Mortelaro wrote: » Did Leo speak against the convention? Ah another make uppy from you Tell me, what did the government that didn't want(according to you) an abortion or SSM referendum do with the conventions recommendation ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The fabulous notion that Enda was gently prodding people to introduce legislation (he allegedly wanted) by proposing a people's convention. I suppose getting Leo to speak out against it was part of this cunning plan too?
You propose people's conventions when you don't want to take the responsibility yourself for introducing an passing legislation. Votes Mort, it was all about votes.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The fabulous notion that Enda was gently prodding people to introduce legislation (he allegedly wanted) by proposing a people's convention. I suppose getting Leo to speak out against it was part of this cunning plan too? You propose people's conventions when you don't want to take the responsibility yourself for introducing an passing legislation. Votes Mort, it was all about votes.
Mortelaro wrote: » What brought that on?
Bowie wrote: » So no evidence on that. Fair enough. You are giving Apple credit for their employees who pay their personal taxes. Okey doke so.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, you are entitled to your personal beliefs, but not when legislating for all. How many times do I need to make the point.
Mortelaro wrote: » I thought you were an advocate of leaving religion out of things
Mortelaro wrote: » I think they're there since 1980,currently employ 6000,with a downstream outside employment in ancillary services, that brings it up to around 12000 I'll let you add up the salaries
blanch152 wrote: » The only people who ever mention Varadkar's sexuality on here are Sinn Fein supporters and the likes of McMurphy who isn't one. It isn't relevant to any discussion. Enda Kenny changed his mind on same-sex marriage, yet nobody ever mentions that he is a heterosexual, why, because it is not relevant. But when it comes to Varadkar, certain posters make a big thing of it, wondering out loud about it, pretending it is not homophobic. Remember the homophobic racist Sinn Fein councillor out in Tallaght - he was engaged in the same low-level drawing of attention to it. There are some bottom-feeder voters out there. Subtly mentioning Varadkar's sexual orientation is one way that Sinn Fein seek to attract them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Jesus. :rolleyes:
Bowie wrote: » Apple pumping billions into the economy...?
Mortelaro wrote: » Nonsense, I'd say they were clever bucks using the mechanism to navigate the divided society into doing what's right That's what I think Enda was
FrancieBrady wrote: » If the Shinners did that you'd be the first to accuse them of fence sitting. If Enda believed people were entitled to their rights he should have put the legislation before the house.
Bowie wrote: » There you go. Find one post by me making light of his sexual preference, I dare you. Apart from using the name any connotations are inferred by yourself or others to score points. We can add Varadkar's sexuality to the long list of names and incidents used by commentators like yourself to score points rather than address topics of discussion. You and others use the name chosen to duck and dodge comments relating to FG and it's policies. It's low grade discussion.
Mortelaro wrote: » You know, Theres a reason Mary Lou doesn't go on with the above sho1te,like you do She has more sense
Mortelaro wrote: » Remind me again,who was the clever buck that decided to navigate the opposition to two of the most contentious referenda with a constitutional convention? I said it earlier Yes Enda Kenny Without that move,this country would still be waiting on contentious referenda to be held,we might never have had them So I'd again respectfully suggest you take your uncool angles on this back into your own head,thanks
markodaly wrote: » To be honest that is a bit rich from someone whos previous handle/username was the name of Leo Varadkar's gay partner, Matt Barrett. To be honest it was all a bit, lets say weird, on top of your deluge of anti-FG/Leo posts. Like, who is MLMD's partner, or MM's? Who cares really? It would be a bit weird for someone to change their handler to lets say MLMD's husband, while they proceed to post anti-SF commentary, would you not agree? If Leo Varadkar was not gay then there was no way in hell you would have used his wife/girlfriends name as your handler. That to me is low-level unconscious homophobia. You will of course deny it, but by using Matt Barrett's as your handler is certainly questionable.
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 ^ 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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What happened when Young FG tried to take credit for reforms...
McMurphy wrote: » The conversation literally started because that's exactly what happened.
Bishop of hope wrote: » You're barrel scraping as usual. It's always someone else's fault or some other said this or some other said that.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The gay community seem to do every time Young FG and Leo acolytes try to claim credit. See why this conversation started.
Bishop of hope wrote: » Of course I do, for whatever reason he changed his stance we now have same sex marriage by law with all the rights involved with it. He can claim his Govt held a referendum and introduced that piece of historic legislation in. No side swipes or slingshots can take that away from him or FG.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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?
christy c wrote: » 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.
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!
FrancieBrady wrote: » Absolutely. And if you look in the relevant threads I criticised SF for this before.
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.
