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

The Debate on the Lisbon Debate

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    humanji wrote: »
    Doesn't it end tonight? :confused:

    That was the impression I was under.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #93
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,694 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    *doh*

    sorry misread the pm, thought he said 12:59pm (it was 23:59)


    well crap. I blew my load anyway.


  • Options
    #94
    Procasinator
    Registered Users Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Procasinator


    Why is everyone scared of walls of text from FutureTaoiseach?

    Most of his paragraphs are not that long, it predominately quotes that take up space. His even been so nice to emphasis in bold the relevant information, while not omitting the surrounding contents.

    While the posts are a bit long, the flow between topics appears mostly natural. In one post he was refuting points made my other posters, and hence, the order molded based on the users points (which failed to address raised concerns one by one of FutureTaoiseach).

    While a verbal speech needs to be short and concise, lest attention wanes, this is written down. You can read at your own pace.

    I want information about the Lisbon treaty, not the posters from the side of the road put into a thread. I'm not scared to read.
    turgon wrote: »
    To say that the No side is winning outright is clearly to let your position on this Treaty distort your objective evaluation of this particular debate. BlitzKriegs retort was more factually and less based on "in my opinion" compared to FutureTaoseachs.

    Hopefully the judges whoever they are will not let their Lisbon bias impede their evaluation of the debate. Ive been judging it objectively enough so far I think, its not that hard you know. Its ok to admit the side you dont agree with is doing better.

    Seems a little bit ironic considering the bumper stickers in your signature. Whether or not you think you are being impartial is obviously biased.

    While opinions don't have much of a place in the debate, I must say I thought BlitzKriegs last post was good, and in the very least went to show the common fear of all decision making happening in Brussels is over-exaggerated.

    Looking forward to the appearance of further debaters.

    (Disclaimer: I am not in a position to vote, and the fence is stuck firmly in my behind even if I was)


  • Options
    #95
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Procasinator wrote: »
    Whether or not you think you are being impartial is obviously biased.

    How about this: You go back through every poster who has posted on this thread and rate them in terms of level bias. Im pretty sure I would rank low. Im not saying Im unbiased, Im saying Im a lot less biased than most people here. Contrast the way I was able to complement FT pretty heavily with the fact that most No voters here wouldn't even admit that Blitzkriegs first post attained any kind of merit.


  • Options
    #96
    Dr Pepper
    Registered Users Posts: 841 ✭✭✭Dr Pepper


    Procasinator wrote: »
    Why is everyone scared of walls of text from FutureTaoiseach?

    Most of his paragraphs are not that long...

    While the posts are a bit long...

    Just for fun :p, I spent 5 minutes copying only FT's posts into a word document to get a feel for their length. The 32-page text document is attached if anybody would like to take it to bed with them tonight to help them make up their mind on the legalities of the Lisbon treaty. I have included quoted text which appears in the posts (because presumably if you are quoting it directly in your posts, you expect it to be read to back up your points) but not 'linked' quoted text.

    If you want to read that and you have that kind of time, fair play to you. I personally think it's a long way beyond the scope of what this debate set out to do - help people who are undecided on how to vote.

    Who is following this debate at this stage? A handful of people with an awful lot of time and patience.
    Are any of those people likely to be influenced by it (i.e. change their mind)? I could be wrong but I doubt it! One or two maybe.
    What is the objective of this debate at this stage?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    It's 17,000 words. Blocks and blocks of text.


  • Options
    #98
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    And to supplement my previous assertion that I was relatively unbiased, I print here this post from RedPlanet:
    RedPlanet wrote: »
    On Page 1 i did a quick count, Blitzkrieg put up 8 sources.
    FutureTaoiseach. 20+ ?

    This post was in response to me saying Blitzkrieg used a "wide variety of sources." I never said he used more sources than FT. In fact my post in question didnt even mention FT. But RedPlanet appears to have jumped the gun and likened a compliment for one side to a direct insult on the other. I never even insinuated this.

    RedPlanet: you also dont understand the differences between sources and quotes. A source is a document which is referenced, a quote is a part of that source which is reproduced. FT had 20+ quotes (ill take your figure) however many of these were from the same source (TEU). The "variety of sources" declaration was mainly made due to Blitzkriegs quoting of the French Constitution, which I thought was an novel move. But I supposed that just me being biased, huh?


    I think this is the last post I make here. The debate surely had a lot of potential, but both the Public and Debating forums have failed to that potential, imo. Note how my first posts here were objective enough, complementing FT on his sterling start. Few other people were so liberal with complements of the other side. And yet Im labeled biased. Ah well, this is the Lisbon Treaty Campaign, what more should I have expected?


  • Options
    #99
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    And the Yes side complain when the 'no' side don't refer to the treaty itself.

    Or back up our claims with references.

    Blocks of texts are pretty hard to read, sure, but what other solution would you put forward?

    I was going to do something along the same time but I got bored going through page after page after page after page after page of Lisbon Treaty so I said, Christ, I'll try and talk about something which covers the whole of the damn treaty not some piffling sub-section that is overruled by another subsection that is already existing due to Maastricht or Nice!


  • Options
    #100
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    It's 17,000 words. Blocks and blocks of text.

    :eek: I had a very hard time reaching that for my thesis back in the day


  • Options
    #101
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Blocks of texts are pretty hard to read, sure, but what other solution would you put forward?

    In university, the reason they set fairly tight word limits is to encourage students to learn how to economise on words, etc. That is the skill to conveying a message through text, and is perhaps the most vital talent one can gain from uni, especially Arts students. Keeping the format neat and the words to a minimum, that's how to make a point. FT seems to have missed that class!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    FT has 'asylum seekers' under his bed and in his closet.

    His arguments all seem to be about keeping these imaginary hoards of crafty ferreners out; leaves a bad taste.


  • Options
    #103
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    FT has 'asylum seekers' under his bed and in his closet.

    His arguments all seem to be about keeping these imaginary hoards of crafty ferreners out; leaves a bad taste.
    Certainly not. I blame the politicians for their immigration-policies - but I have nothing against legal, regulated, immigration and nothing against foreigners. The issue has to be regulated for the good of society - including of Irish people - with special consideration for the economy, and the sustainability of the cost to public-services.


  • Options
    #104
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    Certainly not. I blame the politicians for their immigration-policies - but I have nothing against legal, regulated, immigration and nothing against foreigners. The issue has to be regulated for the good of society - including of Irish people - with special consideration for the economy, and the sustainability of the cost to public-services.

    Nothing you've said contradicts me. Or to put it another way, everything you've said is compatible with my post.


  • Options
    #105
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Nothing you've said contradicts me. Or to put it another way, everything you've said is compatible with my post.
    I reject that comment. I count foreigners among my friends. I am okay with well-regulated legal immigration. But I oppose the current free for all and the failure to enforce deportation orders. Do we really want to introduce yet another layer of asylum-appeals via the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Asylum is already a gravy-train for the legal profession, costing the taxpayer €300 million a year.


  • Options
    #106
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Nothing you've said contradicts me. Or to put it another way, everything you've said is compatible with my post.

    Apart from the 'imaginary' 'crafty' and 'bad' bits


  • Options
    #107
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    where the hell is Scofflaw???


  • Options
    #108
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Apart from the 'imaginary' 'crafty' and 'bad' bits

    Do the hoards exist?

    According to FT they do, and they are lined up and waiting to burst into the country in a 'free for all', using their craftiness to abuse the CFR to do it.

    Like I said; leaves a bad taste...


  • Options
    #109
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    I count foreigners among my friends.

    Made many since 2005?
    http://www.politics.ie/elections/474-next-government-3.html#post14816


  • Options
    #110
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Made many since 2005?
    http://www.politics.ie/elections/474-next-government-3.html#post14816
    I think many legal-immigrants would agree with me on the need for tighter controls, especially given the state of the health-service and the labour-market. Longterm immigrants living in this country also have to compete with the extra influx of cheap labour from other countries.

    I also think that allowing bogus asylum-seekers to stay is unfair to legal-immigrants who went to the trouble and expense of moving to Ireland, notably non-EEA students and work-permit holders. It sends out a message that those who obey the law are to be penalised while those who disobey it are to be rewarded. That is not a message we should be sending out.
    Do the hoards exist?

    According to FT they do, and they are lined up and waiting to burst into the country in a 'free for all', using their craftiness to abuse the CFR to do it.

    Like I said; leaves a bad taste...
    Stop twisting what I said. I don't blame the legal-immigrants. I blame the cheap-labour fatcats who are the benefactors of politicians doing their bidding. A report by the Migrant Rights Centre last year showed that 53% of migrant-workers in the restaurant sector are paid below the minimum-wage. This underlines the race to the bottom that the government and EU policies are designed to exacerbate in the Lisbon Treaty.

    Exploitative, Dickensian employers of cheap migrant labour are happy to hide behind a pretence of "anti-racism" in order to prevent public debate on their exploitation of cheap labour and displacement of Irish workers. Those on the Left who go along with this are being their usual idiots.


  • Options
    #111
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    I think many legal-immigrants would agree with me on the need for tighter controls, especially given the state of the health-service and the labour-market. Longterm immigrants living in this country also have to compete with the extra influx of cheap labour from other countries.

    I also think that allowing bogus asylum-seekers to stay is unfair to legal-immigrants who went to the trouble and expense of moving to Ireland, notably non-EEA students and work-permit holders. It sends out a message that those who obey the law are to be penalised while those who disobey it are to be rewarded. That is not a message we should be sending out.Stop twisting what I said. I don't blame the legal-immigrants. I blame the cheap-labour fatcats who are the benefactors of politicians doing their bidding. A report by the Migrant Rights Centre last year showed that 53% of migrant-workers in the restaurant sector are paid below the minimum-wage. This underlines the race to the bottom that the government and EU policies are designed to exacerbate in the Lisbon Treaty.

    Exploitative, Dickensian employers of cheap migrant labour are happy to hide behind a pretence of "anti-racism" in order to prevent public debate on their exploitation of cheap labour and displacement of Irish workers. Those on the Left who go along with this are being their usual idiots.

    Yep, still dodging it... don't worry, I know what you're all about...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Yep, still dodging it... don't worry, I know what you're all about...
    You're clearly about twisting my sentiments for your own PC-agenda. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #113
    FunnyStuff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭FunnyStuff


    Dr Pepper wrote: »

    FT is ruining it with the walls of text in my opinion. I'm half way through his third and largest wall and I give up.

    quote]

    I find it truly weird the amount of people complaining of this, yet they found it easy to read the treaty itself?!?!?!?!


  • Options
    #114
    LB6
    Registered Users Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭LB6


    http://www.sovereignindependent.com/index.php

    This came in the door today - explains in simple English all the jargon that is the LT....

    Now you can make up your minds a whole lot more easily.

    Better late than never


  • Options
    #115
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    You're clearly about twisting my sentiments for your own PC-agenda. :rolleyes:

    PC-agenda eh?

    The mask finally slips...


  • Options
    #116
    Bob_Harris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,619 ✭✭✭Bob_Harris


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    PC-agenda eh?

    The mask finally slips...

    Question the policies on asylum seekers and you're branded a racist without question.

    I love the PC-Brigade.


  • Options
    #117
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    PC-agenda eh?

    The mask finally slips...
    It's easy for the well-heeled to lecture the rest of us on this issue. Are you a boss?


  • Options
    #118
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    There is some funny pic somewhere about endless rebuttal till eternity.

    Imagine I used it.

    X

    That little X can represent it.

    The Little X Is in now way affiliated with either The Yes Or No sides.


  • Options
    #119
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    LB6 wrote: »
    http://www.sovereignindependent.com/index.php

    This came in the door today - explains in simple English all the jargon that is the LT....

    Now you can make up your minds a whole lot more easily.

    Better late than never

    I assume your joking.

    The CIA are not running the EU. Dev. did not warn us against the EU 50 odd years ago


  • Options
    #120
    LB6
    Registered Users Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭LB6


    I didn't write it - just put it up here for you to have a squint at....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    LB6 wrote: »
    I didn't write it - just put it up here for you to have a squint at....

    Yet you endorse it.


Advertisement