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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
you have to watch this guys videos
Comments
-
Did you even watch the video or did you just read off the sheet he put up?
I think you got the worng end of the stick on this point anyway
In this point he is calling for members of secret societies (ie organisations where what the members do is kept secret- Freemasons,Opus Dei, etc) to DECLARE that they are in such an organisation. If they do not declare that they are in such a group even though they are then they have to be treated with suspicion that they are acting in the interest of the organisation as opposed to acting in the interest of the public. Is this not a fair point?
The title of the point is "Corruption Laws for members of secret socities". It is of no concern to the state if an individual is a member of a society and the state has no business intruding into the personal lives of it's citizens. We always read on this forum how the state is intruding in personal freedoms etc - this is exactly such a case. Anyway because of the seperation of powers between the judiciary and politics, politicians can't direct a judge to declare whether he is in a society or not - it would be unconstitutional, for example the politicians couldn't force the judiciary to pay the income levy introduced a few years ago because it would be unconstitutional. This guy is advocating 5-10 years in prison if you don't declare such a membership - do you think this is reasonable? In my view this point is based on a fear of secret societies. Is there evidence that those in secret societies are more corrupt than those who are not?0 -
namloc1980 wrote: »This guy is advocating 5-10 years in prison if you don't declare such a membership - do you think this is reasonable? In my view this point is based on a fear of secret societies. Is there evidence that those in secret societies are more corrupt than those who are not?
Very good point. An awful lot of deals are trashed out over a game of golf. Should we be banning golf memberships too. I mean we've no idea what goes on, on those golf courses.0 -
Did you even watch the video or did you just read off the sheet he put up?
I think you got the worng end of the stick on this point anyway
In this point he is calling for members of secret societies (ie organisations where what the members do is kept secret- Freemasons,Opus Dei, etc) to DECLARE that they are in such an organisation. If they do not declare that they are in such a group even though they are then they have to be treated with suspicion that they are acting in the interest of the organisation as opposed to acting in the interest of the public. Is this not a fair point?
By that rational if the judge/politician attending AA or any twelve steps program he'd face a criminal sentence , if he didn't admit this.
Is that fair?0 -
-
namloc1980 wrote: »The title of the point is "Corruption Laws for members of secret socities". It is of no concern to the state if an individual is a member of a society and the state has no business intruding into the personal lives of it's citizens. We always read on this forum how the state is intruding in personal freedoms etc - this is exactly such a case. Anyway because of the seperation of powers between the judiciary and politics, politicians can't direct a judge to declare whether he is in a society or not - it would be unconstitutional, for example the politicians couldn't force the judiciary to pay the income levy introduced a few years ago because it would be unconstitutional. This guy is advocating 5-10 years in prison if you don't declare such a membership - do you think this is reasonable? In my view this point is based on a fear of secret societies. Is there evidence that those in secret societies are more corrupt than those who are not?
Again you are misrepresenting his position. He does not call for corruption laws for members of secret societies.
Point 3 is Corruption laws in place to deal with State and Public officials who are members of secret societies
He clearly states that private persons are free to do as they please, however if you are working for the public sector or government and are a member of a secret society then if you must declare that you are a member of such a society.
In my opinion this is a fair point. For example, in the US you had John Kerry and George W who are both members of the skull and crossbones society yet were running against each other in the US general election. In my opinion the people have the illusion that they have a choice over who they are electing but in reality both candidates are representing the same elite interests.
And in the UK you have Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron and Nat Rothschild all in the Bullingdon Club. Do you think it is in the public interest to know what ties and allegiances such high ranking officials have?0 -
-
And in the UK you have Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron and Nat Rothschild all in the Bullingdon Club. Do you think it is in the public interest to know what ties and allegiances such high ranking officials have?
The Bullingdon Club is a dining club unless you can explain how a group of idiots with more money than sense like dressing up and eating and drinking too much is a insidious threat to democracy you're just fearmongering.0 -
Very good point. An awful lot of deals are trashed out over a game of golf. Should we be banning golf memberships too. I mean we've no idea what goes on, on those golf courses.
The irony of this is outstanding. You criticise JB for making minor errors and insinuate that he is a liar and then when Namloc misrepresents JB's position you call it a 'very good point'.0 -
-
It is a secret society in that it's membership is kept secret, and is anonymous.
In fairness though it is a bad choice to make your point with. As far as I know you don't swear an oath of allegiance to serve AA and put them above all else in times of need the way the brothers of free-masonry do. The AA dont have secret symbols and codes. They dont have secret rituals. Incidentally, the twelve steps or traditions recommend that its groups try to steer clear of dogma, hierarchies and involvement in public issues. The same cant be said of free masons. All in all its a weak attempt at an analogy in my opinion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again you are misrepresenting his position. He does not call for corruption laws for members of secret societies.
Point 3 is Corruption laws in place to deal with State and Public officials who are members of secret societies
He clearly states that private persons are free to do as they please, however if you are working for the public sector or government and are a member of a secret society then if you must declare that you are a member of such a society.
In my opinion this is a fair point. For example, in the US you had John Kerry and George W who are both members of the skull and crossbones society yet were running against each other in the US general election. In my opinion the people have the illusion that they have a choice over who they are electing but in reality both candidates are representing the same elite interests.
And in the UK you have Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron and Nat Rothschild all in the Bullingdon Club. Do you think it is in the public interest to know what ties and allegiances such high ranking officials have?
No this is not a fair point. He states in the video that under his law if someone in the public sector doesn't declare their membership then they should get 5-10 years in prison. Do you agree with this? In my view it is a draconian and probably unconstitutional proposal.0 -
In fairness though it is a bad choice to make your point with. As far as I know you don't swear an oath of allegiance to serve AA and put them above all else in times of need the way the brothers of free-masonry do.
Source on the freemason bitThe AA dont have secret symbols and codes.
There are turns of phrase and comments that a member can spot another member throughThey dont have secret rituals.
Yes they do.Incidentally, the twelve steps or traditions recommend that its groups try to steer clear of dogma, hierarchies and involvement in public issues. The same cant be said of free masons. All in all its a weak attempt at an analogy in my opinion.
Source of the bit above. Not the AA part your evidence that the Masons do this.
Source on all of the above.0 -
The Bullingdon Club is a dining club unless you can explain how a group of idiots with more money than sense like dressing up and eating and drinking too much is a insidious threat to democracy you're just fearmongering.
Idiots? Mayor of London, prime minister of England, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the wealthiest men in the world. The fact that these men fraternise in a secret club, whether golfing dining or circle-jerking should be of public knowledge. Concealing such activities should be seen as the same as insider trading and seen as a conspiracy.It's not a misrepresentation it's an accurate representation of the flaws in JB's argument
You are wrong. He misrepresnted JB's position.namloc1980 wrote: »No this is not a fair point. He states in the video that under his law if someone in the public sector doesn't declare their membership then they should get 5-10 years in prison. Do you agree with this? In my view it is a draconian and probably unconstitutional proposal.
Yes as I have said above, if they conceal their membership in such groups then they should be seen as engaging in a conspiracy and face the consequences of such behaviour.0 -
Yes as I have said above, if they conceal their membership in such groups then they should be seen as engaging in a conspiracy and face the consequences of such behaviour.
So you're advocating locking people up in prison for being members of a legal society or forcing them to declare it against their constitutional rights of privacy, personal liberty and rights to personal convictions and beliefs?? Holy crap......that is unbelieveable. You are assuming that everyone who is a member of a secret society is somehow corrupt and evil if their wish is keep it private....which they can do per the Bunreacht. Unreal.0 -
Idiots? Mayor of London, prime minister of England, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the wealthiest men in the world. The fact that these men fraternise in a secret club, whether golfing dining or circle-jerking should be of public knowledge. Concealing such activities should be seen as the same as insider trading and seen as a conspiracy.
They have never concealed this
You're saying that people in power no longer have the right of free association.You are wrong. He misrepresnted JB's position.
No he didn't.Yes as I have said above, if they conceal their membership in such groups then they should be seen as engaging in a conspiracy and face the consequences of such behaviour.
Thats absurd. Your analogy of the Bullingdon club is that three leading towers shouldn't have been part of the same drinking society while they were in college together0 -
Source on the freemason bit
They swear an oath of allegiance to the hood. The only oath a judge, for example, should be swearing by is to his country or the public. According to the new catholic encyclopedia this is a typical oath taken by a 3rd degree mason. knock yourself out.
"Further, that I will acknowledge and obey all due signs and summons sent to me from a Master Masons' Lodge"
http://www.trosch.org/bks/masonic_oath.htmlThere are turns of phrase and comments that a member can spot another member throughYes they do.Source of the bit above. Not the AA part your evidence that the Masons do this.
Source on all of the above.0 -
They swear an oath of allegiance to the hood. The only oath a judge, for example, should be swearing by is to his country or the public. According to the new catholic encyclopedia this is a typical oath taken by a 3rd degree mason. knock yourself out.
"Further, that I will acknowledge and obey all due signs and summons sent to me from a Master Masons' Lodge"
http://www.trosch.org/bks/masonic_oath.html
http://www.trosch.org/
Do you have a slightly less crazy source for this?As a matter of interest what are these signs and comments.Source?
Quotes reference to the big book etc, anecdotes and analogies that would be familiar to members in AAWhat types of rituals. Source??
All AA meetings follow a strict ritual, the listing of the steps and traditions, etc....
But this is beside the point, you've not shown that there is a sinister agenda to the freemasons, until you do so, you can't insist there should be a prison sentence for politicians who are masons who don't publicly announce they are masons.You dont need a source for that its fairly simple really. If a judge for example or a Guard is a member of the masons well then he or she is engaging in issues of a public nature. Surely you agree?
No you need to show me that the Garda or the Judge is promoting fremasonry or a freemason agenda ahead of the duties the are sworn to uphold as part of their office.0 -
namloc1980 wrote: »So you're advocating locking people up in prison for being members of a legal society or forcing them to declare it against their constitutional rights of privacy, personal liberty and rights to personal convictions and beliefs?? Holy crap......that is unbelieveable. You are assuming that everyone who is a member of a secret society is somehow corrupt and evil if their wish is keep it private....which they can do per the Bunreacht. Unreal.
Unbelievable? Unreal?
Are you serious?
The whole point of the videos was changes he would make and yes I agree with some of his points.They have never concealed this
I never said they concealed it. Why are you trying to insinuate that I did?You're saying that people in power no longer have the right of free association.
No I am not.No he didn't.
yes he did. He claimed JB said one thing when in fact he said another. Misrepresentation of his opinion, plain and simple.Thats absurd. Your analogy of the Bullingdon club is that three leading towers shouldn't have been part of the same drinking society while they were in college together
No. You are wrong again.0 -
I never said they concealed it. Why are you trying to insinuate that I did?
Yeah, you said;joebucks wrote:The fact that these men fraternise in a secret club, whether golfing dining or circle-jerking should be of public knowledge. Concealing such activities should be seen as the same as insider trading and seen as a conspiracy.
You're really bad at this.No I am not.
Then what are you suggesting?yes he did. He claimed JB said one thing when in fact he said another. Misrepresentation of his opinion, plain and simple.
Okay what did JB actually say, and what do you think he was misrepresented on?No. You are wrong again.
Okay see thats not furthering the conversation or clarifying what exactly you did mean0 -
Advertisement
-
Yeah, you said;
Concealing such activities should be seen as the same as insider trading and seen as a conspiracy.
You're really bad at this.
Thanks for the petty insult.
Again you are taking what people say out of context. I did not say that they concealed their activities. What I meant was that if they were to conceal such activities then it should be seen as an offense against the state.Okay what did JB actually say, and what do you think he was misrepresented on?
Namloc1980 saidis akin to presuming that if you are a member of a legal secret society, then you are corrupt! Special laws for those who are members of certain groups is draconian, unconstitutional and probably worse
JB did not intimate that if you are a member of a secret society then you are corrupt. He said that if you are a member of such a society then you have to declare it and not declaring it would be the offense.0 -
attacking the source and ignoring the material at hand nothing new there. So according to you the Catholic encyclopedia is crazy, hmmm. Here is another source for you then, you need to scroll down to paragraph sub-titled "use of oaths".
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1368Quotes reference to the big book etc, anecdotes and analogies that would be familiar to members in AAAll AA meetings follow a strict ritual, the listing of the steps and traditions, etc....But this is beside the point, you've not shown that there is a sinister agenda to the freemasons, until you do so, you can't insist there should be a prison sentence for politicians who are masons who don't publicly announce they are masons.No you need to show me that the Garda or the Judge is promoting fremasonry or a freemason agenda ahead of the duties the are sworn to uphold as part of their office.0 -
attacking the source and ignoring the material at hand nothing new there. So according to you the Catholic encyclopedia is crazy, hmmm. Here is another source for you then, you need to scroll down to paragraph sub-titled "use of oaths".
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1368
The post you refer to to relates to masons and catholicism, not masons and society in general.Will you go away out of that, youre demanding sources left right and centre and I want them too, show me something concrete please.
Go buy a copy of the big book. For a organisation dedicated to the helping of addicts, the AA is remarkable vehement about protecting their literatures copyright.
But to give you on exampleThose who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves completely to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates . . . they seem to have been born that way.
From the AA mantra.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660_2.html?sub=AR
Ok your defintion of the word ritual is not the same as I had in mind but I accept it, because I know what you mean. I think the word routine or procedure would be more suited to the AA to be honest.Nah whats beside the point actually is comparing freemasonry, which has been resisted and viewed with suspicion and contempt throughout history by many people including the church,
So have jews that doesn't mean the suspicion is valid.to AA, its quite ridiculous actually in my opinion.
Quiet, and this is the problem, you're fixating on AA, and not the fact that I was using AA as a analogy. To wit AA is a secret organisation, politicians or judges could belong to, that they'd be forced to admit admission of, under JB's rule.Show me where I insisted there should be prison sentences for politicians? Dont be putting words in my mouth please or making assumptions on my behalf I didnt insist anything of the sort no need to be making things up.
You don't JB did. Or do you think that that's wrong.No I dont. Freemasons have to swear an oath. Gardai and judges serve the people and the country. Those are the only oaths they can ever swear by or serve. If they undertake any further oaths and abide by them there is a potential conflict of interest that shoudlnt be tolerated, in my opinion.
Yeah unfortunately the oath a Garda takes or a judge takes has legal ramifications if they abuse that oath. There's no such problem with them neglecting that freemason oath.
Can you provide a single example of a freemason neglecting his duty in order to protect a fellow lodge member at the expense of their legal duty?0 -
The post you refer to to relates to masons and catholicism, not masons and society in general.
That’s irrelevant. The oath/s is/are still similar. You originally asked me to provide a source to back up a statement I made (post no 113) I provided you with the source, you told me it was “crazy” and asked for another one. I provided a second source (post no 122), pointed you to the relevant paragraph and sentence in question dealing with your original query, I will even quote the relevant sentence for you again….
"Further, that I will acknowledge and obey all due signs and summons sent to me from a Master Masons' Lodge"
And now you’re coming out with the above??. Shall we discuss the detail and wording of the undertaken oath? After all it is a very weird, strange and bewildering oath if that indeed is how it’s worded.Go buy a copy of the big book. For a organisation dedicated to the helping of addicts, the AA is remarkable vehement about protecting their literatures copyright.
But to give you on example
From the AA mantra.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660_2.html?sub=AR
Ok your defintion of the word ritual is not the same as I had in mind but I accept it, because I know what you mean. I think the word routine or procedure would be more suited to the AA to be honest.So have jews that doesn't mean the suspicion is valid.Quiet, and this is the problem, you're fixating on AA, and not the fact that I was using AA as a analogy. To wit AA is a secret organisation, politicians or judges could belong to, that they'd be forced to admit admission of, under JB's rule.
I’m not fixating on anything I’m just highlighting how silly I think your analogy of freemasonry with AA is. We know what AA is all about it isn’t secret. The people who attend AA can well be viewed as patients and patient confidentiality is to be expected. Nobody should or could be sent to prison for attending AA that’s just ridiculous I’m sure if this rule ever did come about, medical/rehab would be excluded from the term “secret society”. Again I find your analogy weak.You don't JB did. Or do you think that that's wrong.Yeah unfortunately the oath a Garda takes or a judge takes has legal ramifications if they abuse that oath. There's no such problem with them neglecting that freemason oath.Can you provide a single example of a freemason neglecting his duty in order to protect a fellow lodge member at the expense of their legal duty?
____________________________________________________________
With regard to the OP’s point that serving members of the State in whatever guise they take, should be made disclose the fact they are a member of a secret organisation for example the Masons, I would have to agree with him. Should they be sent to prison if they are found not to have disclosed it? I would say no. They should be sacked from their position and sent to the zoo one day a week to clean out the elephant enclosure. On their weekly day trip to the zoo they have to wear a big sign around their neck saying “Im a dirty non-disclosing Free-mason” Five years of that would be punishment a plenty in my opinion.:D0 -
That’s irrelevant. The oath/s is/are still similar. You originally asked me to provide a source to back up a statement I made (post no 113) I provided you with the source, you told me it was “crazy” and asked for another one. I provided a second source (post no 122), pointed you to the relevant paragraph and sentence in question dealing with your original query, I will even quote the relevant sentence for you again….
"Further, that I will acknowledge and obey all due signs and summons sent to me from a Master Masons' Lodge"
I'd like a source that isn't so rabidly pro catholic.And now you’re coming out with the above??. Shall we discuss the detail and wording of the undertaken oath? After all it is a very weird, strange and bewildering oath if that indeed is how it’s worded.
I'd like to see the wording come from a Mason site, or lodge before I believe it.Don’t tell me to go buy a book. You go buy the book and back up your statement. You stated that AA members have secret turns and phrases that enable them to spot another member (post no 113) I dunno maybe they do but Id like to see your source please. You then said “but to give you an example” and took an extract from a Washington post article. An example of what I don’t know because no where in that link you posted does it allude to your claim that AA members use secret code.
That quote is from the serenity pray.Still waiting for that source but its irrelevant to me really because I dont class the AA in the same league of secret society as the Mason's.
Thats nice, the point that seems to escape you that if a person was a member of AA, they would have to admit it or face prison in JBs crazy world.Irrelevant, leave the Jews out of it please you’d be the first to cry wolf if I brought up the Jews.
I didn't I merely pointed out that the mason's like the jews get a bum rap throughout history and your point.freemasonry, which has been resisted and viewed with suspicion and contempt throughout history by many people including the church,
The Catholic church has viewed lots of organisations and religions with suspicion throughout history, that doesn't mean these suspicions are valid.Not sure if the first word in the above, quiet, is a typo or you’re actually telling me to be quiet. If it’s a typo fair enough you can clear that up for me or explain why you started your reply off with the word quiet, if you’re telling me to be quiet well then I’m sitting here breaking my sh1te laughing at you, that’s a good one:DI’m not fixating on anything I’m just highlighting how silly I think your analogy of freemasonry with AA is. We know what AA is all about it isn’t secret. The people who attend AA can well be viewed as patients and patient confidentiality is to be expected. Nobody should or could be sent to prison for attending AA that’s just ridiculous I’m sure if this rule ever did come about, medical/rehab would be excluded from the term “secret society”. Again I find your analogy weak.
They're not patients they're a fellowship, and they have secrets (what's said in the room stays in the room)Obviously there is a legal price to be paid if they abuse their oath of office. But how do you know for certain there are no ramifications for abusing the oath of the hood. There may be some very angry overlords to deal with. How do you know for certain how seriously they take that oath? How do you know for certain if a conflict of interest has ever arisen? The answer is you don’t unless you’re privy to information that the rest of aren’t.
No I can’t. Can you 100% state that it has never happened before. Of course you cant.
irrelevant, you've made the claim the onus is on you to support it, not to me to disprove it.____________________________________________________________
With regard to the OP’s point that serving members of the State in whatever guise they take, should be made disclose the fact they are a member of a secret organisation for example the Masons, I would have to agree with him. Should they be sent to prison if they are found not to have disclosed it? I would say no. They should be sacked from their position and sent to the zoo one day a week to clean out the elephant enclosure. On their weekly day trip to the zoo they have to wear a big sign around their neck saying “Im a dirty non-disclosing Free-mason” Five years of that would be punishment a plenty in my opinion.:D
So you disagree with the punishment, but agree with the fact that it's a crime. Can you explain why you think Freemasons are evil?0 -
Thanks for the petty insult.
Again you are taking what people say out of context. I did not say that they concealed their activities. What I meant was that if they were to conceal such activities then it should be seen as an offense against the state.
You called it a "secret society" a secret society is by it's very nature concealing it's activities.
Do you have anything else aside from hair splitting?JB did not intimate that if you are a member of a secret society then you are corrupt. He said that if you are a member of such a society then you have to declare it and not declaring it would be the offense.
And apparently your definition of a secret society is a public drinking club in College, all the way to the Freemasons.
At what point do they have to admit their allegiance to private clubs. Are social clubs acceptable? Golf clubs? 12 Step programs?0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd like a source that isn't so rabidly pro catholic.
What have you got against Catholism? Is there a particular reason that you dont accept that as a source.I'd like to see the wording come from a Mason site, or lodge before I believe it.That quote is from the serenity pray.Thats nice, the point that seems to escape you that if a person was a member of AA, they would have to admit it or face prison in JBs crazy world.I didn't I merely pointed out that the mason's like the jews get a bum rap throughout history and your point.The Catholic church has viewed lots of organisations and religions with suspicion throughout history, that doesn't mean these suspicions are valid.It was quite, why a typo deserved a paragraph I don't know.They're not patients they're a fellowship, and they have secrets (what's said in the room stays in the room)irrelevant, you've made the claim the onus is on you to support it, not to me to disprove it.So you disagree with the punishment, but agree with the fact that it's a crime. Can you explain why you think Freemasons are evil?0 -
Unbelievable? Unreal?
Are you serious?
Yes I am serious. You are advocating that it is ok to breach the constitutional rights of certain individuals simply because they are members of a particular legal group. Do you think it's acceptable to suspend constitutional rights for certain people??0 -
What have you got against Catholism? Is there a particular reason that you dont accept that as a source.
A rabid pro catholic website, I'd no more accept that than I would a neo nazi source.Maybe we can ask a Mason about the oath that they took. Any takers? Maybe somebody reading this will step up and clear it up for us Im sure there are a few about the place.
So you admit you have no idea what a Mason oath actually contains.Thats nice but what has the serenity prayer got to do with your claim about secret AA turns and phrases. When are you going to back that up.
It doesnt escape me at all I just dont buy or accept your analogy of AA with Freemasonry and Im guessing if JB was asked about it neither would he, how could he, punish people seeking help in whatever form that treatment comes.. it isnt rational.
And the point that seems to completely allude you is that under JBs rules membership of AA would have to be revealed on the pain of prison sentencing.You still brought up the Jews. Anyone else mentions the Jews they get jumped on but its ok when it suits, thats my point, lets leave the Jews out of it.
No you brought up, the fact that Catholics have been historically suspicious of masons, I merely pointed out that they have been historically suspicious of jews, that doesn't made the suspicion valid.The abovement statement doesn't discredit the suspicion either, maybe there is something to it, who knows for sure but many people have doubts about the hood's "good" intentions. Can you say for sure that the suspicion is unfounded. Seems like we are going around in circles here.
See thats the problem here, I don't get to accuse someone of being a paedophile, and then demand that they prove that they don't molest children.Just making sure you can be quite slippery, imo.
Yes they are a fellowship and whats said in the room stays in the room but there is also a line thought saying it is a medical condition an illness it alludes to it in that article you linked. Technically they could be classed as patients/clients.
Its also not considered an illness by organisations like the US supreme court, and most addiction specialist doctors.
Technically aside, there are no Doctors, or paid professional councillors in AA meetings. If A Garda hears what he suspects is a crime in a AA meeting, he's supposed to not investigate it.It has been widely reported that Masons take an oath I dont think there is much to disprove.
Okay but whats the wording of this oath. Thats the rub.Show me where I said the Masons are evil? Stop jumping the gun.
You don't think they're evil you just think that membership must be identified and members who don't should be forced to work in the zoo.
Jesus wriggle much?I have an issue with public servants being members of a secret society and swearing an oath to that society. On that basis I agree with the OP.
And how prevalent are politicians in the Masons? Whats the wording of this oath? Does the oath supersede other oaths the members must swear as part of their duty as public servants?
Until you can show all of the above you're engaging in a juvenile witch hunt.
Frankly in a week where we discovered how much our politicians knew about the anglo disaster, giving credence to this idiots you tube videos is a waste of time!0 -
A rabid pro catholic website, I'd no more accept that than I would a neo nazi source.
Now you're equating people who are pro-catholic with neo-nazi's. Get off the stage will you.So you admit you have no idea what a Mason oath actually contains.And the point that seems to completely allude you is that under JBs rules membership of AA would have to be revealed on the pain of prison sentencing.No you brought up, the fact that Catholics have been historically suspicious of masons, I merely pointed out that they have been historically suspicious of jews, that doesn't made the suspicion valid.See thats the problem here, I don't get to accuse someone of being a paedophile, and then demand that they prove that they don't molest children.Its also not considered an illness by organisations like the US supreme court, and most addiction specialist doctors.
Technically aside, there are no Doctors, or paid professional councillors in AA meetings. If A Garda hears what he suspects is a crime in a AA meeting, he's supposed to not investigate it.Okay but whats the wording of this oath. Thats the rub.You don't think they're evil you just think that membership must be identified and members who don't should be forced to work in the zoo.
Jesus wriggle much?And how prevalent are politicians in the Masons? Whats the wording of this oath? Does the oath supersede other oaths the members must swear as part of their duty as public servants?Until you can show all of the above you're engaging in a juvenile witch hunt.Frankly in a week where we discovered how much our politicians knew about the anglo disaster, giving credence to this idiots you tube videos is a waste of time!
0 -
Now you're equating people who are pro-catholic with neo-nazi's. Get off the stage will you.
I'm sorry firstly you saidNot sure if the first word in the above, quiet, is a typo or you’re actually telling me to be quiet. If it’s a typo fair enough you can clear that up for me or explain why you started your reply off with the word quiet, if you’re telling me to be quiet well then I’m sitting here breaking my sh1te laughing at you, that’s a good on
You're breaking your ****e laughing at me, and then you tell me to get off the stage? Jesus wept.
Secondly ever heard of an organisation called Opus Dei? Or Youth Defence?Do you? If its all lovey dovey the hood is all good type of stuff why dont they tell us all about it. Why is it so secret. Why? We have reports about what the oath entails but they wont come out themselves and clear it up. Why. Why not have a Mason open day and invite us all down and show us around, tell us the score, enlighten us whatever, why all the secrecy?
There isn't any secrecy
In fact
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/dublin.html
The last bit is very interesting[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]There are daily public tours of the Freemasons Hall on Molesworth Street, Dublin during the summer, starting on June 12th. Information: 01-6761337 [/FONT]
God you must feel a bit ridiculous right about now.And my point seems to be completely alluding you.
The Difference is I'm trying to explain my position you're just claiming I don't understand your point without explaining it.Thats not true at all you brought up the Jews anyone can read back over what we have typed and will see that plain as day for whatever reason you brought them up.
Okay.
Small Sentences. You saidfreemasonry, which has been resisted and viewed with suspicion and contempt throughout history by many people including the church,
I pointed out that historically the church has viewed groups like the jews with suspicion and contempt, and therefore your argument should be treated with similar dismissal. Nice to go the brown bomber defence.Thats pathetic.
No it's not, it's a little concept called Burden of Proof. And It's sort of y'know, the corner stone of our legal system. You can't accuse someone of a crime, and then demand they prove their innocence.
You think the Masons are a sinister organisation with ulterior motives. Fine prove it, don't make the claim and demand people disprove it.If thats true about the Gardai well then thats wrong. I still dont accept your analogy and never will though. Should it be made law that people serving public office have to declare their membership of a secret society new rules need to be drafted to cover everything including AA.
This is never going to happen.Exactly, now you're getting it. We only have reports they wont come out and set the record straight. Why all the secrecy.
Well I've just given you their phone number and address, go nuts.Thats pricelss thanks for that gave me a chuckle:D Coming from Mr Wiggle change the subject himself, stop at the shop.
If they werent so secret and sly maybe we would have the answers to those questions. Why all the secrecy? If the hood is all good spread the knowledge and tell us all about it. A high ranking overlord should set the record straight. Stop being sly and secretive in the hood I would say.
Alternatively you could just go along to a open day. Or join.I would disagree.
Well thats nice, until you explain your rational for disagreeing your argument can be summed up as "Nuh huh....."
JFK was talking about the Soviet Union not the Freemasons. :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm sorry firstly you said
You're breaking your ****e laughing at me, and then you tell me to get off the stage? Jesus wept.
Secondly ever heard of an organisation called Opus Dei? Or Youth Defence?
Neither of those comments are worth an indepth reply.There isn't any secrecy
In fact
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/dublin.html
The last bit is very interestingGod you must feel a bit ridiculous right about now.The Difference is I'm trying to explain my position you're just claiming I don't understand your point without explaining it.Okay.
Small Sentences. You saidI pointed out that historically the church has viewed groups like the jews with suspicion and contempt, and therefore your argument should be treated with similar dismissal. Nice to go the brown bomber defence.No it's not, it's a little concept called Burden of Proof. And It's sort of y'know, the corner stone of our legal system. You can't accuse someone of a crime, and then demand they prove their innocence.You think the Masons are a sinister organisation with ulterior motives. Fine prove it, don't make the claim and demand people disprove it.This is never going to happen.Well I've just given you their phone number and address, go nuts.Alternatively you could just go along to a open day. Or join.Well thats nice, until you explain your rational for disagreeing your argument can be summed up as "Nuh huh....."JFK was talking about the Soviet Union not the Freemasons. :rolleyes:0 -
Neither of those comments are worth an indepth reply.
Why not, sauce for the goose?
And ultra right wing catholic groups like Youth Defence are similar to Neo Nazi Groups.Yeah like they are really going to reveal all the inner workings of this super secret hood on a website no less:D There isnt any secrecy would you please.
So to be clear, you demanded that they hold a open day, I point out that they do hold a open day, several in fact, and you decide that a open day won't tell you whats going on.Not at all actually I feel alive, a lil' tired maybe but ridiculous?? are you on drugs.
Personal attack. Reported.Ive explained my position numerous times you just choose to ignore it thats up to you.
No you haven't.:DGoodman.
In your opinion....
No not really the Church's persecution of Jews and Freemasons is well documented.We are talking about a sly secret society here or have you failed to grasp that concept as of yet. Why all the secrecy.
Why all the secrecy?
You mean it's open days, The fact that they allow tours, membership is open to all religions and creeds, dues are nominal.
You've been exposed as not knowing the first thing about the organisation you think is suspicious.Do you think if I phoned them they would quote me the oath over the phone? What do you reckon. Will you ring up and ask them for me.
Why don't you. You ring them up, find out the oath, and I can ring them up and confirm it.Why all the secrecy and slying around? Thats what I want to know, why wont they tell us about the oath for example or what each degree entails. Why wont high profile people admit to their membership. Why?
I think we've exposed just how ignorant you are about the Freemasons.Your stooping lower and lower please continue;)
Says the guy who thinks the concept of burden of proof is pathetic.
Err no, he was talking about secret societies whatever they may be. Are you getting hard of hearing in your old age, listen to it again a spade is a spade.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=928_1217456062
I know the speech I know the context of speech. Listen to the above.0 -
You called it a "secret society" a secret society is by it's very nature concealing it's activities.
Many of the rituals of the Bullingdon club are secret. They admit to being a dining and drinking club, if that is all they do then why do their other activities remain a secret?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4985718.eceWhile many of the society's rituals remain secret, joining the Bullingdon Club is known to involve putting up with having your room trashed beyond recognition and seeing your drinking tested beyond all sane boundariesAnd apparently your definition of a secret society is a public drinking club in College, all the way to the Freemasons.
At what point do they have to admit their allegiance to private clubs. Are social clubs acceptable? Golf clubs? 12 Step programs?
You are trying to project an opinion on me..
Clubs where rituals, oaths etc are secret so should be considered a secret society.
The nature of activities conducted in golf clubs, 12 step programs is not a secret so I would not consider them to be secret societies.0 -
Many of the rituals of the Bullingdon club are secret. They admit to being a dining and drinking club, if that is all they do then why do their other activities remain a secret?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4985718.ece
Sounds like a posh frat boy party to me.You are trying to project an opinion on me..
Clubs where rituals, oaths etc are secret so should be considered a secret society.
Why?The nature of activities conducted in golf clubs, 12 step programs is not a secret so I would not consider them to be secret societies.
You don't know what goes on behind closed doors.0 -
Hypothetical situation folks, if such a law was enacted and certain politicians announced they were members of the Freemasons, would you vote for them?
If the answer is no then I think you know why they wouldn't want to admit it.
On a related note:
Do you think the Freemasons and other secret societies should be legal?
Do you think any society should be allowed to be secret?
If the answer to the above is yes, then do you think elected representatives should be allowed join them?
And if no, why not?0 -
Guys, some of these posts are getting too personal. Cut it out and relax. It's only the internet after all.0
-
I'm in Belfast at the moment and they had a big open day at the Freemasons hall a few weeks ago. Anyone could wander in and look around.namloc1980 wrote: »7. TAX FOR ALL: Sounds reasonable but instead of taxing the OAP and the dole surely it would make more sense to just cut those payments by a certain amount instead of having unnecessary tax administration etc - all that money is from the same pot anyway. As for the general idea of taxing low earners tiny amounts and big eaners alot what are the specific proposals?
Just to add to what namloc said.- Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total. Their average tax rate was 27.5%.
- Almost 770,000 people earned less than €17,000. Understandably, given tax credits, these workers paid a tiny amount of tax, €20m in total. Their average tax rate was about 0.5%.
- It’s in the middle, though, where things seem to go all screwy. The median earner, earning about €25,000, paid just 4% in income tax! As I argued before, we seem to have got ourselves into a situation where the typical Irish worker pays hardly any income tax and yet seems to think they are heavily taxed.
http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/28/a-little-quiz-on-irelands-income-tax/
The rich in Ireland are the ones paying by far the largest percentage of tax. So his tax for all will mean the poor and middle classes being taxed way more. Though judging by his videos he's all about going after the rich, the same rich who are already paying the tax.
The fact remains though the middle classes and the poor are going to have to be taxed a lot more, end of story. As we are fukked.0 -
espinolman wrote: »
I've watched this video at last. Namaloc made some very good points about the start of it here. I would add a few other things but I'll leave that for now. Though I will say I welcome anyone making positive proposals.
He's says boards.ie is senile, now I assume he means puerile or infantile. Now depending on where you look on boards.ie this can be true. But to say boards is just puerile is nonsense, After hours is puerile but Politics is not. Boards is a microcosm of society in general so has it's good and bad, funny and serious etc.
He doesn't seem to like myself or Studiorat's opinions. To be fair he's right we don't know him so we can't/shouldn't say what his motivations are. But it's also fair to say that he doesn't provide any backup for his opinions. From what I've seen so far his facts and figures are often wrong.
I've mentioned his point about Leinster house already. He openly admits to using a completely different building to make a point. He's correct government buildings does have more windows than Leinster house. However it was also built 150 years after Leinster house and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Earl of Kildare, or the Duke of Leinster. Again he's correct in that there is a big complex of buildings on this site, Leinster House, Government Buildings, The National Museum, The National Library, The Natural History Museum and the National Art Gallery. But only Leinster house has any relevance to the point he's making. The structures on the site were built over a period of 250 years. And let's be very clear about this Government buildings is not the back of Leinster House. This is the back of Leinster House.
Link to aerial shot of the back of Leinster House marked with a 1, Government building to the left.
This debate about the buildings is in many ways silly. It's not the main issue I have with his videos but it does prove he has no problem using something less than factual to make a point which is why I brought it up in the first place.
He was wrong about the students, though I have to admit I was too.0 -
He's says boards.ie is senile, now I assume he means puerile or infantile.
He immediately corrected himself in the video for saying that so why you bring it up I don't know.Now depending on where you look on boards.ie this can be true. But to say boards is just puerile is nonsense, After hours is puerile but Politics is not. Boards is a microcosm of society in general so has it's good and bad, funny and serious etc.
Some of the comments on this thread has been extremely puerile. I would include some of my own comments here also. And it is probably the only one he viewed.He doesn't seem to like myself or Studiorat's opinions.
You insinuated that he was a liar and Studiorat made many derogoratory comments about him. DeVore's comment was disgraceful also in my opinion.0 -
He immediately corrected himself in the video for saying that so why you bring it up I don't know.
True, not worth mentioning.Some of the comments on this thread has been extremely puerile. I would include some of my own comments here also. And it is probably the only one he viewed.
It can happen but most comments are not puerile. He labelled the whole of boards.ie that way which is untrue and unfair.You insinuated that he was a liar and Studiorat made many derogoratory comments about him. DeVore's comment was disgraceful also in my opinion.
To be fair I did but I have qualified that since. Well Devore is entitled to his opinion just like our pal JByeats is. And after watching that particular video it's stereotypical CT territory so I won't be surprised if people feel that way about it.
You didn't mention any of the rest of my post.0 -
Advertisement
-
He uses facts completely out of context.
Mentioning the slave trade and trying to connect to the modern era is plain ignorance on the subject. Daniel O'Connells own brother Maurice was involved in the slave trade. Irelands economy at the time depended on the Slave trade.
Ships to Africa from Ireland were not allowed. Liverpool in the 1780's turns up the following slave traders with Irish names: Felix Doran, Christopher Butler, Thomas Ryan, James McGauley and David Tuohy. In fact the Irish "working class" were in the very thick of the slave trade. Denmark didn't have the manpower to run their slave so they employed the Irish in their droves. Every single group in Ireland benefitted from the slave trade, not just the landowners.
To me JB sounds like the typical rant you'd expect from an Eirigi loon.0 -
It can happen but most comments are not puerile. He labelled the whole of boards.ie that way which is untrue and unfair.
Yes I agree there is more to board's than this (possible new slogan for the website) . However before he said these things he did did say he didn't know too much about the site and was only going form what he had seen and given that the first thing he read on this site was probably this thread so it is easy to see why one wouldn't want to read much more if this was the general standard of thread.Well Devore is entitled to his opinion just like our pal JByeats is. And after watching that particular video it's stereotypical CT territory so I won't be surprised if people feel that way about it.
Did you read the articles he posted along with that video? The video I posted was over 10 mins long. DeVore replied to my post 8 minutes after I posted the video so unless he had come across said video before then he didn't even give the whole video a full viewing, nevermind investigating the back stroy of the topic at hand. There is a lot of truth in what he said in that video that was covered by the mainstream newspapers. He may have added one or two points for effect but to insinuate he is suffering from some sort of mental illness is not something I would expect from one of the owners of this site.You didn't mention any of the rest of my post.
The point about the picture of Leinster House and is really irrelevant in the context of the whole video. JB was mistaken in this case but a mistake is alot different than a lie..
Studiorats point about the slave trade is interesting and yourself and Namloc have also brought up some interesting points, but why do you lads not bring up these issues in the first place instead of resorting to insults and misrepresentations of JBs position?0 -
Yes I agree there is more to board's than this (possible new slogan for the website) . However before he said these things he did did say he didn't know too much about the site and was only going form what he had seen and given that the first thing he read on this site was probably this thread so it is easy to see why one wouldn't want to read much more if this was the general standard of thread.
You don't see any irony in him criticising Studiorat and I for misrepresenting him while at the same time misrepresenting the whole of boards.ie?Did you read the articles he posted along with that video? The video I posted was over 10 mins long. DeVore replied to my post 8 minutes after I posted the video so unless he had come across said video before then he didn't even give the whole video a full viewing, nevermind investigating the back stroy of the topic at hand. There is a lot of truth in what he said in that video that was covered by the mainstream newspapers. He may have added one or two points for effect but to insinuate he is suffering from some sort of mental illness is not something I would expect from one of the owners of this site.
Look I can't speak for Devore but that particular video I find a bit out there myself. Not suggesting all his videos are but I thought that one was. Devore is entitled to his opinion whether he's an owner of this site or not. Like any other post around here if it breaks the rules it should be reported.The point about the picture of Leinster House and is really irrelevant in the context of the whole video. JB was mistaken in this case but a mistake is alot different than a lie..
There are two reason I'm pushing this issue. 1. He casually admits to using a different building for effect. Then dismisses it's importance by stating something else that isn't correct. 2. It may be indicative of his fact checking generally and may display a willingness to play fast and loose with the truth to make a point.Studiorats point about the slave trade is interesting and yourself and Namloc have also brought up some interesting points, but why do you lads not bring up these issues in the first place instead of resorting to insults and misrepresentations of JBs position?
It really is a fair point and that's exactly what we should have done. But after sitting through many many bullshít videos on the internet my tolerance is low. So when it starts off with info that is incorrect I initially stopped watching.0 -
You don't see any irony in him criticising Studiorat and I for misrepresenting him while at the same time misrepresenting the whole of boards.ie?
I think the real irony is the depth of support he has on the thread here possibly does indicate the certain level of puerility on boards.ie that apparently he's been talking about. Some of the posts on this thread certainly indicates that people are willing to un-questioningly buy into the cliches that JBYeats spews forth whether they are factually correct or not.0 -
You don't see any irony in him criticising Studiorat and I for misrepresenting him while at the same time misrepresenting the whole of boards.ie?
Well i don't think you are comparing like with like here. He clearly states that he doesn't know too much about boards.ie and he is only going off what he has seen. And by what he has seen on this thread his assertions would not be too far off. He was also responding to insults he recevied on this thread. I have previously commented on this thread that some of his videos are flawed, however I do not believe that it's like the curate's egg where the flaws ruin the whole point he makes.Look I can't speak for Devore but that particular video I find a bit out there myself. Not suggesting all his videos are but I thought that one was.
As out there as that video may seem, It is based on fact. Irish developers did put forward millions of Euro for repairs to the Vatican. They got medals and a plaque at the Chapel to prove it. The logistics of how it all came together may be exaggerated for effect in the video but FFingers, Seanie FFitz, Sir Peter Sutherland and many of Nama's top developers were involved in the deal as he points out in the video and links.There are two reason I'm pushing this issue. 1. He casually admits to using a different building for effect. Then dismisses it's importance by stating something else that isn't correct. 2. It may be indicative of his fact checking generally and may display a willingness to play fast and loose with the truth to make a point.
Fair enough.0 -
I think the real irony is the depth of support he has on the thread here possibly does indicate the certain level of puerility on boards.ie that apparently he's been talking about. Some of the posts on this thread certainly indicates that people are willing to un-questioningly buy into the cliches that JBYeats spews forth whether they are factually correct or not.
Some of your own comments included in the puerility?
In others threads if one were to repeat some of your comments and replace the word Nordie with Israeli, you would be in hysterics over it. Now that is irony.0 -
Some of your own comments included in the puerility?
In others threads if one were to repeat some of your comments and replace the word Nordie with Israeli, you would be in hysterics over it. Now that is irony.
You mean to say parts of the North of Ireland aren't provincial and closed off to anyone from outside? Fact is that was my experience of the place pretty much in general. I still maintain JB Yeats is a Sticky of some caste..
So found anything else interesting in your freemason research?0 -
Some of the posts on this thread certainly indicates that people are willing to un-questioningly buy into the cliches that JBYeats spews forth whether they are factually correct or not.
So, what you spewed forth, ie, your Stickie comment and link, were a factually correct representation of JB's political viewpoint ?0 -
Just watched this guys video about the 2 members here:eek: I hope you apologised to him0
-
Advertisement
-
Richard tea wrote: »Just watched this guys video about the 2 members here:eek: I hope you apologised to him
This the one where he says we misrepresented him in the middle of him misrepresenting the whole of boards.ie?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement