McGuirk on the Late Late Show

Ron DMC · 11-04-2006 1:56am

ApeXaviour wrote:

Though why on earth would they have chosen the USI? Did they specifically want a student?

Nuclear power is a long term issue, long term issues affect young people the most, students are generally young = get a student on the show that has an opinion.

ApeXaviour · 11-04-2006 2:00am

Ronny Mitchell wrote:

Nuclear power is a long term issue, long term issues affect young people the most, students are generally young = get a student on the show that has an opinion.

Fair enough

Agent Smith · 11-04-2006 2:01am

how many people are Going to watch it? ( bibi baskin is on at the mo)

ApeXaviour · 11-04-2006 2:09am

agent smith wrote:

how many people are Going to watch it? ( bibi baskin is on at the mo)

I hate her... Her cocky voice is gnawing at my frontal lobe. I'm gonna put it (her) on mute while I make some food. Joe send me an msn when john comes on

Agent Smith · 11-04-2006 2:14am

no probs

Pet · 11-04-2006 2:50am

Why is Bibi Baskin famous again?

I was almost tempted to go into the kitchen to watch the show, but I just cleaned my bathroom instead - a far better use of my time.

Ron DMC · 11-04-2006 3:03am

Can't remember. I think she had a show or something ages ago.

John's just finished now anyway. He spoke very well, but Trevor did seem to interrupt a lot and was very close-minded about the whole thing. McGuirk hardly got a word in edgeways.

Trevor Sargeant surprised me. He's actually one of the politcians i respect most and as much as I agree with him on the danger of nuclear power, he should accept that it's inevitable that we'll need to use it someday.

11-04-2006 10:33am

manonmir wrote:

The late late show contacted USI on Friday as they were stuck for people to speak for Nuclear power. USI in turn went an phoned all unions in Dublin until they found someone. It's that simple.

It's not actually. The e-mail was received on Friday, but McGuirk was already down to be speaking on it. They were looking for audience members, not people for the panel.

Crash · 11-04-2006 10:49am

As far as is my understanding of things, John was on through an FI link? maybe the man himself can correct us

cuckoo · 11-04-2006 1:07pm

SOL wrote:

When one of you becomes a director in a semi decent, right wing think tank then you can be on the late late. I was supposed to be making comment from the audience but then Trevor Sargent (bigot) doesn't really know how to shut his trap...

Where do i sign up to become a director in a semi decent, right wing think tank? 'Cos i really, really want to be on the Late Late.

/sarcasm mode off

(yup, i'm still smarting about never getting to be one of those kids trying out toys on the late late toy show)

Personally, i think too much time was given to the french pro nuclear scientist. And, i don't think Trevor Sargent is a bigot, i'd imagine it was a very frustrating panel to be on for anyone, McGuirk included, as they were all continually cut off by Kenny, who kept hopping from person to person like a goldfish with ADHD.

But, really people, the most pertinent issue is - wasn't it a lovely suit that McGuirk was wearing?

Edwardius · 11-04-2006 1:22pm

Thirdfox wrote:

Apex: isn't tritium readily available from seawater? Although I think nuclear fusion is a great way to go power-wise that power can easily be channelled into more destructive uses. Someone with a nuclear fusion bomb can certainly hold the world to ransom.

No, Deuterium is available from seawater, tritium, as far as I know is got from bombarding lithium with neutrons. As regards "destructive" uses, the fusion (H) bomb was the first display of fusion power on earth so it already had been channelled to destructive uses. The russians levelled an island with one, possibly one of the coolest videos I've ever seen. You can hold the world to ransom with a hell of a lot less than a H-bomb (large crowd, nerve gas)

Thirdfox wrote:

How's solar energy developing? What is the current efficiency levels for them?

On the actual point - didn't see the programme, can't comment

about 25% conversion from solar energy to electricity, but the things are expensive as ****.

apex.. wrote:

He may. If it's public office you're thinking of however I'd be quite surprised. As long as there are people (like angry_banana say) willing to dig and reveal to all that his opinions and intensions are not actually compatible with the majority's, it won't happen. I see the SU election for him all over again.

That doesn't have any implications on his performance in such a trivial task as su president, it's not as if he could genocide some minorities or raise taxes. Anyway, what's wrong with blowing up iraq? sure it gave us a reason to watch the news for a while!

Who's this "testicle" character? It's people like him that make me support and vote for mcguirk, that's some good canvassing!

SOL · 11-04-2006 4:28pm

http://www.thefi.org/ is the website of the organisation that John was representing.

BTW, did noone catch trevor sargent's (bigot) comment you wouldn't know your not irish?

cuckoo · 11-04-2006 7:04pm

SOL wrote:

http://www.thefi.org/ is the website of the organisation that John was representing.

BTW, did noone catch trevor sargent's (bigot) comment you wouldn't know your not irish?

But, John may have been contacted via the FI, but he wasn't introduced as being from it - the intro was something along the lines of 'economist - john mcguirk', which was sloppy on the late late's part.

What exactly was sargent's comment in relation to?

And, having looked at the above linky i had to giggle - the sole woman involved is mentioned in her blurb as having 'consistently opposed gender quotas and all other forms of affirmative action'. I withdraw my above question about signing up to join the freedom institute, good luck to it and all, but i don't think i'd really fit in.

shay_562 · 11-04-2006 7:22pm

'economist - john mcguirk'

Isn't he a political science major?

I was supposed to be making comment from the audience but then Trevor Sargent (bigot) doesn't really know how to shut his trap...

All those minutes of internet research for nothing...

the sole woman involved is mentioned in her blurb as having 'consistently opposed gender quotas and all other forms of affirmative action'.

Fair play to her. Affirmative action is both patronising (suggesting that women are so incapable that they need a leg-up) and damaging to women in general, as it casts a shadow of "Well, she only got in 'cause she's got ovaries" over every woman who's successful in her chosen field.

rsynnott · 11-04-2006 7:27pm

mcguirkj wrote:

C'mon, I'm not that bad

Though in the spirit of evil, I'm going to take this opportunity to rejoice in the lefties being thwarted again.

Despite being quite disgustingly left wing, I am all for nuclear power; it is the most realistic clean route.

I'm glad I missed that, actually; it was likely unutterable rubbish. Discussion of nuclear power tends to be, unfortunately; most peoples' knowledge of it stops at Springfield.

Contesticle · 11-04-2006 9:25pm

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

cuckoo · 11-04-2006 9:49pm

shay_562 wrote:

Fair play to her. Affirmative action is both patronising (suggesting that women are so incapable that they need a leg-up) and damaging to women in general, as it casts a shadow of "Well, she only got in 'cause she's got ovaries" over every woman who's successful in her chosen field.

Depends on how you look at it. I prefer gender ceilings to quotas myself (eg off the top of my head, if i ran the world stuff, no more that 70% of the board of state bodies should be comprised of any one gender). I'd like to see more efforts made to encourage men to train and work as primary school teachers, and in the other professions in which men are dramatically under represented.

I was more amused by it in that it was safe for the freedom institute's sole female member mentioned on their webpage to have that highlighted about herself. Is she opposed to them despite being a woman, or is her opposition a stronger statement as a woman?

And, off topic-ness abounds, shay would you think that the Trinity Access Programme and the 15% of EU places that trinity have pledged to reserve for students from non-traditional backgrounds patronising?

PHB · 11-04-2006 10:41pm

John McGuirk got on the late-late show because of his position within the Freedom Institute.

John will not amount to anything politically for a multitude of reasons. Despite massive personal problems, his alienation of any political group he has been involved in has led to his chances of gaining the support of any political party for office is slim to none. Thus he focuses on a think-tank, the only semi-political group which would deal with him. Ultimately however, he will make the same mistakes he always does, and alienate them aswell.

rsynnott · 11-04-2006 11:09pm

Contesticle wrote:

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

Er, what cleaner practical source is there? Barring horrible accident (and such accidents occur through poor design and mismanagement) nothing should come out of a nuclear power plant at all save heat, possibly steam depending on design, and small amounts of nuclear waste, suitably contained. As for the waste, it's a problem, from the point of view of security of storage, but not a problem on the same scale as smog over Dublin from coal plants, and associated health problems, which seem to be the obvious alternative.

A 1000Mw plant generates about 25 tonnes of waste a year, up to 40% of which can be reprocessed.

shay_562 · 11-04-2006 11:20pm

I prefer gender ceilings to quotas myself (eg off the top of my head, if i ran the world stuff, no more that 70% of the board of state bodies should be comprised of any one gender).

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.

And, off topic-ness abounds, shay would you think that the Trinity Access Programme and the 15% of EU places that trinity have pledged to reserve for students from non-traditional backgrounds patronising?

No, because there's genuine reason there to think that people from disadvantaged backgrounds might need some kind of assistance. I don't think that being a woman equates with starting off on a lower rung automatically, and as such I think implying it (by the aforementioned leg-up) is insulting and, by treating woman as the inferior gender, creates a cycle whereby women will continue to see themselves as needing more assistance to get to the same levels in government/business etc.

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.

McGuirk on the Late Late Show

Comments