Vent - the Greens are Vegetables

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Our net public expenditure per annum including public services / social welfare and debt repayments, (all of which are reviewed in the annual estimates and budget process each year) is in the order of 60Bn Euro. All decided by the government of the day without the need for referendum or general election

Not comparable; whatever about the requirement for that to be reduced to something more manageable, it's not 60 BILLION on ONE project.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I know this because all of the members of the government parties have now declared their support and will vote in favour of NAMA next week

Incorrect. The Government parties have "declared their support"; the members haven't. So again, I'll point out that there is no proof that "the TDs that 'we' have chosen to represent us" agree with it.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If we had free votes from 166 independents nothing would ever get done.

Maybe, but my point was your assumption that all the TDs supported it. For example, almost one-third of the Greens are against it; so it's not a stretch to say that one-third (if not more) of those you claim support it are against it.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Unfortunately, like the rest of us who believe in democracy you ill have to just make do with the vote from Dail Eireann.

Oh, I believe in true democracy, don't worry about that. I just don't have faith in the version that is implemented in this country.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Quit the abuse, there is no need for references when I am stating something that is plain and clear, but nonetheless details now provided above.

No abuse whatsoever, and you provided "details", but I'll say it again, the "details" that you provided do not represent true facts.

I'll re-state your quote for you:

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What is important is that a majority of our elected representatives (who we put in place to represent us) support it !

Sorry, nothing that you said above backs up this claim. As I said, if you surveyed the 80-odd for their own view, or the 166, and posted the survey results, I'd be sickened, but I'd accept it.

Finally, re:

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Rubbish . . that is just a pathetic, abusive comment. Debate the facts and your opinions but don't attack me because you don't agree with mine !

I didn't attack anyone! I quoted your post verbatim and said "there you see it in black and white"; if it's your and / or your party's opinion / mindset (and you're the one who posted it) then how is it "Rubbish, pathetic and abusive" to say "there you see it" ?

No, I don't agree with it, but I didn't even pass judgement on it or argue with it - I said "there you see it"......anyone else who sees it can pass their own judgement.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not comparable; whatever about the requirement for that to be reduced to something more manageable, it's not 60 BILLION on ONE project.

Of course its comparable. My point was that the government deal with huge sums of money every year without recourse to a referendum or GE. Whether its on one project or many is entirely irrelevant to the principle we are debating.

Incorrect. The Government parties have "declared their support"; the members haven't. So again, I'll point out that there is no proof that "the TDs that 'we' have chosen to represent us" agree with it.

The members will declare their support in the Dail. . That is the 'proof' that they accept NAMA and that is democracy in action.

Maybe, but my point was your assumption that all the TDs supported it. For example, almost one-third of the Greens are against it; so it's not a stretch to say that one-third (if not more) of those you claim support it are against it.

One third of Green members might have rejected it but thankfully majority rules (damned democracy again !) . I also believe that all of the Green TD's have openly backed NAMA.

I didn't attack anyone! I quoted your post verbatim and said "there you see it in black and white"; if it's your and / or your party's opinion / mindset (and you're the one who posted it) then how is it "Rubbish, pathetic and abusive" to say "there you see it" ?

No, I don't agree with it, but I didn't even pass judgement on it or argue with it - I said "there you see it"......anyone else who sees it can pass their own judgement.

You did attack me and there is a pattern here. You took something that I said that was clearly tongue in cheek and requoted it without any context or reference to what I was saying. . My comment was in response to another poster who was calling for a mob to take to the streets . . you knew that but you tried to score a little dig. . .

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Of course its comparable. My point was that the government deal with huge sums of money every year without recourse to a referendum or GE. Whether its on one project or many is entirely irrelevant to the principle we are debating.

It is FAR from "entirely irrelevant" !!! I take your point on the cumulative effect of lots of little projects, but 10% of those could fail or over-run without completely screwing up the economy.....all eggs in one basket is a COMPLETELY different scenario.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The members will declare their support in the Dail. . That is the 'proof' that they accept NAMA and that is democracy in action.

No, they won't. Anyone who supports it but is towing their party line will not necessarily be offering their own opinions.

And given the opinion of the country, they most likely will not be representing the people who voted them in.

And before you jump on the fact that I didn't survey the entire country; that's true, but I'm basing this on people I've spoken to, read posts on boards, read newspapers and listened to the radio - none of whom were motivated by a "whip". I have spoken to no-one who thinks NAMA is the way to go, and unless the 500 people or so that I've encountered, and the hundreds I've heard on radio, in the last 6 months are way off the average, that's representative enough for me.......not ONE thinks it's a good idea.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

One third of Green members might have rejected it but thankfully majority rules (damned democracy again !) . I also believe that all of the Green TD's have openly backed NAMA.

So - given your use of the word "thankfully" in that statement, I take it that you are in support of NAMA ? Because even the most objective person would have either left it out or said "unfortunately", or even "unfortunately for you".

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You did attack me and there is a pattern here. You took something that I said that was clearly tongue in cheek and requoted it without any context or reference to what I was saying.

Huh ? There was nothing else in the original post! Like I said, I quoted it VERBATIM.

P.S. (and I don't want to drag up events in other threads) but considering you previously repeatedly - and incorrectly - accused me of dissing voting people's rights and insulting them by "doing so", when I clearly didn't, I don't think you're on a high moral ground to judge what's "out of context" or misrepresenting.

That aside, there was no misrepresentation in what I said; it was the entire post. And if it was "clearly tongue in cheek", who's to say that my post quoting it wasn't, eh ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

My comment was in response to another poster who was calling for a mob to take to the streets . . you knew that but you tried to score a little dig. . .

Y'see, that's where we disagree; a standard "mob" might be objectionable, but you've already said that "majority rules", so if the mob is the majority (which I suspect it would be, and if I had more proof I would go as far to say "vast majority") then you're left with a dilemma.

Of course, a lot of this is conjecture, because the Government didn't dare go to the people for a mandate for this. I wonder why ?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, they won't. Anyone who supports it but is towing their party line will not necessarily be offering their own opinions.

And given the opinion of the country, they most likely will not be representing the people who voted them in.

And before you jump on the fact that I didn't survey the entire country; that's true, but I'm basing this on people I've spoken to, read posts on boards, read newspapers and listened to the radio - none of whom were motivated by a "whip". I have spoken to no-one who thinks NAMA is the way to go, and unless the 500 people or so that I've encountered, and the hundreds I've heard on radio, in the last 6 months are way off the average, that's representative enough for me.......not ONE thinks it's a good idea.

So your 'straw poll' based on the people you know and have spoken to is more representative of the opinion across the country than the democratic vote of Dail Eireann? ? I don't think your circle of friends / influence gives you the right to speak for the country !

BTW, you have encountered ME and I am pro-NAMA so make that 499.

So - given your use of the word "thankfully" in that statement, I take it that you are in support of NAMA ? Because even the most objective person would have either left it out or said "unfortunately", or even "unfortunately for you".

Yes, openly in support of NAMA and have said so already.

Huh ? There was nothing else in the original post! Like I said, I quoted it VERBATIM.

P.S. (and I don't want to drag up events in other threads) but considering you previously repeatedly - and incorrectly - accused me of dissing voting people's rights and insulting them by "doing so", when I clearly didn't, I don't think you're on a high moral ground to judge what's "out of context" or misrepresenting.

That aside, there was no misrepresentation in what I said; it was the entire post. And if it was "clearly tongue in cheek", who's to say that my post quoting it wasn't, eh ?

Y'see, that's where we disagree; a standard "mob" might be objectionable, but you've already said that "majority rules", so if the mob is the majority (which I suspect it would be, and if I had more proof I would go as far to say "vast majority") then you're left with a dilemma.

Of course, a lot of this is conjecture, because the Government didn't dare go to the people for a mandate for this. I wonder why ?

This is childish so lets drop it . . I quoted you out of context and was big enough to accept it and apologise within another thread. It appears you cannot do the same thing.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

So your 'straw poll' based on the people you know and have spoken to is more representative of the opinion across the country than the democratic vote of Dail Eireann? ? I don't think your circle of friends / influence gives you the right to speak for the country !

And I've admitted as much. So unlike your "most Goverment TDs support it" claim, I'm being above board on the limitations of my benchmark, rather than including those who mightn't personally support it, which you did.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

BTW, you have encountered ME and I am pro-NAMA so make that 499.

Well, 500 vs 1; and I suppose technically I've encountered Lenihan and Cowen. So make that 500 vs 3. I haven't been near my fat-cat bank manager since, but - sigh - it's probably 500 vs 4.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, openly in support of NAMA and have said so already.

Would never have guessed. Can I ask what you think is good about it ? And can I ask you to answer the questions & concerns that I posed about it in the other thread ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This is childish so lets drop it . . I quoted you out of context and was big enough to accept it and apologise within another thread. It appears you cannot do the same thing.

I can, and the eventual apology was accepted; so if and when I do quote you out of context. But I didn't. I quoted you verbatim, and if I'm to assume that you were being "tongue in cheek", then you can return the favour.

In fact, my reply was one of those self-adjusting things, like the Lisbon Treaty; if your post was serious, my reply was justified, and if yours was tongue-in-cheek and funny, then so was mine.

Raiser

In the last General Elections in a horrific abuse of our democratic system of proportional representation the Green Party promised never be lead into Government with Fianna Fail by Trevor Sargent.....only to then saunter in behind John Gormley 5 minutes later in a complex and brain confounding word game that would have made Carol Vorderman proud.....

Since then the uninvited Greenflys have been making a continual pest of themselves at every opportunity - wasting the Taxpayers money on idiotic, nonsensical, farcical, mutton-headed 'plans' - while at the same time propping up Irelands shameful and sadly ever ongoing Governmental farce with all of the integrity and decency of the local Criminals.

At this point it is commonplace to hear reference to the fact that the Leadership of the Green Party are continuously trying to spin the facts to their own rank and file members in order to fool even them into participating. This truly showcases their lust for power and money-driven greed in what must be the saddest and most shameful chapter in Irish Political History.

- So how can we the People call a halt and effect change in order to protect our State and ensure that we have something worthwhile and substantial left to leave to our Children?

How can the Citizens of this land demonstrate to these selfish and ruthlessly stupid People that their actions are self-serving, corrupt, morally vacuous and offensive to the Irish Taxpayer?

Who can deny the need at this point to get out on the streets and protest at every stupid publicity stunt the Greens attempt to stage?

Why should they be allowed to tell their lies unchallenged by the voice of truth?

Why should they be allowed to go against the will of the People who didn't elect them, didn't sign up for their stupidity and even told them clearly in the local Elections that they are most certainly NOT welcome in any capacity whatsoever?

Who can fail to see that their spending, policy, self-promoting careerism and blantant pension chasing serves only the Greens themselves as they continue to Leech and suck the life blood out of our State :mad:

Liam Byrne

Re the title of the topic, I - unfortunately - don't think we can.....

Green things thrive when up to their necks in bull****.

?Cee?view

Raiser,

Serious question - what did Olwyn Enright do to be thrown in with the others at the bottom of your post?

Weedol - wrong choice. It only clears this years weeds. You need something more permanent, simazine (now outlawed I think), Roundup or burn them

starbelgrade

I am open to correction here, but did the Greens not get into government because people used the PR system to give them their 2nd / 3rd etc choice (& then they agreed to go into government with FF)??

In that way, they were elected by the people. If no-one had given them preferences, they wouldn't be in government?

Liam Byrne

starbelgrade wrote: »

I am open to correction here, but did the Greens not get into government because people used the PR system to give them their 2nd / 3rd etc choice (& then they agreed to go into government with FF)??

In that way, they were elected by the people. If no-one had given them preferences, they wouldn't be in government?

They got a LOT of those preferences by promising suggesting that they wouldn't go in with FF, though!

starbelgrade

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They got a LOT of those preferences by promising suggesting that they wouldn't go in with FF, though!

That still doesn't let the electorate off the hook though. If you're stupid enough to believe pre-election promises....

Liam Byrne

starbelgrade wrote: »

That still doesn't let the electorate off the hook though. If you're stupid enough to believe pre-election promises....

There we go again....no matter what a politician or political party does, it's always the public that are wrong.

Yes, we've learned our lesson, and we know that The Snots' promises (at least on major things) are now as shallow and pointless as those of FF.

And the others appear to be not too far behind lately, considering they've shown that the good of the country and the need to weed out corruption and excess comes second to giving one of their buddies a clap.

But sorry; in a proper democracy a politician's promises WOULD mean something; it'd at least mean that they were going to make a damned good effort to stick to their word, and not shaft you at the first opportunity.

Grudaire

So FF aren't to blame??? If we eradicate the Greens everything will be rosy!

I'm not going to get into it too much (I'm saving my opinions on the matter for Teach na Gealt ) However... I'm confused because you use words like corrupt - I would hold parties such as FF as more of the problem there (Yes some members of each party are related - yes Grianna Fáil - Yes etc) try to keep the response logical ;-) Sceondly the party which had the mosts votes last general election is in power - ie given a mandate at the time to rule for 5 years (And might I add did I hate that fact) however it seems somehow inevitable if the people decided.




I understand you at least Raiser - you've had this particular bee under you bonet for yonks. Now at least you've widespread support of the opinion! And I like how you have extended this to killing - more and more controversial, and generally rebel rousing stuff!

Raiser

Liam Byrne wrote: »

<WITH AN EDIT TO HERE>But sorry; in a proper democracy a politician's promises WOULD mean something; it'd at least mean that they were going to make a damned good effort to stick to their word, and not shaft you at the first opportunity.

How about this scenario......

John Gormley assembles the Media for a press 'event' where the Greens are quaffing Champagne and promising to enrich the lives of the cash strapped Taxpayer by charging them ~€200 for a resource that falls free of charge from the skies onto our poor heads practically 24hrs 365days - Water.......

- SUDDENLY - Enter stage left, Malcolm McDowell, Green Party literature held aloft in his right hand. 'Lies' he cries, his voice escalating as the crowd mutters and murmurs in curious consternation - 'LIES, LIES' etc. etc. Play it out in your own head.....

The wheel has turned, but the Worm? - No Sir, this Worm is not for turning..... Well not without a steel-toed boot.....

Honestly, did Gormley and the other career opportunists really expect to fool all the People all the time????????

churchview wrote: »

Raiser,

Serious question - what did Olwyn Enright do to be thrown in with the others at the bottom of your post?

Weedol - wrong choice. It only clears this years weeds. You need something more permanent, simazine (now outlawed I think), Roundup or burn them

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/may/10/120k-in-overnight-expenses-for-married-fine-gael-c/

From Above Story wrote:

During the period in which they both put in for the overnight allowance, Joe McHugh took home an estimated €58,800 in overnight expenses while his wife Olwyn Enright made €61,600 on the tax-free allowance.

See that hole in your payslip? - You basically paid for Olwyn Enright to be loved up by what appears to be an Escapee from the Thunderbirds Set..... €38,127 in KY Jelly alone.....

- Its not about the scale of the offense/abuse/crime, its about the cynicism and opportunism and the scorn shown to the hard working person putting in the hours......

starbelgrade

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There we go again....no matter what a politician or political party does, it's always the public that are wrong.

The public re-elected FF at the last election, even though it was obvious not all was well in the state of Denmark. The public were enjoying the good times & kept their eye off the ball. They are responsible, at least in part.

Even now, we do very little to even try & influence the people we elect (even if we didn't vote for them). We've seen pensioners protest, we've seen a handful of taximen protest & a few farmers blockading the towns of Ireland. F*ck all else. Where are all the unemployed construction workers? Where are all the other recently unemployed?

We whinge a lot, but we do very little about it.

Grudaire

Raiser wrote: »

How about this scenario......

John Gormley assembles the Media for a press 'event' where the Greens are quaffing Champagne and promising to enrich the lives of the cash strapped Taxpayer by charging them ~€200 for a resource that falls free of charge from the skies onto our poor heads practically 24hrs 365days - Water.......

- SUDDENLY - Enter stage left, Malcolm McDowell, Green Party literature held aloft in his right hand. 'Lies' he cries, his voice escalating as the crowd mutters and murmurs in curious consternation - 'LIES, LIES' etc. etc. Play it out in your own head.....

The wheel has turned, but the Worm? - No Sir, this Worm is not for turning..... Well not without a steel-toed boot.....

Honestly, did Gormley and the other career opportunists really expect to fool all the People all the time????????

... and then he woke up?


What are you on about Raiser? Really!?

Raiser

Cliste wrote: »

... and then he woke up?


What are you on about Raiser? Really!?

You've been defending the Greens valiantly for how long now An Fear Bearla Cliste?

- How are you on the history?

Link to PR stunt by Malcolm McDowell stormed by Gormley and marked as a watershed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXf36OxxZ-c

The point is - John Gormley could not defend himself in a fair debate against 3 transition year students armed with the facts of his disgraceful conduct......

Hows it spelt?

- Hippocritimus?

Grudaire

Raiser wrote: »

You've been defending the Greens valiantly for how long now An Fear Bearla Cliste?

- How are you on the history?

Link to PR stunt by Malcolm McDowell stormed by Gormley and marked as a watershed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXf36OxxZ-c

The point is - John Gormley could not defend himself in a fair debate against 3 transition year students armed with the facts of his disgraceful conduct......

Hows it spelt?

- Hippocritimus?

Oh I remember that alright - I'm just confused at your own predictions for the future - nice and flowery - perhaps taken from your next fictional novel?


Don't worry Raiser I'm really only here to annoy you! But really you can't look at what you're writing, and claim that it's the truth? Being honest I was disgusted that they didn't walk out - I had had every intention of joining them if they left, but they stuck in government. Such is life - however the tripe that you roll out is beyond questionable at times

Scofflaw

I don't want to stop anyone getting their hate on, but can people please check there isn't an existing "I hate X so very much" thread before they vent?

moderately,
Scofflaw

wasper

The Valley wrote: »

I'm very surprised the Green party have not taken account of the peoples anger, mistrust and frustration with FF.
Now rather than act in the public interest and bring down the government on principles they have got involved in dirty politics and have been bought and bribed by FF. The net result is the green party will bare the brunt of the people anger at the next general election, if I have to wait 2 yrs i'll wait.

I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for Green party again. I voted green last time out on party policy and i never thought they would prop up FF.

We need a green party but not one that can be bought. This party is morally corrupt.

Shame on the greens, and god love the next one that knocks on my door

The people that are ranting about the Greens for keeping the government are the same people that would never ever vote Green in a million year.
The silly argument that the Greens have proved themselves to be power hungry! Then why FF or FG are in it for? Very dim argument.

Spiritoftheseventies

Would not say Greens are in it for the power alone but Gormley says he believes his party would make more a difference with FF than on the opposition benches.
The question is are FF taking their coalition party that seriously. I doubt it.