Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

John Gormley Opportunist

Options
  • 12-01-2008 12:50pm
    #1
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭


    Can anyone else see this clown for what he really is?

    A band wagon hopping, power hungry opportunist out to make a name for himself.

    Helping Ireland lead Europe into a green future? The only green in Gorm leys eyes would appear to be fiat currency.

    SHAM.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    no people jsut realised he is politician SHOCK


  • Options
    #3
    BarryM
    Registered Users Posts: 837 ✭✭✭BarryM


    casey212 wrote: »
    Can anyone else see this clown for what he really is?

    A band wagon hopping, power hungry opportunist out to make a name for himself.

    Yes!!! What I don't understand, and it doesn't only apply to Gormless, is why he doesn't see the positive opportunity in being a Green Minister who does real Green/political things, such as sorting out the Electoral Register, providing tax incentives to communities to implement green initiatives, etc., instead of playing silly politics. They must think we are terrible eejits....

    In general terms pols don't see that there are plenty of opportunities to do positive things....

    Bye, Barry


  • Options
    #4
    Oilrig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭Oilrig


    Methinks the "Permanent Government" are having a field day while said Minister gets over the naive stage and wakes up to the reality of being in Cabinet.

    Greens will disapear from the radar if he keeps this up IMHO.

    FF must be laughing.


  • Options
    #5
    BarryM
    Registered Users Posts: 837 ✭✭✭BarryM


    Oilrig wrote: »
    Greens will disapear from the radar if he keeps this up IMHO.

    Exactly, unfortunately he doesn't see it like that. He thinks that yadadedada type sniping at FG et al will show people what a great pol he is.
    IMO people are satisfied that the Greens are there, because they hope they'll put some manners on the FFers. Not like they did with the PDs but in the light of the need to make FF realise that there is more to life than local fixing and looking after their pals, like the climate....

    Some hope :mad:

    Bye, Barry


  • Options
    #6
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,423 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    casey212 wrote: »
    Can anyone else see this clown for what he really is? A band wagon hopping, power hungry opportunist out to make a name for himself. Helping Ireland lead Europe into a green future? The only green in Gorm leys eyes would appear to be fiat currency. SHAM.
    I'm wondering if you could expand your post. Its a little thick on claims, thin on facts, statements and argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,370 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Oilrig wrote: »
    Greens will disapear from the radar if he keeps this up IMHO.

    They won't disappear , but I think people that supported them this time hoped they would be a voice for change. But seems like they have just been gobbled up by the FF machine so it will be business as usual

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    silverharp wrote: »
    They won't disappear , but I think people that supported them this time hoped they would be a voice for change. But seems like they have just been gobbled up by the FF machine so it will be business as usual


    Agreed.

    There is no chance of this green movement scam disappearing. The green party themselves are idiots. Look how they have folded since the last election. Gormley himself comes across as more of an idiot every time I see his smug face.

    As I have said before I feel the whole global warming/carbon tax to be a tactic for imflicting yet more taxes on a naive public. Intense debate surrounds the issue of global warming, yet we are only presented with one side in the media, which has been bought and paid for long ago.

    Carbon taxing is another method to transfer wealth from the middle class to their rulers, with the ultimate ambition of a two tiered society. The rulers and the ruled, the haves and the have nots, the educated and the plebs.


  • Options
    #9
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I refer you to Victor's post above.


  • Options
    #10
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    I've always voted for the Greens (I live in Gormley's constituency.)

    I don't think they know what to do now they're in Government. And I find their support of dodgy Bertie quite sickening.

    I won't be voting for them again.


  • Options
    #11
    Trotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭Trotter


    We've nobody to blame but ourselves for Gormley, or Ahearn.

    Prior to the election, FF treated the electorate like we were stupid, as they still do.

    How did we react? We returned FF to Government. Gormley is now changing his tune and has so far been poor in dealing with FF's arrogance.

    We deserve what we get. We voted for being treated like muck, so thats what we're getting. I'd have much more respect for Gormley if he made it clear he wasn't impressed with FF's seemingly orchestrated attack on the tribunal for example. Theres a stink here of someone pandering to the master.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    Trotter wrote: »
    We've nobody to blame but ourselves for Gormley, or Ahearn.

    .

    Thats why i don't vote. If you vote you are giving these scumbags the right to walk all over you.

    As for evidence backing up my opinions on John "the smug clown" Gormley, you only have to look at the lightbulb issue for a good starting point. Wait until he gets his hands on the carbon tax issue, he is kidding himself if he thinks I am going to pay anything. I'll do time before I support that scam.

    Gormless is just reacting to this environment movement to raise his profile, increase his power and enslave the people of this nation even further.

    If people do not become aware of this environment debacle they will not be able to move for want of taxes.

    And to think people look up to this Gormley. The environment movement would be exactly the same without him, after all he is just the gimp introducing measures handed down in Brussels.


  • Options
    #13
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Casey212, this forum isn't here for baseless rants. If you want to continue posting here, support your claims with evidence to back them up.


  • Options
    #14
    Bren_M.Records
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭Bren_M.Records


    casey212 wrote: »
    Agreed.

    As I have said before I feel the whole global warming/carbon tax to be a tactic for imflicting yet more taxes on a naive public. Intense debate surrounds the issue of global warming, yet we are only presented with one side in the media, which has been bought and paid for long ago.


    If your refering to global warming itself in this comment I think your wrong.
    The intense debate is pretty much over.


  • Options
    #15
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    Bren_M.Records wrote: »
    If your refering to global warming itself in this comment I think your wrong.
    The intense debate is pretty much over.

    What?

    Do you mean the debate is over or the propaganda has had its effect?


  • Options
    #16
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    Moriarty wrote: »
    Casey212, this forum isn't here for baseless rants. If you want to continue posting here, support your claims with evidence to back them up.

    With all due respect how have I breached the peace. By voicing my views on the subject of John Gormley?

    I think he is a opportunist. I have made reference to the light bulb scam the carbon tax scam and the fact that he is only a puppet for the powers in Brussels. Also can I not use opinions gathered from my personal perceptions, our must one reference the Irish Times before stating something?


  • Options
    #17
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    casey212 wrote: »
    I have made reference to the light bulb scam...
    Without explaining why you call it a scam.
    casey212 wrote: »
    ...the carbon tax scam...
    Based on your disputed platform of global warming conspiracy theories.
    casey212 wrote: »
    ...and the fact that he is only a puppet for the powers in Brussels.
    That's not a fact, it's an unsupported opinion.

    This isn't a soap-box. Make coherent, supported arguments, or don't post anything. Oh, and read the charter before arguing with a moderator in-thread again.


  • Options
    #18
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Without explaining why you call it a scam.

    Does this need to be explained? I just happened to be in a shop at the weekend where the "environmental" bulbs were selling for €8 each whereas normal bulbs were €1.40 for two. The science behind the bulbs is riddled with holes and the suitability of these bulbs is insane.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Based on your disputed platform of global warming conspiracy theories. That's not a fact, it's an unsupported opinion.

    Its not unsupported opinion, I myself support my opinion and many others also do. Unsupported by the media, maybe that was what you were refering too.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    This isn't a soap-box. Make coherent, supported arguments, or don't post anything. Oh, and read the charter before arguing with a moderator in-thread again.

    Soap box? I thought these forums were for people to debate various issues and present issues. It is becoming increasingly apparent that everyone is required to have the same brain washed view. If I were to proclaim in favour of the environmental scam, would I be accused of speaking on a soap box?

    Where have I argued with a moderator? and stop draging this off topic.


  • Options
    #19
    Tommy T
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Tommy T


    casey212 wrote: »
    Does this need to be explained? I just happened to be in a shop at the weekend where the "environmental" bulbs were selling for €8 each whereas normal bulbs were €1.40 for two. The science behind the bulbs is riddled with holes and the suitability of these bulbs is insane.



    Its not unsupported opinion, I myself support my opinion and many others also do. Unsupported by the media, maybe that was what you were refering too.



    Soap box? I thought these forums were for people to debate various issues and present issues. It is becoming increasingly apparent that everyone is required to have the same brain washed view. If I were to proclaim in favour of the environmental scam, would I be accused of speaking on a soap box?

    Where have I argued with a moderator?


    We have to be wary of the Laws of Libel here so stop posting shi'ite about scams without proof. Capiche..?


  • Options
    #20
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    Tommy T wrote: »
    We have to be wary of the Laws of Libel here so stop posting shi'ite about scams without proof. Capiche..?

    Capiche? I don't understand, what does this mean.

    As for laws of libel, I can really see a case of "the green party versus casey212" standing up in court, given that nothing I have said so far is untrue. Correct me if i am wrong.


  • Options
    #21
    Tommy T
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Tommy T


    casey212 wrote: »
    Capiche? I don't understand, what does this mean.

    As for laws of libel, I can really see a case of "the green party versus casey212" standing up in court, given that nothing I have said so far is untrue. Correct me if i am wrong.


    No. Gormley would sue boards.ie for allowing you post your unsubstantiated allegations and therefore put in grave danger the future of this forum...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    Tommy T wrote: »
    No. Gormley would sue boards.ie for allowing you post your unsubstantiated allegations and therefore put in grave danger the future of this forum...

    How are my posts unsubstantiated? Are these new lightbulbs not being introduced? Will a carbon tax not be introduced shortly? is Gormley not applying "laws" handed down from Brussels? and is he not an opportunist?

    Debate any of these points.

    As for "sueing". What use is a forum if only popular views can be aired? The rest of the media seem to do a great job already.


  • Options
    #23
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    casey212 banned. I already warned you about dragging your conspiracy theories in here after you were banned from Green Issues.


  • Options
    #24
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    dublindude wrote: »
    I won't be voting for them again.

    I've voted Green for nearly 20 years. Before this election I contacted Sargeant via their website and told him that the Green Party was losing my vote unless he categorically stated that they wouldn't go into coalition with FF. He replied and basically said we'll go in to government with anyone. So I didn't vote for them for the first time.

    Now my fears have been realised. Without the drama of casey :D.

    While Gormley is doing some good things they are toeing the FF party line on too many others. Roads would be the perfect example of this. Then Ryan wants a public debate on nuclear energy. And now the Greens in govt. are supporting this treaty which has pretty much already been rejected by two other countries under a different guise. I couldn't actually believe the arrogance of the parliamentary party giving public support days before a party conference to decide the party stance. The only good thing about that was that it cost them votes and they didn't get the 66% required.


  • Options
    #25
    Tommy T
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Tommy T


    The Greens have evolved since the days of protesting against Sellafield and sailing in the rainbow Warrior.

    They've become an establishment Party. this will obviously lead to some traditionalists leaving but also makes them more vattractive to establishment floating voters. So overall I'd say their being in Gov will increase their political support,...


  • Options
    #26
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Tommy T wrote: »
    The Greens have evolved since the days of protesting against Sellafield and sailing in the rainbow Warrior.

    They've become an establishment Party. this will obviously lead to some traditionalists leaving but also makes them more vattractive to establishment floating voters. So overall I'd say their being in Gov will increase their political support,...

    Unlikely. Many of the "floaters" who did vote for them did so on the assumption that FF would not be a party of choice. Green policies are popular enough and they give the soft left voters and anti-Govt young voters enough of a squishy feeling to put them in as preference number 3. Both Gormley and Sargent scraped in. Can you honestly see self-serving FF saying vote FF 1 &2 and Greens number 3?
    Ultimately FF and FG benefit from small parties not getting it quite right. Spring screwed up and Labour suffered, the PDs wavered, dived back into government and got punished. The Greens have screwed up and while they identify some benefits from this period, they are likely to suffer the same fate.

    Incidentally what the hell is an "establishment floating voter"? A contradiction in terms if ever I saw one.


  • Options
    #27
    Tommy T
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Tommy T


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Unlikely. Many of the "floaters" who did vote for them did so on the assumption that FF would not be a party of choice. Green policies are popular enough and they give the soft left voters and anti-Govt young voters enough of a squishy feeling to put them in as preference number 3. Both Gormley and Sargent scraped in. Can you honestly see self-serving FF saying vote FF 1 &2 and Greens number 3?
    Ultimately FF and FG benefit from small parties not getting it quite right. Spring screwed up and Labour suffered, the PDs wavered, dived back into government and got punished. The Greens have screwed up and while they identify some benefits from this period, they are likely to suffer the same fate.

    Incidentally what the hell is an "establishment floating voter"? A contradiction in terms if ever I saw one.

    You make some interesting points. however I can see alot of dissaffected Labour/Intellectual wine drinking FG'ers supporters fitting quite comfortably in the Green Party.

    A floating establishment voter is someone whose always voted for an establishment party but was willing to vote fr a different one dpeending on the election in question...


Advertisement