Christmas messages from politicians

Obliq

catallus wrote: »

Is this supposed to be a joke? Even a light perusal of the threads linked to Atheism and Agnosticism would prove that to be inaccurate. I'm not having a go, but face facts. This is the last place to be if one wishes to avoid group-think.


As for accusing me of generalising and name calling, this is baffling. Obnoxious, moi?

Yeah, yeah. Pull the other one. I'm accusing you of these things because you have classed me, an independent person who you haven't a notion about (but who often enjoys the banter up here on A&A) as someone who engages in group think. So as far as I'm concerned, you can shove your "not having a go" and have a little think about how you would like to be spoken to as an individual. I'm treating you as the obnoxious individual you have come across to be. If you don't like that, then change your posting style and the way you are speaking to PEOPLE, not a group. PEOPLE.

And if you don't like the INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE here, then close the door on the way out eh?

Brian Shanahan

catallus wrote: »

I'd expect an answer like that from a nihilist like yourself, OldHippy. What is saddening is that this attitude is emulated by many posters here.

catallus [sic], you can't look in the mirror and ascribe your personal characteristics to those you disagree with as insults, first it is lying, second it is ill mannered, and third it denotes that you have no argument to make in favour of your position.

Obliq

Wow, I just read that back to myself and it's not very christmassy, is it?! If you are not a troll, I do apologise for being that obnoxious even if it was in return for what I class as generalising (and not in a pleasant way) about people who happen to agree on a number of issues. Y'know, I'm not sure that this thread's OP warrants taking things this seriously.

Someone ate my cake this week, and now I have a fluey bug, so I'm properly in a humour to take a swing at this particular person, but can't raise my arm high enough. So keyboard warrior, bah humbug :mad:

Sorry again

Sarky

So am I a martyr yet, or do I have to collect more tokens off boxes of Special K?

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

So am I a martyr yet, or do I have to collect more tokens off boxes of Special K?

No Sarky, not yet. .
You're up there with the legend's such as Zombrex and JC you're at rebel status. ..

Kiwi in IE

I have a solution;

Politicians who wish to send religious spam to constituents and use someone else's money to do it could stand outside a supermarket or church with a list and a bucket. People like Catallus and Geomy can add their names and addresses to the list, put the cost of the card and postage in the box, and the politician can then send them out a Christmas card. Everyone's a winner!

Harry Angstrom

Maybe next year he should send a "Happy Winterval" card to all the people who are offended by traditional Christmas cards? :rolleyes:

Obliq

Sarky wrote: »

So am I a martyr yet, or do I have to collect more tokens off boxes of Special K?

I don't think cereal tokens are quite good enough Sarky. I reckon you'd better make the ultimate sacrifice for this cause. I'll take up a collection of virgins for you, for before you go take a stand on the religiousity and wastefulness of political spam. I want to see heads rolling for this one, that's for sure.

Brian Shanahan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Maybe next year he should send a "Happy Winterval" card to all the people who are offended by traditional Christmas cards? :rolleyes:

That's not the point (though I will point out that anyone that's idiotic enough to assume everybody in a multicultural, multireligious society is the same religion shouldn't be in public office on pro bono publico grounds if nothing else), it's the fact that he used our money to try and further his re-election chances. If he wants to suck up to voters to get back in, let him use his own or his party's funds.

Harry Angstrom

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That's not the point (though I will point out that anyone that's idiotic enough to assume everybody in a multicultural, multireligious society is the same religion shouldn't be in public office on pro bono publico grounds if nothing else), it's the fact that he used our money to try and further his re-election chances. If he wants to suck up to voters to get back in, let him use his own or his party's funds.

Why didn't the OP post this in the Politics forum if it was more to do with a question of taxpayers money being wasted?

Turtwig

Ah jays folks, like, I only just logged in from the footie and see you all been making little digs here and there. I would like to remind ye that the whole idea of suspecting other posters of bad conduct, or being trolling fellas, is to report the trolls. That be the done thing, ya see. Please, stop making little snipes and accusing other of being trolls inside the thread,

Thanks and God Bless,

Obliq

Oh, oopsie - I keep forgetting that rule...

Kiwi in IE

Jernal likes this thread. It should be dedicated to him as a Christmas present!

Geomy

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Why didn't the OP post this in the Politics forum if it was more to do with a question of taxpayers money being wasted?

Maybe that's a good idea, make it more public. ..

After hour's or politics. ...

Turtwig

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Jernal likes this thread. It should be dedicated to him as a Christmas present!

Well I suppose it is better than the creation threads. . .

the_syco

Geomy wrote: »

It's amazing how this herd mentality happens out side organised religion. ..

So if people do not follow the cloud fairy herd mentality, they must be in some other her mentality? As opposed to not being in a herd mentality at all?

catallus wrote: »

Well obviously. Most posters on this forum would be faking it.

What exactly am I meant to be faking My hatred of the undead zombie god?

Geomy wrote: »

Im not on any side, and certainly not religious or an atheist.

Ah. So you're in that herd?

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Maybe next year he should send a "Happy Winterval" card to all the people who are offended by traditional Christmas cards? :rolleyes:

But still using tax payers money? Not sure if you're being sarcastic, or actually don't quite get the rant?

robindch

Jernal wrote: »

Well I suppose it is better than the creation threads. . .

Everything is better than the cretinism thread.

Harry Angstrom

the_syco wrote: »

But still using tax payers money? Not sure if you're being sarcastic, or actually don't quite get the rant?

I get the rant as to the wasting of taxpayers' money. I'm just wondering why this thread was begun in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum if this was the main thrust of the OP's argument.....

pauldla

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Why didn't the OP post this in the Politics forum if it was more to do with a question of taxpayers money being wasted?

Well, we need topics here, too. And the OP is a regular here, and a personal friend.* So leeway can be given.

Imagine if we only limited ourselves to topics that were strictly atheist? We'd have threads like 'God - Still Not Existent' and...well, actually that would probably be the only thread. Biscuits!




*of somebody I once sat next to on a bus

Harry Angstrom

pauldla wrote: »

Well, we need topics here, too. And the OP is a regular here, and a personal friend.* So leeway can be given.

Imagine if we only limited ourselves to topics that were strictly atheist? We'd have threads like 'God - Still Not Existent' and...well, actually that would probably be the only thread. Biscuits!




*of somebody I once sat next to on a bus

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate in the Politics forum?

Unless it was a thinly veiled rant about the nativity scene on said Christmas card?

Sarky

Obliq wrote: »

I don't think cereal tokens are quite good enough Sarky. I reckon you'd better make the ultimate sacrifice for this cause. I'll take up a collection of virgins for you, for before you go take a stand on the religiousity and wastefulness of political spam. I want to see heads rolling for this one, that's for sure.

That's a lot of effort. I think I'll just stick to letting people fling personal abuse and such because they think I don't like Christmas.

Interesting though, isn't it? How they immediately jump on the "Sure why wouldn't you celebrate unless you hate Jesus/tradition/freedom" bandwagon. It rarely seems to occur to folks that there might have been a loss or two in the family at this time of year. They could be ranting away at me, telling me what an awful person they think I am, oblivious to the possibility that I lost someone close to me at Christmas.

A sense of perspective is often too much to hope for until after the damage is done though.

Lucy8080

Sarky wrote: »

Why not? Any points actually related to the op have been drowned out by character assassination.

I'm quite intolerant of wilful ignorance. I find it despicable and cowardly.

And sprouts. Horrible little things.

I read this post first time, the faux outrage et al...but...


How do you edit a post without the edit showing up?

The first two lines where in....then the sprouts line showed up and no sign of an edit!

Share your power with us oh great one!

Turtwig

He's a Ninja. Such powers are not to be shared.

Lucy8080

Jernal wrote: »

He's a Ninja. Such powers are not to be shared.

Yup...i had suspected all along there was a Ninja power!

Some folks seem to have more access to it than others.

Go Ninjas, and the orgs. that are favoured.

micromary

Not sure if it is tasteless. One thing for sure is that politicians are a group of smug, arrogant, stuck up their own a***s wasters for the most part. You don't see them for a year until you receive a Christmas letter or worse still at election time sproating rubbish. Scum of the earth.

SpaceTime

The thing with me though is that I would probably think:

"oh that's great.. he/she thinks he/she can buy my vote with an xmas card!" and it would probably make me feel a little cynical about them, particularly if I didn't speak to them in the run up to xmas or didn't know them to talk to.

It's a bit like your bank or cable company sending you an xmas card. It's hardly 'a personal touch'.

I hold people I vote for to fairly high standards and expect to see results. An xmas card doesn't really make any difference. I keep an eye on how they're doing on matters of policy!

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

Who's culture? Not mine.

catallus wrote: »

I'd expect an answer like that from a nihilist like yourself, OldHippy. What is saddening is that this attitude is emulated by many posters here.

Jernal wrote: »

Emulated? It's a fake attitude then?

catallus wrote: »

Well obviously. Most posters on this forum would be faking it. I probably have to explain what I mean by "faking it" now, given the love of sniggering word-pedantry that passes for argument around here. Most atheists online are very facile.

What, precisely am I supposed to be "faking", catallus? And what am I today? A nihilist? A faker? An atheist? A facile atheist?

Qs

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate in the Politics forum?

Unless it was a thinly veiled rant about the nativity scene on said Christmas card?

Maybe its a multi-faceted problem? And maybe its in the atheism forum because it relates to issues about the separation of church and state.

swampgas

Qs wrote: »

Maybe its a multi-faceted problem? And maybe its in the atheism forum because it relates to issues about the separation of church and state.

Indeed.

Suppose the card was a mass card, and referred to a specific Catholic service - would that be okay? I don't think Protestants or Jews or Muslims or atheists would be all that impressed.

Suppose the card was addressed to "the man of the house" and wished a Happy Christmas to him, his wife and children? I don't think that would go down so well either, it's horribly old fashioned and sexist.

As society changes, the sensitivities that politicians need to be aware of change also. Today, if a politician (or aspiring politician) doesn't want to come across like The Bull Mick from The Savage Eye to some of his or her prospective supporters, they might want to stop making assumptions about everyone in Ireland being a Christian.

catallus

swampgas wrote: »

Indeed.

[.....]

As society changes, the sensitivities that politicians need to be aware of change also. Today, if a politician (or aspiring politician) doesn't want to come across like The Bull Mick from The Savage Eye to some of his or her prospective supporters, they might want to stop making assumptions about everyone in Ireland being a Christian.

It is a Christmas Card, At Christmas Time, In an Overwhelmingly Christian Country.

I know it would cause malevolent joy to a lot of people if such a simple gesture was ripped asunder and consigned to the past; they would prefer a homogenised and generic piece of paper, which can mean nothing to anyone rather than one which celebrates a religious holiday.

I for one am happy that we haven't erased this part of our culture. But it seems that others see in it some form of repression. Which is silly at best.

SpaceTime

Even weirder: someone from FF sent me a card thanking me for my support over the years!?!

I've never ever voted for them.

Harry Angstrom

swampgas wrote: »

Indeed.

Suppose the card was a mass card, and referred to a specific Catholic service - would that be okay? I don't think Protestants or Jews or Muslims or atheists would be all that impressed.

Suppose the card was addressed to "the man of the house" and wished a Happy Christmas to him, his wife and children? I don't think that would go down so well either, it's horribly old fashioned and sexist.

As society changes, the sensitivities that politicians need to be aware of change also. Today, if a politician (or aspiring politician) doesn't want to come across like The Bull Mick from The Savage Eye to some of his or her prospective supporters, they might want to stop making assumptions about everyone in Ireland being a Christian.

It's a Christmas card with a picture of the nativity on the front :rolleyes: Some people really do seem to want to go out of their way to be offended. If that's all that causes them offence, then they ain't got much to complain about.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

It is a Christmas Card, At Christmas Time, In an Overwhelmingly Christian Country.

I know it would cause malevolent joy to a lot of people if such a simple gesture was ripped asunder and consigned to the past; they would prefer a homogenised and generic piece of paper, which can mean nothing to anyone rather than one which celebrates a religious holiday.

I for one am happy that we haven't erased this part of our culture. But it seems that others see in it some form of repression. Which is silly at best.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It's a Christmas card with a picture of the nativity on the front :rolleyes: Some people really do seem to want to go out of their way to be offended. If that's all that causes them offence, then they ain't got much to complain about.

The nature of the card doesn't really bother me personally. I do object to the cost of the postage being borne by the taxpayer though.

As for it being "just a Christmas card", unfortunately for politicians and other public figures, nothing they do is that simple. Politicians are very wary of off-the-cuff remarks and jokes for a very good reason, as something that might be fine for anyone else can be political suicide for them. Everything they do can be considered to be sending a message. This can make politicians sound very boring and bland, but that's the reality of it.

If Enda Kenny sent out cards with (say) a message in English on it, you might get objections from Irish supporters that the message should have been in Irish. Or if he sent out an expensive card he might be critiisized for wasting money, or if he sends cheap cards he might get accused of being stingy.

To be honest it's pretty much a lose-lose situation, I'd be happier if people in government were barred by law from sending any such cards in the first place.

catallus

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice. The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice. The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

Allowing politicians to send out cards like this is subsidizing self-serving propaganda. Anyone who needs to win over the electorate should do so a bit more honestly, instead of spending the people's own money in an attempt to get their vote.

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

It is a Christmas Card, At Christmas Time, In an Overwhelmingly Christian Country.

I know it would cause malevolent joy to a lot of people if such a simple gesture was ripped asunder and consigned to the past; they would prefer a homogenised and generic piece of paper, which can mean nothing to anyone rather than one which celebrates a religious holiday.

I for one am happy that we haven't erased this part of our culture. But it seems that others see in it some form of repression. Which is silly at best.

Your culture. Which seems very exclusive, the way you frame it.

robindch

catallus wrote: »

The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

So it doesn't cost anything if the government does it?

catallus

swampgas wrote: »

Allowing politicians to send out cards like this is subsidizing self-serving propaganda. Anyone who needs to win over the electorate should do so a bit more honestly, instead of spending the people's own money in an attempt to get their vote.

Self-Serving propaganda is a bit strong, don't you think? It is a bloody Christmas Card! Happy Christmas? No?

old hippy wrote: »

Your culture. Which seems very exclusive, the way you frame it.

Exclusivity is the hallmark of culture. And religion is the epitome of culture.

robindch wrote: »

So it doesn't cost anything if the government does it?

Let's leave that one to the economists, shall we?

Delirium

catallus wrote: »

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice. The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

It's somewhat ironic to decry prejudice while defending a government official sending out cards that presumes all recipients are Christian.

lazygal

catallus wrote: »

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice. The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

AnPost charges state bodies the same rate for postage from a councillor as a private citizen. Either way, it is taxes, not private money, which is being spent on conveying religious messages.

Pherekydes

catallus wrote: »

Let's leave that one to the economists, shall we?

You made a claim that governmental postage is well below nominal. Why don't you back that claim up?

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

Exclusivity is the hallmark of culture. And religion is the epitome of culture.

Your myopic, insular culture perhaps. But not mine.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

Self-Serving propaganda is a bit strong, don't you think? It is a bloody Christmas Card! Happy Christmas? No?

Propaganda is too strong, agreed. But a card from a politician I might not know, and most likely have never met? What's that if it isn't self-promotion?

Exclusivity is the hallmark of culture. And religion is the epitome of culture.

I find both of those statements slightly suspect, to be honest, but hey, vive la difference

catallus

Pherekydes wrote: »

You made a claim that governmental postage is well below nominal. Why don't you back that claim up?

It is state-owned. The costing base wouldn't begin at that of the private customer.

old hippy wrote: »

Your myopic, insular culture perhaps. But not mine.

I'm sure it makes you feel just grand to be so disdainful.

swampgas wrote: »

I find both of those statements slightly suspect, to be honest, but hey, vive la difference

Indeed.

lazygal

An Post is a semi state company.

catallus

lazygal wrote: »

An Post is a semi state company.

Without dragging this OT it is a state-owned limited company.

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

I'm sure it makes you feel just grand to be so disdainful.

It actually makes me saddened when people dismiss the concerns of those who don't buy into an archaic way of doing things. Your revered politican is forcing his or her religious beliefs unto others and you positively encourage it.

People here have raised genuine concerns and yet all you can do is claim your culture is under threat. How twee.

lazygal

catallus wrote: »

Without dragging this OT it is a state-owned limited company.

And do you have proof that postage for policitians is at below a nominal cost? If it is, its costing the state revenues from postal services, as well as the cost of the cards.

Harry Angstrom

This seems to have shifted from a discussion about the offence caused to the OP of receiving a traditional Christmas card to the actual cost to the taxpayer of sending them.
Perhaps those who are defending the OP feel on safer ground by focusing on the cost element rather than the original point about how a Christmas card could cause offence to somebody.

Delirium

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

This seems to have shifted from a discussion about the offence caused to the OP of receiving a traditional Christmas card to the actual cost to the taxpayer of sending them.
Perhaps those who are defending the OP feel on safer ground by focusing on the cost element rather than the original point about how a Christmas card could cause offence to somebody.

where does it say that in the OP?

Sarky wrote: »

Someone left an unmarked envelope in at my house earlier today. I just opened it, and it consists of one of those dull nativity scene Christmas cards with a bible verse and "May Christ bless you & yours" stuff on the inside, and a letter from Cork city council where a Fianna Fail-associated Cllr. Kenneth Noel O'Flynn P.C. is wishing me a holy and happy Christmas. Poor chap seems to think I'm a christian, along with everyone else on the street. That'd probably be a surprise to the halal food shop down the road, but I digress...

The letter is official City Council headed paper, I seem to remember there being some upset about politicians using official paper like this. Can anyone jog my memory, or otherwise provide info on whether it's just him being a bit tasteless or if he's skirting the borders of what's legal?