Eamon Gilmore - hypocritical or just politics?

Chucky the tree

Biggins wrote: »

I not going to even debate further with you.
You can't be bothered to check out all or anything that I have done - but incredibly not only accuse me of still supporting FF but their present policies too!
Absolutely fcuking unbelievable!

Why the fcuk should I give you more bloody answers, you CLEARLY only want to see (or not NOT see as I can make out), what you want to!

You don't read whats out there, what I have done (for all to see that bothered their arse!), what I have protested about on the streets of Dublin AGAINST FF - and wrote about this on this forum, appeared on TV in opposition to them numerous times, wrote reports in the national press, talked repeatedly on radio against them, created not one but THREE sites protesting against their (and now other political stupidity).

Why the fcuk should I give someone answers further when they so so blatantly blind that they slander me with something I am so fcuking far off, its unreal!

Get the hell out of here!
You haven't got a fcuking clue!

I'm right bloody pissed off right now!

If you can't see the difference in situation between Gilmore and my past, your clearly blind.
Someone else - please educate this person.
If I say any more myself, I will get myself banned - so I'm outa here for now!

You are a hyopcrite Biggins, just accept it. Of course your situation is different to Eamonns, good knows why though, but it just is. :rolleyes: As I said, since you are of the opinion that someone should not be allowed change their political views then that makes you a FF supporter because you were one in the past.

seamus

Raiser wrote: »

So you are only happy to deal in absolute terms then? All or nothing? Completely right or completely wrong? Some convenient form of an arbitrary binary morality then? If the Defendant is not guilty on all 50 counts of aggravated GBH they're a halo-toting Saint?

Where did I say anything like that?

You see, you're letting your own biase in again, causing you to misrepresent my argument. I never said that the government were doing a good job, or that they never made a mistake, or that they never reneged on a promise. I simply demanded a little transparency and objectivity from another poster making a statement that they had u-turned on "almost everything".

Anyone who expects a politician to be whiter-than-white and stick with all of their promises is living in a fantasy land. Even the most scrupulously honest and hard working politician will end up having to change his mind at least some of the time and let people down. That's the nature of trying to run a country and do the best thing for the majority - "you can please some of the people all of the time", etc.

There are two ways you can look at a party's manifesto - take the policy document as a whole - a guideline of what way they plan on driving the country - without focussing too heavily on any one specific item. Then compare the outcome to see how closely it fits to that guideline. Using this method has the best chance of you choosing a politician who will shape the country into something that you want at least 50% of the time. If they fail to do this, you find someone who will do it.

Or you can take every point of a manifesto individually and examine each on a "scorecard" and rate the performance based on what they meet. The benefit here is that it's black-and-white, a very simple way of doing it. The problem is that you will be continually disappointed by every politician you ever vote for when promises aren't met, but you will also fail to take anything "off the scorecard" into account, thereby under-rating their performance.

FG & Labour's problem was making statements about things which were already predetermined before they even stood for election. Anyone who had been watching what was going on knew that whoever was in power would have their hands tied for 3 to 5 years and could only make adjustments. Some people seem to be under the impression though that they could walk in and make changes and within a year we'd be back to full growth and party time again. And that may have just been because FG/Lab sold themselves on a "time for change" platform underplaying the fact that there is little change they could make anyway.

As for my own personal opinion, I have yet to see any headline issues to bash them about the head with except that their PR machine seems to be a complete and utter disaster. Once the media breaks a "scandal", they seem to be utterly incapable of grabbing it by the scruff and not looking like a bunch of buffoons.
In very simple terms, the economy and the country's outlook as a whole seems to be doing better under this government than the last. Whether that's down to them at all is questionable, but I've yet to see any major outrage or serious policy mismanagement that would warrant removing them from Government.
Unlike, say, an unlimited and wide-ranging eleventh hour banking guarantee.

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

...As I said, since you are of the opinion that someone should not be allowed change their political views then that makes you a FF supporter because you were one in the past.

Right, took a breath of fresh air to clam down.
Here we go...

1. I have NEVER stated "someone should not be allowed change their political views"
(a) Please don't say I have.
(b) Please point out where I have supposedly stated this!

I have stated just in a few posts back if you bothered actually read what I have wrote (I'm not optimistic of this given you have completely missed everything else I have wrote and/or done!) the following:

"if I was in ANY party and my positions reversed and/or I didn't stick to the original party espousing line, I should leave it and go join one that DID agree with my changed ideology."

There, I even put it in bold, in hope that you might see something this time.

2. You (hopefully) reading above - am I still with FF?
3. Do you still incredulously think I support them or believe in their policies? Still?

4. It sad that I have to educate someone in the difference of the situations, that they cannot see for themselves.
I shall try however.

Giilmore has changed not one but many things while being in the Labour party - a party by the way that is democratic and as such at their yearly AGM' votes on policy issues.
Anyone (besides others) with a bit of close experience will know about this process.
As far as I know, no voting has taken place by members, in proposed resolutions and subsequent confirmations of request change, that some of Labour earlier principles and positions have officially being allowed to change by inner democratic vote.
As such, Gilmore has as far as I can make out by watching the whole Labour process and activity (including recent events at their AGM) taken it upon himself to change party direction and policy, at 'the drop of a hat' as he now feels like it - when in actual fact if he was sticking with the previous core principles and voted on and confirmed resolutions pertaining to party policy, his official mandate (given to him by party voting members) could be vastly different!

The above is just a brief introduction as to why I see Gilmore alone as being possibly two-faced and even possibly traitorous to the original founding members of The Irish Labour party.
There is more but if you can't see and/or understand the above alone, you sure as hell won't (or don't want to) see the rest!

Good day!

Jaysoose

seamus wrote: »

At least 2 of them have already been discredited or at least legitimately questioned by myself and ArmaniJeans. Therefore I'm not going to waste my time going through the rest of them to do the same thing since I've already shown that the list contains a reasonable amount of biase and inaccuracy.

At this stage the onus is on you to justify each item in the list and show that the list you've provided is valid.

You asked for a list and you got it..you can choose to ignore it if you please but dont simply state that its a waste of your time to go through the points as this is incredibly arrogant and to be honest looks like your not happy that somebody actually went out of their way to back their post up.

You havent shown any "reasonable amount of bias and innacuracy" stating that its a weak list is not showing "reasonable amount of bias and innacuracy" you havent shown anything here except your ability to be incredibly condescending when presented with info that you yourself requested.

So unless you want to go through the list and back up your comments then Im not gonna waste MY time going any further with this.

seamus

Jaysoose wrote: »

So unless you want to go through the list and back up your comments then Im not gonna waste MY time going any further with this.

I did. See above.