I love Ivana Bacik

Michael G

I do, really. I love the way, when she gets on the radio, she does a kind of "help me" girly giggle when someone says something she doesn't agree with.

Snappy Smurf

Any links to share? I wanna hear the evidence.

Michael G

Try the spot where she was with Matt Cooper and James Bannon TD on Today FM yesterday.

Nodin

This'll end well....

Cardinal Richelieu

Michael G wrote: »

I do, really. I love the way, when she gets on the radio, she does a kind of "help me" girly giggle when someone says something she doesn't agree with.

Whats this got to do with Christianity?

qrrgprgua

Who The one who is proposing we legislate to allow women kill their babies.

No. I don't live her ideas. And it seems neither do other people as she has failed to get elected.

mcmoustache

As an atheist, I can't stand her. I think my dislike of her is mostly due to me being right-wing in my outlook on life and most of her ideas being retarded, though.

muppeteer

I was listening to that interview, and while Bacik usually rubs me the wrong way she couldn't help but come out as the sensible and reasonable one when she was being opposed by that FG TD. He was so out of touch I almost felt sorry for the guy.
He basically said that the law of the state didn't matter as it was not God's law, which may be a fine on its own but he is an elected TD who makes the laws of the state.
http://media.todayfm.com/listenbacks/popup Part 2 13:30 minuets in.

Manach

Usually it is the dept heads in conjunction with the law reform commission present a majority of laws to the politicians to be voted on, and usually it is the government of the day that in nearly all cases pushes though laws with little time for private members bills.

keano_afc

She's a sexist moron, a failed political entity. There are very few more detestable politicians than her, and thats saying something.

allprops

Some very "christian" attitudes being shown here.

Benny_Cake

I'm pretty left-wing but I don't find her to be the most pleasant of people. She has views which can be almost as absolute as those of her opponents and her time in TCD student politics point to someone I wouldn't trust with a position of power. The fact that she couldn't get elected by the most liberal constituency in the country says a lot.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Christianity though.

Michael G

muppeteer wrote: »

I was listening to that interview, and while Bacik usually rubs me the wrong way she couldn't help but come out as the sensible and reasonable one when she was being opposed by that FG TD. He was so out of touch I almost felt sorry for the guy.
He basically said that the law of the state didn't matter as it was not God's law, which may be a fine on its own but he is an elected TD who makes the laws of the state.

He is a country backbencher and he was bound to come across as less polished and articulate than Bacik. They could easily have found a pro-life person to match her in debating skills (Ronan Mullen, David Quinn) but no doubt none was available .

I would like to hear more debate about secular law vis-a-vis natural law. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany through the democratic process, and the elected parliament later passed the enabling legislation that gave him supreme power. What they did to the Jews after that was entirely legal, based on a democratic mandate. At Nuremberg the surviving Nazis were convicted under international law; that is, a law determined by agreement among a number of other states. If that international law had not already been determined at the time, there would have been no grounds for convicting them. In that event, if natural law is not admissible in secular debate, what grounds would there have been for punishing them?

By the way I have never heard Senator Bacik say anything that I did not vehemently disagree with. One can of course disagree with someone without disliking them, but the girly giggle does make her bloody irritating as well. My opening post was meant to be playful but was probably too heavy-handed to succeed.

Snappy Smurf

The eyes are the windows of the soul. When I look at Ivana's eyes, I see no light. Enuff said.

StanMcConnell

Why haven't any mods moved this thread. Surely it should be in politics.

NuMarvel

Maybe the OP would like it better if she had a manly giggle? Or a more gender-neutral guffaw, perhaps?

Cardinal Richelieu

StanMcConnell wrote: »

Why haven't any mods moved this thread. Surely it should be in politics.

OP post doesn't seem to be political but more personality. Hard to say what forum if any the post could be moved to without getting locked.

It seems do from posts from both left and right supporters that Ivana isn't that popular more due to her delivery than her politics. Where is Terry Prone when you need her!:D

Nodin

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

OP post doesn't seem to be political but more personality. Hard to say what forum if any the post could be moved to without getting locked.

It seems do from posts from both left and right supporters that Ivana isn't that popular more due to her delivery than her politics. Where is Terry Prone when you need her!:D

Yes, I mean look what she did for Gay Mitchell.

muppeteer

Michael G wrote: »

He is a country backbencher and he was bound to come across as less polished and articulate than Bacik. They could easily have found a pro-life person to match her in debating skills (Ronan Mullen, David Quinn) but no doubt none was available .

While Quinn may be more articulate I fear he is just as divorced from reality;)

I would like to hear more debate about secular law vis-a-vis natural law. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany through the democratic process, and the elected parliament later passed the enabling legislation that gave him supreme power. What they did to the Jews after that was entirely legal, based on a democratic mandate. At Nuremberg the surviving Nazis were convicted under international law; that is, a law determined by agreement among a number of other states. If that international law had not already been determined at the time, there would have been no grounds for convicting them. In that event, if natural law is not admissible in secular debate, what grounds would there have been for punishing them?

Off the top of my head I think that even in Nazi Germany murder was still illegal, even for jews. But when the laws of the state are either corrupted by the dictatorship or ignored by the dictatorship then state law ceases to matter.

I also don't think the laws on genocide existed before the Nuremberg trials. They were pieced together by the victors to punish war crimes. There was no need to appeal to natural law, only to appeal to common human decency that what the Nazis did was deserving of justice. And they, being the victors, would apply that justice as they democratically saw fit.

For a still functioning democracy appeals to natural/gods law are mute without being able to justify that law through democratic discourse. That is why what the TD stated and the way he stated it puts him out of touch with the democratic process which he is supposed to be a part of.

Anyway, this might be more suited to a more focused thread:)