you have to watch this guys videos

meglome · 07-11-2010 06:27AM

jay-me wrote: »

But he explained his choice of picture in one of his video's. Something to do with the amount of windows or something. But anyway before you bash someone you could at least watch his videos.

I did watch the video in the OP.

Are you telling me he used a picture of a completely different building, built 150 years later, to make a point about Leinster House? You buy his explanation? Listen I have some money in a bank account and I just need you to send me some funds so I can release the cash.

doppel ganger wrote: »

Your afraid of him, just admit it:rolleyes:, this is funny, all mouth no action, nothing more could be expected really.

ah it's rereg morning.

jay-me · 07-11-2010 06:30AM

meglome wrote: »

I did watch the video in the OP.

Are you telling me he used a picture of a completely different building, built 150 years later, to make a point about Leinster House? You buy his explanation? Listen I have some money in a bank account and I just need you to send me some fund so I can release the cash.

How much? And what is my commission?

jay-me · 07-11-2010 06:35AM

meglome wrote: »

I did watch the video in the OP.

Are you telling me he used a picture of a completely different building, built 150 years later, to make a point about Leinster House? You buy his explanation?

In fairness the guy isn't thick by any accounts. Do you really believe he would make such a blatant and obvious mistake unless he had something meaningful to portray.

jay-me · 07-11-2010 06:38AM

doppel ganger wrote: »

Your afraid of him, just admit it:rolleyes:, this is funny, all mouth no action, nothing more could be expected really.

And you're afraid of HIM because you clearly made a new account to say that:rolleyes:

Di0genes · 07-11-2010 08:13AM

jay-me wrote: »

In fairness the guy isn't thick by any accounts. Do you really believe he would make such a blatant and obvious mistake unless he had something meaningful to portray.

Yes. Yes I do. He makes dozens of mistakes in his posts.

The Recliner · 07-11-2010 12:09PM

This thread is for discussing the videos not for goading people into meeting him for debate

Any more posts like that will be met with bans

He is more than welcome to come on here and debate here where everyone will be treated equally in line with the charter and noone gets to shout louder than the other person, if he chooses not to engage with us then no one here should be goaded into engaging with him

alastair · 07-11-2010 12:15PM

I love the way that he casually assumes that boards posters are students, and how he can vent about personalised attacks, rather than engaging with the political content, and then blithely accuse students of shoving coke up their noses/arses. Full marks for hypocrisy, nil points for knowledge of state buildings.

meglome · 07-11-2010 04:40PM

jay-me wrote: »

In fairness the guy isn't thick by any accounts. Do you really believe he would make such a blatant and obvious mistake unless he had something meaningful to portray.

I'm not saying the guy is thick but to make his points he appears to just make stuff up or at least get the info from unreliable sources. Though since I haven't actually ever seen him show where he gets the info from I can't really say which. With so much wrong right now there's really no need to fabricate or exaggerate.

namloc1980 · 07-11-2010 11:04PM

jbyeats wrote:

Agenda for a better society:

1. WHISTLEBLOWERS CHARTER AND OMBUDSMAN: No issue with this and would agree it's very important, especially in light of goings on over the last few years.

2. CITIZENS APPOINTED TO GOVERNMENT, QUANGOS AND COMMITTEES ETC: I have no idea how this would work. How is a random punter supposed to uncover any wrong doing within a government department in say 6 months? And while appointed will they be paid by the government or their employers? Without further explanation I couldn't see this working at all.

3. CORRUPTION LAWS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF SECRET SOCIETYS: This is extremely draconian and is akin to presuming that if you are a member of a legal secret society, then you are corrupt! Special laws for those who are members of certain groups is draconian, unconstitutional and probably worse. And let's say the local judge or a teacher is a secret society member, do they get prison for that or fired??

4. LAWS DEALING WITH NEPOTISM AND CRONYISM: Fair enough but not sure how this would be policed but definitely needed. However this also needs a culture change as cronyism is ingrained in the Irish political mindet. As for elections for major public appointments I can't agree. The most popular candidate might get elected but he could well be useless at the job.

5. DIRECT EMPLOYMENT FOR STATE CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECTS: Not fully sure what this actually means without more explanation.

6. 50 NEW BANKS WITH €100M EACH TO INVEST IN NEW BUSINESSES: Who would administer these Banks and would their aim be to make a profit or just lend out the money to new businesses and what risks would they take? Most new businesses/ideas fail within a year or two of startup so would the loans given to them be written off with taxpayer picking up the tab? If this plan happened I believe most if not all of these 50 banks would be gone bust within a few years. Of course it depends on how risky these Banks would be but if they were giving money to businesses that were declined by the regular Banks then alot of writeoffs would happen.

7. TAX FOR ALL: Sounds reasonable but instead of taxing the OAP and the dole surely it would make more sense to just cut those payments by a certain amount instead of having unnecessary tax administration etc - all that money is from the same pot anyway. As for the general idea of taxing low earners tiny amounts and big eaners alot what are the specific proposals?

8. NO RELIGION IN SCHOOLS: There are non-religious schools popping all over the country so people have a choice of sending their children to them or not. Even in religious schools you can be excused from religion. I think it should be left to each school and not dictated by the state.

9. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN, OAPS AND THOSE IN CARE: I haven't read the Bunreacht in a while but doesn't it aspire to treat all citizens fairly and equally. Why do some sections of society need more rights than others?

10. TAOISEACH TO BE DIRECTLY ELECTED: This one I don't get. We all know the leader of the largest party after an election will be Taoiseach and we know that when we're voting in the election. This would be a pointless exercise. I do however agree that the Taoiseach should be the highest paid public official.

joebucks · 07-11-2010 11:56PM

Did you even watch the video or did you just read off the sheet he put up?

I think you got the worng end of the stick on this point anyway

namloc1980 wrote: »

Agenda for a better society:

3. CORRUPTION LAWS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF SECRET SOCIETYS: This is extremely draconian and is akin to presuming that if you are a member of a legal secret society, then you are corrupt! Special laws for those who are members of certain groups is draconian, unconstitutional and probably worse. And let's say the local judge or a teacher is a secret society member, do they get prison for that or fired??

In this point he is calling for members of secret societies (ie organisations where what the members do is kept secret- Freemasons,Opus Dei, etc) to DECLARE that they are in such an organisation. If they do not declare that they are in such a group even though they are then they have to be treated with suspicion that they are acting in the interest of the organisation as opposed to acting in the interest of the public. Is this not a fair point?

namloc1980 · 08-11-2010 12:20AM

joebucks wrote: »

Did you even watch the video or did you just read off the sheet he put up?

I think you got the worng end of the stick on this point anyway

In this point he is calling for members of secret societies (ie organisations where what the members do is kept secret- Freemasons,Opus Dei, etc) to DECLARE that they are in such an organisation. If they do not declare that they are in such a group even though they are then they have to be treated with suspicion that they are acting in the interest of the organisation as opposed to acting in the interest of the public. Is this not a fair point?

The title of the point is "Corruption Laws for members of secret socities". It is of no concern to the state if an individual is a member of a society and the state has no business intruding into the personal lives of it's citizens. We always read on this forum how the state is intruding in personal freedoms etc - this is exactly such a case. Anyway because of the seperation of powers between the judiciary and politics, politicians can't direct a judge to declare whether he is in a society or not - it would be unconstitutional, for example the politicians couldn't force the judiciary to pay the income levy introduced a few years ago because it would be unconstitutional. This guy is advocating 5-10 years in prison if you don't declare such a membership - do you think this is reasonable? In my view this point is based on a fear of secret societies. Is there evidence that those in secret societies are more corrupt than those who are not?

meglome · 08-11-2010 01:00AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

This guy is advocating 5-10 years in prison if you don't declare such a membership - do you think this is reasonable? In my view this point is based on a fear of secret societies. Is there evidence that those in secret societies are more corrupt than those who are not?

Very good point. An awful lot of deals are trashed out over a game of golf. Should we be banning golf memberships too. I mean we've no idea what goes on, on those golf courses.

Di0genes · 08-11-2010 01:08AM

joebucks wrote: »

Did you even watch the video or did you just read off the sheet he put up?

I think you got the worng end of the stick on this point anyway

In this point he is calling for members of secret societies (ie organisations where what the members do is kept secret- Freemasons,Opus Dei, etc) to DECLARE that they are in such an organisation. If they do not declare that they are in such a group even though they are then they have to be treated with suspicion that they are acting in the interest of the organisation as opposed to acting in the interest of the public. Is this not a fair point?

By that rational if the judge/politician attending AA or any twelve steps program he'd face a criminal sentence , if he didn't admit this.

Is that fair?

WakeUp · 08-11-2010 01:14AM

Di0genes wrote: »

By that rational if the judge/politician attending AA or any twelve steps program he'd face a criminal sentence , if he didn't admit this.

Is that fair?

Since when is AA a secret society? The comparison youre attempting to make there is nonsense, no offence.

joebucks · 08-11-2010 01:19AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

The title of the point is "Corruption Laws for members of secret socities". It is of no concern to the state if an individual is a member of a society and the state has no business intruding into the personal lives of it's citizens. We always read on this forum how the state is intruding in personal freedoms etc - this is exactly such a case. Anyway because of the seperation of powers between the judiciary and politics, politicians can't direct a judge to declare whether he is in a society or not - it would be unconstitutional, for example the politicians couldn't force the judiciary to pay the income levy introduced a few years ago because it would be unconstitutional. This guy is advocating 5-10 years in prison if you don't declare such a membership - do you think this is reasonable? In my view this point is based on a fear of secret societies. Is there evidence that those in secret societies are more corrupt than those who are not?

Again you are misrepresenting his position. He does not call for corruption laws for members of secret societies.

Point 3 is Corruption laws in place to deal with State and Public officials who are members of secret societies

He clearly states that private persons are free to do as they please, however if you are working for the public sector or government and are a member of a secret society then if you must declare that you are a member of such a society.

In my opinion this is a fair point. For example, in the US you had John Kerry and George W who are both members of the skull and crossbones society yet were running against each other in the US general election. In my opinion the people have the illusion that they have a choice over who they are electing but in reality both candidates are representing the same elite interests.
And in the UK you have Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron and Nat Rothschild all in the Bullingdon Club. Do you think it is in the public interest to know what ties and allegiances such high ranking officials have?

Di0genes · 08-11-2010 01:20AM

WakeUp wrote: »

Since when is AA a secret society? The comparison youre attempting to make there is nonsense, no offence.

It is a secret society in that it's membership is kept secret, and is anonymous.

Di0genes · 08-11-2010 01:25AM

joebucks wrote: »

And in the UK you have Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron and Nat Rothschild all in the Bullingdon Club. Do you think it is in the public interest to know what ties and allegiances such high ranking officials have?

The Bullingdon Club is a dining club unless you can explain how a group of idiots with more money than sense like dressing up and eating and drinking too much is a insidious threat to democracy you're just fearmongering.

joebucks · 08-11-2010 01:30AM

meglome wrote: »

Very good point. An awful lot of deals are trashed out over a game of golf. Should we be banning golf memberships too. I mean we've no idea what goes on, on those golf courses.

The irony of this is outstanding. You criticise JB for making minor errors and insinuate that he is a liar and then when Namloc misrepresents JB's position you call it a 'very good point'.

Di0genes · 08-11-2010 01:33AM

joebucks wrote: »

The irony of this is outstanding. You criticise JB for making minor errors and insinuate that he is a liar and then when Namloc misrepresents JB's position you call it a 'very good point'.

It's not a misrepresentation it's an accurate representation of the flaws in JB's argument

WakeUp · 08-11-2010 01:35AM

Di0genes wrote: »

It is a secret society in that it's membership is kept secret, and is anonymous.

In fairness though it is a bad choice to make your point with. As far as I know you don't swear an oath of allegiance to serve AA and put them above all else in times of need the way the brothers of free-masonry do. The AA dont have secret symbols and codes. They dont have secret rituals. Incidentally, the twelve steps or traditions recommend that its groups try to steer clear of dogma, hierarchies and involvement in public issues. The same cant be said of free masons. All in all its a weak attempt at an analogy in my opinion.

namloc1980 · 08-11-2010 01:37AM

joebucks wrote: »

Again you are misrepresenting his position. He does not call for corruption laws for members of secret societies.

Point 3 is Corruption laws in place to deal with State and Public officials who are members of secret societies

He clearly states that private persons are free to do as they please, however if you are working for the public sector or government and are a member of a secret society then if you must declare that you are a member of such a society.

In my opinion this is a fair point. For example, in the US you had John Kerry and George W who are both members of the skull and crossbones society yet were running against each other in the US general election. In my opinion the people have the illusion that they have a choice over who they are electing but in reality both candidates are representing the same elite interests.
And in the UK you have Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron and Nat Rothschild all in the Bullingdon Club. Do you think it is in the public interest to know what ties and allegiances such high ranking officials have?

No this is not a fair point. He states in the video that under his law if someone in the public sector doesn't declare their membership then they should get 5-10 years in prison. Do you agree with this? In my view it is a draconian and probably unconstitutional proposal.

Di0genes · 08-11-2010 01:43AM

WakeUp wrote: »

In fairness though it is a bad choice to make your point with. As far as I know you don't swear an oath of allegiance to serve AA and put them above all else in times of need the way the brothers of free-masonry do.

Source on the freemason bit

The AA dont have secret symbols and codes.

There are turns of phrase and comments that a member can spot another member through

They dont have secret rituals.

Yes they do.

Incidentally, the twelve steps or traditions recommend that its groups try to steer clear of dogma, hierarchies and involvement in public issues. The same cant be said of free masons. All in all its a weak attempt at an analogy in my opinion.

Source of the bit above. Not the AA part your evidence that the Masons do this.
Source on all of the above.

joebucks · 08-11-2010 01:55AM

Di0genes wrote: »

The Bullingdon Club is a dining club unless you can explain how a group of idiots with more money than sense like dressing up and eating and drinking too much is a insidious threat to democracy you're just fearmongering.

Idiots? Mayor of London, prime minister of England, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the wealthiest men in the world. The fact that these men fraternise in a secret club, whether golfing dining or circle-jerking should be of public knowledge. Concealing such activities should be seen as the same as insider trading and seen as a conspiracy.

Di0genes wrote: »

It's not a misrepresentation it's an accurate representation of the flaws in JB's argument

You are wrong. He misrepresnted JB's position.

namloc1980 wrote: »

No this is not a fair point. He states in the video that under his law if someone in the public sector doesn't declare their membership then they should get 5-10 years in prison. Do you agree with this? In my view it is a draconian and probably unconstitutional proposal.

Yes as I have said above, if they conceal their membership in such groups then they should be seen as engaging in a conspiracy and face the consequences of such behaviour.

namloc1980 · 08-11-2010 02:02AM

joebucks wrote: »

Yes as I have said above, if they conceal their membership in such groups then they should be seen as engaging in a conspiracy and face the consequences of such behaviour.

So you're advocating locking people up in prison for being members of a legal society or forcing them to declare it against their constitutional rights of privacy, personal liberty and rights to personal convictions and beliefs?? Holy crap......that is unbelieveable. You are assuming that everyone who is a member of a secret society is somehow corrupt and evil if their wish is keep it private....which they can do per the Bunreacht. Unreal.

Di0genes · 08-11-2010 02:11AM

joebucks wrote: »

Idiots? Mayor of London, prime minister of England, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the wealthiest men in the world. The fact that these men fraternise in a secret club, whether golfing dining or circle-jerking should be of public knowledge. Concealing such activities should be seen as the same as insider trading and seen as a conspiracy.

They have never concealed this

You're saying that people in power no longer have the right of free association.

You are wrong. He misrepresnted JB's position.

No he didn't.

Yes as I have said above, if they conceal their membership in such groups then they should be seen as engaging in a conspiracy and face the consequences of such behaviour.

Thats absurd. Your analogy of the Bullingdon club is that three leading towers shouldn't have been part of the same drinking society while they were in college together

WakeUp · 08-11-2010 02:25AM

Di0genes wrote: »

Source on the freemason bit

They swear an oath of allegiance to the hood. The only oath a judge, for example, should be swearing by is to his country or the public. According to the new catholic encyclopedia this is a typical oath taken by a 3rd degree mason. knock yourself out.

"Further, that I will acknowledge and obey all due signs and summons sent to me from a Master Masons' Lodge"
http://www.trosch.org/bks/masonic_oath.html

There are turns of phrase and comments that a member can spot another member through

As a matter of interest what are these signs and comments.Source?

Yes they do.

What types of rituals. Source??

Source of the bit above. Not the AA part your evidence that the Masons do this.
Source on all of the above.

You dont need a source for that its fairly simple really. If a judge for example or a Guard is a member of the masons well then he or she is engaging in issues of a public nature. Surely you agree?

Di0genes · 08-11-2010 02:54AM

WakeUp wrote: »

They swear an oath of allegiance to the hood. The only oath a judge, for example, should be swearing by is to his country or the public. According to the new catholic encyclopedia this is a typical oath taken by a 3rd degree mason. knock yourself out.

"Further, that I will acknowledge and obey all due signs and summons sent to me from a Master Masons' Lodge"
http://www.trosch.org/bks/masonic_oath.html

http://www.trosch.org/

Do you have a slightly less crazy source for this?

As a matter of interest what are these signs and comments.Source?

Quotes reference to the big book etc, anecdotes and analogies that would be familiar to members in AA

What types of rituals. Source??

All AA meetings follow a strict ritual, the listing of the steps and traditions, etc....

But this is beside the point, you've not shown that there is a sinister agenda to the freemasons, until you do so, you can't insist there should be a prison sentence for politicians who are masons who don't publicly announce they are masons.

You dont need a source for that its fairly simple really. If a judge for example or a Guard is a member of the masons well then he or she is engaging in issues of a public nature. Surely you agree?

No you need to show me that the Garda or the Judge is promoting fremasonry or a freemason agenda ahead of the duties the are sworn to uphold as part of their office.

joebucks · 08-11-2010 03:01AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

So you're advocating locking people up in prison for being members of a legal society or forcing them to declare it against their constitutional rights of privacy, personal liberty and rights to personal convictions and beliefs?? Holy crap......that is unbelieveable. You are assuming that everyone who is a member of a secret society is somehow corrupt and evil if their wish is keep it private....which they can do per the Bunreacht. Unreal.

Unbelievable? Unreal?

Are you serious?

The whole point of the videos was changes he would make and yes I agree with some of his points.

Di0genes wrote: »

They have never concealed this

I never said they concealed it. Why are you trying to insinuate that I did?

You're saying that people in power no longer have the right of free association.

No I am not.

No he didn't.

yes he did. He claimed JB said one thing when in fact he said another. Misrepresentation of his opinion, plain and simple.

Thats absurd. Your analogy of the Bullingdon club is that three leading towers shouldn't have been part of the same drinking society while they were in college together

No. You are wrong again.

Di0genes · 08-11-2010 03:23AM

joebucks wrote: »

I never said they concealed it. Why are you trying to insinuate that I did?

Yeah, you said;

joebucks wrote:

The fact that these men fraternise in a secret club, whether golfing dining or circle-jerking should be of public knowledge. Concealing such activities should be seen as the same as insider trading and seen as a conspiracy.

You're really bad at this.

No I am not.

Then what are you suggesting?

yes he did. He claimed JB said one thing when in fact he said another. Misrepresentation of his opinion, plain and simple.

Okay what did JB actually say, and what do you think he was misrepresented on?

No. You are wrong again.

Okay see thats not furthering the conversation or clarifying what exactly you did mean

joebucks · 08-11-2010 03:56AM

Di0genes wrote: »

Yeah, you said;

Concealing such activities should be seen as the same as insider trading and seen as a conspiracy.

You're really bad at this.

Thanks for the petty insult.

Again you are taking what people say out of context. I did not say that they concealed their activities. What I meant was that if they were to conceal such activities then it should be seen as an offense against the state.

Okay what did JB actually say, and what do you think he was misrepresented on?

Namloc1980 said

is akin to presuming that if you are a member of a legal secret society, then you are corrupt! Special laws for those who are members of certain groups is draconian, unconstitutional and probably worse

which he was was wrong about.

JB did not intimate that if you are a member of a secret society then you are corrupt. He said that if you are a member of such a society then you have to declare it and not declaring it would be the offense.

you have to watch this guys videos

Comments