Why don't all boardies form a Political Party!

limklad · 24-01-2011 01:22AM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I don't think we'd all agree on much.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I disagree with that statement.

We can all not agree to disagree and then disagree with the agreement and then we can lie about it (cough) I mean only recall our version of the events.

Then we can become qualified to be fully fledge politicians. Horah!! We then can buy cheap beer in the Shebeen known as the Dáil Bar in Leinster House which has served booze for 80 years with no licence with no VAT and tax-free Drinks.

stevejr · 24-01-2011 01:25AM

Seriously tho, didn't the guys who set up boards...Tom Murphy and what's-his-face develope the idea after a bet and look at the behemoth Boards has become. If the guts of a million people use/read boards thaen that's one hell of a base to start from and medium to work through*

*pending Boards approval naturally.

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 24-01-2011 01:26AM

Badgermonkey wrote: »

What'd we call us?

Progressive Thanks Whores

stevejr · 24-01-2011 01:27AM

KeithM89 wrote: »

Well you certainly dont get the spell-checker job..:rolleyes:

Don't speak to the leader like that or I'll get the Party Whip to ya...

davetherave · 24-01-2011 02:04AM

Dibbs on Minister for Defence.

When the impending zombie invasion comes, I'd make sure that no DF haters get saved!

stevejr · 24-01-2011 02:34AM

davetherave wrote: »

Dibbs on Minister for Defence.

When the impending zombie invasion comes, I'd make sure that no DF haters get saved!

Right Dave your hired, welcome on board, you can start with the Zombie Banks.

johnmcdnl · 24-01-2011 02:36AM

because we'd do a worst job than FF did

stevejr · 24-01-2011 02:40AM

johnmcdnl wrote: »

because we'd do a worst job than FF did

Impossible...collectively we can't be FF-stupid!

sdanseo · 24-01-2011 02:53AM

Senna wrote: »

So just basically any random group of people will do

That is a most objectionable statement madam and i ask you to withdraw it at once, withdraw withdraw withdraw.

TanG411 · 24-01-2011 02:58AM

'Support Bláthanna Boards'.

Probably a load of planks anyway.

b.o.m.d.a.s. · 24-01-2011 03:03AM

great idea.

If ye need an ambassador to Berlin, PM me. Danke schoen

TeddyTedson · 24-01-2011 06:10AM

boards is kinda similar to the Seanad.

Tar.Aldarion · 24-01-2011 06:17AM

good luck trying to get us to agree on anything ever!

TeddyTedson · 24-01-2011 06:21AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

good luck trying to get us to agree on anything ever!

I agree :P:P:P:D:D:D:pac::pac::pac:

Tar.Aldarion · 24-01-2011 06:22AM

-_- this is not my happy face

--LOS-- · 24-01-2011 06:38AM

I disagree, that's your photo happy face!

Tar.Aldarion · 24-01-2011 06:41AM

you made me laugh when they are all laughing in stargate, made me feel part of the scene :pac:

Look, i'm just not a smiley person -_-

Lockstep · 24-01-2011 10:44AM

There are regular threads in the Politics section on forming new political parties. They always go like this so it'll do as your new manifesto:

-The promise for a party that will be very pro-business but that will protect the most vulnerable in society.
-That will cut taxes but deliver better public services
-That will be beholden to no special interests but will enact social harmony.
-That will leave behind civil war politics.
-That will have no ideology at all but be pragmatic and be based utterly on 'what works' (whatever that means)

sdanseo · 24-01-2011 07:48PM

Lockstep wrote: »

There are regular threads in the Politics section on forming new political parties. They always go like this so it'll do as your new manifesto:

-The promise for a party that will be very pro-business but that will protect the most vulnerable in society.
-That will cut taxes but deliver better public services
-That will be beholden to no special interests but will enact social harmony.
-That will leave behind civil war politics.
-That will have no ideology at all but be pragmatic and be based utterly on 'what works' (whatever that means)

But what's wrong with that? I think its an ideaology in itself to be fair. What's best for the country, fairest for all and a system that specifically funnels our income and wealth (what's left of it) into the highest priorities should be the way to run the country. Government should be transparently pragmatic, I believe that's part of the definition of good government.

As for "civil war politics" -well I'd be of a republican stance myself but I don't believe refusing to factor them into a party manifesto would be out of the question. The official line would be much like the constitution defines our position. At the end of the day we're not about to invade NI to claim it back, so why have a party mantra that openly says we should? More have it as a back-burner ideal that to be fair, I think almost everyone is this country would like but by the same token almost everyone realises that it's a pipe dream for the forseeable decades.

Lockstep · 24-01-2011 09:12PM

sdonn wrote: »

But what's wrong with that? I think its an ideaology in itself to be fair. What's best for the country, fairest for all and a system that specifically funnels our income and wealth (what's left of it) into the highest priorities should be the way to run the country. Government should be transparently pragmatic, I believe that's part of the definition of good government.

As for "civil war politics" -well I'd be of a republican stance myself but I don't believe refusing to factor them into a party manifesto would be out of the question. The official line would be much like the constitution defines our position. At the end of the day we're not about to invade NI to claim it back, so why have a party mantra that openly says we should? More have it as a back-burner ideal that to be fair, I think almost everyone is this country would like but by the same token almost everyone realises that it's a pipe dream for the forseeable decades.

The problem is that it's a vague, populist and misty theory that I'd never vote for. It's all soundbites which every party would claim to espouse (none would claim to be anti-business or anti- the most vulnerable for example)

Pragmatism is another vague concept. Every party is either on the left or right to some degree. Being pragmatic is an utterly relative term (even the communists or anarchists would view themselves as having a pragmatic and workable ideology)

phasers · 24-01-2011 09:16PM

Dibs on minister for ... Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs.

Yeah, that sounds like a position nobody cares about...

fedor.2. · 24-01-2011 09:19PM

stevejr wrote: »

I'm serious, with the inevitable demise of Fianna Fail, there's vacuum and we can fill it. With all the political discussion that goes on here...I think it's time to sh!t or get off the pot.

It wouldn't work as it would involve leaving your bedrooms

biko · 24-01-2011 09:20PM

I think we need two parties, one far left and one far right.

macroboy · 24-01-2011 09:29PM

stevejr wrote: »

I'm serious, with the inevitable demise of Fianna Fail, there's vacuum and we can fill it. With all the political discussion that goes on here...I think it's time to sh!t or get off the pot.

That has got to be the lamest idea i have ever heard.
The jumped up little big men on here would never let their egos agree
with anyone who wasnt on boards.Their total vote would be around 3000,
if they all voted for the one boards guy.

A tad sad really.

Why don't all boardies form a Political Party!

Comments