mikom wrote: » more youtube bollix
Dan_Solo wrote: » fact that you had nothing to say about a joke concerning MY sexuality, as predicted, noted.
Dan_Solo wrote: » Couldn't actually argue against what I said, again noted.
jobbridge4life wrote: » I'd imagine there is so your point then is?
mikom wrote: » youtube
Dan_Solo wrote: » It makes zero difference to me voting yes in the coming refendum what Varadkar's sexuality is. I'm guessing Enda Kenny is a heterosexual but I'm not voting against the bill because of that either. I don't need these guys to tell me right from wrong. Perhaps others do.
Dan_Solo wrote: » probably thought up of somebody short of something to several seconds after his mate invented speech.
Shrap wrote: » Dan Solo, did you read this at all?
Shrap wrote: » Well I was listening to Newstalk earlier and Henry was out interviewing people on the street in Navan to get their opinions on Leo coming out. It was nice to hear so many voices (and many elderly) saying "sure what difference does it make - it's how he does his job that counts?" and many saying fair play and it must have been hard for him/a relief, etc. Two fellas stood out though. The first said "It's disgusting, that's what it is". When asked why, he spluttered "He's MINISTER for HEALTH!". I think the gist of it was that gays are too disgusting to be minister. The second guy was more disturbing in a way, in that he was all about Leo coming out and fair play, but that he shouldn't be allowed to be involved in the legislation as he could bias it. When asked, he said it was because "marriage is for a man and a woman. Gay marriage is a different thing". Thereby proving why Leo had to come out before the debate kicks off for real. I saw someone else earlier (was it here?) saying that he shouldn't be allowed work on legislation that affected him personally. I mean, WHAT?! Extraordinary ignorance out of some people. Leo and whatever political advice he got were bang on the money not to be wrong footed any closer to the referendum.
Shrap wrote: » Ah ha. You all reminded me of who it was said that it's crappy to campaign on an issue if you are personally affected by it. Credibility.....http://buzzborn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bombs-explosions.gifkaBOOM
Joeytheparrot wrote: » For someone who doesnt care you cant seem to leave this thread alone.
Dan_Solo wrote: » As to whether Yes or No is the right way to vote "it affects me" is a pretty crappy platform to campaign on TBH.
floggg wrote: » Actually if you want to be pedantic, since social welfare payments are funded by tax receipts, they have a vested interest in seeing the state receive as much tax as possible - otherwise they may see cuts in their dole.
floggg wrote: » You seem to enjoy taking a general statement, and then trying to twist and contort them out of all context in order to show them up as false. I said more likely to appreciate the effects of changes - I allowed for other results, I just didn't think it was necessary to add in every imaginable qualification or proviso.
Dan_Solo wrote: » Ah, a joke at a heterosexual's expense. I'm sure all the equality lovers who were so upset by a pun on "Varadkar's seat" will jump in to defend me here in 3... 2... 1...
SILVAMAN wrote: » bit too close for comfort?:p
hotmail.com wrote: » Don't you give teenage girls demonstrations on tampons?
SILVAMAN wrote: » wow...someone's not too comfortable with their own sexuality
Dan_Solo wrote: » Is it you, taking offense on somebody else's behalf so easily?
sonofenoch wrote: » His mammy though he'd lose his seat if he came out ......I'd wager he lost his seat long ago boooooom boooom
Dan_Solo wrote: » Simply not true if you're on the dole. Why does Varadkar himself demand more attention than the issue itself? Why don't you have a go at thinking about the issue presented instead of the man behind it? More cult of personality garbage. BTW, another thing you don't seem to know: it's quite easy to change taxes, e.g. cut offs and marginal rates, without making a blind bit of difference to the poorest workers.