Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

Foxtrol · 13-10-2017 04:13PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I post and I believe you are doing the same with her when you said she would 'not get involved' when what she promised was to delegate decisions. (I'm open to evidence to the contrary)

Okay did she delegate this decision? No in fact every other sabbatical member opposed the action she took and she did it anyway

I think it is a bit of a grey area. I'd need to see the exact wording of what she promised during her campaign as if she said 'all matters involving abortion' would give a different answer from me than the 'pro choice campaign'. You could also argue about the involvement of the board of directors being a form of delegation. Even if she said had said the former I don't believe it is close to a big enough breach of the promise that an impeachment should be discussed.

What is clear though is that the pro impeach side see even when she clearly delegates as a reason for impeachment. They are angry at her, they are just using the faux outrage at a minor change to the guide as an excuse to go after her.

pilly · 13-10-2017 04:18PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think it is a bit of a grey area. I'd need to see the exact wording of what she promised during her campaign as if she said 'all matters involving abortion' would give a different answer from me than the 'pro choice campaign'. You could also argue about the involvement of the board of directors being a form of delegation. Even if she said had said the former I don't believe it is close to a big enough breach of the promise that an impeachment should be discussed.

What is clear though is that the pro impeach side see even when she clearly delegates as a reason for impeachment. They are angry at her, they are just using the faux outrage at a minor change to the guide as an excuse to go after her.

I don't understand your posts. What exactly did she delegate?

astrofool · 13-10-2017 04:29PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think it is a bit of a grey area. I'd need to see the exact wording of what she promised during her campaign as if she said 'all matters involving abortion' would give a different answer from me than the 'pro choice campaign'. You could also argue about the involvement of the board of directors being a form of delegation. Even if she said had said the former I don't believe it is close to a big enough breach of the promise that an impeachment should be discussed.

What is clear though is that the pro impeach side see even when she clearly delegates as a reason for impeachment. They are angry at her, they are just using the faux outrage at a minor change to the guide as an excuse to go after her.

There was only one area where she said she would delegate, had she delegated as she said, she wouldn't be getting impeached.

feargale · 13-10-2017 04:32PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Discussions like this as with the hotel cancelling the pro life/anti choice meeting are pointless in my opinion. It consists of a majority of people with entrenched views who will agree or disagree with the OP depending on how they feel it impacts on their entrenched view.

Also, off topic I believe Senator Ronan Mullen and TD Mattie Mc Grath will do everything they possibly can to ensure the referendum does not take place before the popes visit this summer.

Somewhat off topic, I believe the Taoiseach has indicated a preference for a midweek vote to accomodate students. I don't wish to express any opinion on abortion and I am all in favour of facilitatibg students voting, but in recentyears we have seen governments fixing voting dates to facilitate or impede students depending on the desired result and the percneived views of the majority ofstudents. This is gerrymanderibg pure and simple, by parties that at one time never stopped talking about the same in Northern Ireland.

Foxtrol · 13-10-2017 04:33PM

pilly wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think it is a bit of a grey area. I'd need to see the exact wording of what she promised during her campaign as if she said 'all matters involving abortion' would give a different answer from me than the 'pro choice campaign'. You could also argue about the involvement of the board of directors being a form of delegation. Even if she said had said the former I don't believe it is close to a big enough breach of the promise that an impeachment should be discussed.

What is clear though is that the pro impeach side see even when she clearly delegates as a reason for impeachment. They are angry at her, they are just using the faux outrage at a minor change to the guide as an excuse to go after her.

I don't understand your posts. What exactly did she delegate?

From all the evidence she delegated final decisions regarding advertising for pro choice class reps and pro-choice freshers stand.

Both are still being highlighted as reasons to impeach her despite those clearly following the delegation promise.

It stinks of a witch hunt.

Billy86 · 13-10-2017 04:36PM

feargale wrote: »

Somewhat off topic, I believe the Taoiseach has indicated a preference for a midweek vote to accomodate students. I don't wish to express any opinion on abortion and I am all in favour of facilitatibg students voting, but in recentyears we have seen governments fixing voting dates to facilitate or impede students depending on the desired result and the percneived views of the majority ofstudents. This is gerrymanderibg pure and simple, by parties that at one time never stopped talking about the same in Northern Ireland.

Making it easier for people to vote is not gerrymandering, making it difficult to do so is more along the lines of voter suppression though it's in the same general area. But there is nothing even remotely wrong with making it easier for people to have access to vote.

pilly · 13-10-2017 04:43PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

From all the evidence she delegated final decisions regarding advertising for pro choice class reps and pro-choice freshers stand.

Both are still being highlighted as reasons to impeach her despite those clearly following the delegation promise.

It stinks of a witch hunt.

She did not delegate those decisions, she tried stopping them and was told in no uncertain terms to butt out, in one case after one of the officers left a two hour meeting with her.

Not sure how you call that delegating?

Calina · 13-10-2017 04:48PM

I'm at a loss to understand why she got to make this decision after the thing was printed.

Why wasn't this dealt with before it was sent to the printers?

By the sounds of this thread she had to be aware of the content from previous years. This could not possibly have come as a surprise to her from what I can see, even before the first print run.

€8000 is a lot of money, for which spending she needs to be held accountable. The time to check the content of the book is before the print run is done. Why did she not do this?

kylith · 13-10-2017 04:58PM

Calina wrote: »

I'm at a loss to understand why she got to make this decision after the thing was printed.

Why wasn't this dealt with before it was sent to the printers?

By the sounds of this thread she had to be aware of the content from previous years. This could not possibly have come as a surprise to her from what I can see, even before the first print run.

€8000 is a lot of money, for which spending she needs to be held accountable. The time to check the content of the book is before the print run is done. Why did she not do this?

Because despite having apparently gotten legal advice weeks previously she refused to proof read the booklet until the day before it was due to be distributed.

Foxtrol · 13-10-2017 05:00PM

pilly wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

From all the evidence she delegated final decisions regarding advertising for pro choice class reps and pro-choice freshers stand.

Both are still being highlighted as reasons to impeach her despite those clearly following the delegation promise.

It stinks of a witch hunt.

She did not delegate those decisions, she tried stopping them and was told in no uncertain terms to butt out, in one case after one of the officers left a two hour meeting with her.

Not sure how you call that delegating?

Delegating a final decision does not mean completely walling yourself off from any involvement in a subject and not making your views known.

She made her opinions known and the sabbats/exec had the final decision, that is delegating.

Still the pitch forks come out though

dav3 · 13-10-2017 05:06PM

Some laws are so fragile and weak they should be challenged. The only way to challenge or test these laws is in a courtroom, however most if the time the challenge will not even make it that far.

Someone in rte could have censored or edited the Stephen Fry "blasphemy" interview with the excuse they were saving the organisation from a large fine, but they chose not to.
Do people live their lives with one eye on the constitution and within the law at all times? I would say most do not.
46 Rules for Pedestrians:
(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.
(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.
(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

However, if you seek written legal advice on any of the above, you will no doubt be advised to keep within the law. Some people break the law unintentionally and some people break the law intentionally knowing there will be no conviction.

Seeking legal advice is an old trick used by actual politicians, mainly government ministers, who use the Attorney General to push through unpopular decisions.
'I would like to give out all this money, however the AG has advised me that…' or 'I don't want to make this unpopular decision, however the AG has advised me that…' What the person doesn't tell you is that they deliberately sought the advice of the AG, knowing the exact answer they will receive.

I this instance, it is highly likely that someone so active in the pro-life movement, with family members high up the chain of command in the pro-life movement, would know exactly the advice the solicitor would issue.

It is unfortunate that people close to this poor girl are prepared to throw her under the bus to further their own agenda in the hope of making her a martyr. The constant playing of the victim card by one side is already exhausted even at this embryonic stage of the debate.

Billy86 · 13-10-2017 05:55PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

From all the evidence she delegated final decisions regarding advertising for pro choice class reps and pro-choice freshers stand.

Actually I'm pretty sure it was point out earlier that that is one of the other points of contention from the other members who claim she actively worked against pro choice reps.

Foxtrol · 13-10-2017 06:31PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

From all the evidence she delegated final decisions regarding advertising for pro choice class reps and pro-choice freshers stand.

Actually I'm pretty sure it was point out earlier that that is one of the other points of contention from the other members who claim she actively worked against pro choice reps.

That's my point.

She delegated the final decision on the reps which meant they proceeded even though she disagreed with them.

It's what people are claiming she didn't do with the guide but yet they're still using the reps as a stick to beat her with. They, like many posters on this thread, are throwing mud and hoping anything will stick.

pilly · 13-10-2017 06:33PM

Foxtrol wrote:

She delegated the final decision on the reps which meant they proceeded even though she disagreed with them.

There's no point in attempting intelligent debate with someone who doesn't understand the meaning of delegate.

Annasopra · 13-10-2017 07:10PM

I hope they fail all their exams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV-He3-3O9E

For Forks Sake · 13-10-2017 07:18PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I hope they fail all their exams

Christian and Jobs Action Party? F*ck that. I ain't watching no nine-minute propaganda piece.

Jayop · 13-10-2017 07:26PM

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Christian and Jobs Action Party? F*ck that. I ain't watching no nine-minute propaganda piece.

I'm 4 minutes in and it's hilarious. The writers of Fr Ted couldn't have done a better parody.

Jayop · 13-10-2017 07:32PM

I can't decide if they guy doing the recording is taking the piss trying to get him to say even more outrageous things or if he's actually as warped as that old bitter lunatic.

Foxtrol · 13-10-2017 07:37PM

Why is the photo on his desk facing outward? Think I saw one of the Trumps doing similar. It's weird (presume the video itself is too)

Jayop · 13-10-2017 07:39PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Why is the photo on his desk facing outward? Think I saw one of the Trumps doing similar. It's weird (presume the video itself is too)

wasn't it Trump Jr the dead eyed little creep?

But yeah, it's equal amounts of weird and hilarious.

B0jangles · 13-10-2017 07:40PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Why is the photo on his desk facing outward? Think I saw one of the Trumps doing similar. It's weird (presume the video itself is too)

It's from when he met Dana. He's just really proud and wants everyone to know.

Foxtrol · 13-10-2017 07:44PM

pilly wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote:

She delegated the final decision on the reps which meant they proceeded even though she disagreed with them.

There's no point in attempting intelligent debate with someone who doesn't understand the meaning of delegate.

Care to link me to a definition for what you think delegate is?

Despite your desire for 'intelligent debate', I feel you maybe confusing delegate with abdicate

Calina · 13-10-2017 07:53PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Care to link me to a definition for what you think delegate is?

Despite your desire for 'intelligent debate', I feel you maybe confusing delegate with abdicate

I don't think I agree with you. I understand she attempted to influence the decision prior to allowing others to make the decision.

I would not call that delegation.

Foxtrol · 13-10-2017 08:13PM

Calina wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

Care to link me to a definition for what you think delegate is?

Despite your desire for 'intelligent debate', I feel you maybe confusing delegate with abdicate

I don't think I agree with you. I understand she attempted to influence the decision prior to allowing others to make the decision.

I would not call that delegation.

Can you show me a definition of delegate from a legitimate source that says that the delegator cannot provide influence at all?

I think it would be rare in a business or political environment where a delegate wouldn't find the delegator influencing them and even rarer if the delegator wouldn't be allowed to attempt to influence them if they wished to.

frag420 · 13-10-2017 08:16PM

Did that coffin dodger above just call her Katie Ass-Cock?

He need to say a decade of the rosary and repent....REPENT I TELLS YA!!!

Captain Obvious · 13-10-2017 08:23PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Nope nope nope, not the same in any way, they aren't babies and they aren't 2 year olds, trying that emotional argument crap is the hallmark of the pro life brigade so you need to just admit that's the camp you sit in.

We are also getting into the tricky area of medical science now so don't try and muddy the facts, unless you can prove you are qualified to discuss this topic then your opinions are invalid because when it comes to science you need to leave your personal beliefs at the door and facts are all that should exist

And this is why this issue will go on for decades. You cannot see the point from the other side. To many pro life campaigners there is no difference between killing a child and aborting a fetus. Calling that "emotional crap" is not going to change their view. Medical and philosophical discussion is the only way a pro life person will ever change their stance. But you keep denigrating them and see how that works.

Grayson · 13-10-2017 10:36PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I hope they fail all their exams

That guys channel is a gold mine. Just the titles.

Donald Trump and the media.
LDIL Employees (His spelling)
How religion creates jobs.
A painting I did a while back.
Donald Trump- a new beginning.
Workers beer company and abortion. The exploitation of young people
John doing the Monkey.
John singing Silent night and Adesta Fidelus.

The Pheasant2 · 25-10-2017 08:39PM

Voting on impeachment referendum began today, continues until tomorrow.

Annasopra · 25-10-2017 08:44PM

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Voting on impeachment referendum began today, continues until tomorrow.

It looks to me like it will probably be a vote to impeach given that 3 other student union officers have officially campaigned to impeach her; accused her of continuous lies, trying to shaft the UCD Pro choice society, trying to cut increases to the UCDSU repeal budget, using bullying as a pro Ascough media message, issuing many misleading statements, falsely suggesting she was backed by the Board of directors.

Captain Obvious · 25-10-2017 09:17PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It looks to me like it will probably be a vote to impeach given that 3 other student union officers have officially campaigned to impeach her; accused her of continuous lies, trying to shaft the UCD Pro choice society, trying to cut increases to the UCDSU repeal budget, using bullying as a pro Ascough media message, issuing many misleading statements, falsely suggesting she was backed by the Board of directors.

Gotta get that echo chamber back.

Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

Comments