say that they'll even agree to continue to pay for these benefits anyways? As the Economist notes, first generation immigrants in Sweden are complaining about paying taxes to support "old white people' Economist: Survey of Scanidnavia, June 2004). That's a comforting thought.
That's fundamentally untrue. The UK's population actually continues to rise without immigration.Quote:
Of the Big 5 European economies, it is predicted that only the UK's rate of growth will be relatively unscathed by this demographic change (dropping from 5.1% to 3.2% average). The reason for this ? The UK's rate of immigration means that its median age will have only risen by 3yrs by 2005 (compared to 9 years in Italy, for example
The British population is officially projected to grow by 6.1 million by 2031 of which 5.2 million (84%) will be due to the assumed level of immigration. The population of working age will also increase, partly because women will be working longer. With a fertility rate of 1.73, Britain is in a completely different situation from Italy and Spain whose fertility rate is about 1.2.
From the Financial Times.
Wouldn't it make more sense, both economically and socially, to encourage native citizens to have more children? Make it economically feasible for couples to have kids and raise them? The short-term solution of brining in immigrants doesn't solve the long-term problem.
Actually, it is a bad thing. Unless you have an oligarchial situation, wage deflation is bad for all concerned. It diminishes whatever gain achieved by immigrations whilst perpetuating a poverty trap. This cycle continues as each new wave of immigrants is willing to work for even lower wages than their predecessors.Quote:
As for wage deflation - you seem to think it can only be a bad thing !? Even when it does occur (and I see no evidence of it having happened in W. Europe to-date) it can also be a positive force economically. The UK could certainly do with a healthy dose of it in certain industries that immigrants gravitate towards (e.g. construction, general building)
That's utter nonsense. So just because the Irish were once immigrants we can't ever debate the issue now? Those Norman-Saxon mutations you talk about took centuries to develop and was only achieved after intermenal wars. The Saxons were defeated in battle and conqured. The Normans remained distinct from them for centuries. Such emotive nonsense has no place here.Quote:
Spot on!WTF any Irish person is doing slagging Immigration is beyond me.....had to go on phone-in recently to correct Sir Andrew Tw*tface of 'Population Watch' that the basic laws of Economics will apply to a capitalist system & the supposed 'native' population were all a minimum of Norman-saxon mutants anyway............
There is a fundamental disconnect in this debate. You can't just take a large group from one culture and then add it to another and expect nothing bad to happen. It's a potential recipe for disastor. Indeed, you think immigration was good for the American Indians? Look at it this way, if I am wrong then we can always correct the situation whereas if you are wrong it'll be far too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
Thanks for that little gem of wisdom.
My life in England is far more complete now. :rolleyes:
It's as though you are asking me to call you a "Skanger" or something!?Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
With a name like "anto" you deserve to be treated as a stereotype.