Poor_old_gill wrote: » I do yeah. Do you know the difference between a credible point of discussion & pointless pedantry? As an aside- this is why people criticise SF, the whinge about everything approach. Boy who cried wolf nonsense
FrancieBrady wrote: » Says the boyo 'whinging'. There is loads of stuff posted on these boards I consider guff, nonsense, pedantry and not credible, I will generally scroll past them for that reason - not worth comment. That people having an embarrassed laugh at the Taoiseach once again getting the mood music wrong has irked you so much, says a lot.
Poor_old_gill wrote: » Yeah that’s the issue here alright- me thinking that it’s extremely childish that SF,not being able to whinge about the substance of the speeches, have chosen to pedantically whinge about wording. Embarrassed laugh? Yeah ok, you guys spending your time trawling through wording to take away from the actions being taken is the issue.
RandomViewer wrote: » I think one of Varadkers speechwriters is taking the piss, at least it's movie quotes,
Poor_old_gill wrote: » The irony of the shinner supporters getting hepped up over speech etiquette is great reading. So shouting “Up the ra & up the provos” while proclaiming you want a 32 county republic whereby a unionist population will have to be integrated is not at all idiotic. However Leo including a movie quote means he should be tarred & feathered? There’s plenty of stuff to take aim at without having to lower yourselves to such pathetic pedantry
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Seemingly the Mean Girls line was in response to a challenge by LOTR star Sean Astinhttps://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/leo-varadkar-wins-bet-lord-18456001 which you'd have to say pushes the boundaries of taste and decorum given the context, like wearing a pair of his funky socks to a funeral
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'll say it again...'is there nobody advising this man on PR?'
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Well,Francie, it sure is better than the guy advising Cullinane down in Waaaaherfurd. Or Mary-Lou on that trip to The Big Apple. Or the poor lad who blew away a golden goose with the Kingsmill Pan. Or the angle iron lad outside the gym. Or poor auld Slab.... And there’s plenty more Francie, plenty more,a chara.
2forjoy wrote: » Listen to Fr. Peter McVerry . He explains in detail how bad FG gave been for Ireland in Government.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ah shure that makes it alright then Brendan. Fair play for sticking to the divert script anyway.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Rinsed again. Wonder what's worse. Quoting a speech from a harmless movie. Or quoting a chorus about terrorists who blow up 4 year old kids to pieces. Brave soldiers of Éire ay.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » It’s only outrage merchants on social media who give a shït about this stuff. And their opinions count for nothing. Dude had a 75% approval rating in the last poll if I remember correctly. The fake outrage stuff isn’t working any more. Even the media are starting to speak up about mouth-breathers on twitter. Clifford has a good piece in the Examiner today about it. And Moncrieff in the Times. The Online Army need to decommission at this stage.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Typical again. Portray all criticism as 'mouth breathers' and outrage to attempt to shut it down. No wonder the colour of the shirt keeps getting mentioned in relation to FG. A sinister predilection runs through that party.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » The most sinister thing in Irish politics is SF taking their orders from Ted and the lads up in Ballymurphy. That really is sinister.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » No one is attempting to shut anything down. Just saying no one actually pays any attention to losers on twitter with their #notmytaoiseach hashtags. It’s the same couple of hundreds mouth-breathers reinforcing their own delusions. It’s not the real world. The most sinister thing in Irish politics is SF taking their orders from Ted and the lads up in Ballymurphy. That really is sinister. Keep going.
FrancieBrady wrote: » One was a formal and sombre event being listened to by the bereaved, ill and under threat and the other the end of a private celebratory night out? See a difference...if you don't you are part of the problem. At least I criticised the off tone aspect of Cullinanes celebration...you guys would defend Leo no matter what he gets wrong.
Poor_old_gill wrote: » When you are called out for your hypocrisy, you just try to diminish the other poster - it's ridiculous behaviour. You've been caught out & the childish nature of the SF supporters has been caught out aswell, suck it up.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ha ha ha...the media bias that has you believing the above without a scintilla of evidence. Good lad. Fecking hilarious you cant see the paradox in and absurdity of, your defence of Leo. No you are not trying to silence? You havent stopped trying since it was mentioned on thread. You are embarrased about it, just as much as anyone expecting more of a (acting) Taoiseach.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What hypocrisy. I criticised Cullinane for what he said, I criticise triumphalism...full stop. Was Leo right to be taking bets on wedging a trite phrase into a serious broadcast? Is Leo sincere? Blah Sinn Fein...something something blah blah will no doubt be the defence again. Pathetic.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » No, I’m not embarrassed about it. I couldn’t care to be honest. Neither are you I’d imagine. It’s just trying to drum up fake outrage. People are starting to see through it. The outrage engine rooms of social media are running out of fuel.
Poor_old_gill wrote: » Leo makes a film reference during a speech - this is a serious issue and lets comment about it non stop. Cullinane starts shouting up the Ra and up the Provos - sure it's only a bit of craic, lighten up
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where did I say it was 'only a bit of craic'? Cullinane was on a night out and was recorded. Leo was giving a serious address as an acting leader of the government. Can't see the difference? Try it another way...Cullinane was expressing a genuine belief and support for the IRA (rightly or wrongly) while Leo was cramming a trite meaningless phrase into a serious statement while pretending to be 'sincere and genuine' but was really winning a bet. Keep on defending the indefensible. Don't come on here whinging when he is criticised for being 'cold and aloof'.
Poor_old_gill wrote: » The fact that you think supporting an illegal organisation , who have mainly been known for drug dealing in the last 15 years, is a lesser evil than including a movie line in a speech is, honestly, baffling. Whether Cullinane was on a night out or not doesnt matter one bit - it's still a matter of public record FFS I'm not defending anything at all either - I'm pointing out the irony of SF voters comments. I find the movie line inclusion cringe-worthy but I find shouting up the Ra to be much worse
FrancieBrady wrote: » If you have fooled yourself into thinking that members of SF are not supporters of the RA and that they think the 'IRA have been dealing drugs for 15 years' that is your own issue. The IRA are gone in my opinion, thankfully too, and any support for them is meaningless in any real sense. I criticised him for doing what he did and I am not going to be censored from criticising Varadkar or anybody else for that matter. No matter how outraged you might get at the idea, and especially not by somebody who hasn't the strength of character to deal with it without pointing at someone else...okie doke?
Poor_old_gill wrote: » Hasn't the strength of character to deal with what exactly?Constant deflection - that is really all you offer. "I am not going to be censored"? get down off your high horse you sound like a victorian lady FFS. Noone is trying to censor you - you're attacking anyone who cals you up on anything
Poor_old_gill wrote: » Y Also Leo taking bets? You know this how?l
