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.
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?
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: » 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: » You're barrel scraping as usual. It's always someone else's fault or some other said this or some other said that.
McMurphy wrote: » The conversation literally started because that's exactly what happened.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What happened when Young FG tried to take credit for reforms...
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.
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.
Mortelaro wrote: » You know, Theres a reason Mary Lou doesn't go on with the above sho1te,like you do She has more sense
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.
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.
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
Bowie wrote: » Apple pumping billions into the economy...?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Jesus. :rolleyes:
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.
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
Mortelaro wrote: » I thought you were an advocate of leaving religion out of things
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.
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.
Mortelaro wrote: » What brought that on?
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: » 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: » That's why they did it ffs. So they could say, they were acting on the 'people's convention'. Avoid responsibility, avoid any blame, take all the credit...win win. Except that those who remember fighting the fight know exactly who was talking from both sides of the gob. I will use another god this time as I have no favs...dear Allah, the naivety of some!
Mortelaro wrote: » Such Rubbish Society was divided A clever tool was used to modernise it Swift action was taken on two of its recommendations
FrancieBrady wrote: » Up to 2013 Enda Kenny steadfastly refused to say whether he was for or against SSM. A poll was published that showed 55 or so percent of the public supported it and only 30 or so per cent were against it. Kenny gave an interview saying he was in favour of it. Funny he waited for the balance to tip in favour before he came out n favour. Jaysus Mort...politics is politics, a blind cow would know what went down there. Stop now.
