Politcally Incorrect

namloc1980 · 20-11-2018 10:41pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

How many votes is good for you then? Should we vote twice every time? Best out of three? Isn't it funny that we only have a second vote when the result is contrary to EU consolidation. Strange coincidence that.

So you are in favour of denying the people a vote on the final resolution? Interesting for an advocate of "free speech". :pac: Seems you're all for free speech as long as it is your brand of free Skechers.

Sonics2k · 20-11-2018 10:44pm

Okay, let's go through this then.

Paul Lee wrote: »

On a personal level, I experience on a daily basis that any view that isn't mainstream is shut down in conversation. Any fact that doesn't come down from the Irish Times/ "Independent Media"/ RTE/ other bastions of "balanced reporting" is treated as blasphemy.

This is nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. The Government is not persecuting, arresting or charging people for 'differing' opinions.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Certain people on this island have been murdered, children amongst them. No-one found guilty but politicians and Gardai have been heavily implicated. Some people speaking out about these deaths in ways that didn't suit the authorities have suddenly passed away themselves (by "natural causes" of course).

Nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. Also very much a bipartisan issue, regardless of political leaning.

Paul Lee wrote: »

One of the characteristics of death is that it's known to cause a severe lack of free speech.

Here are but a few samples of what I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mISpo3cR0yY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vGORoCbpXw

Same as the above. Not a freedom of speech issue. This regularly comes up in the news and in the press.

Paul Lee wrote: »

I won't even go into my own personal experiences of shocking abuse of power by the Irish State in collusion with business/ other vested interests as they are of much lesser importance.

Please can one person at least come to the defence of free speech, yes- God forbid- even my free speech?

Again, not seeing an issue with freedom of speech. Nobody is stopping you saying your claims of a cover up and framing of Ian Bailey.

Paul Lee wrote: »

If not, then yes absolutely- choose your label- I'm accusing you of being a Communist or Fascist. They're not meant to be insults, just a means of calling things by their proper name.

Say what you want, it's all good. I'm neither. But again, not a freedom of speech issue.

Paul Lee wrote: »

If you wish to protest or deny, then please provide what's commonly known as an "argument". Not avoiding the point, not deferring to rhetoric.

Note- I still value your right to free speech and I'm more than happy to have this little chat.

S'all good. But again, not seeing any restrictions on your freedom of speech.

However, after reading your Meetup profile and information, might I suggest reading this.

persecution complex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Persecution_complex

Now, before you get your back up. You're quite right about certain things, going to Saudi Arabia and proclaiming that you're gay is not a good idea.

However, you decided to post an article from Salon on how bad white people are, yet you seem to have conveniently ignored a similarly despicable article from Breitbart

http://web.archive.org/web/20160813234401/http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/12/mediagetshb2wrong/

Paul Lee wrote: »

Don Lemon, news anchor guy in the US said that White Men are the greatest terror threat to the US

Statistically speaking, this is 100% accurate. The vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US have been committed by white, christian males. This is a fact.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Voting twice in a referendum is the very essence of totalitarianism. Remember Lisbon 2? We were told "There will be no EU Army. Don't be stupid conspiracy nuts. Now go and vote for Lisbon properly this time!" So we did.... And what did Merkel and Macron just call for the other day? An EU Army.

I don't think you know what totalitarianism means. Hint: You don't get to vote.

Merkel and Macron have called for member states of the EU to combine their armed forces or to set up a 'new' EU army.

Hint, there's been a Nordic Battlegroup that Ireland has been a part of for some 10 years now. There's also been an EU Battlegroup for longer, Ireland also takes part in that.

Again, none of this is a free speech issue. You have the absolute right to protest or disagree with it.

Paul Lee wrote: »

You do know that there are calls for a second Brexit referendum, right? Call that freedom? What dictionary are you using?

Yup, -some- people in Britain have said it may be worth having another referendum after it was proven, without a shadow of a doubt that key members of the leave party lied to the British public.

Here's Nadine Norris, a British MP who campaigned to leave the EU complaining about losing the right to vote in the EU

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nadie-dorries-slams-brexit-deal-leave-remain-jk-rowling-a8639216.html

Again though. Not a single Freedom of Speech issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Ireland

j8wk2feszrnpao · 20-11-2018 10:48pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am simply stating the historical fact that White Europeans went on a sustained colonial rampage - do you deny this?

No, bizarre that you think otherwise given I said some did.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes - other "races" engaged in empire building - however none were globally as "successful" - do you dispute this?

Yeah, they were "better". So what? They had the means to be "better". Again, so what? Give Genghis Khan firearms and the ability to move across land other than by horseback, and there'd be even more direct line descendants from his Mongolian Empire.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

According the the OP .......

The OP is full of crap. Apparently the EU is Communist, there's no free speech and voting twice equals totalitarianism :rolleyes:
I'm all for free speech (and I've no problem with criticism of the over the top PC brigade), it allows the weirdo's to be identified easily.

Poll so far (108 votes) is 89% in favor of not leaving the EU.

Bannasidhe · 20-11-2018 10:55pm

munstermagic11 wrote: »

No, bizarre that you think otherwise given I said some did.

Yeah, they were "better". So what? They had the means to be "better". Again, so what? Give Genghis Khan firearms and the ability to move across land other than by horseback, and there'd be even more direct line descendants from his Mongolian Empire.

The OP is full of crap. Apparently the EU is Communist, there's no free speech and voting twice equals totalitarianism :rolleyes:
I'm all for free speech (and I've no problem with criticism of the over the top PC brigade), it allows the weirdo's to be identified easily.

Poll so far (108 votes) is 89% in favor of not leaving the EU.

Seriously, if you want an extended debate on the relative merits (or lack of) various attempts by various peoples to build empires maybe start a thread. Could be an interesting discussion.

But as regards this thread:
I made a point.
I clarified my point.
I clarified my clarification.

I'm done with that now.

batgoat · 20-11-2018 10:59pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

I was hoping for some intelligent debate, but unfortunately the tendency is towards ranting. No mention of the examples I gave above. No refutation. No questions of "where did you get that from?"

Just rhetoric.

If I wanted an echo chamber I certainly wouldn't have come here.

You shouted "fascist" and "communist" when people disagreed with your sentiments.... Sounds like you want an echo chamber and to feel a bit hard done by.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 20-11-2018 11:09pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously, if you want an extended debate on the relative merits (or lack of) various attempts by various peoples to build empires maybe start a thread. Could be an interesting discussion.

But as regards this thread:
I made a point.
I clarified my point.
I clarified my clarification.

I'm done with that now.

:rolleyes:
Christ, get over yourself.

batgoat · 20-11-2018 11:23pm

munstermagic11 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Christ, get over yourself.

I'd actually commend her for your patience, you've demonstrated an incredible degree of ignorance of history.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 20-11-2018 11:26pm

batgoat wrote: »

I'd actually commend her for your patience, you've demonstrated an incredible degree of ignorance of history.

Such as, or are you unable to provide an example?
Bannasidhe went on a tirade of White Europeans, and I give one example (Khan) of others and I should start another thread because of it!

realitykeeper · 20-11-2018 11:28pm

From what I have observed, political correctness is a tool of the left. Most people understand the need for economic discipline but they may be women who get paid less than men or newbies who do the same work as the middle aged for less than half the pay. The left promise equality (but they always do so by demanding more for the underdog rather than the fiscally responsible alternative of less for the incumbents). Consequently, equality and fiscal indiscipline go hand in hand.

There are so many minorities the left can appeal to, the old, the young, the LGBT people, the migrants who manage to get the vote, the traveler community and so on.

However, I know leftists who publicly tend to be embrace these minorities (which collectively make a majority) but who tend to express very intolerant, non pc views in private. In other words, I suspect political correctness has a thick layer of political opportunism in it.

eagle eye · 20-11-2018 11:45pm

I think all rapists and paedophiles should be castrated.
I think that no money should be given to people on long term social welfare. They should get what they need to survive, like food and clothes etc. No money though because that can be spent on drink, cigarettes, drugs and\or gambling.
Cyclists should have to do a theory test and a cycling test to ensure they are capable of cycling on public roads. They should have to have third party insurance at a minimum to cycle on public roads.
Travellers should not get any more money from the state because they have an ethnic standing.
Any non-national who is on social welfare for more than 24 months should be turfed out of the country.

endacl · 21-11-2018 12:27am

satanta99 wrote: »

D'oh I think I clicked Yes by accident!

Phew! I thought there were 17 dribbling idiots with internet access. Only 16. That's not so bad.

endacl · 21-11-2018 12:30am

eagle eye wrote: »

Cyclists should have to do a theory test and a cycling test to ensure they are capable of cycling on public roads. They should have to have third party insurance at a minimum to cycle on public roads.

That's not politically incorrect. That's just stupid.

Child+on+Bike+-+Slide+2.jpg

namloc1980 · 21-11-2018 9:00am

endacl wrote: »

That's not politically incorrect. That's just stupid.

"Look Mammy, Santy got me third party insurance for Christmas!!!!"

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 21-11-2018 9:29am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure thing- white Europeans didn't try to take over the world, introduce white only policies in conquered lands, engage in genocide, start not one but 2 World Wars...
But we haven't done anything recently to deserve criticism.. :rolleyes:

Why would I feel guilty for that? That's funny. Somebody asked me if I ever felt guilty for being white, what an odd question I thought, then again, they were insane.

eagle eye wrote: »

Cyclists should have to do a theory test and a cycling test to ensure they are capable of cycling on public roads. They should have to have third party insurance at a minimum to cycle on public roads.

Why not go a step further and suggest that cars are for single use only. Sharing should be banned. It's an equally stupid comment

Zulu · 21-11-2018 10:34am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But as regards this thread:
I made a point.

A really crap point.

I clarified my point.

Well, tried to back peddle really.

I clarified my clarification.

Not really.

I'm done with that now.

Super. It was a super sh1t point, and I'm glad you've seen the sense in walking away from it.

beer enigma · 21-11-2018 10:49am

I take umbridge that this poll infringes my right to a fair vote on the basis that there is no option 3. Atari

CHealy · 21-11-2018 10:50am

Paul Lee wrote: »

Yes, anyone with a viewpoint you disagree with is a loonie. Just a way to try and shut people up.

I hear this all day and it gets boring.

Well done though. Brave warrior you.

Sorry about that Paul bud, I was watching videos from the anti-fascist action crowd and learned my ways from them.

Side note - Those AFA lads are hilarious, they are the very definition of the thing they claim to be so rigorously against.

Bannasidhe · 21-11-2018 12:51pm

Zulu wrote: »

A really crap point.
Well, tried to back peddle really.
Not really.
Super. It was a super sh1t point, and I'm glad you've seen the sense in walking away from it.

Sorry - I can't hear you all the way over here in the good ol Yooo-Essss-Aaaaa where I sip my skinnymocchafrappo Startrekbucks.

Blitzkrieger · 21-11-2018 1:04pm

Argue about sensitive issues with strangers in a pub? I'm not sure if the setting is the best idea.

I know you said light hearted, but a moderated, alcohol free format might be a better idea.

I can't do Thursdays anyway, so best of luck with it. Hope to bump into you for a drink sometime over Christmas.

Blitzkrieger · 21-11-2018 1:27pm

I feel like I'm feeding a troll, but I'll bite...

TL;DR is that sometimes I sort of agree, but of course all these issues are complex.

eagle eye wrote: »

I think all rapists and paedophiles should be castrated.

Who's a rapist? That undercover policeman who had consensual sex with activists who were unaware of his true identity and are now accusing him of rape? Is everyone who told a porky or two before sleeping with someone a rapist?

Who's a paedophile? A few months ago I found out a causal acquaintance is a registered sex offender. 19 years ago when he was 20 years old, he got hammered and left a pub with a 16 year old. Should we cut his nuts off?

Maybe we could have a scale of punishments to fit the crime?

eagle eye wrote: »

I think that no money should be given to people on long term social welfare. They should get what they need to survive, like food and clothes etc. No money though because that can be spent on drink, cigarettes, drugs and\or gambling.

There's talk in the UK atm about regulating gambling so people with low incomes can't waste their money. Regulating how people choose to spend their money is a dangerous road to go down.

eagle eye wrote: »

Cyclists should have to do a theory test and a cycling test to ensure they are capable of cycling on public roads. They should have to have third party insurance at a minimum to cycle on public roads.

This should sort of be self-regulating - enlightened self interest should make cyclists capable of looking after themselves on publics roads. The environmental, physical and social benefits of cycling are huge, so we should probably do more to make our towns and cities safer for cyclists.

eagle eye wrote: »

Travellers should not get any more money from the state because they have an ethnic standing.

Frequently I think travellers are taking the piss - why would they get money/benefits based on having an ethnic standing? Shouldn't we be an equal society, regardless of ethnicity? An acre of land plus stables? Go **** yourself......

eagle eye wrote: »

Any non-national who is on social welfare for more than 24 months should be turfed out of the country.

What about the nationals who are on welfare for more than 24 months? I feel like your worry is more about welfare cheats than who is cheating, but maybe I'm wrong; maybe it's just xenophobia. I think there of course should be action against welfare cheats, but you'll get far more bang for your buck chasing after tax cheats. Get a million here and there from the super wealthy (not saying they're all tax cheats), a billion here and there from all the multi national corporations (not saying they're all tax cheats), and pretty soon you'll be talking real money.

flo8s967qjh0nd · 21-11-2018 1:49pm

What is the point of this thread? The poll is entirely unrelated to the OP.

In my experience, "political correctness gone mad" is a commonly used cloak of convenience for people who hold stupid, outdated and often racist/xenophobic views and want to shout about them without being told to sit down and shut up. There is no problem with free speech in Ireland. You are quite welcome to say whatever you want. The rest of us also have the right to tell you to stop being so stupid.

Honestly, this thread is a flaming dumpster fire waiting to happen.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-11-2018 2:01pm

A lot of **** is unrealted to the opening post. There are people talking about pedophiles, murderers, cyclists and fascists, got heaven's sake.

mackeminexile · 21-11-2018 2:20pm

Supporting free speech does not equate to supporting or agreeing with everyone. It's being used as a tool in the media and other places to stir up division and hatred. Whenever I hear idiots say "I say what I'm thinking, take it how you like" it is always by someone who can't/doesn't want to engage their brain before speaking.

mackeminexile · 21-11-2018 3:12pm

if they hold a second referendum it's the definition of freedom and democracy, considering the first one isn't legally binding and only advisory. Also the terms of the referendum certainly didn't include the true nature of leave or remain and the brexiteers have been found to have broken the law in numerous ways, not the least being the links that are now being explored between Arron Banks (leave.eu financier), Steve Bannon and Russia.

21-11-2018 4:35pm

I think we should be allowed to marry our cousins

j8wk2feszrnpao · 21-11-2018 4:46pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think we should be allowed to marry our cousins

What does your cousin think?

endacl · 21-11-2018 10:46pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think we should be allowed to marry our cousins

You are.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/getting_married/legal_prerequisites_for_marriage.html

Go nuts.

Gimme A Pound · 21-11-2018 11:09pm

Freedom of speech (not free speech) gets misunderstood greatly. It does not mean people can publish or broadcast or record absolutely anything at all that they feel like - and it never did. There seems to be this notion that there was a time when it was the case, but there never was. Censorship of books and film was far more prevalent in times past, so in that sense there is more freedom now.

Some people also use the "freedom of speech" line just in relation to what they agree with - not for all views. And some think it's a licence to act the dickhead.

Also, private companies don't have to allow freedom of speech - only state bodies do.

However, it is true that there is a stifling of what people can say in public now, because it might cause offence. Even if it is the truth, well supported/researched, and presented in respectful language. Such as saying that particular communities or cultures have certain negative traits... unless they're groups who are fair game. E.g. we Irish have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. We certainly do. It's a fact so I see no issue with it being said.

Publish something negative about other groups though, and you risk your job.

This kind of stifling led to the flourishing of the sex abuse rings in the UK.

And the press, while privately owned, should be reporting what is really happening, but it too is stifled.

You don't have to be a racist to see the problem here. It's part of what's leading to an increase in support for right-wing ideology also.

In my opinion, all views, once phrased respectfully and without hateful language and in appropriate settings and well researched, should be aired instead of driving them to the fringes where the malcontents can embrace them. As is happening now.

Then these ideas can be debated, refuted, whatever - by folk also exercising freedom of speech.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-11-2018 11:34pm

Ana Quaint Garter wrote: »

However, it is true that there is a stifling of what people can say in public now, because it might cause offence. Even if it is the truth, well supported/researched, and presented in respectful language. Such as saying that particular communities or cultures have certain negative traits... unless they're groups who are fair game. E.g. we Irish have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. We certainly do. It's a fact so I see no issue with it being said.

Here, I disagree with you. If you're worried about causing offense, you're effectively censoring yourself. No one else is doing it to you. I personally couldn't give a flying **** who gets offended. It's their choice, not mine. I often find people who claim to be censored know their viewpoint is flawed and are using this as a cop-out.

As regards the bit in bold, that's a careful one.
Example: "All travelers are thieves" is bigoted. "Most travelers are thieves" - well, maybe. But people think that they can back this up by pointing to the occasional news story or anecdote...! Eh no. In order to be statistically correct, you need to know 1) the exact traveler population; and 2) what percentage of that number have actually stolen things. "Travellers are more likely to steal than settled people" would be a safer remark.

Gimme A Pound · 21-11-2018 11:38pm

If you *publish* those points of view though. You could be risking your job.

And yes I do mean people being respectful about it and using language like that which you suggested is fairer.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-11-2018 11:46pm

Ana Quaint Garter wrote: »

If you *publish* those points of view though. You could be risking your job.

True - and I'd agree with you - but ultimately you hit the nail on the head when you said "private companies don't have to give you freedom of speech".

The problem with losing your job is: is the company losing customers? If you have no problem with something controversial that your employee says - even if you don't agree with it - what do you do if your customers DO have a problem and decide to take their business elsewhere?

The simple solution is to put a clause in the contract and make sure the employee is aware when signing it. They are then aware of the consequences and choose to accept said consequences.

fash · 22-11-2018 9:56am

Paul Lee wrote: »

Voting twice in a referendum is the very essence of totalitarianism.

We have very different definitions of totalitarianism...
My definition involves no voting - I submit that my definition is correct.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Remember Lisbon 2? We were told "There will be no EU Army. Don't be stupid conspiracy nuts. Now go and vote for Lisbon properly this time!" So we did....

Who is this "we"?
It sounds like you listen to whatever people tell you as opposed to investigating matters yourself.
Why should I value the opinion of someone who merely does what they are told?
It suggests you still just follow what you are told - but this time told by a different group.

quote="Paul Lee;108677513"]You do know that there are calls for a second Brexit referendum, right? Call that freedom? What dictionary are you using?[/quote]
Both the freedom to call for a second referendum and the freedom to choose again /decide differently certainly falls within the definition of freedom - and I personally tend to use the Oxford English dictionary where needing to discuss definitions.

Paul Lee · 22-11-2018 3:39pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Of course. What you're saying is complete bull**** - for reasons I've already stated - but you still have the right to say it. You ARE saying it.

Now, you said you came in here expecting debate: care to counter the points I made or elaborate on the content of the youtube videos you linked to?

OK, Mary Boyle disappeared. Where is justice for her? Dig a little bit and you'll find out what suppression of free speech is like. It could be permanent suppression as in the case of some unfortunate people.

Same with the Ian Bailey case. Go down to West Cork and see how well received you'll be by certain members of the Force. I haven't experienced it myself but I'm inclined to believe Gemma O'Doherty before I'd believe politicians in a mainstream party.

I can give you examples of my own experience too (involving a State appointed solicitor.) but I don't want to create a conflict of interest.

Does that answer your question?

I don't think you need to be so belligerent. What's the point of it? It doesn't bother me too much, just that it's a silly waste of energy and it's kind of irritating.

SusieBlue · 22-11-2018 3:55pm

The Mary Boyle case is a lot more complex & sinister than simply being about free speech. I think the whole country knows whose responsible for it at this stage.

Paul Lee · 22-11-2018 4:08pm

fash wrote: »

We have very different definitions of totalitarianism...
My definition involves no voting - I submit that my definition is correct.

Who is this "we"?
It sounds like you listen to whatever people tell you as opposed to investigating matters yourself.
Why should I value the opinion of someone who merely does what they are told?
It suggests you still just follow what you are told - but this time told by a different group.

quote="Paul Lee;108677513"]You do know that there are calls for a second Brexit referendum, right? Call that freedom? What dictionary are you using?

Both the freedom to call for a second referendum and the freedom to choose again /decide differently certainly falls within the definition of freedom - and I personally tend to use the Oxford English dictionary where needing to discuss definitions.[/QUOTE]

At least in a "proper" no-vote totalitarian state the dictators are being honest. The sneaky [insert choice term]s in the EU pretend that it's OK to have a "free" election. Sure Saddam Hussein had elections for ef sake. Now in fairness he used to get 90% but at least they didn't have to go through the humiliation or waste of time going through the motions again to come up with the "right" answer.

Please answer the following two questions.

Why is it that some elections in Europe only have to be run once, others twice?

Which group of people decides that an election has to be run for the second time? Who are these people? What authority do they have? Can I apply for membership to this committee? No, on second thought I wouldn't give myself that kind of power because that would be an abuse of power.

Paul Lee · 22-11-2018 4:11pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

The Mary Boyle case is a lot more complex & sinister than simply being about free speech. I think the whole country knows whose responsible for it at this stage.

I agree there are a lot more things involved than free speech alone.

There's also massive deceit and denial of access to justice etc. But this conversation is about PCness and free speech.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-11-2018 4:30pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

OK, Mary Boyle disappeared. Where is justice for her? Dig a little bit and you'll find out what suppression of free speech is like. It could be permanent suppression as in the case of some unfortunate people.

Same with the Ian Bailey case. Go down to West Cork and see how well received you'll be by certain members of the Force. I haven't experienced it myself but I'm inclined to believe Gemma O'Doherty before I'd believe politicians in a mainstream party.

I can give you examples of my own experience too (involving a State appointed solicitor.) but I don't want to create a conflict of interest.

Does that answer your question?

No, not even close.

You still haven't told me the connection between your point of view and the youtube clips. It's not up to me to "dig a little bit" - it's up to you to put forward your own point. The fact that you haven't indicates you're either too lazy to, or not capable of it.

Nor have you explained the connection between these cases and a lack of freedom of speech. Or PCness, as you call it. Now, just to be clear, I'm NOT calling bull**** on this one: I'm just saying you haven't explained the connection; which, again as the person who brought it up, is your task, not mine.

I don't think you need to be so belligerent. What's the point of it? It doesn't bother me too much, just that it's a silly waste of energy and it's kind of irritating.

Calling you out on bull**** is not belligetent. You either accept it or counter. You have so far declined to counter.

fash · 22-11-2018 4:31pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

At least in a "proper" no-vote totalitarian state the dictators are being honest. The sneaky [insert choice term]s in the EU pretend that it's OK to have a "free" election. Sure Saddam Hussein had elections for ef sake. Now in fairness he used to get 90% but at least they didn't have to go through the humiliation or waste of time going through the motions again to come up with the "right" answer.

Please answer the following two questions.

Why is it that some elections in Europe only have to be run once, others twice?

Elections are run whenever the term for MEPs runs out- what do you mean by twice?

Paul Lee wrote: »

Which group of people decides that an election has to be run for the second time?

Who are these people? What authority do they have? Can I apply for membership to this committee? No, on second thought I wouldn't give myself that kind of power because that would be an abuse of power.

They are set out in the EU treaties.
Can't make out what "abuse of power" is supposed to mean. There is a separation of powers, everything subject to ECJ and the Irish Supreme Court and Irish constitution and the ECHR gives other rights etc. etc.

Paul Lee · 22-11-2018 4:56pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, not even close.

You still haven't told me the connection between your point of view and the youtube clips. It's not up to me to "dig a little bit" - it's up to you to put forward your own point. The fact that you haven't indicates you're either too lazy to, or not capable of it.

Nor have you explained the connection between these cases and a lack of freedom of speech. Or PCness, as you call it. Now, just to be clear, I'm NOT calling bull**** on this one: I'm just saying you haven't explained the connection; which, again as the person who brought it up, is your task, not mine.

Calling you out on bull**** is not belligetent. You either accept it or counter. You have so far declined to counter.

Ah jaysus. I did answer your questions. And I can't counter being called out on BS- rhetoric not debate.

Look, thanks for your time. Have a great day.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-11-2018 5:18pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

Ah jaysus. I did answer your questions. And I can't counter being called out on BS- rhetoric not debate.

Look, thanks for your time. Have a great day.

No, you didn't and we both know that. Well, should - I've pointed it out to you twice now.

If you come into a debate forum saying you want to debate, then be prepared for debate.

Paul Lee · 22-11-2018 6:24pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, you didn't and we both know that. Well, should - I've pointed it out to you twice now.

If you come into a debate forum saying you want to debate, then be prepared for debate.

debate

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/debate

batgoat · 22-11-2018 6:56pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

Ah jaysus. I did answer your questions. And I can't counter being called out on BS- rhetoric not debate.

Look, thanks for your time. Have a great day.

Your group really is not sounding like what you will it as. No sign of an interest in open discussion, you just shout anyone down who respectfully disagrees with you. If anything, it sounds like you're annoyed that people don't like bigots.

Paul Lee · 22-11-2018 7:54pm

You're very welcome to comment batgoat.

batgoat · 22-11-2018 7:59pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

You're very welcome to comment batgoat.

So why have you accused people of being fascists and communists for disagreeing with you?

namloc1980 · 22-11-2018 8:34pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

Please answer the following two questions.

Why is it that some elections in Europe only have to be run once, others twice?

Which group of people decides that an election has to be run for the second time? Who are these people? What authority do they have? Can I apply for membership to this committee? No, on second thought I wouldn't give myself that kind of power because that would be an abuse of power.

What are you on about? Honestly I have no idea what this is referring to?

4068ac1elhodqr · 22-11-2018 8:39pm

The question is wrong from the outset. as Ire is only the 6th or 7th fav to leave the EU.
So it's an unlikely event in relation to current conditions.

If others such as Italy, Sweden and Denmark all leave, then the game changes completely.

Thus the question should be:
i) If other countries perfrom an exit (the handful more likely to leave than Ire)...
ii) ..and brexit proves to be a hard going, affecting the economy, peace and freedom of movement
iii) ..and a new wave of (economic) (non-eu) migrants set their sights on the green welfare pie
iv) ..and linked to above, nobody bothers building any new housing (social or private)

....then, should the matter be discussed? Yes, perhaps.

Afterall when Ire joined, the EU was nothing like it is today.
Heard the Western Balkans are due to join the eu soon too, sure why not.
But the real fun will stop once Turkey join, won't be for a fair while.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-11-2018 1:11pm

How does staying or leaving the EU affect the number of NON-EU immigrants?

You and the Brexiteers really need to answer that question.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-11-2018 1:14pm

Paul Lee wrote: »

Why is it that some elections in Europe only have to be run once, others twice?

A referendum is not an election. Elections happen periodically, the electorate are allowed change their mind and people have no problem with that, yet some do for referendums. If the electorate were never allowed to change their mind there'd be no need to have referendums at all, sure wasn't the constitution voted in in 1937 perfect in every way?

Which group of people decides that an election has to be run for the second time?

That's easy. The Irish government. It was the policy of the Irish government we elected that we participate fully in EU treaties. They were perfectly within their rights to hold a second referendum, even if there hadn't been a low turnout and complete bulls**t reasons put forward by the No side the first time. You were not obliged to vote a certain way, or even vote at all.

Blitzkrieger · 23-11-2018 2:06pm

TL;DR - Things have changed; of course a democratic country should have another vote if the citizens want one.

mackeminexile wrote: »

if they hold a second referendum it's the definition of freedom and democracy, considering the first one isn't legally binding and only advisory. Also the terms of the referendum certainly didn't include the true nature of leave or remain and the brexiteers have been found to have broken the law in numerous ways, not the least being the links that are now being explored between Arron Banks (leave.eu financier), Steve Bannon and Russia.

I saw an English 'leave' MP make some good points about that. He questioned if you have a second referendum, why not have a third? At what point do you accept the people have spoken?

He also addressed the issue of 'people didn't know what they voted for', but rather badly I thought. His point was that people never really know what they're voting for, even in a general election - you cast your vote and wait to see what sort of government is formed. I think he meant that you vote to signal your intention, but kind of leaves open all sorts of questions about what voters want being fulfilled, and what politicians actually ****ing do once they're elected.

We really still don't know what Brexit 'means'. Even on the leave side there are those that want close ties to the EU including a customs union in the future, and others that want a complete break. Four(ish) months to go and there's still a lot to be decided. MPs are still trying to push for a vote in parliament on whether a deal will be accepted or not. Some polls suggest the public have moved towards the remain side, and of course some suggested that the public always wanted to remain but some lazy morons didn't bother going out to vote because they thought remain was a forgone conclusion.

So we're what? Almost 3 years down the line from the referendum? There's still a lot of uncertainty, and it'd be nice to have a black and white choice between the final exit treaty and remaining, but in my opinion, if the citizens now wanted a new referendum it should be done. Surely citizens should be allowed to change their opinion over time.

eagle eye · 23-11-2018 2:45pm

They voted to leave, those who wanted to stay are shouting loudest since the referendum.
You can't have referendums every couple of years. You have to go with what you voted for and if it's not working after a decade then you can look for another referendum.

Politcally Incorrect

Comments