Is this the start of violent rhetoric in the Dail?

OhNoYouDidn't

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Nobody is foaming, people are being very critical because they are blatantly lying to people in promising a socialist utopia that can never be achieved. Sinn Fein get the same treatment for their delusional belief that the IMF can be sent packing and the catholic church gets even more online "vitiol" for their cover-up of abuse.

They have an ideology they would like to try and achieve and will try to achieve reform along the way. So what? You don't like it, don't vote for them.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Do you not want people to be critical - or just not of the left?

Of course not, but THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO CRITICISE YET....

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The op has a good point in the light of Louise Minihans throwing red paint on Mary Harney - is this the sort of behaviour we are going to be getting?

Is she a member of any of the parties in the Dail? No. So what relevance is that to the topic in hand?

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

What clichés?

You never seem happy unless the hard left are completely absolved from history and political analysis. Why is this?

Calling activists who have been elected to parliament 'armchair socialists'. The statement is entirely incorrect to this context.

What I want is a political analysis. Not some half baked conspiracies that they will storm the dail with guns and send dissenters to forced labour camps.

Lets have an actual debate on what they have said and done, not what right wing ideologues think they might say and do...

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Calling activists who have been elected to parliament 'armchair socialists'. The statement is entirely incorrect to this context.

What I want is a political analysis. Not some half baked conspiracies that they will storm the dail with guns and send dissenters to forced labour camps.

Lets have an actual debate on what they have said and done, not what right wing ideologues think they might say and do...

I wasn't talking about those elected, up until now the hard left have been utterly irrelevant. The most they ever amounted to were a few annoying posters in Dublin city center. So I am correct that until very recently these splinter groups of the Judean People's Front were and most are armchair socialists. The Chavez thing was just a jibe. I was actually hoping you would launch a full throated defence of a tyrant in order to expose your true feelings on politics, and were this might inevitably lead us.

I don't think anyone thinks these guys will organise a communist revolution. Most of their protests have around 300 eccentrics who barely know how to navigate a motor car, never mind an AK 47.

Stop calling me a right wing idealogue. Donegalfella may be, but not me

UsernameInUse

sensibleken wrote: »

and fúk those who dont have money presumably.

Nice. real nice.

I recomend you actually spend some time in leeds where comprehensive schools are being closed down in favour of fee paying acadamies and indirectly excluding people from a poorer and mostly asian background. Then in tandem have a look at how those youth are being radicalised

They are being discriminated against because Britain has a minimum wage law.

Students can't earn money through the current system because they have no experience, but how can they get experience without work? I think you'll find that freedom is better. Let the students work to pay their fee in college that does not require mandatory points. Or even better, let them participate in a course of their choosing and pay the college back when they earn money during their careers.

I'm sure you'll agree that that is a more humane system. The current one is not compassionate.

celtictiger32

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Before day one of the new Government begins, the ULA have held a press conference where, along with criticising the new coalition on various issues, certain TDs used quite violent language describing what would happen in certain conditions.

Here is the full article:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/left-alliance-will-fight-sale-of-state-assets-to-the-death-2569484.html

The stand out quote came from Clare Daly who "used the strongest rhetoric by saying the sale of state assets would only happen "over our dead bodies"".

Whilst the TDs may be completely non-violent, and these comments may have been taken completely out of context, if newspapers continue to report them with headlines like:
"Left Alliance will fight sale of state assets 'to the death'"
will this have consequences in making followers and opponents more extreme in language and actions over the next few years?

I wonder, will the new ULA continue with these martyrdom-ish styled comments which have similarities to the Tea Party in America who used vitriolic comments in whipping up support and creating a more mob-style opposition, culminating with the shooting of a US senator and civilians. Only after this shooting was the language used by politicians examined and criticised for its violent imagery.

Whilst I have no problem with a strong opposition, is it right to use language that may inflame opinion and encourage/condone violent behaviour in resisting new legislation?

there is nothing violent about these comments they are just commonly used expressions, i for one am glad that we are hearing the likes of this im sick of the bull**** beating around the bush bleating that we have heard from politicians for years its about time we had some straight talking people in the dail.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

I wasn't talking about those elected, up until now the hard left have been utterly irrelevant. The most they ever amounted to were a few annoying posters in Dublin city center. So I am correct that until very recently these splinter groups of the Judean People's Front were and most are armchair socialists. The Chavez thing was just a jibe. I was actually hoping you would launch a full throated defence of a tyrant in order to expose your true feelings on politics, and were this might inevitably lead us.

I don't think anyone thinks these guys will organise a communist revolution. Most of their protests have around 300 eccentrics who barely know how to navigate a motor car, never mind an AK 47.

Stop calling me a right wing idealogue. Donegalfella may be, but not me

This is exactly the patronising vitriol I was talking about...

Judeans People Front = 5 Dail seats. You simultaniously accuse them of jumping on bandwagons and then refusing to get off their arses. Pick one will you?

To be fair, you are equally as tedious about slating all political movements.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So disconnected they got 5 seats in the Dail....

In an election held at a time when exception circumstances prevail. When Ireland was doing well, under a sustainable economic model in 2002 the "local activist" in Joe Higgins was elected. On the other hand RBB got a paltry 800 votes (under the SWP) banner. Brid Smyth in DSC got 600 votes. Suddenly, the name was changed, the economic circumstances changed, and hey presto, the opportunists in the SWP are elected. It wont last, and their rhetoric will lose traction.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The real problem here is twofold.

1: Fear of political change, which is ironic because people like you profess to want to change the status quo

2: Raw snobbery that the people of the country would be 'duped' into voting for 5 ULA, 14 SF and 37 Labour. Complete patronising twaddle that just shy of half the electorate didn't vote for an alternative. They are all wrong.

Spare us.

Change will not be achieved by voting for failed ideologies in RBB and Joe Higgins. The USSR and its satelitte states were Socialist, no communist. The results were hopeless, and the people streamed out of the East when the Iron Curtain was pierced. Its over. The extreme left is a protest vote, whichw ill collapse.

sensibleken

UsernameInUse wrote: »

They are being discriminated against because Britain has a minimum wage law.

Students can't earn money through the current system because they have no experience, but how can they get experience without work? I think you'll find that freedom is better. Let the students work to pay their fee in college that does not require mandatory points. Or even better, let them participate in a course of their choosing and pay the college back when they earn money during their careers.

I'm sure you'll agree that that is a more humane system. The current one is not compassionate.

The minimum wage has nothing to do with this, dont change the subject.

It is perfectly possible to get jobs as a student. I did it, I also had plenty of experience having been working since i was 16, but there was no way I had the time to earn enough to put myself through college if the full cost was on my shoulders. They only way that could have been done was if i had rich parents.

I will not agree that its more humane because it excludes the vast majority of people from an education.

sensibleken

Het-Field wrote: »

Change will not be achieved by voting for failed ideologies in RBB and Joe Higgins. The USSR and its satelitte states were Socialist, no communist. The results were hopeless, and the people streamed out of the East when the Iron Curtain was pierced. Its over. The extreme left is a protest vote, whichw ill collapse.

Comparing the ULA to USSR because they were both socialist is like comparing Pinochets chile with fine gael because theyre both capitalist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Het-Field

sensibleken wrote: »

Comparing the ULA to USSR because they were both socialist is like comparing Pinochets chile with fine gael because theyre both capitalist.

Where is the comparison between the ULA and the USSR ?

Im simply stating that their extreme leftism has failed before.

Your argument re FG and pinochet is facetious nonsense.

Nelson Muntz

Does anyone in the ULA have the economic comprehension or eurozone knowledge to provide effective opposition or are they just going to stick to the anti everything soundbites they usually deal in?

FF are hardly in a position to provide effective opposition since they crashed the bus.

SF? :rolleyes: More populist soundbites.

Who does that leave us with to effectively critique govt policy and provide intelligent opposition? Shane Ross & a few independents? (Not Healy-Rae)

celtictiger32

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

Does anyone in the ULA have the economic comprehension or eurozone knowledge to provide effective opposition or are they just going to stick to the anti everything soundbites they usually deal in?

FF are hardly in a position to provide effective opposition since they crashed the bus.

SF? :rolleyes: More populist soundbites.

Who does that leave us with to effectively critique govt policy and provide intelligent opposition? Shane Ross & a few independents? (Not Healy-Rae)

anyone spot the blueshirt:rolleyes:

JonathanAnon

Dear God NOTHING has changed.... Groundhog day with the seats reversed... Petty squabbling ..

Good comeback by Enda there.. He's performing well to give the guy his dues..

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well it would have been difficult to believe there were 2 right-wing ideologues in Donegal in fairness.

Valmont

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Keep up the good work ULA and chums. You have them rattled.

No, just enjoying the circus.

LeixlipRed

Lol at the comparison to the Tea Party in the OP's post The fact all you right wingers are talking about us is so heart-warming, have you all rattled and it's only been one day!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

UsernameInUse

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Lol at the comparison to the Tea Party in the OP's post The fact all you right wingers are talking about us is so heart-warming, have you all rattled and it's only been one day!

lulz....

The ULA are irrelevant.

They speak on nobodies behalf - simply protest votes. And if they feel obliged to become "violent" or through any kind of force, they'll be thrown out quicker than their short term protest post permits. The fact of the matter is, you have no support. The Irish people are quite partial to freedom - it's now a case of electing a Government to give us more of it, not less like the ULA/Sinn Fein cronies preach.

No matter what ideology you feel drawn to, the fact eventually hits you in the face that it simply does not work if there is evidence to suggest it's failings. Socialism has failed - and on more than one occasion I might add.
For anybody to contest that statement, reasonable logic and intellectual independence has evaded them.

Some people don't vote with their brains - a friend of mine voted for Higgins. When asked "why?", he replied "ah, I knew his face and seen him on the telly". He then proceeded to rejoice that the person he chose got elected even though he has no recollection for what Higgins actually stands for, his ideologies and his demented views of mankind. It's scary to suggest that the Irish electorate actually fails to understand what these people are, but it's becoming more and more obvious that they don't.

A great majority think politicians are all the same - and not in an informed way, no. Some actually believe that they all fix a problem much like a plumber or an electrician fixes a problem. They don't understand that these people don't follow a rulebook.

I'm concerned about this county and it's future. Imagine if Higgins was running this country, everybody you know and love would be gone in two weeks.

sensibleken

UsernameInUse wrote: »

lulz....

The ULA are irrelevant.

They speak on nobodies behalf - simply protest votes. And if they feel obliged to become "violent" or through any kind of force, they'll be thrown out quicker than their short term protest post permits. The fact of the matter is, you have no support. The Irish people are quite partial to freedom - it's now a case of electing a Government to give us more of it, not less like the ULA/Sinn Fein cronies preach.

No matter what ideology you feel drawn to, the fact eventually hits you in the face that it simply does not work if there is evidence to suggest it's failings. Socialism has failed - and on more than one occasion I might add.
For anybody to contest that statement, reasonable logic and intellectual independence has evaded them.

Some people don't vote with their brains - a friend of mine voted for Higgins. When asked "why?", he replied "ah, I knew his face and seen him on the telly". He then proceeded to rejoice that the person he chose got elected even though he has no recollection for what Higgins actually stands for, his ideologies and his demented views of mankind. It's scary to suggest that the Irish electorate actually fails to understand what these people are, but it's becoming more and more obvious that they don't.

A great majority think politicians are all the same - and not in an informed way, no. Some actually believe that they all fix a problem much like a plumber or an electrician fixes a problem. They don't understand that these people don't follow a rulebook.

I'm concerned about this county and it's future. Imagine if Higgins was running this country, everybody you know and love would be gone in two weeks.

You keep saying that socialism has failed and that anyone who supports it is somehow an idiot without acknowledging that its unrestrained capitalism thats after getting us in the situation we're in. But that hasn't failed, we need more of that right?

Plenty of socialist principles have been successfull, you wouldnt have equal pay for men and women if there wasnt a socialist government in france in the 70s, sweden is a fine example of socialism working well.

Higgins is an extremist, a trotskyite, he does not speak for all, or even very many socialists. Believe it or not you can be a socialist without being a trot just as you can be a capitalist without being a corporatist

CokaColumbo

sensibleken wrote: »

You keep saying that socialism has failed and that anyone who supports it is somehow an idiot without acknowledging that its unrestrained capitalism thats after getting us in the situation we're in. But that hasn't failed, we need more of that right?

Plenty of socialist principles have been successfull, you wouldnt have equal pay for men and women if there wasnt a socialist government in france in the 70s, sweden is a fine example of socialism working well.

Higgins is an extremist, a trotskyite, he does not speak for all, or even very many socialists. Believe it or not you can be a socialist without being a trot just as you can be a capitalist without being a corporatist

Artificially suppressed interest rates set by the ECB in Europe and the FED in the U.S. and the creation of moral hazard by governments willing to bail out private companies were two fundamental causes of the recession. You also had the fact that the U.S. government actively encouraged and leaned on banks to loosen their lending standards in the name of positive discrimination for decades and was in fact, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the biggest buyer of sub-prime mortgages in the world. That is crony-capitalism in action and is a complete perversion of free market thinking. In fact, it was proponents of free market capitalism (e.g. Peter Schiff and Ron Paul) who accurately predicted every aspect of the collapse.

Sweden is a clear example of socialism not working. The country went from being one of the poorest (c.1870) to the fourth richest (c.1970) like any other country, by relying on capitalist institutions like free trade, free enterprise, innovation, and hard work. Around 1970, the country adopted many socialist policies and what happened? They had years of faltering growth and deep problems with their social programmes (e.g. state price controls meant large rationing of healthcare and housing) and by 1993 it had dropped to the 12th most prosperous country. And then what happened? Deregulation of transport, communications, electricity; lowering of the top marginal tax rate and many other sweeping pro market reforms over the last 15 years which have meant decreased government expenditure and more growth in the Swedish economy.

All of the professional, expert literature acknowledges that there is a negative correlation between economic growth and government interference in people's economic lives. But the socialist thugs don't realise that and remain confident that the wealth created by people will still exist when draconian taxes etc. are forced onto the backs of the productive members of a country. Why does the ULA and every other shade of leftist hold on to the notion that socialism can work when all of the evidence demonstrates that free markets have helped the common man more than any other system in history and that socialism is a coercive invention of the human mind which has done literally nothing but impoverish the ordinary masses in the long run?

The Waltzing Consumer

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Lol at the comparison to the Tea Party in the OP's post The fact all you right wingers are talking about us is so heart-warming, have you all rattled and it's only been one day!

Well, we are poor right-wingers so you guys have to defend us to the death apparently

The Tea Party and the ULA are very comparable even if one is very right-wing and the other is deluded left-wing. Tactics, populism, empty rhetoric, both try to attract the "workers" and common people even though their members are mostly very privileged middle class. A mirror image really. :pac:

Shea O'Meara

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Whilst I have no problem with a strong opposition, is it right to use language that may inflame opinion and encourage/condone violent behaviour in resisting new legislation?

A little scaremonger-ish if I may be so bold. If a person is willing to commit a violent act they will. If a peacefull person, no words will convince them to run amok with a cudgel.
I would love to see some similar passion from FG/Labour. It's a little disturbing to see the dust of government begin to settle when now that we may have the closest thing to an honest government we've had in decades, we should be turning over every stone and vetting every contract and state/semi-state appointment, especially those of recent weeks.
The time for passion and anger is now, now they can do something about it.

Is mise le key

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nonsense, i attended the meeting on friday gone of the ULA & joe higgins specifically said on the stage,

Paraphrasing;

'We intend to resist every cut directed at the working people in a peaceful & democratic way'

You can attempt to make out their is an undercurrent of violence in the ULA speeches if you wish but frankly that says more about you than them.

They have advocated mass civil disobedience since and before they were formed as a legitimate way of fighting back, Gahndi practiced this also are you going to tell me that he really was trying to ignite mass violence if he said in a peacful protest that the british would only win over his dead body.

the ULA is 100% opposed to violence, dictatorship, oppression, racism and this is merley grasping at straws from the ruling class to attempt to damage their credibility before the next election where they will guaranteed return more deputies.

The Waltzing Consumer

Is mise le key wrote: »

Nonsense, i attended the meeting on friday gone of the ULA & joe higgins specifically said on the stage,

Paraphrasing;

'We intend to resist every cut directed at the working people in a peaceful & democratic way'

You can attempt to make out their is an undercurrent of violence in the ULA speeches if you wish but frankly that says more about you than them.

They have advocated mass civil disobedience since and before they were formed as a legitimate way of fighting back, Gahndi practiced this also are you going to tell me that he really was trying to ignite mass violence if he said in a peacful protest that the british would only win over his dead body.

the ULA is 100% opposed to violence, dictatorship, oppression, racism and this is merley grasping at straws from the ruling class to attempt to damage their credibility before the next election where they will guaranteed return more deputies.

Firstly, the ULA ain't no Gandhi :rolleyes:

Secondly, the problem with your whole last paragraph is it does not match reality, like it or not, it does not. Look at past events from student protests being hijacked by SWP which caused VIOLENCE with gardai and students, to support being given by Richard Boyd Barrett and SWP to violent, oppressive and racist groups in the middle east. I have no problem if this is views that they take, but cut out the very obvious political speak about 100% opposed to methods that certain groups in ULA have partaken or supported.

You may come back and say "it's all the Gardai fault" and "Israel are violent and murderers", which is fine, that is your opinion, but it does not change the FACTS that groups in the ULA have had no problem in that past being involved personally, or supporting violence, oppression or racism, when it suited them. But if they have renounced all that and changed, I welcome that.

Is mise le key

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Secondly, the problem with your whole last paragraph is it does not match reality, like it or not, it does not. Look at past events from student protests being hijacked by SWP which caused VIOLENCE with gardai and students,

Thats like saying that all irish people are responsible for violence that erupts at an orange march!!!!

Just because a few students start a row, or become involved in one perhaps started by the gardai, that doesnt mean the leadership of the SWP are pro violence to achieve their political aims, and to suggest that even shows a little immaturity & naivety.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

support being given by Richard Boyd Barrett and SWP to violent, oppressive and racist groups in the middle east. I have no problem if this is views that they take, but cut out the very obvious political speak about 100% opposed to methods that certain groups in ULA have partaken or supported.
.

Now i take it you are getting at them being opposed to Israel, well the fact that the Israeli army massacred (and yes 'massacred' is the most appropriate word) over 1400 lebanese civilians in a week would give an indication to the anger towards them from the SWP alright but,

How many Israelis have been killed by the SWP????

OhNoYouDidn't

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Firstly, the ULA ain't no Gandhi :rolleyes:

Secondly, the problem with your whole last paragraph is it does not match reality, like it or not, it does not. Look at past events from student protests being hijacked by SWP which caused VIOLENCE with gardai and students, to support being given by Richard Boyd Barrett and SWP to violent, oppressive and racist groups in the middle east. I have no problem if this is views that they take, but cut out the very obvious political speak about 100% opposed to methods that certain groups in ULA have partaken or supported.

You may come back and say "it's all the Gardai fault" and "Israel are violent and murderers", which is fine, that is your opinion, but it does not change the FACTS that groups in the ULA have had no problem in that past being involved personally, or supporting violence, oppression or racism, when it suited them. But if they have renounced all that and changed, I welcome that.

Give me one example of the SWP supporting racism or opression?

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Give me one example of the SWP supporting racism or opression?

They supported the Soviet Union for many years, which went out of its way to sow discord in Central Asia (All of the Stan's are an ethnic mess) So I suppose, indirectly, the SWP are responsible for the dictatorship of Islam Karimov.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

They supported the Soviet Union for many years, which went out of its way to sow discord in Central Asia (All of the Stan's are an ethnic mess) So I suppose, indirectly, the SWP are responsible for the dictatorship of Islam Karimov.

The SWP opposed the Soviet Union. Called it a state capitalist dictatorship and celebrated its collapse.

Anyone with an understanding of what they are talking about want to try and answer it?

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The SWP opposed the Soviet Union. Called it a state capitalist dictatorship and celebrated its collapse.

Anyone with an understanding of what they are talking about want to try and answer it?

Which one of these red splinter groups supported the Soviet Union? You must forgive me, there are/were at least 15 different groups saying essentially the same thing. The far left are a funny bunch. One tiny deviation in dogma and you've got a reformation on your hands.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Which one of these red splinter groups supported the Soviet Union? You must forgive me, there are/were at least 15 different groups saying essentially the same thing. The far left are a funny bunch. One tiny deviation in dogma and you've got a reformation on your hands.

Do your own research before mouthing off innacuratly...

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do your own research before mouthing off innacuratly...

Got confused with the worker's party. Luckily the organisation I was earlier referring to had at least 30 active members and a few hundred college students who got lost on their way to the beer drinking society.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Got confused with the worker's party. Luckily the organisation I was earlier referring to had at least 30 active members and a few hundred college students who got lost on their way to the beer drinking society.

That has what to do with the topic in hand?

The Waltzing Consumer

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Give me one example of the SWP supporting racism or opression?

The completely one-sided nature of the SWP stance on the Gaza situation which publicly supported Hamas and Hezbollah. Just one example.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

The completely one-sided nature of the SWP stance on the Gaza situation which publicly supported Hamas and Hezbollah. Just one example.

So are you trying to claim that is racist or opressive?

The Waltzing Consumer

Is mise le key wrote: »

Thats like saying that all irish people are responsible for violence that erupts at an orange march!!!!

Just because a few students start a row, or become involved in one perhaps started by the gardai, that doesnt mean the leadership of the SWP are pro violence to achieve their political aims, and to suggest that even shows a little immaturity & naivety.

Now i take it you are getting at them being opposed to Israel, well the fact that the Israeli army massacred (and yes 'massacred' is the most appropriate word) over 1400 lebanese civilians in a week would give an indication to the anger towards them from the SWP alright but,

How many Israelis have been killed by the SWP????

Absolute bull. The SWP had organised that "protest". The completely screwed the students over (even the SWP members in NUI Maynooth lied to students about the conduct of the march despite us asking the SWP to behave and not steal attention). It was in no way just a few students. That point is not valid.

Eh, the SWP have publicly supported Hamas and Hezbollah who use violence, oppression, racism to get their point across. You can't say you are 100% against violence, racism, oppression if you support other groups doing it. Come on, pot kettle black? You have a good point with Israel, but you make no friends going on some Gandhi vision when the SWP publicly support other murderers and terrorists. The hypocrisy is obvious.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Eh, the SWP have publicly supported Hamas and Hezbollah who use violence, oppression, racism to get their point across. You can't say you are 100% against violence, racism, oppression if you support other groups doing it. Come on, pot kettle black? You have a good point with Israel, but you make no friends going on some Gandhi vision when the SWP publicly support other murderers and terrorists. The hypocrisy is obvious.

Did they publically support Hamas and Hezbollah? Or did you just dream that?

Supporting the right of the civilians of Gaza not to have white phosphorous dropped on them does not mean they support the government of Gaza. Ditto their opposition to the war in Iraq doesn't mean they supported Saddam.

The Waltzing Consumer

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So are you trying to claim that is racist or opressive?

1) The SWP publicly supports Hamas and Hezbollah in their courageous struggle
2) These groups are terrorist groups which oppress people, spread anti-western antisemitism and anti-Israel propaganda and have used extreme violence in their aims.
3) The claim is the ULA is 100% opposed to violence, racism and oppression
4) If they support groups which engage in the things they are now saying they are 100% opposed to, then they are complete hypocrites.

The Waltzing Consumer

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Did they publically support Hamas and Hezbollah? Or did you just dream that?

Supporting the right of the civilians of Gaza not to have white phosphorous dropped on them does not mean they support the government of Gaza. Ditto their opposition to the war in Iraq doesn't mean they supported Saddam.

It is funny, you are not addressing the actual issue.

It is proven that they publicly support Hamas and Hezbollah, even Barrett himself has written about it in the Socialist Journal praising those groups. He was challenged about it in the Dun Laoghaire council by another councilor. It is on record. So if it is proven, can you address the issue then and not avoid it?

I ain't going into the issues of Gaza. I am addressing very obvious hypocrisies about violence, racism and oppression.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

1) The SWP publicly supports Hamas and Hezbollah in their courageous struggle
2) These groups are terrorist groups which oppress people, spread anti-western antisemitism and anti-Israel propaganda and have used extreme violence in their aims.
3) The claim is the ULA is 100% opposed to violence, racism and oppression
4) If they support groups which engage in the things they are now saying they are 100% opposed to, then they are complete hypocrites.

Link? Source?

Until then, and they have an archived website and online paper, this goes down as random red scare waffle with a sprinkling of anti-semitism thrown in for good measure.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I ain't going into the issues of Gaza. I am addressing very obvious hypocrisies about violence, racism and oppression.

Taking a side in an armed struggle does not make you violent.

Taking a side where an element of the political landscape of that country is oppresive does not mean you support that oppression.

I could very easily flip it back onto you. You seem to support Isreal. Does that make you a religious fundamentalist, racist, sectarian, militaristic, quasi-fascist?

Of course not. That would be daft.

The Waltzing Consumer

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Link? Source?

Until then, and they have an archived website and online paper, this goes down as random red scare waffle with a sprinkling of anti-semitism thrown in for good measure.

http://www.labour.ie/richardhumphreys/news/128687786241852139.html

The Waltzing Consumer

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Taking a side in an armed struggle does not make you violent.

Taking a side where an element of the political landscape of that country is oppresive does not mean you support that oppression.

I could very easily flip it back onto you. You seem to support Isreal. Does that make you a religious fundamentalist, racist, sectarian, militaristic, quasi-fascist?

Of course not. That would be daft.

I have no views on Israel, I don't know nearly enough to say yes or no or whatever. I am in my comfortable home in Ireland and to take a side on an issue I have little understanding would be very silly.

If this was some pro-Israel group who support Israel military and then make a statement saying they are 100% non-violent etc., I would laugh too, it is hypocrisy.

I have no problems with people taking sides. That is normal. I have a problem with people pretending they are non-violent or whatever when they clearly publicly support others who do exactly what they condemn. Talk about blinkered and hypocritical.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

http://www.labour.ie/richardhumphreys/news/128687786241852139.html

Link to him actually supporting them, not a rival councellor having a go at him for his percieved support?

The Waltzing Consumer

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Link to him actually supporting them, not a rival councellor having a go at him for his percieved support?

Stop being so pedantic. The article has clear references in what the councillor said. Talk about indoctrination where you cannot even fathom any wrongdoing whatsoever is pretty weird. This is akin to FF supporters who even when shown clear evidence that Bertie was dirty, they still defended him to the last.

Lame Lantern

To be fair, I don't think Boyd Barrett would really endorse the pratices of Hezbollah and Hamas. It's just the case that he's a bit of a dumbass, going off half-cocked knowing half the story.

I don't think these people are intentionally endorsing violence, they're just irresponsible featherweights commenting on heavyweight issues.

20Cent

Anyone find an actual link to the ULA endorsing Hamas or Hezbollah?

Amhran Nua

Ah I wouldn't worry too much about Joe, he's a man still trying to win an argument he lost back in 1989 when he was expelled from the Labour party for entryism, a practice himself and his boyos continue with gusto to this day, even going so far as to create positive sounding organisations to sucker people in. Since he's arguably the main spokesperson and motivator for the far left, it's worth taking a minute to consider his motivations.

First politicised in the US against the backdrop of the Vietnam war, he's never really left that mindset behind. He was an important member of the Militant Tendency, later Militant Labour which then changed its name to the Socialst Workers Party after his expulsion. He's a Trotsykist, who sees what he is doing as creating a vanguard party for the working class. The ultimate goal of course being Marx's socialist paradise.

The thing is though, I've studied Marx, and the times he lived in, and what he was trying to achieve. He never did join the final dots as to the final shape of his utopia. Marx was an extremely intelligent man, smarter then myself and probably most other people here. If he didn't draw the full picture it was for a good reason.

The reality is, it is simply impossible to do so, and that Marx knew this, but didn't care. His goal was to create a self perpetuating movement to remove the bloodthirsty savages that were in charge of the world at the time, the aristocracy, the nobles, those who would take by birthright that which can only be gained by the decimation of a people. The endgame could be worked out by others.

And he was successful! Would he have considered it a price worth paying though, or if he knew what would be done in his name, that he was merely swapping one set of tyrants for another, would he have burned all his writings? It's a question worth a ponder. However, what we're left with today are extremists who have no real purpose in life, since that purpose expired a long time ago, and yet the self perpetuating movement continues, aided and abetted by those who desire power for its own sake, as well as those who genuinely believe in the impossible utopia.

Joe Higgins is one of that breed, still trying to push his theory of permanent revolution in a ripe capitalist society, and according to Trotsky, Ireland is ripe, still trying to create a group of the enlightened who will lead the rest of the clay footed peasants to the utopia, still trying to radicalise the masses and infiltrate other movements. Trotskyism is one of the more convoluted of the interpretations of Marx's work, but is no less futile in today's world. Indeed, it's worse than futile, as they must insist upon trying to insert and attach themselves to any morally positive sounding idea and claim it in the name of their flawed ideology.

So really, no, the ULA isn't going to achieve its goals. It's being led by a man trying to get over the humiliation of his rightful expulsion from the moderate left. That's what you're fighting for.

At the risk of throwing down the gauntlet to everyone in the thread, I'll say a word about Libertarianism as well. Yes, the recent economic collapse was a direct result of a lack of regulation, as the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act indicates. Is it as bad as it can get? Surprisingly, no. It has been said that capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone, and this is truer than the speaker knew.

Left to its own devices, unfettered capitalism results in the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, which in itself creates barriers to new growth, as generations pass and less worthy successors hold and consolidate the gains of their fathers and grandfathers. Those with merit are denied the opportunity to achieve their potential, since if they realise their potential they must take wealth and power from those who have it, and ultimately you come full circle back to an aristocratic system, all in the name of freedom, ironically. It is not optimal.

These realities are clear to anyone who spends more than a few minutes thinking about them, so I have to wonder why they have such a pervasive hold on the minds of so many.

My own political leanings are both simpler and harder to follow than either of the above, but I won't go into them here, suffice it to say there is no utopia, no endgame, no perfect model for society. It's a self referencing algorithm that changes as you adapt to it. Eternal flux with the goal of continually coming closer to a meritocracy is the order of things, as in nature so it is with people. Whatever order we impose must needs be temporary, and revisited regularly. Protect the weak and encourage the strong, reward merit but don't crush failure, that's all you know and all you need to know, in my opinion.

Soldie

Amhran Nua wrote: »

My own political leanings are both simpler and harder to follow than either of the above, but I won't go into them here, suffice it to say there is no utopia, no endgame, no perfect model for society. It's a self referencing algorithm that changes as you adapt to it. Eternal flux with the goal of continually coming closer to a meritocracy is the order of things, as in nature so it is with people. Whatever order we impose must needs be temporary, and revisited regularly. Protect the weak and encourage the strong, reward merit but don't crush failure, that's all you know and all you need to know, in my opinion.

This is called populism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.