christy c wrote: » You don't think people point score? I don't know how you dont see that, throughout the whole Coronavirus people were bursting to have a go at FG, sometimes valid but many times for spurious reasons. Similar to how IRA victims only become important for some people around elections. Regarding Dinny, I gave a specific example of a conspiracy theory to back up my point. Thats all, not interested in the private beds this evening. Feel free so to bring up your posting history so if you want, but it's far from any type of standard anyone should aspire to.
Bowie wrote: » Point scoring is not genuine IMO. It's like trolling for the sake of it. We do get that but you can spot them. One-up-manship in a debate, certainly, but it's not made up. It's based on a topic of discussion and opinions held. I thought I covered that under 'every time'. Didn't.
Bowie wrote: » I assume it's related to SF doing so well in the general election. It's another medium, people and organisations will use it. If people are giving a genuine opinion that's fair enough, even if paid, but coming in just to cite party PR and do damage control ruins decent debate, what ever the party.
Deleted User wrote: » Im guessing the sfos Which spawns all sorts of conspiracy theories, but afaik used be a series of properly moderated private forums/type of social media......lads used get oxygen tickets off it,when i was in school Iirc at least 1 person,went on to captain an all ireland winning team in croke park
FrancieBrady wrote: » I always thought a 'bot' was a supporter in disguise? SFOS was an open call for activists to promote the party was it not?
christy c wrote: » Exactly, the point scoring is not genuine. The people who regularly clog up these threads with rubbish. Anyway good evening, I'm clocking off for the weekend. Leo told me to give Dinny a shout for the cheque
[Deleted User] wrote: » Haha....i always taught bot was an automated account....ie robot?? Sfos from lads i went to school with,was essentially a private forum,where their support meets up and talks sh1te,mainly about school work etc as lots of teachers used lost there and help.students,that type thing(including several loyalists too afaik) Like maybe it changed/grew into something else,but theres no evidence imo to support,what is openly speculated (I never signed up,as internet used be sh1te where im from!!).....but used be heavily linked on bebo back in the day
Bowie wrote: » Well point scoring is in the eye of the beholder and doesn't excuse people digging rabbit holes because their team is being rightly criticised. Is it you or Leo getting the job off him after politics?
Bowie wrote: » I see criticism of FG, them being the government, and FG people trying to divert to talk about SF and northern Ireland or get down right nasty. Then many of us call this side show out and get called shinners. It's not genuine discussion, I'll give you that. No grassy knoll with Mr. O'Brien. History and track record. When FG and himself get into a room the tax payer loses a fortune. My agenda is wanting rid of FG/FF because of various reasons I raise. I'll call out their latest shenanigans and reference recent ones. That's not singing the Wolfe Tones. I gave Kenny a chance, I gave Varadkar a chance. I even gave Harris a chance, they disappointed. No more chances.
Bishop of hope wrote: » It's Laughable, the moral high ground oozing from your posts. If you ever get a Govt that can live up to your standards let me know. If you believe that any, and I mean any, party are going to be squeaky clean you're in for a life of bitter disappointment. But I don't believe you expect that at all, just post out about your high standard expectations with an edge towards a political party. The intent has long been exposed, despite the moralistic denials.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So you accept party's aren't squeaky clean but get into a hoop if people wish to discuss it on a thread designed for it.
Bishop of hope wrote: » Where did I say that?
Bishop of hope wrote: If you believe that any, and I mean any, party are going to be squeaky clean you're in for a life of bitter disappointment
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's kinda implicit in this.
dundalkfc10 wrote: » A thread about FG, and every 2nd post is about SF. I think SF is getting to them
Bishop of hope wrote: » I just want a bit of honesty Francie. If someone claims moral high ground with a lobsided slant to a certain side of the peak then that is disengenous. I make no bones about calling that out.
Bowie wrote: » Can you elaborate with examples? I'd be happy with one looks after the tax payer and puts the public above private profit...party name in there somewhere I don't. We know what FF/FG are and we deserve better IMO. Decency only looks like a high standard because you are use to FF/FG governments. The intent is obvious I would have thought. FG are ****e, I'd like to see something better.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who is claiming high moral ground?
Bishop of hope wrote: » Jesus Francie, I'm not one bit different than anyone else, I admit that. But I'm not claiming any political party is one bit more honourable than the other and know full well there's shenanigans behind them all. I live on a hill if that's any help
FrancieBrady wrote: » I believe in the arrogance of power. That is what is wrong here. SF will suffer from it if they are in power long enough too. We need a change after 100 years of this...and I'll take every point I get tbh.
Bishop of hope wrote: » We've had successive FG govts, we went from ****e to being back in the game under them. You're version of ****e and mine are different. We've had problems under them too, no denying that, health and housing, but given where they started from they achieved quit a lot and it has, stood to us now when we need cheap credit. If we had burned bondholders and not helped out our banks I wonder how good our credit would have been. There were signs in the last 12 months that a bit of headway was being made with housing. Health is, something else, I don't know how that will ever be sorted. I don't believe any other political party will make one iota of difference to that other than keep throwing money at it. Value for money for the taxpayer is not always as obvious as it looks, the cheapest option isn't always the best.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Who says we need a change after 100 years of power
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Because the thread is occupied by SF supporters more than anyone else?
Bowie wrote: » What game? Are you unaware or ignoring record breaking numbers of children homeless, housing and health crises? The only game we are back in is looking after the ones who deserve the lion's share of the blame for economic meltdown. Having worsening societal crises means they failed and miserably so. We got a massive generational loan. And we have the standard FF/FG apologist cop out, 'sure it's always bad'. Yes we have different ideas on what constitutes a ****e government. It should be noted, housing, health, all made worse under FG. Even a stagnation would have been better. Health has always been bad, but FG made it worse. Meaningless words. A stitch in time had balls she'd be my gather no moss. Or can you show the value for the tax payer in the Siteserv deal, four times more than the UK on private beds or say the NCH build?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Me and 56% of the electorate that didn't vote for FF or FG
Brendan Bendar wrote: » You voted for for a bunch of no hopers and don’t wanters then. That was clever.
Bishop of hope wrote: » Even stagnation would have been better? Near full employment, fast growing economy. If we hadn't that it would be far far worse. Progress is being made re housing. Funny to see the other party's involved in negotiations herding to FG?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
