nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

satguy

It seems FG will be very happy to just sit on their hands for 5 years. Would FG voters be happy with this, as it means all those FG votes mean nothing, and do nothing.

Having been in power for 9 years, they did nothing, people have no homes, people still on trollies.

FG may have given some of their rich buddies some tax breaks.

But other than that, they did what FG do best, are their poor hands not numb by now.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

You are constantly telling people they are wrong, but never provide the evidence prove it.

Again read what I say and how I say it. I was not stating a fact I was asking questions. If the evidence is there, then I will accept the evidence.

I'm not suggesting a DeVelera Ireland either. That man did as much harm to this country as the British did for 400 years before him.

I totally get that FDI is good for the country, everything that adds to our economy is welcome. What I was curious about is the return on investment between supporting Multinationals and the return we would get if we gave those same supports to indigenous Irish companies.
Is it that the reason for the emphasis on FDI is not that they give better value but because they offer bigger employment opportunities, or would there be no difference, or quite possibly that the same supports for indigenous Irish companies would give a lesser return.

Sometime it's not a binary situation where it is either or, sometime you will go for the more expensive option because a smaller supplier cannot deliver in bulk. I was just curious with regard to the support we give to FDI, how much bang for buck we get from those supports and whether they might give similar results but on a smaller scale supporting indigenous Irish companies. Maybe giving those supports to indigenous companies, would return very little.
.

There's much in what you say here, it needs to be looked at and balanced certainly imo.
The system here does seem to be to the advantage of the multinationals because of the amount of taxable employment they bring to the country.
Then our own sme's while getting some supports, are crucified in comparison and the working class middle and high earners from both sectors are taxed heavily also.
It's a fine line and balancing act to keep these multinationals here I admit, but it's easy to point out the injustice of the system because it does exist.
And when you have lads able to beat the system because of residency laws too, it adds to the feeling of worker/voter dissatisfaction.

Mortelaro

efanton wrote: »

I totally get that FDI is good for the country, everything that adds to our economy is welcome. What I was curious about is the return on investment between supporting Multinationals and the return we would get if we gave those same supports to indigenous Irish companies.
Is it that the reason for the emphasis on FDI is not that they give better value but because they offer bigger employment opportunities, or would there be no difference, or quite possibly that the same supports for indigenous Irish companies would give a lesser return.

Sometime it's not a binary situation where it is either or, sometime you will go for the more expensive option because a smaller supplier cannot deliver in bulk. I was just curious with regard to the support we give to FDI, how much bang for buck we get from those supports and whether they might give similar results but on a smaller scale supporting indigenous Irish companies. Maybe giving those supports to indigenous companies, would return very little.
.

Are you saying, Irish companies don't get what they need from the Ida or that grants should be diverted from FDI to Irish industries instead or both?
You are not correct there
For a small country, New Irish companies have a myriad of supports available and of course our low corporate tax rate

I've attached the summary of the very significant achievements with help from enterprise Ireland eg 17,000 new jobs created in 2019

The report is available here

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Of course that is the ideal.
But everyone has a different view on rights, therein lies the crux of true republicanism.

Yes, and one day Leo had a certain view about rights around SSM and the next day he had a different view.

That change in view corresponded to the popular view changing.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That change in view corresponded to the popular view changing.

No,it coincided with his coming out
Change the bigoted record please

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

No,it coincided with his coming out
Change the bigoted record please

You don't need to be gay to stand up for gay rights Mort.
I, along with many thousands more supported SSM rights long long before Leo did, and I'm not gay.
Why? Simply because I believe that the state shouldn't legislate along moral and religious lines.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't need to be gay to stand up for gay rights Mort.
I, along with many thousands more supported SSM rights long long before Leo did, and I'm not gay.
Why? Simply because I believe that the state shouldn't legislate along moral and religious lines.

Crocodile tears
You are not gay,ergo,you have not walked in 10's of 1000's of closeted shoes to experience their difficult journey
All you are interested in in bashing someone who has,our current Taoiseach, child of a hindu and a staunch catholic

It was Enda Kenny by the way who saw a clever way of navigating this and other referenda through tough opposition when he set up the constitutional convention

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Crocodile tears
You are not gay,ergo,you have not walked in 10's of 1000's of closeted shoes to experience their difficult journey
All you are interested in in bashing someone who has,our current Taoiseach, child of a hindu and a staunch catholic

It was Enda Kenny by the way who saw a clever way of navigating this and other referenda through tough opposition when he set up the constitutional convention

He didn't need to reveal anything of himself to stand up for people's rights, nobody does. He tried to maintain the status quo, not silently, but actively by campaigning for No Change.

I would challenge you and blanch in real life to tell the gay community that FG and Leo were at the vanguard in reforming gay rights.

Again, I don't care about his sexuality, his Indian roots or his religion. He is free to be who he wants to be, but he isn't free to deny similar freedoms on the basis of who he is. That is not being a democrat or a republican, is it?

dundalkfc10

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't need to reveal anything of himself to stand up for people's rights, nobody does. He tried to maintain the status quo, not silently, but actively by campaigning for No Change.

I would challenge you and blanch in real life to tell the gay community that FG and Leo were at the vanguard in reforming gay rights.

Again, I don't care about his sexuality, his Indian roots or his religion. He is free to be who he wants to be, but he isn't free to deny similar freedoms on the basis of who he is. That is not being a democrat or a republican, is it?

You nailed it here. Nobody can argue with that line

FrancieBrady

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

You nailed it here. Nobody can argue with that line

A kinda apt cartoon cropped up on my FB feed.

99441008_10157508717803869_6033789053508255744_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=2d5d41&_nc_ohc=STOMVfHFeOAAX8wEtvC&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub4-1.fna&oh=5fc10c9c1d4041343726cffc6f84efed&oe=5EF0C908

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't need to reveal anything of himself to stand up for people's rights, nobody does. He tried to maintain the status quo, not silently, but actively by campaigning for No Change.

I would challenge you and blanch in real life to tell the gay community that FG and Leo were at the vanguard in reforming gay rights.

Again, I don't care about his sexuality, his Indian roots or his religion. He is free to be who he wants to be, but he isn't free to deny similar freedoms on the basis of who he is. That is not being a democrat or a republican, is it?

You know,
Theres a reason Mary Lou doesn't go on with the above sho1te,like you do
She has more sense

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

No,it coincided with his coming out
Change the bigoted record please

Interesting choice of words there Morty, pray tell, did you view Leo's comments as bigoted at the time, seeing as he was actively against SSM back then?

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

You know,
Theres a reason Mary Lou doesn't go on with the above sho1te,like you do
She has more sense

Why would she? The issue is settled and the rights have been achieved. You can be certain sure she knows that Leo has feet of clay though when it comes to standing up for rights.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't need to reveal anything of himself to stand up for people's rights, nobody does. He tried to maintain the status quo, not silently, but actively by campaigning for No Change.

I would challenge you and blanch in real life to tell the gay community that FG and Leo were at the vanguard in reforming gay rights.

Again, I don't care about his sexuality, his Indian roots or his religion. He is free to be who he wants to be, but he isn't free to deny similar freedoms on the basis of who he is. That is not being a democrat or a republican, is it?

Uhmmm ...Strange

Lot of folk “don’t care about a lot of things” yet spend the last two weeks embroiled in a myriad of exchanges arguing in areas concerning them.

Nothing wrong with that of course, nothing at all but it does appear to be a tad strange.

Be a bit like a lad claiming he/she is not a Liverpool supporter, yet is is over in Anfield every odd week roaring support.

Kinda hard to figure that approach.

But,hey, that’s life maybe.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would she? The issue is settled and the rights have been achieved. You can be certain sure she knows that Leo has feet of clay though when it comes to standing up for rights.

She has more sense than to bring it up,
That's the why would she

As for your latter comment, its not Cool to make up things about someone's coming out journey
Clearly you have no sense
I suggest you take another leaf out of your leaders book,having left a good few behind and grow some sense

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

She has more sense than to bring it up,
That's the why would she

As for your latter comment, its not Cool to make up things about someone's coming out journey
Clearly you have no sense
I suggest you take another leaf out of your leaders book,having left a good few behind and grow some sense

Leo's 'coming out' and sexuality has nothing to do with believing that people are entitled to their rights. You either believe that people are entitled to those or you don't.

Keep it up Mort, it is you and your fellow homophobic insinuators that look sad here.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo's 'coming out' and sexuality has nothing to do with believing that people are entitled to their rights. You either believe that people are entitled to those or you don't.

Keep it up Mort, it is you and your fellow homophobic insinuators that look sad here.

In your limited vision :rolleyes:

smurgen

Great to see Tadgh Daly taking the caretaker government to task. Simon Harris has major major questions to answer.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1265227991375925250?s=09

Mortelaro

smurgen wrote: »

Great to see Tadgh Daly taking the caretaker government to task. Simon Harris has major major questions to answer.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1265227991375925250?s=09

That's his speech
I'd be interested to hear how he performs under questioning because he got a rough time on morning Ireland
The nursing homes he represents are run for profit
40% of the private nursing homes are owned by multi nationals or investment firms

christy c

smurgen wrote: »

Great to see Tadgh Daly taking the caretaker government to task. Simon Harris has major major questions to answer.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1265227991375925250?s=09

You continue to make yourself look foolish, you were telling us a few weeks ago that Borris Johnson was making us look bad. Now this is 'great to see', you're just look like a fan shouting on in the stands. If the Dail were not happy with how the caretaker government were handling it they could have removed them whenever they wanted.

Your rubbish aside, I think the nursing homes will be a black mark against us. The focus did seem to be on beds and ICU capacity and this was unfortunately not looked after well enough.

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

In your limited vision :rolleyes:

Yes, a vision you and others have to keep attacking with insinuations about homophobia because there is no defence of Leo here.

At the very least, we know that at one point he believed that rights should be blocked because he was following his own moral code.

That ^ is never the job of a democratic legislator in a republic. People like Leo, Lucinda Creighton and Peadar Tobin etc are 'lobbyists' (where it is perfectly ok to follow your moral beliefs) not legislators and certainly not democrats when they seek to deny rights.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, a vision you and others have to keep attacking with insinuations about homophobia because there is no defence of Leo here.

At the very least, we know that at one point he believed that rights should be blocked because he was following his own moral code.
.

That's your makey uppy version yeah..driven by your lack of sense

I would suggest you quit,All of this sho1te,Its not cool

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

That's your makey uppy version yeah..driven by your lack of sense

I would suggest you quit,All of this sho1te,Its not cool

Do you think legislators should legislate on the basis of their own religious or moral stances?
The DUP would be another example of politicians who seek to distribute rights on the basis of their religious belief.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think legislators should legislate on the basis of their own religious or moral stances?
The DUP would be another example of politicians who seek to distribute rights on the basis of their religious belief.

Not biting on your misguided nonsense
Keep it to yourself thanks

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Not biting on your misguided nonsense
Keep it to yourself thanks

Of course you're not Mort. And we know why.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course you're not Mort. And we know why.

In your limited view yeah :rolleyes:

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, and one day Leo had a certain view about rights around SSM and the next day he had a different view.

That change in view corresponded to the popular view changing.

Much like SF re abortion?

https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-abortion-policy-1971952-Mar2015/

They changed their stance prior to the referendum, indeed they were for repeal but stopping short of supporting the 12 week limit, really only for allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Much like SF re abortion?

https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-abortion-policy-1971952-Mar2015/

They changed their stance prior to the referendum, indeed they were for repeal but stopping short of supporting the 12 week limit, really only for allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

Absolutely. And if you look in the relevant threads I criticised SF for this before.

efanton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think legislators should legislate on the basis of their own religious or moral stances?
The DUP would be another example of politicians who seek to distribute rights on the basis of their religious belief.

Well I'm a Sinn Fein supporter and yes legislators are there in the Dail to argue their point and for their beliefs and those of their constituents.

If a Taoiseach believes Ireland should have a space program and send an Irishman to the moon that might be his own belief, but its never going to happen unless he can get a majority of the TD's in the Dail to support his belief.

Peadar Tóibín believed strongly that abortion should not be allowed, along with many other TD's in various parties that were in favour of amending the constitution.
While I think the way he handled it was completely wrong, he could have abstained and refused to vote for a measure he did not believe in rather than throw a tantrum and leave the party, I do believe he had every right not to vote in favour of the abortion amendment and abstain instead. If his constituents believed he was wrong, or his beliefs did not represent them, then they had to power to make it clear that they would not re-elect him at the next election.

As for the DUP their believes are clearly known, and that's what they campaign on in election campaigns. If people have the same beliefs and feel the DUP best represents them then they should vote for them. Yourself and I might not agree with those beliefs but we have to respect their choice. We will never have a United Ireland until the DUP and hard-line Unionists feel comfortable with the idea, and have confidence, that in a United Ireland their beliefs and traditions will be respected.

How can we have an inclusive and democratic society if party leaders dictate what others in their party should believe or must vote for.
If a TD or councillor cant support a motion because of strongly held beliefs then EVERY party should accept their right to abstain from a vote. I dont agree that they can or should vote in opposition to their party, they are party members after all.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely. And if you look in the relevant threads I criticised SF for this before.

So SF weren't good republicans till lately at all.
Bigoted and moralistic, in Gerry Adams regime, yet they got the same, defence from their supporters and yourself.
Today its Leo who is being criticised for doing an about turn,
SF of course are to be praised for theirs, they saw the light and had a conversion of conscience.
But Leo, his was only done for populism!

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So SF weren't good republicans till lately at all.
Bigoted and moralistic, in Gerry Adams regime, yet they got the same, defence from their supporters and yourself.
Today its Leo who is being criticised for doing an about turn,
SF of course are to be praised for theirs, they saw the light and had a conversion of conscience.
But Leo, his was only done for populism!

SF got things wrong just like everybody else and are as fallible as anyone else. I have NEVER defended SF when I thought they were wrong about something. See the abortion issue for an example.

This is a FG thread and the subject of Leo's about face on this issue has arisen.

Do you have anything to say about that?