Hurrache wrote: » What Varadkar said, and what you're claiming, are 2 versions of reality. He was asked about it, what did you expect him to to? Had he said nothing, you'd also try find away to attack him over it.
Eric Cartman wrote: I think this is one of those cases where MDH being a lazy self serving politician only serving his own agenda has come in to play, most other politicians at sometime would have objected to a halting site or a road or social housing or made a comment about migrants in an area or black people in the 60s, but MDH can hold his head up high and deny, because he knows he's only ever served himself and threw a few bones to the irish language and lefty social policies
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » This I'd say. I don't think it was the question that felled SG the last time, I think it was his bumbling reaction to it. Then he mentioned the word envelope himself and it was goodnight Irene. When PC threw that accusation out MDH didnt skip a beat and unequivocally denied it. If he had tried to deflect, or pawn it off or mumbled an answer it could have seriously damaged him, even if the accusation was subsequently proven false. That was probably his high point of the night IMO. It also lent a bit more credence to the conspiracy theory that PC is only in it to try bring MDH down on behalf of the other candidates
FrancieBrady wrote: » And Leo gives the mob more ammunition for the bonfire. Can't resist climbing on a bandwagon when he should have just let it fizzle out as it always does. :rolleyes:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-condemns-peter-casey-comments-about-travellers-1.3668051
blackwhite wrote: » I don’t support any party. I’d favour more of FGs current policies than anyone else’s, but I’ll happily criticise them for anything they bigger up as well. Francis Fitzgerald handling of McCabe being the most glaring recent one, but there’s plenty of others beside. If a party resembling the PDs were on the scene then I’d be more inclined to throw my vote their way, but I’m stuck with the best of a bad bunch for now.I know that might be hard to understand that not everyone blindly follows parties like a cult - and not everybody is willing to plumb the depths of defending every crime under the sun for their cult party - maybe even as hard as understanding that 46% is a higher percentage than 44% :rolleyes:
For Forks Sake wrote: » Surprise, surprise, Casey was bullsh1tting (or can't read Irish surnames)https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/peter-casey-denies-mixing-up-michael-d-higgins-and-ff-mayor-1.3668462#.W8j55E-V5tc.twitter
Mr Casey would reveal more details on the day after the presidential election
FrancieBrady wrote: » Or maybe he hoped MDH would implicate himself alá Seanie boy in 2011?
Jameswhalley wrote: » It will be comical if MDH did indeed object to a halting site.Could Casey conceivably have known this before his controversial remarks .
Presidential candidate Peter Casey has denied he made a mistake when he accused President Michael D Higgins of having objected to a Traveller halting site in Galway in 1968. Galway City Council has been unable to shed light on the claim, made during the Virgin Media One presidential debate hosted by Pat Kenny on Wednesday night, despite Mr Casey claiming that the objection was “on the public record”. However, a former Fianna Fail mayor with a similar surname, businessman Michael O hUiginn, has said that he was one of a majority of councillors who objected to plans by Galway’s local authority in 1968 to provide a hardstand in Rahoon, where Traveller families had been camped. Mr hUiginn noted that Mr Higgins was not on the council at the time, and he has no recollection of him being involved in what transpired at Rahoon. A Galway City Council spokesman said that Mr Casey’s reference this week was “too vague”, and also pointed out that Mr Higgins was not an elected member of the local authority at the time. A spokeswoman for Mr Casey said the candidate stood by his claim, insisting that he had not confused names, and that it was “on the public record for journalists to check”.
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » Yous just don’t get it. The majority don’t care about his financial situation. They care finally someone in the public eye has said what the majority are thinking.
blackwhite wrote: » I don’t support any party. I’d favour more of FGs current policies than anyone else’s, but I’ll happily criticise them for anything they bigger up as well. Francis Fitzgerald handling of McCabe being the most glaring recent one, but there’s plenty of others beside. If a party resembling the PDs were on the scene then I’d be more inclined to throw my vote their way, but I’m stuck with the best of a bad bunch for now. I know that might be hard to understand that not everyone blindly follows parties like a cult - and not everybody is willing to plumb the depths of defending every crime under the sun for their cult party - maybe even as hard as understanding that 46% is a higher percentage than 44% :rolleyes:
humberklog wrote: » She's never won a Dail seat even though Labour has had her on the docket a few times.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nice try to cover for your gaff. I never mentioned when quoting the 45% figure that it was higher or a majority. Didn't stop you going into protectionist mode (nothing wrong with being protective of a party you support btw) and projecting onto to my post. My post had nothing to do with a 'majority or higher percentages', it had to do with 45% of the electorate wanting an election.
pixelburp wrote: » One nugget that has escaped attention amid all the clamouring for blood over Casey's comments, is that all 3 Dragons recently refused to disclose tax paid:https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/three-dragons-refuse-to-reveal-details-of-tax-paid-874497.html Casey himself commenting: “only do so if all of the other candidates do so”, and asked: “When did Ireland become so obsessed about money?” Probably when a lot of us ended up with a lot less than you, Mr. Casey. "Asked about his tax situation in the US, Mr Casey added “yes, being a green card holder and permanent resident in the USA, my wife and I have to pay taxes on our worldwide incomes in the USA”, before his spokesperson refused to provide any further information." So not to repeatedly bang a drum, I feel there are more pressing and realistic questions to be asking a wealthy businessman residing in the US, than his thoughts on travellers.
blackwhite wrote: » Are you seriously pretending to be incapable of comprehending that 46% is higher than 44%? New low tbh
blackwhite wrote: » Labour will try and push Bacik as some point. They’ll ignore the fact that she has always struggled to win even a Dail seat, and push her regardless. Whether they’ll have enough councillors, never mind TDs and senators, to get her a nomination is another matter of course :P
blackwhite wrote: » You tried the usual spin, got called out on it. And your default is to fall back to personal insults. :rolleyes: If more people want a continuation of the current arrangement than want an election - wanting to avoid being blamed for calling an election isn’t an unreasonable leap to take. Unless of course you’re someone so blinded by bias that you’ll spin and twist anything to try and take a pop. As usual :rolleyes:
blackwhite wrote: The poll had a higher percentage who didn’t want an election (46%), but it appears you just read the headline and missed the actual details.
