Bush to visit Ireland in June

bonkey

Originally posted by Nuttzz
thats my point, the general consensus here (this thread & the how anti american are you thread in After hours) is that Bush is a evil monster and that Clinton walked on water,

I dunno where you're getting that attitude from in this thread? All I can see is people saying that they supported Clinton....not that he was flawless.

Cant comment on the AH thread - haven't read it (yet).

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
He probably won't let them do anything but carry sidearms though tbh. Anything more would be probably be detrimental to his political career.

Who? Bertie? Bertie understands that very little he does like this is detrimental to his political career, because the stink will have died down before election time.

What did the Secret Service carry during Clinton's visit?

AFAIK, in previous visits, they have had SMGs (or equivalent) in some sort of "quick-release bag", and then regular side-arms. Could be wrong tho.

jc

dahamsta

You can't move for trolls in this thread.

D

About the secret service (SS) i doubt they will get much of what is asked for. Don't they, however, use low-power weapons, so the chance of leathly killing somone is reduced. Also their main objective is to protect the president not shoot would-be attackers. I hope that any protests that are made are peaceful as this will inevitably give more meaning and garner more respect than a simple riot.

comet

Nora Owen saying Bush should not come here after the Madrid bombings is talking like a real spineless coward. The day we bend to these ruthless killers is the day democracy is dead.

BuffyBot

Nora Owen saying Bush should not come here after the Madrid bombings is talking like a real spineless coward. The day we bend to these ruthless killers is the day democracy is dead.

"Spineless coward" - hmmmm. Well, to be honest, if expressing a concern regarding the possible implications of such a visit makes her a spineless coward, I guess there are quite a few out there. At the end of the day, democracy entitles her to say exactly what she likes, positive or negative about the Bush visit. While it is unlikely Ireland will be targetted by Al-Qaeda in light of this visit, it's not completely beyond the bounds of possibility either.

Sparks

Originally posted by comet
Nora Owen saying Bush should not come here after the Madrid bombings is talking like a real spineless coward.

Not to worry comet, we have brave people like yourself to stand up and show us what's right!
:rolleyes:

The day we bend to these ruthless killers is the day democracy is dead.

Total number of innocent casualties attributed to Al Quaeda, including the WTC attack, Bali, Madrid, the embassy bombings and so on, comes to what, just under five thousand?
Total number of innocent casualties attributed to US armed forces since 2001 is somewhere between 10,500 and 13,500 from Afghanistan and Iraq alone.
George Bush personally approved the killing of more men during his term of governer of texas than any other governer in the US. (And yes, I am referring to death penalty cases but I think we all know the US's record on faulty convictions with death penalty cases, and if we know, he knows).

So frankly, I don't see how you can say that the US is guilt-free here. As far as I can see, even from a firsl glance, they're effectively equivalent.

comet

Originally posted by Sparks


Total number of innocent casualties attributed to Al Quaeda, including the WTC attack, Bali, Madrid, the embassy bombings and so on, comes to what, just under five thousand?
Total number of innocent casualties attributed to US armed forces since 2001 is somewhere between 10,500 and 13,500 from Afghanistan and Iraq alone.
George Bush personally approved the killing of more men during his term of governer of texas than any other governer in the US. (And yes, I am referring to death penalty cases but I think we all know the US's record on faulty convictions with death penalty cases, and if we know, he knows).

So frankly, I don't see how you can say that the US is guilt-free here. As far as I can see, even from a firsl glance, they're effectively equivalent.

Whether people like it or not Bush is the democratically elected leader of America (taking into account the counting fiasco). I don't agree with the death penalty but a lot of Americans do especially in places like Texas. If we reject Bush, we are rejecting America and to follow this logic will we soon be seeing picketing of US multinationals here asking them to leave? I don't have a problem with protests against Bushs visit, thats a right people have, my problem is people saying he can't come. On another note I can't remember too many protests when Yasser Arafat visited.

seamus

Originally posted by comet
If we reject Bush, we are rejecting America

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Why do people keep making that mistake?

I don't like Bertie or most of his cabinet. Have I rejected the Republic of Ireland?

I can see how *some* people could construe that, but the majority of protestors sport anti-Bush slogans, not anti-US slogans, and they make a point of that.

Hobbes

If you reject bush then you are siding with the terrorists! So let Bush come.

I see thier secret Service are trying to get "Shoot whoever the fuk we feel like" policy in Ireland, so with any luck they can take out some of the bleeding heart whining liberals, its not like they are going to vote for the right person.

Villain

Originally posted by Hobbes
If you reject bush then you are siding with the terrorists! So let Bush come.

:rolleyes:

Making a statement like is just stupid.

I don't want Bush to come because it will put the safety of Irish citizens in jeopardy.

Sparks

When was Bush democratically elected comet?
:rolleyes:

comet

Originally posted by irish1
:rolleyes:

Making a statement like is just stupid.

I don't want Bush to come because it will put the safety of Irish citizens in jeopardy.

In the context of the argument I am saying that people saying Bush should not come here because of fear of terrorist attack is a cop out. We hold the presidency of the EU, to paraphrase Robert Emmet we must take our place amoung the nations of the earth. This is a meeting between Europe and America taking place in Ireland, its a great honour. Do we see Greece saying they won't hold the Olympics, Portugal saying they won't hold the European Championships, its the same thing, a high profile event that requires high security thats all. Why can't we do it, after all we've as much experience of dealing with terrorists as any country.

Originally posted by Sparks

When was Bush democratically elected comet?

Bush was democratically elected in that he was elected according to the rules of the US electoral process, can't say much more than that.

Villain

Originally posted by comet
In the context of the argument I am saying that people saying Bush should not come here because of fear of terrorist attack is a cop out.

I was responding to Hobbes

If you reject bush then you are siding with the terrorists! So let Bush come.

I then went on to say why IMHO I think he shoulden't come.

Sparks

Originally posted by comet
Bush was democratically elected in that he was elected according to the rules of the US electoral process, can't say much more than that.

Yes you can. You can point out that Jeb Bush broke federal electoral law by eliminating large swathes of people from the ballot and that if that hadn't happened, Bush would probably not have been elected. You can point out that the judges in the supreme court who ruled on the case can't claim independence as a substantial fraction of them were elected by Bush Sr., and you can point out that had Gore fought longer, he would in all probability have won.

If you reject bush then you are siding with the terrorists! So let Bush come.

Actually no we're not. If we're rejecting Bush we're expressing our right to free speech and the right to believe what we wish towards a foreign national. However, if we bow to preasure from pro-bush supporters, despite what we truely believe we've just lost our freedom. I'm against Bush coming here, for many reasons. I'm not inclined to march against it, but thats mainly because i'm a lazy bastard. However, if other people wish to march against this visit i'll support them, just as i'd support your right to march in support of Bush's policies. I mightn't necessarily agree with you, but i'm not going to call you a terrorist for supporting him.

You can't move for trolls in this thread.

Someday I'd love to see the Official boards definition of what a troll is. Perhaps you could come together and actually agree on it? I'm getting a wee bit tired of seeing such posts. Technically, from what i've seen in other posts, you could be called that for your two posts here in this thread.

monument

Originally posted by comet
Whether people like it or not Bush is the democratically elected leader of America

Whether you like it or not killing someone one way or another is still killing someone.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
Someday I'd love to see the Official boards definition of what a troll is.

I'm pretty sure trolls don't put smileys on thier post title. Although I did score a few points for that one.

ownage.

D

dahamsta

Originally posted by klaz
Someday I'd love to see the Official boards definition of what a troll is. Perhaps you could come together and actually agree on it? I'm getting a wee bit tired of seeing such posts. Technically, from what i've seen in other posts, you could be called that for your two posts here in this thread.

For the record, I wasn't trying to troll. It just seems obvious to me that at least two and probably three posters in this thread are trolls, most likely users created for the specific purpose of trolling, most likely by regular posters on the board. The level of intelligence of some humans often surprises me, but I don't think that's the case here. They're here to wind people up and cause trouble. I guess it's nice that discussion pops up around the trolls, it just seems odd to me that others can't see them under their bridges.

adam

D

Whoa I ain't trolling I just put up the link to the gathering page.

okies. Its just that i haven't seen any real explanation as to what a troll is, and people are mentioning them alot more lately. (including myself being called one, so i was unsure whetehr to be offended or not..... although, with my post no. i'm hardly one. still... :rolleyes: )

Hobbes

(this is getting off topic)

A troll is defined in the card played by D. Basically a post that causes people to reply. My attempt at sarcasm (notice smiley on post) appeared to have trollish quaities.
l

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
okies. Its just that i haven't seen any real explanation as to what a troll is, and people are mentioning them alot more lately. (

In the hopes that we can get back on topic (before I decide the thread is dead and close it....) I thought I'd clear up my understanding of it.

A troll is someone who is posting purely to cause disruption. This is different from a Devils Advocate, who may not believe what they say, but are taking a position to encourage discussion (or just for fun) and who will make a serious effort to defend that position rationally.

Trolls don't want the discussion to continue - they want reactions. They want people to post saying "oh look, its a troll", typically hoping it will be followed by "shut up and don't feed the troll then" posts, and then they can sit back and giggle as everything falls apart. They will post with the most absurd stances, purely and solely to try and push someone into outrage at how stupid they are for taking such a position...which will then cause things to devolve into "don't feed the troll" rubbish again.

In fact, looking at the past couple of posts should give you a really good idea of what a troll is - because we're all allowing ourselves to move off the topic and discuss the troll instead.

The amount of disruption you (as a troll) appear to be trying to cause really determines whether or not you're a problem. Hobbes is inclined to the occasional mild trollage (like that post earlier). ANyone who knows his posting style and stance would immediately spot that he was clearly taking the p1ss and hopefully ignored it.

The biggest problem as a mod - as I've pointed out elsewhere - is that its virtually impossible to distinguish between trolls and people who can't structure their argument well and who also hold - how shall I put this - "fringe" opinions.

What p1sses me off (possibly enough to change the rules and start banning people) is the constant need for people to tell the rest of us "look, I spotted a troll". If you spotted one, then leave it the fsck alone, and don't feed it by dragging the thread off-topic to tell us all how observant you are.....because thats what the troll wants you to do. Stop playing into their hands. If you really care, then make a complaint to the mods using the "Report this post" button.

While we generally don't ban people for being reported as trolls, we do keep an eye on them, and if the messing continues, will take action of some sort.

Now can we please let this drop, or do I have to lock the thread as a dead cause.

jc

User45701

I diddnt know that troll ment a post causeing people to reply, doesnt that mean that ALLOT of people are trollers?

On a side note i have been looking over this topic and i find it interesting that people are able to debate without resorting to name calling.

I think that it is good that someone is taking the war to the terrorists.
Noone can say if MORE or LESS attacks would have happened if bush didnt start his war on terror.

I remember bush`s first words from that school on 9/11, I remember someone pointing out to me that he was trying so hard to keep the smile off his face, He now had his excuse to do everything he wanted to do.....

I didnt agree/disagree but i will say that if i was the presidint i would have much the same except i would have focusded on crime in my own country, i looked up the defination of terrorist in the dictionary and it covers ALLOT! almost anyone who commits any crime like steels a mobile phone could legaly be imprisioned in camp C-Ray.

Once again I HATE protesters and i am angerd at who won the spanish elctions.
I think it is ok to protest but what will get peoples attention better?

1. 100,000 peole march and annoy loads of epole as they stop busses and traffic.
2. A 1 mile line of people marched through the city (all the people walking in single file)

Why do people have to block the roads? it makes more enemies than allies in there campaign.

BuffyBot

i am angerd at who won the spanish elctions.

Your angered by the democratic desicion of a nation? Why?

dahamsta

Sorry, my fault. That's not a troll in my book though. A troll is intended to provoke a response sure, but the ultimate troll is the polar opposite of that outlined above: The intention is to not be identifed as a troll. A troll that aims to get pointed out as a troll is just, like, pathetic.

A good troll would be, eh, say coming in here and posting that you think George Bush is in fact Jesus reborn, and to do it so well that people believe you. And you don't post twice, you just drop the troll and run. I guess my point is that the trolls in here are so obvious, and crap, I'm surprised they're not summarily tossed out on their ear.

Anyway, enough with it. Sorry for the disruption, no more "this is a troll" posts from me.

adam

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
O connells power came from his support in the House of Commons.

Rubbish. Where in the name of christ do you get this crap from?

He translated a grassroots organisation *into* votes for his supporters.

And where did this "grassroots" organisation come from? Did it involve any of the hundreds of thousands of people that attended the monster meetings?

If he was simply leading a mob around and thats it then hed not have accomplished what he set out to do. Thats what Im saying - protests have no point, votes are what count.

He used every constitutional means available and that meant using mass meetings. If he hadn't used mass meetings then he wouldn't have got anywhere. If these meetings were so pointless why did Peel ban one planned for Clontarf, threatening to attack it if it went ahead, and have O'Connell thrown into jail?

How successful was he in 1906?

1919-22 his peaceful protests degenerated into rioting and violence

The same in 1942.

India's road to independence from Britain would have been much more violent and bloody if it hadn't been for Gandhi and his tactics.

When India and Pakistan were formed in 1947 the cultural impact of Ghandis creed was they did their best to kill each other and have done so up to present day.

Gandhi was a pacifist and was opposed to partition and there had been quite a bit of conflict between Hindus and Muslims before he'd even been born. To state that his strategy of non violent civil disobedience is responsible for partition and modern day hindu muslim conflict is just plain ignorance. Have you ever heard about the 1941 march on Washington planned by A Philip Randolph to protest against racial discrimination in the arms industry? No probably not. Well it never took place. Not because the silly negros saw sense and decided that protests were pointless but because Roosevelt decided that a 100,000 strong mob of blacks complaining about racism might look a bit embarrassing, so he caved in and signed an executive order banning discrimination.

Ive got better things to do than be as detailed with the rest,

If you've got better things to do then do us all a favour and don't bother posting. Personally, I think you're just a troll anyway.

but if you look at the rest the Civil Rights movement got the tar kicked out of it, when the SDLP came about they got a lot farther than getting gunned down by the British Army and stone throwing.

The SDLP was created by people who'd been active in the civil rights campaign or who'd been in various other parties. Without the civil rights movement on the streets there would've been no SDLP. Terence O'Neill introduced reforms, the B-Specials were disbanded and universal suffrage in local elections came in before they were even formed. They used civil disobedience and withdrew from Stormont to protest against internment by the way. When peaceful marchers got beaten up it showed neutral observers quite clearly what kind of regime they were up against and who had the moral high ground. They didn't lose just because they ended up in hospital.

The Vietnam protests caused the pullout from Vietnam?

They were a factor certainly.

Or was it the fact the cost of the war in terms of casualties,

Why were casualties a problem? Because they upset increasing numbers of the public who would then take to the streets in protest?

Protests are meaningless. Votes are what count. Votes bring about political change.

And if you have no vote to begin with? :rolleyes: Votes don't matter as much as cash anyway.

bonkey

Originally posted by Redleslie

If you've got better things to do then do us all a favour and don't bother posting. Personally, I think you're just a troll anyway.

One week ban for personal abuse.

jc

User45701

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Your angered by the democratic desicion of a nation? Why?

Because they voted for people that i do not like, people that anger me.