McGuirk on the Late Late Show

pseudonym · 11-04-2006 11:59pm

yet another terrible debate on the late late.

hideously predictable.

anyone else think finch would have been great on it, especially for shooting down all the idiots with their "nuclear power killed my father and raped my mother..." etc.

Crash · 12-04-2006 12:26am

Contesticle wrote:

nuclear power is CLEAN??
ahahahhaha... late late may not be serious but you are hilarious!

I would love to know what subject you study....

Nietzschean · 12-04-2006 12:36am

Can everyone actually keep somewhat ontopic? John's actions/topics discussed on the late late, and direct comments on them. No debates on nuclear power, no more bitching about his personality or political belief's. its all been covered. Anyone making comments that could ammout to defamation of character without proof against john may be liable to a banning.

cuckoo · 12-04-2006 6:36pm

shay_562 wrote:

But, given that gender is pretty much an either/or situation (yeah, I know, there are three genders, but 99.9% fall into male or female) isn't a 70% ceiling simply a 30% quota with a nicer name? Both situations result in you employing women simply because of their gender and turning men away for the same reason.

The fact that you assumed it would be men turned away is an illustration of why i'd like to see quotas/ceilings.

Anyway, back on thread topic: does nobody agree with me that it was a lovely suit on McGuirk?

europerson · 12-04-2006 7:52pm

cuckoo wrote:

does nobody agree with me that it was a lovely suit on McGuirk?

It complemented his stature very well, all right.

Pet · 12-04-2006 11:07pm

europerson wrote:

It complemented his stature very well, all right.

LOL, nicely put.

13-04-2006 12:22am

Elytron wrote:

If only the Educational officer got those pigs in earlier, we could be looking at a different SU pres next year.

Buh? Kev, is that you?

shay_562 · 13-04-2006 12:47am

The fact that you assumed it would be men turned away is an illustration of why i'd like to see quotas/ceilings.

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm not certain of it - I could try and find figures, but to be honest, I don't care all that much) there are far more men in the workforce than women (due to the fact that in most cases it is still women who give up work or drop their hours to raise the kids). Even without taking into account the fact that you're legislating with the sole purpose of getting more jobs for women and therefore men are going to be the ones who lose out, this simple fact means that a ceiling/quota (glad to see you essentially acknowleding that, in this instance, they're the same) will be more likely to discriminate against men that against women.

Crash · 13-04-2006 2:24am

Shay, back on topic.

Pet · 13-04-2006 4:51am

someone stole the original pat kenny's personality and replacd it with absolutely nothing. next time mcgurk goes on the late late, im gonna forcefeed him rotten fish, so he can puke all over pat kenny's waxy mask to reveal the demon-cyborg behind it.

i hate you pat kenny.

Lyre_Bird · 13-04-2006 12:20pm

So they obviously lied about him being an economist. :eek: I will never trust the Late Late Show again. Or can anyone style themselves as an economist? I would have thought they would at least have had to study economics, but maybe I'm wrong.

Thirdfox · 13-04-2006 6:14pm

Leaving Cert. economics here

Barry Aldwell · 13-04-2006 7:15pm

Lyre_Bird wrote:

I would have thought they would at least have had to study economics, but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe it was really angry banana and europerson dressed up in a John McGuirk costume.

shay_562 · 14-04-2006 12:23am

Shay, back on topic.

Curses. Spoil my fun...

On-topic: I heard today what it was Trevor Sargeant said (while discussing nuclear power with TCD student John McQuirk etc etc) to the French guy, and all I can say is...jesus. When John is the less offensive of two television guests, that's reason to be very, very scared.

ApeXaviour · 14-04-2006 12:39am

shay_562 wrote:

On-topic: I heard today what it was Trevor Sargeant said (while discussing nuclear power with TCD student John McQuirk etc etc) to the French guy, and all I can say is...jesus.

Remind us.. Or was it "you'd know he's not irish"?

shay_562 · 14-04-2006 1:01am

That's essentially it - from what I was told, he completely dismissed the French guy's argument on the grounds that he was French. May seem kinda tame to some, but the fact that he even made a point of saying it says a lot about him, his views and his prejudices, and generally what a dickhead he is. (Opinion, of course. I like not being sued)

cuckoo · 14-04-2006 2:31am

*trying to dredge up memory of debate*

(was a little distracted by That Suit)

I think Sargent was trying to make the point to the French guy that what works in France may not work in Ireland, and that you'd need to be Irish to understand the level of NIMBY-ism and distrust of the planning process here.

There would be war if planning was ever awarded for anything nuclear in Ireland. The scuffle of TDs trying to grab decentralised civil service depts for their constituencies would be nothing compared to the uproar there would be.

ApeXaviour · 14-04-2006 11:55am

cuckoo wrote:

There would be war if planning was ever awarded for anything nuclear in Ireland. The scuffle of TDs trying to grab decentralised civil service depts for their constituencies would be nothing compared to the uproar there would be.

It's not like a dump or something. A plant like this would stimulate the local economy to no end. It'd be a right fool IMO to protest. Only real concern is that it's a bit of an eyesore.

I think Sargent meant what he said with all the bells and whistles. I don't think it makes him a bigot necessarily, just a bit of a sap.

europerson · 14-04-2006 12:15pm

Barry Aldwell wrote:

Maybe it was really angry banana and europerson dressed up in a John McGuirk costume.

I can assure you that it was not! :eek:

Andrew 83 · 14-04-2006 1:49pm

ApeXaviour wrote:

It's not like a dump or something. A plant like this would stimulate the local economy to no end. It'd be a right fool IMO to protest. Only real concern is that it's a bit of an eyesore.

Look at the fights to avoid having an incinerator in TD's constituencies. No TD in the country will want a nuclear reactor in their constituency and no one will want to live near one. I think this is one of those issues where a lot of those who support having nuclear power would like it but only as long as the reactor isn't beside them.

Personally no matter how safe nuclear reactors are generally I would never want to live anywhere near one because on the off chance something goes wrong...

ApeXaviour · 14-04-2006 2:51pm

Andrew 83 wrote:

no one will want to live near one.

Except for the people who will gain employment from it. But I suppose we don't care about that any more what with out "zero" unemployment.

Actually I think some td's might actually want one. If they're enlightened enough and their area requires a much needed boost. If they had oratorical skill and knowledge to convince their constituency it'd be a good thing, not even on the big picture but for each of them personally. Or do I put too much hope in politicians?

I think this is one of those issues where a lot of those who support having nuclear power would like it but only as long as the reactor isn't beside them.

If it was properly regulated I don't see the problem. I'd happily live near one once there was lots of trees around it, or it was tastefully placed or something. Those concrete chimneys are ugggg-gly (pretty much my only gripe).

Andrew 83 wrote:

Personally no matter how safe nuclear reactors are generally I would never want to live anywhere near one because on the off chance something goes wrong...

Would you feel similar about an airport? I mean there's an offchance a plane might crash into you on your way to work or while you're asleep in your bedroom. Or how about a river? Never know, could flood like. Or what about those lovely curtains the missus really wants? No can't have them, they're flammable, house might burn down. Heck why doesn't everybody just live in a bunker?

John · 14-04-2006 3:03pm

ApeXaviour wrote:

Heck why doesn't everybody just live in a bunker?

I'd prefer a hobbit hole (not a hobbit's hole mind)

rsynnott · 14-04-2006 3:59pm

Andrew 83 wrote:

Look at the fights to avoid having an incinerator in TD's constituencies. No TD in the country will want a nuclear reactor in their constituency and no one will want to live near one. I think this is one of those issues where a lot of those who support having nuclear power would like it but only as long as the reactor isn't beside them.

Personally no matter how safe nuclear reactors are generally I would never want to live anywhere near one because on the off chance something goes wrong...

I'd be quite happy to live near one. It's the only power plant I'd really be particularly comfortable living beside; no-one wants a constant cloud of smoke over their house. Give someone a choice between a coal plant (and that is the realistic alternative) or a nuclear plant beside them, and anyone sane will go for the nuclear one. The vague chance of accident is as nothing compared to the high chance of potentially fatal respiratory problems.

ApeXaviour wrote:

If it was properly regulated I don't see the problem. I'd happily live near one once there was lots of trees around it, or it was tastefully placed or something. Those concrete chimneys are ugggg-gly (pretty much my only gripe).

They don't all have them though. There's one in France on an island in the middle of a river, uses the river for cooling.

Edwardius · 14-04-2006 4:20pm

Arrr, I think there are some issues with plants using lakes for cooling and the lakes actually heating up and killing all the nice little fishies. Personally, I'd be reasonably happy living near or even workin' in a nuke plant

Pet · 14-04-2006 9:07pm

Yeah, warm water as a pollutant is really underestimated, it can really **** up the aquatic ecosystem - it reduces dissolved oxygen and increases the metabolic rate of aquatic organisms, and can cause an algal bloom. Plus, a nuclear reactor close to a water supply is just a bad idea anyway..

McGuirk on the Late Late Show

Comments