Ireland and EU money

VoidStarNull

dresden8 wrote: »

It's kind of ironic that a lot of Yes people who slag off Ganley slag off the fact the he's a Brit or West Brit yadda yadda yadda. Surely he's a poster boy for the EU project, an immigrant who came to Ireland and made it good.

What has he ever done that is pro-EU?

He is the one that is making this claim, after all. So where's the evidence?

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

Has he mentioned where he got the few million from yet?

Have Fianna Fáil? Surely it's a matter for the tribunal!

dresden8

VoidStarNull wrote: »

What has he ever done that is pro-EU?

He is the one that is making this claim, after all. So where's the evidence?

He's a foreigner. Came to Ireland. Up to his t1ts in money. Opportunity central!

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

He's a foreigner. Came to Ireland. Up to his t1ts in money. Opportunity central!

U.S. Military Money.

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

U.S. Military Money.

Shannon Airport. US military. CIA torture flights. FF are for. PD's are for. Greens used to be against, now are for. Ganley is just a mainstream Irish politician.

Just another example of hypocrisy in Irish politics.

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

Shannon Airport. US military. CIA torture flights. FF are for. PD's are for. Greens used to be against, now are for. Ganley is just a mainstream Irish politician.

Just another example of hypocrisy in Irish politics.

Elected by whom?

He seem an odd idol for someone who is so anti-military.

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

Elected by whom?

He seem an odd idol for someone who is so anti-military.

He's not an idol. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. FF supporters/politicians (yes, not necessarily you) who support US military flights through Shannon as well as CIA rendition flights condemn Ganley for being too close to America are puke making in the extreme.

You don't have to be elected to be a politician. Look at Joe Higgins. Do try to keep up.

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

He's not an idol. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. FF supporters/politicians (yes, not necessarily you) who support US military flights through Shannon as well as CIA rendition flights condemn Ganley for being too close to America are puke making in the extreme.

You don't have to be elected to be a politician or even to have stood for election. Look at Joe Higgins. Do try to keep up.

It sure helps to have been elected at least once though. You mean the former socialist TD Joe Higgins.

It doesn't sound very democratic to be calling him a politican if he has never stood for office.

I'm a professional footballer by that logic.

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

It sure helps to have been elected at least once though. You mean the former socialist TD Joe Higgins.

It doesn't sound very democratic to be calling him a politican if he has never stood for office.

I'm a professional footballer by that logic.

Oh no, the favoured internet warrior tactic of arguing semantics over some totally irrelevant topic i.e. what constitutes a politician, rather than discussing the matter at hand, i.e. Irish collusion with the US military and CIA torture flights.

Well done.

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh no, the favoured internet warrior tactic of arguing semantics over some totally irrelevant topic i.e. what constitutes a politician, rather than discussing the matter at hand, i.e. Irish collusion with the US military and CIA torture flights.

Well done.

Oh contraire. One post does not a thread topic make. If you scroll back you will see that the subject change was in fact from what 'constitutes a politican' to these 'military matters'. As a desperate sidestep from the issue at hand. Which was if you recall how Declan Gantly is to be considered a politician?

You should at least wait untill the next page before making such claims. If you are lucky people will be too lazy to go back and you might get away with it.

Irish and Proud

marco_polo wrote: »

If you look at her leanings in terms of social issue such as abortion, divorce, contraception and stem cell research then you cannot say but that she is very very much right wing.

I'm not all that familiar with Kathy's policies, but I can try and clear up a few things. Now, most of these issues IMO are not all that relevent in the context of the Lisbon Treaty. However, here's the following opinions:


Abortion:

Abortion is not just a religious issue (I'm non religious myself), it is also a fundamental human rights issue concerning the life of an unborn human being. Abortion should only be used where:

(1) there is a genuine threat to the life of the mother while there is no chance that the baby will survive;

(2) either the mother or baby can be saved (not both), and that the mother is in the process of rearing one or more children - this point is quite a grey area, but given that both lives (mother and baby) are of equal value, then the issue of child welfare might become the deciding factor - i.e. children must, where possible, be allowed enjoy the benefits of having both a mother and father.

Abortion for the purposes of convenience would blatantly violate human rights and hence, follow the right wing principles of "survival of the fittest!". An unborn human being would be totally defenceless against such a will to kill.

That said, I agree with the right to travel, but not information. Regarding travel, Irish citizens have a right to exercise what they believe elsewhere, even if it's contrary to Irish thinking, but in the case of information, it's total hypocrisy - on one hand, our system does not permit abortion in Ireland, but on the other, it allows doctors (a part of the same system) to advise women on where they can go to have an abortion (thereby aiding and abetting).

As for the men, if a woman goes to have an abortion, the man who laid his seed must take equal responsibility for such a killing - in fact, the male should be made responsible for ensuring the welfare of his female counterpart during the course of pregnancy, and supporting her in the aftermath - having a baby is not just the woman's problem!!!


Divorce:

There is nothing wrong with divorce as long as any third party (such as children) are not compromised just for the sake of convenience. Again, the husband and wife must share equal responsibility for their actions, especially in relation to children. On the same conditions, there is nothing wrong with gay/lesbian marriage.


Contraception:

Not only is there nothing wrong with contraception (or masturbation for that matter), in some cases, it should be made compulsory where couples are deemed unfit to raise children. Most people need to practice intercourse, but in doing so, do not necessarily need to have children. If couples want to have children, then they have to understand the scale of responsibility involved.


Again, the above statements are purely normative and only intended for debate.

Regards!

marco_polo

With regards to Lisbon I'll judge her in terms of what she was shoving in peoples doors around the country.

http://www.euinfo.ie/uploads/file/LT-leaflet.pdf

Ri na hEireann

Irish and Proud, surely you can't accept that Kathy Sinnot is the full shilling,especially in terms of the European Union.
Even looking at her Lisbon Treaty campaign literature is like watchin an episode of Father Ted. I'd really recommend citing someone else as a source for quotation in future.

That said, I agree with the right to travel, but not information.

So she's in favour of censorship?

but given that both lives (mother and baby) are of equal value, then the issue of child welfare might become the deciding factor - i.e. children must, where possible, be allowed enjoy the benefits of having both a mother and father.

So a newborn with only one parent is lesser to one with two?

Not only is there nothing wrong with contraception (or masturbation for that matter), in some cases, it should be made compulsory where couples are deemed unfit to raise children.

Hint of ethnic cleansing?

Basically what I'm tryin to say in Kathy Sinnots opinion is worth as much as my 11year old brothers'.

desiredbard

Well not to ,mention how the Irish representative lines her pockets from the taxpayer that is: about halfway in this movie

She even threatens the reporter who questions her when caught in the act of getting a free days pay

Irish and Proud

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I'm not all that familiar with Kathy's policies, but I can try and clear up a few things. Now, most of these issues IMO are not all that relevent in the context of the Lisbon Treaty. However, here's the following opinions:

These are opinions on the part of Irish and Proud, not Kathy Sinnott!

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Abortion:

Abortion is not just a religious issue (I'm non religious myself), it is also a fundamental human rights issue concerning the life of an unborn human being. Abortion should only be used where:

(1) there is a genuine threat to the life of the mother while there is no chance that the baby will survive;

(2) either the mother or baby can be saved (not both), and that the mother is in the process of rearing one or more children - this point is quite a grey area, but given that both lives (mother and baby) are of equal value, then the issue of child welfare might become the deciding factor - i.e. children must, where possible, be allowed enjoy the benefits of having both a mother and father.

Abortion for the purposes of convenience would blatantly violate human rights and hence, follow the right wing principles of "survival of the fittest!". An unborn human being would be totally defenceless against such a will to kill.

That said, I agree with the right to travel, but not information. Regarding travel, Irish citizens have a right to exercise what they believe elsewhere, even if it's contrary to Irish thinking, but in the case of information, it's total hypocrisy - on one hand, our system does not permit abortion in Ireland, but on the other, it allows doctors (a part of the same system) to advise women on where they can go to have an abortion (thereby aiding and abetting).

As for the men, if a woman goes to have an abortion, the man who laid his seed must take equal responsibility for such a killing - in fact, the male should be made responsible for ensuring the welfare of his female counterpart during the course of pregnancy, and supporting her in the aftermath - having a baby is not just the woman's problem!!!


Divorce:

There is nothing wrong with divorce as long as any third party (such as children) are not compromised just for the sake of convenience. Again, the husband and wife must share equal responsibility for their actions, especially in relation to children. On the same conditions, there is nothing wrong with gay/lesbian marriage.


Contraception:

Not only is there nothing wrong with contraception (or masturbation for that matter), in some cases, it should be made compulsory where couples are deemed unfit to raise children. Most people need to practice intercourse, but in doing so, do not necessarily need to have children. If couples want to have children, then they have to understand the scale of responsibility involved.


Again, the above statements are purely normative and only intended for debate.

Regards!

I am trying to say that people who are anti-abortion are not in all cases, right wing or religious. In fact, I think that the practice of abortion (for convenience etc.) is right wing. As a non-religious person, I think it's one of the most serious violations of human rights I can think of.

Regards!

oscarBravo

Irish and Proud, this isn't the forum to discuss the rights and wrongs of abortion. I don't care how tangentially related to the topic it might be; the discussion stops now.

Irish and Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

Irish and Proud, this isn't the forum to discuss the rights and wrongs of abortion. I don't care how tangentially related to the topic it might be; the discussion stops now.

OK!