Dail Suspended - Debate and Voting

FreudianSlippers · 18-11-2014 6:24pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Always had you down as an FGer - why is it that you seem to endlessly defend every bit of stupidity and incompetence that emanates from our current administration? Until recently you've defended much of the IW shambles, you seemed to be firmly in the pro-Shatter camp when he was exposed as a bumbling muppet earlier in the year, you seem to generally defend FG's treatment of the opposition with contempt and their contempt for parliament...?

Any time I or others have posted criticisms of our current government especially where cronyism and corruption are concerned I tend to notice you relate it back to a previous incident involving FF. While not denying that I despise FF with a fiery passion words can't describe, the fact that you seem to often deflect criticism of FG by bringing up past FF transgressions is one of the main reasons I've always had you down as a supporter.

Why so loathe to criticize our government, if not a party hack? Genuinely curious - is it because you fear that bashing the current government automatically equates to support for the opposition? In my view, it's perfectly possible to regard the entire political clique of this country as a disaster, so that really shouldn't be much of a concern...

But on that basis, you'd say I was a FF supporter? Can you not believe that a voter can vote on an individual and not party lines? I have voted all sorts before, but admittedly they are all in the economic-right/social-left category.

That doesn't make me a party member of FF or FG, let alone a "hack". Not to mention I've been saying Shatter was a buffoon for years and I hate Enda. But jesus, don't get me started on Cowen!

Godge · 18-11-2014 6:35pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Always had you down as an FGer - why is it that you seem to endlessly defend every bit of stupidity and incompetence that emanates from our current administration? Until recently you've defended much of the IW shambles, you seemed to be firmly in the pro-Shatter camp when he was exposed as a bumbling muppet earlier in the year, you seem to generally defend FG's treatment of the opposition with contempt and their contempt for parliament...?

Any time I or others have posted criticisms of our current government especially where cronyism and corruption are concerned I tend to notice you relate it back to a previous incident involving FF. While not denying that I despise FF with a fiery passion words can't describe, the fact that you seem to often deflect criticism of FG by bringing up past FF transgressions is one of the main reasons I've always had you down as a supporter.

Why so loathe to criticize our government, if not a party hack? Genuinely curious - is it because you fear that bashing the current government automatically equates to support for the opposition? In my view, it's perfectly possible to regard the entire political clique of this country as a disaster, so that really shouldn't be much of a concern...

I am certainly not an FG hack, I have never been a member and only voted for them once which was in the last general election, I would have voted Green only for they disgraced themselves in government with FF. I have mostly voted Labour over the years.

I think Shatter did more as Minister for Justice than any previous Minister, it is noticeable that Frances Fitzgerald is rowing back on some of his reforms.

Enda Kenny was someone who I was blase about until his speech in the Dail on the Cloyne Report which was heartfelt and brilliant especially from a committed Catholic.

I think Michael Noonan has done a superb job rescuing this country from the IMF and now being able to pay off some of the loans early.

I think charging for water is absolutely right, I think solar and wind energy are the right way to go, not for climate change, but for sustainability reasons.

At the moment my voting intentions for the next election veer from Green to FG and back. Sorry to disappoint.

raymon · 18-11-2014 7:34pm

Back on track - Mary Lou spared us the theatrics today.

Thanks Mary Lou

Dan_Solo · 18-11-2014 9:27pm

raymon wrote: »

Back on track - Mary Lou spared us the theatrics today.

Thanks Mary Lou

I know, it's almost as if she was standing up for her principles when she was took on the CC and wasn't just playing to the gallery like Enda would or anything.
Crazy, huh.

Dan_Solo · 18-11-2014 9:47pm

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1118/660328-water-charges/
And it looks like McDonald was right. FG/LB WILL find other ways to get their money if you don't pay this year's troika tax.

Happyman42 · 18-11-2014 10:03pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1118/660328-water-charges/
And it looks like McDonald was right. FG/LB WILL find other ways to get their money if you don't pay this year's troika tax.

Advantage back with the people.

hatrickpatrick · 18-11-2014 10:27pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But on that basis, you'd say I was a FF supporter? Can you not believe that a voter can vote on an individual and not party lines? I have voted all sorts before, but admittedly they are all in the economic-right/social-left category.

Absolutely not, I absolutely believe in not voting along party lines. I would however assume someone was an FF supporter if they defended an FF government by default regardless of the subject at hand, would you not?

That doesn't make me a party member of FF or FG, let alone a "hack". Not to mention I've been saying Shatter was a buffoon for years and I hate Enda. But jesus, don't get me started on Cowen!

I agree entirely. I never suggested I thought you supported any particular party, by the way. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable to assume someone might be a supporter of a particular party if they deflect any criticism of that party by turning it back on that party's arch nemesis - this doesn't even just apply to politics, I'd apply it to almost anything. For instance, if Tesco were involved in a scandal involving their store-baked products and someone kept saying "Ah, but this in reality is all because of decisions Super Valu took years ago" I'd come to suspect that those presenting that argument were ardent defenders of Tesco. Much like how I always assume anyone who deflects any point an SF member makes by yelling "IRA, terrorism!" even if the debate is about tarring a road or reforming the HSE as someone who has an anti-SF agenda rather than an interest in the discussion at hand.

tayto lover · 18-11-2014 11:04pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1118/660328-water-charges/
And it looks like McDonald was right. FG/LB WILL find other ways to get their money if you don't pay this year's troika tax.

That will ensure a big crowd on the 10th.

raymon · 18-11-2014 11:35pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I know, it's almost as if she was standing up for her principles when she was took on the CC and wasn't just playing to the gallery like Enda would or anything.
Crazy, huh.

I think it is more she realised what a clown she made of herself

FreudianSlippers · 18-11-2014 11:44pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely not, I absolutely believe in not voting along party lines. I would however assume someone was an FF supporter if they defended an FF government by default regardless of the subject at hand, would you not?

I agree entirely. I never suggested I thought you supported any particular party, by the way. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable to assume someone might be a supporter of a particular party if they deflect any criticism of that party by turning it back on that party's arch nemesis - this doesn't even just apply to politics, I'd apply it to almost anything. For instance, if Tesco were involved in a scandal involving their store-baked products and someone kept saying "Ah, but this in reality is all because of decisions Super Valu took years ago" I'd come to suspect that those presenting that argument were ardent defenders of Tesco. Much like how I always assume anyone who deflects any point an SF member makes by yelling "IRA, terrorism!" even if the debate is about tarring a road or reforming the HSE as someone who has an anti-SF agenda rather than an interest in the discussion at hand.

Fair enough. I'm a republican, but not a socialist... So not a fan of SF as a political party; plus I don't believe they have sold economic policy. My point is that I have defended both FG and FF policy on many things, but I do not blanket buy into any of their **** nor do I think it's fair to presume that defence of decisions is a backing of policy.

Dan_Solo · 18-11-2014 11:47pm

raymon wrote: »

I think it is more she realised what a clown she made of herself

So everything she does is a media stunt, everything she doesn't do is because of embarrassment. Does or doesn't you don't like it. Yeah, we get it.

Happyman42 · 18-11-2014 11:53pm

raymon wrote: »

I think it is more she realised what a clown she made of herself

If they do what is said, then like it or not she will be a hero tomorrow, as a political 'stunt' she wins.
And they all perform stunts, Mary Lou's will actually garner her some politial good which is more than can be said for Enda's pathetic stunt of referencing a conflict that is long since over, every time he gets asked a hard question.

hatrickpatrick · 19-11-2014 12:08am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm a republican, but not a socialist... So not a fan of SF as a political party; plus I don't believe they have sold economic policy. My point is that I have defended both FG and FF policy on many things, but I do not blanket buy into any of their **** nor do I think it's fair to presume that defence of decisions is a backing of policy.

Again, I never suggested that you did or that it was, but there are some people here who will literally respond to any criticism of the current government with a stock "But... FF!" which in my view makes it fairly reasonable to assume they blindly support the current parties regardless of policy. It's very much akin to those pro-Democrat Americans who will yell "But Bush started it!!!" in response to the criticism of Obama for massively expanding the NSA's mass surveillance programs.

bajer101 · 19-11-2014 12:18am

There will always be the dyed in the wool party faithful, but they are usually pretty easy to spot. Prior to this, my only other contribution to this forum was during the GSOC bugging controversy when I took a position against a lot of people who I agree with on this issue. We disagreed with each other and enjoyed a healthy debate but I never really got a feeling that they were toeing a party line. The only time I have witnessed that is during debates about Sinn Fein issues. When I read these debates I wonder if the party "whip" is actually a real thing!

Dan_Solo · 19-11-2014 12:23am

bajer101 wrote: »

When I read these debates I wonder if the party "whip" is actually a real thing!

Who here are you suggesting is a member of SF? I certainly am not.

FreudianSlippers · 19-11-2014 12:39am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, I never suggested that you did or that it was, but there are some people here who will literally respond to any criticism of the current government with a stock "But... FF!" which in my view makes it fairly reasonable to assume they blindly support the current parties regardless of policy. It's very much akin to those pro-Democrat Americans who will yell "But Bush started it!!!" in response to the criticism of Obama for massively expanding the NSA's mass surveillance programs.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative

bajer101 · 19-11-2014 12:44am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Who here are you suggesting is a member of SF? I certainly am not.

The people who seem to blindly support Sinn Fein regardless of the topic. I see a lot of accusations against people saying that they are FG/FF/Golden Circle, but in my limited experience the debaters who seem least open to constructive debate are the Sinn Fein supporters. As I mentioned, I was on the opposing side of a debate against people I see accused of being Govt shills and during that debate I found them more open to engaging on the actual topic than Sinn Fein supporters. Just my twopence worth as a neutral observer.

Dan_Solo · 19-11-2014 12:58am

bajer101 wrote: »

Just my twopence worth as a neutral observer.

I'm neutral too. See, because I said so...
What about the people who blindly hate Sinn Fein regardless of topic? Don't exist I suppose?

bajer101 · 19-11-2014 1:09am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm neutral too. See, because I said so...
What about the people who blindly hate Sinn Fein regardless of topic? Don't exist I suppose?

I suppose on an anonymous internet forum we all have to take each other at our bone fides. I could be an MI5 agent or I could be as I say - a neutral observer from a staunch Republican family. You'll just have to take my word for it.

There are of course plenty of people who despise Sinn Fein regardless, and I often have arguments with them too. I'm just giving my opinion on the current state of affairs.

Dan_Solo · 19-11-2014 1:18am

bajer101 wrote: »

I suppose on an anonymous internet forum we all have to take each other at our bone fides. I could be an MI5 agent or I could be as I say - a neutral observer from a staunch Republican family. You'll just have to take my word for it.

You know what, I won't? Saying on the internet "I'm neutral I am" to try to make yourself out to be a purely objective participant in every matter is a bit pointless. It's like saying "right thinking people agree with me".
It adds up to a sum total of saying I'm right because I'm right. Why bother?

hatrickpatrick · 19-11-2014 1:28am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I wasn't trying to be argumentative

What do you think you're playing at posting on this forum then? AVAST!

bajer101 · 19-11-2014 1:53am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You know what, I won't? Saying on the internet "I'm neutral I am" to try to make yourself out to be a purely objective participant in every matter is a bit pointless. It's like saying "right thinking people agree with me".
It adds up to a sum total of saying I'm right because I'm right. Why bother?

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just voicing my opinion.

Dan_Solo · 19-11-2014 8:38am

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just voicing my opinion.

I think that's universally accepted here?
It's the qualifiers "I am neutral so I am" or "people who are right agree I am right" that are pointless additions.

Happyman42 · 19-11-2014 10:05am

bajer101 wrote: »

The people who seem to blindly support Sinn Fein regardless of the topic. I see a lot of accusations against people saying that they are FG/FF/Golden Circle, but in my limited experience the debaters who seem least open to constructive debate are the Sinn Fein supporters. As I mentioned, I was on the opposing side of a debate against people I see accused of being Govt shills and during that debate I found them more open to engaging on the actual topic than Sinn Fein supporters. Just my twopence worth as a neutral observer.

There is a simple reason for that, and that is a lot of the threads about SF are not about political policy, they are attacks on SF and republicanism itself, there is a cohort of posters here who haven't signed up to the principles of the GFA and still insist on sleveen insinuation and downright lies.
While it is great to see them fail to stop the inexorable rise of SF, so royally, these threads will attract republicans who might not necessarily be SF voters but may come across as such. But then the 'attacks' are about republicanism in general as they have their root in partitionism to begin with.

Dan_Solo · 19-11-2014 10:34am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm a republican, but not a socialist...

I would be pretty much the opposite. I like SF social and economic policies but have no interest in a 32 county republic (assuming that's your take on the word republican).
There's goes the typical SF always follow the party line label I guess.:D

Godge · 19-11-2014 11:54am

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a simple reason for that, and that is a lot of the threads about SF are not about political policy, they are attacks on SF and republicanism itself, there is a cohort of posters here who haven't signed up to the principles of the GFA and still insist on sleveen insinuation and downright lies.
While it is great to see them fail to stop the inexorable rise of SF, so royally, these threads will attract republicans who might not necessarily be SF voters but may come across as such. But then the 'attacks' are about republicanism in general as they have their root in partitionism to begin with.

Wow, the paranoia runs deep.

So you believe that the distrust of Sinn Fein has nothing to do with their covering up of child abuse, has nothing to do with Gerry Adams' failure to address the IRA membership issue conclusively, has nothing to do with their crazy economic policies that would ruin the country, has nothing to do with their opportunistic opposition to everything or has nothing to do with Gerry Adams' lies about what he knew of his niece's sexual abuse?

BTW, if you are republican and not SF, FF, FG, SDLP or Labour, the only place left is dissident republican.

fergus1001 · 19-11-2014 11:59am

Godge wrote: »

Wow, the paranoia runs deep.

So you believe that the distrust of Sinn Fein has nothing to do with their covering up of child abuse, has nothing to do with Gerry Adams' failure to address the IRA membership issue conclusively, has nothing to do with their crazy economic policies that would ruin the country, has nothing to do with their opportunistic opposition to everything or has nothing to do with Gerry Adams' lies about what he knew of his niece's sexual abuse?

BTW, if you are republican and not SF, FF, FG, SDLP or Labour, the only place left is dissident republican.

How about sf start bringing up all the murders during the civil war done by fg/ff I'm pretty sure people disappeared back then too ? Or is that too far back

Dan_Solo · 19-11-2014 12:04pm

Godge wrote: »

Wow, the paranoia runs deep.

So you believe that the distrust of Sinn Fein has nothing to do with blah blah blah

What "the" distrust? Speak for yourself.

BoJack Horseman · 19-11-2014 12:05pm

fergus1001 wrote: »

How about sf start bringing up all the murders during the civil war done by fg/ff I'm pretty sure people disappeared back then too ? Or is that too far back

A century ago?

Get real.

Happyman42 · 19-11-2014 12:11pm

Godge wrote: »

Wow, the paranoia runs deep.

So you believe that the distrust of Sinn Fein has nothing to do with their covering up of child abuse, has nothing to do with Gerry Adams' failure to address the IRA membership issue conclusively, has nothing to do with their crazy economic policies that would ruin the country, has nothing to do with their opportunistic opposition to everything or has nothing to do with Gerry Adams' lies about what he knew of his niece's sexual abuse?

What I am saying is, there is always something. That a lot of these SF threads have nothing to do with political policies but run deeper than that. They are generally debates between pro and anti republicans essentially.

BTW, if you are republican and not SF, FF, FG, SDLP or Labour, the only place left is dissident republican.

Remind me never to hire you as an analyst. :rolleyes:

Godge · 19-11-2014 12:12pm

fergus1001 wrote: »

How about sf start bringing up all the murders during the civil war done by fg/ff I'm pretty sure people disappeared back then too ? Or is that too far back

If there was anyone in FF or FG who had involvement in those murders I would bring it up, but they are long dead.

Not so when it comes to what SF has done or supported or covered up.

Godge · 19-11-2014 12:13pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

What I am saying is, there is always something. That a lot of these SF threads have nothing to do with political policies but run deeper than that. They are generally debates between pro and anti republicans essentially.

SF are not republicans. The use of that word is a misnomer.

Happyman42 · 19-11-2014 12:16pm

Godge wrote: »

If there was anyone in FF or FG who had involvement in those murders I would bring it up, but they are long dead.

Not so when it comes to what SF has done or supported or covered up.

So what would you have done when the state was establishing itself after Independence, demanded the resignation of the men and women who had fought to establish it?
The hypocrisy knows no bounds on this.

fergus1001 · 19-11-2014 12:27pm

How about the ff party for supplying arms to the IRA back in the day I'm sure some of haughy's cohort are still lingering somewhere,

Anyways, my point is the people in sf turned to politics and helped bring peace to the north, enda has no problem with them in the north so what's his problem with them down here ?

I'm not a shinner I am just curious by the way

FreudianSlippers · 19-11-2014 3:20pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I would be pretty much the opposite. I like SF social and economic policies but have no interest in a 32 county republic (assuming that's your take on the word republican).
There's goes the typical SF always follow the party line label I guess.:D

That is, technically, my take - however, I'm starting to move away on the basis that I'm not sure it's in the best interests of the country.

Godge · 19-11-2014 3:35pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

So what would you have done when the state was establishing itself after Independence, demanded the resignation of the men and women who had fought to establish it?
The hypocrisy knows no bounds on this.

The 1920s were a very different place to the early 2000s when SF/IRA was investigating child sexual abuse in Belfast and in Louth.

The 1920s were also a very different place to the 1960s and 1970s in Northern Ireland. The two are not interchangeable.

Happyman42 · 19-11-2014 4:01pm

Godge wrote: »

The 1920s were a very different place to the early 2000s when SF/IRA was investigating child sexual abuse in Belfast and in Louth.

The 1920s were also a very different place to the 1960s and 1970s in Northern Ireland. The two are not interchangeable.

Let's do the moral wiggle again.

hatrickpatrick · 19-11-2014 11:31pm

Can we please not turn this into another SF thread? SF's history has absolutely nothing to do with a debate over Dail procedure.

fergus1001 · 19-11-2014 11:47pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can we please not turn this into another SF thread? SF's history has absolutely nothing to do with a debate over Dail procedure.

I'd actually like that I'm no shinner but I am sick of sf/fg/ff ****

Godge · 20-11-2014 12:12am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can we please not turn this into another SF thread? SF's history has absolutely nothing to do with a debate over Dail procedure.

The Dail was suspended because of the actions of Sinn Fein.

Some believe that Sinn Fein were acting undemocratically in opposing a vote by the democratically elected Dail, in other words, to some of us, Dail votes are important to our democracy.

A history of undemocratic behaviour could be seen as directly relevant to undemocratic behaviour today.

fergus1001 · 20-11-2014 12:21am

Godge wrote: »

A history of undemocratic behaviour could be seen as directly relevant to undemocratic behaviour today.

so you dont like

the 1916 rising
Michael Colins
and Dev
ff
fg
labour

Happyman42 · 20-11-2014 12:27am

Godge wrote: »

The Dail was suspended because of the actions of Sinn Fein.

Some believe that Sinn Fein were acting undemocratically in opposing a vote by the democratically elected Dail, in other words, to some of us, Dail votes are important to our democracy.

A history of undemocratic behaviour could be seen as directly relevant to undemocratic behaviour today.

The Dail was suspended today as well.

hatrickpatrick · 20-11-2014 12:31am

Godge wrote: »

The Dail was suspended because of the actions of Sinn Fein.

Some believe that Sinn Fein were acting undemocratically in opposing a vote by the democratically elected Dail, in other words, to some of us, Dail votes are important to our democracy.

A history of undemocratic behaviour could be seen as directly relevant to undemocratic behaviour today.

In all seriousness, turning this thread into yet another IRA debate and claiming this as legitimate would be like turning a thread about Obamacare into a debate about Vietnam and claiming that as legitimate. :rolleyes:

bajer101 · 20-11-2014 1:07am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In all seriousness, turning this thread into yet another IRA debate and claiming this as legitimate would be like turning a thread about Obamacare into a debate about Vietnam and claiming that as legitimate. :rolleyes:

Nah, this thread isn't an anti IRA debate. It's about a political party acting the goat and using deceptive tactics to deflect away from something they were being scrutinised over. It's true that they all do it, but this thread is about how Mary Lou did it this time.

Godge · 20-11-2014 11:23am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In all seriousness, turning this thread into yet another IRA debate and claiming this as legitimate would be like turning a thread about Obamacare into a debate about Vietnam and claiming that as legitimate. :rolleyes:

The roots of modern day Sinn Fein are in the unjustified terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland that tried to change the governance of that state by undemocratic means. The refusal to obey the Ceann Comhairle last week is a more recent manifestation of that undemocratic attitude.

Happyman42 · 20-11-2014 11:49am

Godge wrote: »

The roots of modern day Sinn Fein are in the unjustified terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland that tried to change the governance of that state by undemocratic means. The refusal to obey the Ceann Comhairle last week is a more recent manifestation of that undemocratic attitude.

Funny that, I could have sworn the 'governance' of that 'state' had changed completely to a power sharing one. Which it wasn't before the IRA started it's campaign.

Godge · 20-11-2014 12:03pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Funny that, I could have sworn the 'governance' of that 'state' had changed completely to a power sharing one. Which it wasn't before the IRA started it's campaign.

I didn't say it hadn't changed. Not sure what your point is.

Dan_Solo · 20-11-2014 12:12pm

Godge wrote: »

The roots of modern day Sinn Fein are in the unjustified terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland that tried to change the governance of that state by undemocratic means.

You're honestly going to admit you've never heard of the civil rights movement in the North and expect to be taken seriously?

Godge · 20-11-2014 1:33pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You're honestly going to admit you've never heard of the civil rights movement in the North and expect to be taken seriously?

What has the civil rights movement got to do with an unjustified terrorist campaign?

Dan_Solo · 20-11-2014 1:44pm

Godge wrote: »

What has the civil rights movement got to do with an unjustified terrorist campaign?

What you said was

Godge wrote: »

The roots of modern day Sinn Fein are in the unjustified terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland

Which is simply untrue and shows you know next to nothing about Sinn Fein or the North's history.

Dail Suspended - Debate and Voting

Comments