Messages

[Why wouldn't you want the authorities to make every effort to verify the identities of those entering the country and conduct rudimentary background checks using all available technologies including international criminal fingerprint databases?]

Now I have a question for you, If your applicant has his/her finger prints taken and if they are put into the international criminal database and they come back as having no record of criminality on that database - Do you now consider that person to be "vetted"?

How do you thoroughly vet someone whose identity you can't verify (or someone who comes from a country where records may Be non existent).

Is it a good start-yes

But it is the bare minimum we should be doing.

I would say that they have passed a preliminary vetting

Sounds like it is not possible to vet people, doesnt it. I mean do you think someone escaping war in the Sudan for example will have their finger prints on an international database. There is no way to vet 100% people and when you get a group in you will get the normal distribution of good people (vast Majority) and bad people (small minority) just like you do in the general population. The issue is the racist far right want you to equate black faces with all being unvetted criminals.

I see you then had a dig at "NGO's" which seems to be another Far Right thing to do these days, despite those clowns not even knowing what NGOs are or do and how fcuked we would be as a country without them. Which ones have you and issue with or is it all of them?

Why wouldn't you want the authorities to make every effort to verify the identities of those entering the country and conduct rudimentary background checks using all available technologies including international criminal fingerprint databases?

Seems like a no brainer to me

Re the NGOs-the fact that any taxpayer funded entity have a financial incentive to act against the best interests of the taxpayer and the everyday working person is mind boggling to say the least

Debating with you is like debating with a 5 year old. Never answer questions, make statements (like above) trying to put words in my mouth, clearly i never said any such thing. I don't know why I bother. You're just a racist, it's as simple as that.

Now I have a question for you, If your applicant has his/her finger prints taken and if they are put into the international criminal database and they come back as having no record of criminality on that database - Do you now consider that person to be "vetted"?

How do you thoroughly vet someone whose identity you can't verify (or someone who comes from a country where records may Be non existent).

Is it a good start-yes

But it is the bare minimum we should be doing.

I would say that they have passed a preliminary vetting

Sounds like it is not possible to vet people, doesnt it. I mean do you think someone escaping war in the Sudan for example will have their finger prints on an international database. There is no way to vet 100% people and when you get a group in you will get the normal distribution of good people (vast Majority) and bad people (small minority) just like you do in the general population. The issue is the racist far right want you to equate black faces with all being unvetted criminals.

I see you then had a dig at "NGO's" which seems to be another Far Right thing to do these days, despite those clowns not even knowing what NGOs are or do and how fcuked we would be as a country without them. Which ones have you and issue with or is it all of them?

Now I have a question for you, If your applicant has his/her finger prints taken and if they are put into the international criminal database and they come back as having no record of criminality on that database - Do you now consider that person to be "vetted"?

No I don't think that's unreasonable. I would imagine it's fairly pointless though.

1. Go back and have a word with yourself- What would you say?
- go for it, life is too short

2. To witness a great/infamous event, be it your own or other event (give reasons)
- 1947 All Ireland Final in New York.

3. To change something, but beyond your DOB and reasons
- 1798 when the two religions of this country stood together to fight the English. I'd go back in time with some weapons to make sure the right side won.

Yeah, exactly. When are the Guards and politicians going to stop harassing local populations by forcibly planting hundreds of unvetted men from completely different cultures into peaceful communities?

Under the current laws (cause whether you like that or not, that's the way its meant to be, until its changed)

Unvetted person comes to Ireland and seeks asylum, under the current system how should that be done?

If they are vetted and approved, are you ok with that?  even though they are from different cultures? Or is it just different cultures that have you up in arms (literally) ?

I'm fairly sure, if yer man was honest, vetting would consist of looking at the colour of the applicants face and if it wasn't white vetting failed. In addition check persons religion, if Muslim vetting failed.

Burns slid in to catch the ball with a Donegal player about to come in and tackle him. I think he called the mark to give himself a few seconds to look at his options.

Also I don't think Burns would have had that kick in his locker.

They were shots to nothing, You could get a shot away and kill the ball and be set up behind. Its very odd that they called marks and then kicked backwards. Maybe a sign the pressure was getting to them?

Not honestly sure I could pick 3 Nirvana songs I like without using the Unplugged album.

Loved Nevermind when it first came out, but Nirvana are just a little too raw, too intense for a soft old chap like me.

Nevermind is a decent album. Bleach is by far their best tho

I dont think so, In Utero was their best for me.

Dominating this game.
The ' eejit Kenny on co-commentary who repeatedly claimed Lundstrom's red was not a red.
What a nutcase!

Just watching the highlights there.

WTF is Miller on about??

You'd swear there were ten leg-breaking tackles like that every day the way he's going on.

Absolute bellend!

In fairness, rangers manager was unequivocal about it saying it was red and a bad tackle. Bizarre stuff from Miller.

What I understand from his later justifications it's even more bizarre. Kenny claimed that it would not have been a red card tackle in his day, therefore it wasn't a red card tackle.

I think he's just doubling down on his initial decision. Doesn't want to back down. A clown.

Although Sutton is a clown also. Can't stand him.

Yesterday's game, like this year's league, was very hard work by Celtic.  Poor stuff. Should have beaten them out the gate by 4 or 5 goals.  Typical 2-0 up then conceding straight away. Just typical of this season.

Point still stands. Board need to invest big time now. Players like Scales, Harte and Taylor etc. are clearly not at the right standard. Celtic need serious investment.  That should start right now instead of their usual messing about in August.

This will bring in more money via Champions League and good chance Matt O'Riley will go for £10m+.

Scales is better than all your other centre backs in my opinion.

Did you not take note of Scales' performance in Saturday's game? It was desperate defending for the headed goal, he knew the Rangers player was there but carried on ball watching. He can't jump and if he does get his head onto the ball, who knows where it will end up and that's a chronic problem dating back to his debut.Anytime he goes forward with the ball the game slows down. How many times did his passes go astray? At the very least he was by far the worst passer.
CCV can pass the ball and can head, but in many other respect Scales can hold his own.
Scales has improved no end as a player, Rodgers is the perfect manager for him. He doesn't get injured, I'd rate him as an invaluable squad player.

CCV is not a better passer than Scales. Did you miss his huge f**k up in champions league this year. He's good at heading a ball, that's it.

[It stops players from taking a man on]

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

Why does it work? It stops players from taking a man on and the art of 1 v 1 defending in many instances. I think the general concensus would be that the majority would like to see a player take his man on as that is what gets punters off their seats, not someone being able to take a free shot at goal or worse slow down the attack then kick it back. 

It does not stop that, you can still take a man on and many teams do. It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

You might well be the only person in Ireland who's in favour of the forward mark.

I doubt it since it was voted in at Congress. However I do have a mind of my own and i think unfortunately we have a sheep mentality in GAA where everyone is against everything. People forget what it was like before the rule came in.

[It stops players from taking a man on]

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

Why does it work? It stops players from taking a man on and the art of 1 v 1 defending in many instances. I think the general concensus would be that the majority would like to see a player take his man on as that is what gets punters off their seats, not someone being able to take a free shot at goal or worse slow down the attack then kick it back. 

It does not stop that, you can still take a man on and many teams do. It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

not really, ive seen it happen a lot now esp in club games. Players are told take the mark regardless. it's pointless, it actually stops attacking play. it's the safe option, taking a mark and playing it backwards just stupid. it should have been binned but its getting to a mockery stage now. if they are going to keep it it should be tweaked that you must take a shot or that the ball must go forward.

I think your additions to the existing rules would be good. But I would not get rid of the attacking mark.

The man who sold the world
Smells like teen spirit
Sunbeam

2 covers? Covers should be banned IMO!

 

With the third being their attempt to write a Pixies song.

Big question is when are they going to do a top 3 Dead Kennedys songs.

For me

Lounge Act
On a Plane
Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.