FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He fairness.....its fairly terrible optics for a senior politian to engage in a bit of he said/she said with a greiving family on the day of the death

Like,do you ever feel,your blind defence of all things leo leaves you defending the indefensible??

Yep. Bishop hit the nail on the head.
Optics seem to be more important than ethics with them but they'll get nasty to score a dishonest point like getting a dig in at the widower through a tweet.
Just read over the gutter level of drivel of the last several posts and they've the cheek to talk about 'outrage' and 'compensation culture' in relation to the cervicheck scandal. Ironic too considering FG are the compo culture party with Farrell and Bailey.
They go low when they run out of road. That's how we know they are defending the indefensible.

Beasty

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

From an ex mod too.

Ex been the operative word.

Wonder why.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Its not as black and white as that but I know you wony admit that.

Threadbanned

times like this im glad i voted labour tbh lads

Muahahaha

jaysis if nothing at all this thread is a good laugh.

This thread is actually another thing too- it is a masterclass in whataboutery and off topic posting by the Fine Gael stalwarts here. A quick search of some keywords within this thread reveals the following

Mentions of IRA -49 times
Mentions of Sinn Fein - 318 times
Mentions of SF- 1,452 times.

The terms Sinn Fein, SF or IRA have been mentioned 1,819 times out a total of 9,239 posts.

Which means that there is a mention of Sinn Fein every five posts throughout this entire thread. And this is all done on a thread where the topic is supposed to be Fine Gael. Unbelievable.

Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout, carry on lads :rolleyes:

EmmetSpiceland

Muahahaha wrote: »

jaysis if nothing at all this thread is a good laugh.

This thread is actually another thing too- it is a masterclass in whataboutery and off topic posting by the Fine Gael stalwarts here. A quick search of some keywords within this thread reveals the following

Mentions of IRA -49 times
Mentions of Sinn Fein - 318 times
Mentions of SF- 1,452 times.

The terms Sinn Fein, SF or IRA have been mentioned 1,819 times out a total of 9,239 posts.

Which means that there is a mention of Sinn Fein every five posts throughout this entire thread. And this is all done on a thread where the topic is supposed to be Fine Gael. Unbelievable.

Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout, carry on lads :rolleyes:

Beasty

Mod decisions are not for discussion in-thread. PM the mod if you have an issue with such a decision

Muahahaha

Emmet I could nearly have predict someone would post that. But its plainly wrong, Im a proud floating voter with loyalty to no political party. You wont find me defending Sinn Fein anywhere on this site simply because Im not a Shinner.

My point stands- this Fine Gael thread is choc full of whataboutery and off topic posting on SF. Literally one in five posts is about SF on the Fine Gael thread. Some posters here are unhealthily obsessed with Sinn Fein. We have at least half a dozen threads on SF in CA where people can discuss them there.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Emmet I could nearly have predict someone would post that. But its plainly wrong, Im a proud floating voter with loyalty to no political party. You wont find me defending Sinn Fein anywhere on this site simply because Im not a Shinner.

My point stands- this Fine Gael thread is choc full of whataboutery and off topic posting on SF. Literally one in five posts is about SF on the Fine Gael thread. Some posters here are unhealthily obsessed with Sinn Fein. We have at least half a dozen threads on SF in CA where people can discuss them there.

Tiresome talking about shinners all the time. I couldn't even name half them. If you look up pretty much everytime they come up it's in a whataboutery scenario. Then when you point out the inconsistency you're a shinner.
You'll see no, 'shinners, swell bunch of lads. Discuss'.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Emmet I could nearly have predict someone would post that. But its plainly wrong, Im a proud floating voter with loyalty to no political party. You wont find me defending Sinn Fein anywhere on this site simply because Im not a Shinner.

My point stands- this Fine Gael thread is choc full of whataboutery and off topic posting on SF. Literally one in five posts is about SF on the Fine Gael thread. Some posters here are unhealthily obsessed with Sinn Fein. We have at least half a dozen threads on SF in CA where people can discuss them there.

thats all well and fine but it doesnt attempt to address why this is

there is a working group of sf .... types...... making the laziest and pettiest nonsense rhetorical points against any and every govt decision

right or wrong

sensible or not

major or minor

it has discussion of anything political on the site and on twitter wrecked

its blatant

so when the tactic shows itself then the hydra will be named

does it mean that reasonable points made get dismissed with the bathwater (horrible mixed metaphor there)? yes.

does it mean that serious topics get handwaved away with retorts about sf's non-record of governance and ahem mixed history? yes.

but there is zero reason to behave otherwise in light of the squad and their carry on.

id say if anyone were invested in stopping the ready-made rote retorts then they should show a similar interest in eliminating the ready-made SF posting accounts

Bowie wrote: »

Tiresome talking about shinners all the time. I couldn't even name half them.

whats a polite way to put this?

i do not find this to be a very credible assertion.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

Threadbanned

jinglejangle69 threadban lifted after discussion via PM

A general warning to everyone - discuss the topic, not other users.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

whats a polite way to put this?

i do not find this to be a very credible assertion.

I have been critical of FG a lot. Mainly because I voted for them and was very disappointed. Anytime I am critical of them theres a specific item I have issue with. Regardless of the intent or reasoning take the criticism and address it on its own merits. If you dont think it's a proper criticism say as much. No need to cry shinner and start talking about the Omagh bombing.
This all kicked off recently over the apology/non-apology re cervicheck scandal and deaths. Look at the non related **** show that followed. If you think that's 'shinners something' good man.

Deleted User wrote: »

thats all well and fine but it doesnt attempt to address why this is

there is a working group of sf .... types...... making the laziest and pettiest nonsense rhetorical points against any and every govt decision

right or wrong

sensible or not

major or minor

it has discussion of anything political on the site and on twitter wrecked

its blatant

so when the tactic shows itself then the hydra will be named

does it mean that reasonable points made get dismissed with the bathwater (horrible mixed metaphor there)? yes.

does it mean that serious topics get handwaved away with retorts about sf's non-record of governance and ahem mixed history? yes.

but there is zero reason to behave otherwise in light of the squad and their carry on.

id say if anyone were invested in stopping the ready-made rote retorts then they should show a similar interest in eliminating the ready-made SF posting accounts

+1

This Says it all

Bowie wrote: »

I have been critical of FG a lot. Mainly because I voted for them and was very disappointed. Anytime I am critical of them theres a specific item I have issue with. Regardless of the intent or reasoning take the criticism and address it on its own merits. If you dont think it's a proper criticism say as much. No need to cry shinner and start talking about the Omagh bombing.
This all kicked off recently over the apology/non-apology re cervicheck scandal and deaths. Look at the non related **** show that followed. If you think that's 'shinners something' good man.

Nobody believes that post. When a reasonable response is made about the cervical issue, it goes unanswered in favour of throwing mud at FG and at other posters. See below.

blanch152 wrote: »

In Ireland, in some cases, an apology from the State isn't considered good enough by the recipients unless it immediately results in a multi-million payout for them.

Our compensation culture goes into overdrive at the merest hint of an apology. As a result, those who genuinely deserve an apology can be slow to receive one, because of all the bandwagonners who will jump on.

It is not right that such apologies get delayed, but the take-all culture shares some of that blame.

In the cervical scandal, it is further complicated by the failure of the populace, and to a lesser extent, the judiciary, to understand the difference between screening for a disease and testing for a disease. There is a real danger that cancer screening innovations that are coming on the market shortly will not be introduced in Ireland because of issues like this. After all, a government can't be sued for a failed cancer screening if it doesn't screen at all.

The baying mobs could have a lot to answer for.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody believes that post. When a reasonable response is made about the cervical issue, it goes unanswered in favour of throwing mud at FG and at other posters. See below.

Yes the do. Big important people:rolleyes:
You'd have a point in another discussion entirely.
The discussion was the widower saying they got no apology and LV's press man tweeting a 'correction'. We were discussing that.
You were talking about compo culture and how much the public disappoint you. And it's the people that are wrong.
"Baying mobs".

Bowie wrote: »

You'd have a point in another discussion entirely.
The discussion was the widower saying they got no apology and LV's press man tweeting a 'correction'. We were discussing that.
You were talking about compo culture and how much the public disappoint you. And it's the people that are wrong.

That doesn’t answer my point that the post, and other serious posts on this and other threads get ignored by the ditch-hurlers in favour of throwing mud at FG and at other posters, with the occasional recycled pic or gif thrown in.

ronivek

The reality is that Sinn Fein tend to focus on populism and petty point-scoring as opposed to actually contributing practically to Dail and Government business. A corollary to this is that many of their supporters engage in the same kinds of behaviour and parrot similar kinds of, and I use the term very loosely, arguments.

This means people like me tend to ignore them; because we're tired of trying to engage with people who cannot be engaged with, people who are contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Of course all of the above are generalisations and don't reflect every Sinn Fein member or supporter; but certainly in my experience the ones who the media focus on and the ones most active on Social Media etc. fit that profile.

So now I more or less just steer completely clear of even discussing Sinn Fein because it rarely leads anywhere productive.

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn’t answer my point that the post, and other serious posts on this and other threads get ignored by the ditch-hurlers in favour of throwing mud at FG and at other posters, with the occasional recycled pic or gif thrown in.

I ignored your post because I wasn't interested in going off topic.
LV never apologised = it's the people who are wrong

Bowie wrote: »

I ignored your post because I wasn't interested in going off topic.
LV never apologised = it's the people who are wrong

I understand that the post addressed extraneous but relevant issues in a complicated fashion that made it difficult for some to discern the logic of the reasoning, and that it dismissed the simplistic approaches to the issue, but I stand over it as a valid argument despite your inability to engage with it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Except thats not what it was

It was an attemptto shout down anyone pointing out that it was wrong for varadkar to get into disputes with a greiving family

Your quite fond of jumping in to shout about quinns,but seem v.anxious to shut down any discussion on what varadkar got upto.here...how is that

Lol

How am I attempting to shut down the discussion when I am posting About it?

That is ludicrous.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its fairly clear what your doing mate....you dislike the content so introduce barely relevent red herrings to distract/direct conversation towards what yous want

Your so tied in by partisanship....your using similar tactics 4 year olds do

We are talking about State apologies, I enhance the discussion by viewing them in the context of the compensation culture, that is extremely relevant and important to the discussion. It means that a more complicated argument to blame Varadkar is needed so that the pitchforks can be manned. However, it seems that adding complications to the “get him” mantra isn’t possible.

blanch152 wrote: »

I understand that the post addressed extraneous but relevant issues in a complicated fashion that made it difficult for some to discern the logic of the reasoning, and that it dismissed the simplistic approaches to the issue, but I stand over it as a valid argument despite your inability to engage with it.

That's fair enough. Rest assured I was able to comprehend.

blanch152 wrote: »

We are talking about State apologies, I enhance the discussion by viewing them in the context of the compensation culture, that is extremely relevant and important to the discussion. It means that a more complicated argument to blame Varadkar is needed so that the pitchforks can be manned. However, it seems that adding complications to the “get him” mantra isn’t possible.

We were not. You were. We were talking about a specific incident. You came back with 'compo culture' and 'baying mobs'. It was a side road. Now its 'pitchforks'. It's all a conspiracy and no criticism is valid...

Bowie wrote: »

We were not. You were. We were talking about a specific incident. You came back with 'compo culture' and 'baying mobs'. It was a side road. Now its 'pitchforks'. It's all a conspiracy and no criticism is valid...

It is very easy to criticise any action in isolation, that is the default of opposition for oppositions sake. It is lazy, simplistic and lacking in conviction and courage.

It is much more difficult to maintain criticism when broader contexts are introduced, and the specific nuances of particular circumstances are explained and set in a larger picture. Criticisms than can be maintained in that situation are often valid, but when criticism can’t be maintained, or critics shy away from context or attacked the poster demonstrating the contextualisation, you then realise that the criticism is a sham, a device for political manipulation and distortion and that there is little value to it.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is very easy to criticise any action in isolation, that is the default of opposition for oppositions sake. It is lazy, simplistic and lacking in conviction and courage.

It is much more difficult to maintain criticism when broader contexts are introduced, and the specific nuances of particular circumstances are explained and set in a larger picture. Criticisms than can be maintained in that situation are often valid, but when criticism can’t be maintained, or critics shy away from context or attacked the poster demonstrating the contextualisation, you then realise that the criticism is a sham, a device for political manipulation and distortion and that there is little value to it.

A man's wife died. He released a statement. In it he said LV never apologised.
LV's press officer tweeted a rebuttal saying LV had apologised.
Your views on society dont come into it. Your theory on criticism doesn't apply to the widower. His criticism is of a singular personal nature.
Did you notice you never actually addressed the criticism? You spoke on where you feel it comes from.
You can believe nobody cares and are just pretending to for ****s and giggles. That's your right. It's too convenient to take every criticism as a plot so it can be ignored.
Please post a link to any criticism of FG where you feel it was genuine and weathered scrutiny. All I see is dismissing criticism and SF themed whataboutery.

Bowie wrote: »

I have been critical of FG a lot. Mainly because I voted for them and was very disappointed. Anytime I am critical of them theres a specific item I have issue with. Regardless of the intent or reasoning take the criticism and address it on its own merits. If you dont think it's a proper criticism say as much. No need to cry shinner and start talking about the Omagh bombing.
This all kicked off recently over the apology/non-apology re cervicheck scandal and deaths. Look at the non related **** show that followed. If you think that's 'shinners something' good man.

yeah but its fairly easy for me to point out that what i *actually* posted, and what you *actually* responded to with the above was your claim to not know anything about SF

look im not going to disrespect beasty's warning so recently posted, but im hoping its allowably on-topic, because it is the actual topic, to say that nobody- *nobody"- that has read your posts under the various names of the past few years is going to swallow that

i really think its insulting to posters that follow boards.ie politics at all to expect us to even pretend to swallow that, tbh

the whole thing is a bad faith dance, so the demands for everyone else to engage with the righteous howling attacks on everyone-but-sf (everyone else has been in govt recently i spose) at face value ring absolutely hollow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

yeah but its fairly easy for me to point out that what i *actually* posted, and what you *actually* responded to with the above was your claim to not know anything about SF

look im not going to disrespect beasty's warning so recently posted, but im hoping its allowably on-topic, because it is the actual topic, to say that nobody- *nobody"- that has read your posts under the various names of the past few years is going to swallow that

i really think its insulting to posters that follow boards.ie politics at all to expect us to even pretend to swallow that, tbh

the whole thing is a bad faith dance, so the demands for everyone else to engage with the righteous howling attacks on everyone-but-sf (everyone else has been in govt recently i spose) at face value ring absolutely hollow

You literally misrepresent my comments while claiming same.
I said I couldn't name half of them.
Who I do and do not vote for doesn't allow you licence to dodge comments.
Your comment is complete nonsense. IMO.
I'll stick to commenting on comments thanks.
If you read the last few pages you'll see how wrong you are.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is this not essentially argueing that all topics should be shut down and no discussion allowed...."coz durr shinners"

Deosnt seem a prospect for much debate tbh mate

no its no such thing at all and tbh i dont think you could read it fairly as such at all, but again whither a good faith reading these days, isnt that rather the point

its me pointing out in fairly specific response to a complaint of constant deflection towards SF that there is a specific set of circumstances that apply that make this an easy, and often clearly correct, response to reach for.

and i suggested a remedy. up to ppl to try it or not, but while any and all govt (note that govt as stated consists at this stage of basically anyone but sf/pbp if we cover the relevant timespan) activity is attacked without reference to merit or balance then retort will be rote and lazy.

why should it be anything else?

Bowie wrote: »

You literally misrepresent my comments while claiming same.
I said I couldn't name half of them.
Who I do and do not vote for doesn't allow you licence to dodge comments.
Your comment is complete nonsense. IMO.
I'll stick to commenting on comments thanks.
If you read the last few pages you'll see how wrong you are.

oh right massive apologies

wheres the eyeroll.gif emoji im on the phone

the point stands, rage away man.