blanch152 wrote: » This is beyond silly. What is the problem with the actual words? "Some have asked whether there is a limit to what we can achieve," Mr Varadkar said, before drawing upon a line from the hit movie: "My answer is that the limit does not exist." What is the actual issue?
blanch152 wrote: » You are diverting down a rabbit-hole to get away from the Varadkar comments and your absurd stance on them. I'm not going down it with you.
blanch152 wrote: » This is beyond silly.What is the problem with the actual words? "Some have asked whether there is a limit to what we can achieve," Mr Varadkar said, before drawing upon a line from the hit movie: "My answer is that the limit does not exist."What is the actual issue? If there are y-fronts getting in a twist, I suggest that some people look in the mirror.
McMurphy wrote: » Tell me blanch, I dont think i ever heard your opinion on Eamon Ryan using the "N" word. I know you claimed the bearded one was a racist for using it, so I'd sure be interested on your opinion on Mr Ryan using it. As a green voter yourself, did you think it made Eamon a racist like you believed Adams was, and if so would you be ok with him going into Govt with FG?
McMurphy wrote: » Just on this one, you'll forgive me if I file your faux outrage accusations in my "couldn't give a flying shyte" cabinet. You're on record on this site of accusing Eamon Ryan of being a racist because he used the N word, despite knowing full well the context in which he used it. Now, I am not naïve bishop I don't really believe you think Ryan's a racist, but you labelled Gerry Adams as one too because he also used the N word (again despite knowing the context) and so the script was written and needed to be adhered to. It was a silly and inappropriate word to use by both, but using it doesn't make either racist. Using the movie quote in the same speech Leo mentioned the thousands dead and hundreds of thousands out of work was not the time and the place for it, that doesn't mean I'm "outraged by it" faux or genuine. Time and a place bishop, time and a place.
McMurphy wrote: » Ummmm, no I am not, I was directly following on from your last post here..... So I will follow on seeing as you brought up how anyone might have "a problem with the actual words"... I will repeat the question. If you want to outright evade the question/corner you painted yourself into, be my guest.
blanch152 wrote: » People were right to be critical of "up the ra" and "come out you black and tans" because of the sectarian undertones, but also their relationship to recent events of the last few decades. Similarly, Holohan's homophobic and misogynist comments correctly attracted criticism. But getting the y-fronts in a twist over a quote from Mean Girls or Lord of the Rings? Seriously? There is nothing to criticise, it is only pathetic pedantry. Politician uses literary reference, so what? As for lacking empathy and integrity, anyone who thinks that the misogynist and homophobic quotes from Holohan equate to a quote from the Lord of the Rings, doesn't understand the meaning of empathy and integrity.
Bishop of hope wrote: » You're no different than anyone else I suppose, you're couldn't give a flying shyte cabinet is full to the brim with anything that doesn't suit your particular narrative. The FG, Leo, members of FG must be demonised at all times narrative is tiring and boring. I don't have as much time, as most of you on here seem to have for such Faux outrage or replying to posts. I'm no big fan of Leo, Michael or Éamonn, but all of them are a cut above the rhetoric of the typical shinner.
Bishop of hope wrote: » You're no different than anyone else I suppose, you're couldn't give a flying shyte cabinet is full to the brim with anything that doesn't suit your particular narrative.
Bowie wrote: » There is a lot to criticise however you are only comfortable seizing on the item you feel you can dismiss. The rest you are happy to ignore. O'Leary admiring fascists, the Ireland's Call sham, Eamo using the 'N' word. People were right to be critical of what you disagree with. I get that. I think it was disrespectful and lacked empathy for the sick, dead and those put out of work or having their lives changed. You don't. You think myself and others are wrong or making it up. We'll leave it there. As for "Anyone who thinks...." I'm not fond of using underhanded 'only an 'X' would think 'Y' guff.
McMurphy wrote: » It's not that it doesn't suit my narrative, you accused me of having faux outrage - the accusation is what I do not give a flying shyte for, there is no outrage from me, faux or even pretend to be genuine. I think it wasn't the time nor the place for the in joke, that's all. It's not like I'm making out the man is a complete and utter tool with such a lack of empathy that he would resort to making in-jokes when discussing the thousands of people dying and over half a million out of work wasn't exactly the time or place to do so. That's not outrage Mr Bishop, that's called "stating the bleedin obvious"
blanch152 wrote: » I suppose the difference between your view of the what he did and the view of the rest of us is that Varadkar has a 75% popularity rating, and you have a couple of cranks on Twitter and a handful of boards posters agreeing with you. Pretty easy to see where the balance of the public view lies.
efanton wrote: » 75% popularity rating? Really? You massaging reality again to fit into your own deluded imaginary world?
efanton wrote: » 75% popularity rating? Really?
blanch152 wrote: » What are you talking about? I am not criticising or condoning any of those. What I am doing is expressing my complete incredulity at the silly nonsense being spouted about Varadkar's words. My criticism or not of other's very different words doesn't matter a whit. All I am saying is that you and others are making even bigger fools of yourselves by working yourselves up into a lather of outrage over a supposed quote from Mean Girls - it is not even clear whether it is a direct quote or not. How was it disrespectful of anyone to suggest there is no limit? Come off it. How did it lack empathy? I don't know where this nonsense is coming from. What do you want? A solemn soulless cheerless speech from the Taoiseach? That might suit your agenda, but in contrast, the Taoiseach has hit the spot and got the mood of the country (apart from the cranks). Why else do you think he has hit 75% approval rating? That won't last, but his popularity won't fall because he quoted Mean Girls.
Geuze wrote: » Yes.https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-shows-rise-in-fine-gael-support-while-satisfaction-with-leo-varadkar-soars-1005443.html
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Twitter is fine as long as you understand it’s a wretched cesspool that reinforces biases and is the natural home of every sort of crank, oddball, malcontent and ne’er-do-well. Full of unemployed shinnerbots, pro-life nutjobs, far-right ‘patriots’, and mouth-breathing cranks who get angry because politicians don’t reply to their incoherent rants. Apart from that it’s an excellent site.
McMurphy wrote: » Just curious John, what category does this fellow party member get assigned under?https://twitter.com/jimdundrum/status/1270148218723209216?s=19
FrancieBrady wrote: » Maybe he was just saying it for a bet?
McMurphy wrote: » Just curious John, what category does this fellow party member get assigned under?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » unemployed shinnerbot,
efanton wrote: » Obviously someone cant count Leo Vandakar 75% up 45 Mary Lou 49% up 8 Micheal Martin 46% up 16 Eamonn Ryan 40% So somehow 210% of the population got to vote?https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll
Mortelaro wrote: » It's not 210% The same 1000 people were asked what they thought of the various leaders performances 490 of them said they were happy with MLM 750 said they were happy with Leo So I gather from that,200 people were happy with both Leo and MLM if the 250 who weren't happy with Leo were Sinn Féin supporters
