Following on from
this thread
Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed
The double standards list back fired on the poster because as usual they try to hide some people while trying to point at other. The actual list is long and extensive so if they have the time why wouldn’t they just post all that, it seems like they have the time
Personally I dont.
Like any topic on this thread it’s just the usual waffle and falls to pieces very quickly. Like jumping over the 50k TD meant from the very first post the whole argument was gone 👍🤦♂️🤷♂️
You clearly posted the paid “no tax”. If you are going to listen to the opposition it’s also good to fact check 👍
You don't have the time, yet you are on here defending a party you have never voted for.
'Personally you don't think' they have the competence to sort this.
Thanks for that, why you continue to defend them defeats me.
I clarified with no corporation tax and two different newspapers who mentioned this.
Do you have problem with the people who have damaged homes due to mica? Do you have a problem with members of the public speaking up for their own interests? Is it the public or democracy or both you don't like?
The theme seems to be, anything goes for big business looking to increase their profits, let bank branches close, more data centers if needed (C02 whatever), but if the public start looking out for themselves they need to be ridiculed and attacked.
Again, it was the government's own MOC that was discussed in the Dail. Was that the pointless time wasting?
So as well as your non existent examples of opposition parties blocking housing for no reason, we can add to that your waffle about the long laundry list of FF/FG on the take, leaving out others. Your waffle betrays you several times a day BA.
Pretending not to know that means avoiding the fact that we do the banks favours and ask for nothing. All MM will do is give out.
Oh I know. The aim is to see the squirm. He is starting to see the real world.
They actually extended the amount of time given to the MOC.
Plenty of time to vote on their own pay and conditions too.
I am here. You can reply to me directly you know. Don't be afraid. I dealt with the O'Snodaigh theft and said he should be jailed. I was open and honest.
Some of the list I had even had their own tribunals.
Any chance of answering the questions I posed? A little quid pro quo instead of the waffle perhaps?
Q1. Have FFG changed the expense rules given the widespread abuse?
A. For BA
Q2. Who has been in government for the past 20 years and can legislate against all the expense fraud?
"squirm"
😂
Seriously do you actually believe that?
More gymnastics. The last time twisting my posts didn't really work out for you so not sure why you think trying to do it again will work this time.
As always my posts are clear and concise. No need for you to try twist them. 👍️
If you can't have a proper discussion on the topics no need to quote me, cheers
No, it was only after I pointed it out you "dealt with the O'Snodaigh theft"
So from post number 1 the whole argument was gone because you showed you had no interest in the issue.....
In terms of your "questions". No thanks, but keep up the little comments about strangers on the web 👍️
😁 Do you really believe this type of preachy righteousness digs you out of the holes you dig for yourself?
The government wasted the time by extending the MOC to an hour. Fact.
You can keep saying I'm twisting your posts but we both know that's code for you dodging. Runaway BA.
"dodging", "deflection" 😫
This thread is supposed to be a debate.
Sorry but I have no idea what "preachy righteousness" is? Is that like constantly telling everyone they are wrong or lying?
Might be a good idea for the sake of that Twitter poster you delete that post.
These is a lot of public information posted on that account. I doubt they would be too happy with you sharing it here.
It's pretending to be insulted, scolding the other poster and indignantly refusing to deal with the point they made. Your go to tactic to try and dig yourself out of a hole you dug yourself.
See if you can just answer this question with a yes or no:
Do you accept it was the government who extended the time for the MOC to one hour?
What public information are you referring to 🤔 it's a Joke, Parody account, I suspect most people know that. There's no public information posted on the account but comments which are Hillarious, if there was public info shared, isn't the fact its actually public information mean its publically available anyway 🤔
Like this just posted 😁
I'm not saying anymore and let you figure it out for yourself.
So you wont answer 2 simple questions? Even 1? No honour.
Let me simplify for you...We were talking about expense fraud but you brought in O'Snodaigh's theft (even though you did not even name him).
I allowed it to be included in the list because I knew you would run off crying otherwise. He's on the list now.
Here is the list: Alan Farrell (FG), Maria Bailey (FG) Michelle Mulherin (FG) Jerry Buttimer (FG) Dara Murphy (FG) Hugh McElvaney (FG) Ivor Callely (FF) Ned O'Keefe (FF) Eamon Scanlon (FF) Joe Queenan (FF) Jerry Lundy (FF) Bertie Ahern (FF) Charlie Haughey (FF) P Flynn (FF) Niall Blaney (FF) O'Snodaigh (SF)
There he is on the list (last one). So you can possible stop waffling and meet me half way?
So now the 2 simple questions (and you can include cartridge theft if you wish) are;
Honestly, I'm really not sure what your concern is here, there's no public information, sensitive or otherwise shared, if there is something I'm missing enlighten me, not offer cyprtic guidance, I'm sure if I've done something wrong or inappropriate it will be pointed out to me 🤔
As I said originally it would be a good idea to delete that tweet you posted from some random Twitter user as they appear to not understand how to use the platform and have posted all their details in public in past tweets. That's all.
A so your following the User is it, very few posts, hasn't shared any personal details, has commented on various stories, Topics, certainly nothing controversial, including one earlier querying a silly comment from Mary Lou and indeed MM, Follows a few people but really a random occasional user. Why would such a person gain such attention from you, just curious 🤔
I give up at this stage.
The Twitter user you linked to here posted all of their personal details publicly previously. I was trying to give a heads up you should remove the tweet buts sure attack me instead.
Would you not be better sending him a DM? Maybe he has no issue posting his details?
Their profile is private.
I'm honestly not trying to attack you, seriously, you've said the person has posted their personal details previously, which they've not and they might be concerned their Tweet or public information is shared here 🤔
Its a. Personal account, random user name, not personal details, phone numbers, email addresses visible and why your interest 🤔 if it were some public representation, high profile person, celeb sure but I'm baffled at your interest in a really quite mundane user,, that's all
Post on his feed. Otherwise assume he is comfortable with it. Why you would be trawling his previous posts is odd though, were you looking for more funnies like the one he posted?
I respect privacy and was was giving a friendly heads up that braindead Twitter user you dumped that tweet to here has no clue on how to use Twitter thats all.
I suggested removing their tweet as a quick 30 second look at their posting history they have provided every detail including name, address, DOB, etc on a public forum.
But don't worry as you said it's a parody account so it's all good.
They said it was not their account. I politely said it would be a good idea to remove the tweet as it contained personal information from that other user.
Do you not think that is a good idea?
