Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

Smiley Burnett wrote: »

sure weren't SF left with egg on their faces when they complained about a delegation from Waterford city council travelling to an event in order to get the tall ships event to return back to Waterford!!!

best thing to happen Waterford in decades and they tried to get cheap headlines out of it!!

Yeah, agree with that in fairness. Sending a couple of people to try get tall ships back may be worthwhile as there is a clear link/objective. I think we all agree the conferences and training days they have are a joke. I still have an issue with Mary Roches USA trip, (and mary O hallorans + husband), there was no clear goal.

I realise one person can do a lot, egs: Nicky Fewer - Tall Ships, Lady in Drogheda - PayPal but these are exceptional people and i think shaking hands of some CEOs of companies that we have here is not worthwhile/unlikely to get benefits. If it turned out that one of those companies was deciding whether to locate here or UK, then I would possibly agree sending over a rep with IDA might be a good idea.

Meatwad wrote: »

The main problem with the protesters is their inability to understand that just because they believe something is right, it doesn't give them the power to force other people to adhere to their belief systems.

Turn that way of thinking around, also. Just because some people think abortion is right doesn't mean everyone should say so. Abortion may or not ultimately be illegal in this country, either way, there are people that will agree with both side, that will not just go away. You have to campaign for what YOU personally believe. They are doing that, as you will if it comes to it.

Am Chile wrote: »

I agree people are entitled to have opinions and campaign on issues-but I think there is a fine line between campaigning and harassing people as they try to go about their business out in the street like the harassment john halligan faced from the pro life campaigners in tramore this past sunday-and the putting leaflets through his letterbox past 12 in the night- what do they hope to gain from it?

To quote yourself;

Am Chile wrote: »

Some people it seems have a problem with anyone who dares to air a dissenting view-protests arent unique to waterford-enda kenny was met with a large number of protesters in galway a good while ago protesting over turf cutting restrictions and protests in donegal when he went there and phil hogan met by protesters in wicklow-different groups have a gripe with the government over different issues-

TDs are there to listen. That TD actually refused to see them in his office, and refused any appointments relating to the matter. What else were they to do? Everyone has to have their say, politicians are there for everyone. Not just for you. Demanding answers and 'harassing' are too different things. Society has sensitivity issues if that constitutes are harassment now. He is a TD, and while I do not agree with disrupting his personal life, in the state Ireland is in now on any issue, why should they get an easy ride? You said yourself a lot of people have issues with the government, please do not pick and choose which ones are ok to suit yourself.

I don't know what they want to achieve by doing all that, and I am not saying I agree with the methods, but the truth of this is you would probably still give out if they didn't say boo to anyone. When they are on the street, they don't. I have been harassed more by the likes of concern/other outspoken charity collectors than I have by a few old people sitting at a table. I say fair play to them for having the guts to go out onto a busy street at that age and stand for what they believe. If it was any other subject, you would all be saying the same. I don't think it is fair to say they only come out and hide at night, when you are also giving out about them 'harassing' people in broad daylight on the street. It is either one or the other.

No matter what the subject, people in this country have a lot of issues right now, and staying silent won't do a thing. More power to the people that want to speak out about something they don't like, we are too quiet a nation as it is. Nothing will ever get done if everyone is told to shut up because not everyone agrees.

Cabaal wrote: »

Sometimes its just better to meet people in person,

Sure you can send e-mails or make a phone call but there's nothing like meeting a person face to face in the same room to make a connection.

This is case for handing in cv's for jobs, job interviews and the likes so why are people so against TD's meeting company CEO's face to face?

Yes it costs money, but sometimes it can pay off.

Sometimes......i would change that to exceptional/rare circumstances. As far as I can remember, Mary Roches rationale for going to US was to say: 'anything we can do, pick up the phone/let us know'. I would appreciate that if i was the CEO of a big company but a phone call to the office would suffice plenty. Its careless to go travelling anywhere in hope of something happening. You have to target specific things, that is when face to face helps.

andthen didnt yer pro life chap head up to halligans private home on a midnight call and shove a load of pro life flyers through the door , creepy kunt..........

Not all pro life people are basing it on relligion they could just be viewing it as a life you dont have to be Catholic to view an unborn baby as a life jasus the pro lifers have every right to protest if you dont agree with them dont join them simple its their views and they have a right to voice them, oh i actually agree with abortion but i understand if you are against it why you would be so pationate about it i dont agree with them but i wont give them abuse for protesting

Dick phelan wrote: »

Not all pro life people are basing it on relligion they could just be viewing it as a life you dont have to be Catholic to view an unborn baby as a life jasus the pro lifers have every right to protest if you dont agree with them dont join them simple its their views and they have a right to voice them, oh i actually agree with abortion but i understand if you are against it why you would be so pationate about it i dont agree with them but i wont give them abuse for protesting

Agreed.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Where's your evidence that they are well funded from the USA? If you have no proof, you yourself can be accused of same things you accuse the pro life crowd of.

Well theyre hiding something about their funding
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/anti-abortion-groups-ignored-political-watchdog-queries-1.1316629

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/why-american-pro-life-dollars-are-pouring-into-ireland/266981/

Plus have you ever looked at their rallies? Massive bilboards, thousands of professionally printed leaflets (theres never any hand made ones), buses hired to get people there, professional equipment for screens & speakers. Its not cheap and id love to know how they afford it

are they still there on a daily basis? I must get in and meet them for a chat someday Im bored

They were set up on the prom in Tramore this afternoon. two older men and one middle aged man looking for signatures to support pro life stance, realy what has it got to do with them? they couldnt answer me as to who was going to look after and financially support all these children that abortion was never an option for as they are just crumpledy misinformed old men!

blankAs wrote: »

They were set up on the prom in Tramore this afternoon. two older men and one middle aged man looking for signatures to support pro life stance, realy what has it got to do with them? they couldnt answer me as to who was going to look after and financially support all these children that abortion was never an option for as they are just crumpledy misinformed old men!

So because they are men and two were old men at that, they are misinformed and shouldn't have an opinion on the matter?

I do not see what the problem is. They have the right to protest as do the pro choice crowd. There is often pro choice protests and they have been allowed protest witout any prejudice from the authorites. I have witnessed them often enough.

Sully wrote: »

By the Waterford Forum Mods?!? Christ, the last person I expected to go down the conspiracy route was yourself!

Seriously Trotter, this is big news for Waterford - even if our application was rejected, it would need its own thread. The thread is full of negative press so we are doing an awful job. Its debatable if the news is positive. The government are being slammed in the thread. So technically, on the conspiracy theory, it should be shoved into the mega thread.

I think we would all agree, big threads (positive or negative) need to be on their own. Its not sensible to be in a megathread. The smaller ones are put into a megathread. This is to avoid the political infighting, bait biting and all around political remarks in most threads. Both threads will be heavily moderated and not by me. Not even the slightest moderation - I won't be anywhere near it with my mod hat. Its a temporary measure, and not even proposed by me - the biggest political nerd out of the mods.

Not everything is a conspiracy or out to get Waterford.

WTF on a few fronts

Firstly he didnt mention the Waterford mods or boards.ie even. He
references the boundaries report, a journalist and then suave media management. I dont knwo where you got Waterford forum mods from . Me thinks you are the one with the tinfoil hat on here Sully

Secondly point about picking and choosing what threads will have posts moved to this thread or not is nuts, users wont know where to post. If someone is out of line on thread then the mods should moderate, not pick and choose what topics can and cannot be debated on their own thread