Another split - Paul Murphy leaves the Socialist Party

Ruraldweller56

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

really? i find that very hard to believe.

Oh yeah. I find it quite strange too tbh. But ya. The most rabid, foaming at the mouth anti Catholics tend to be < 35 from what I've seen. They'd make Ian Paisley blush.

Older people who have spent most of their lives in good old Catholic Ireland, not so much.

But sure what would they know. Old ****ers. They'd be better off going into the old folks home.

Ruraldweller56

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The church had/has absolutely no business using it's myths and legends to enslave the population causing generations of misery. As an organisation they should be ran out of the country IMO.

Enslave? Ran out of the country? IMO?

That's some woke **** right there.

ohnonotgmail

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Old enough? The people who have suffered the most because of the Catholic Church are all well under 30 in my experience.

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Oh yeah. I find it quite strange too tbh. But ya. The most rabid, foaming at the mouth anti Catholics tend to be < 35 from what I've seen. They'd make Ian Paisley blush.

Older people who have spent most of their lives in good old Catholic Ireland, not so much.

But sure what would they know. Old ****ers. They'd be better off going into the old folks home.

that isn't what you said. you said that the people who have suffered most because of the CC are well under 30. You've just turned it into a pointless rant against young people. I'm one of those older people who have spent their lives in good old catholic ireland and the churches influence was malign to say the least. Good riddance to them.

Ruraldweller56

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that isn't what you said. you said that the people who have suffered most because of the CC are well under 30. You've just turned it into a pointless rant against young people. I'm one of those older people who have spent their lives in good old catholic ireland and the churches influence was malign to say the least. Good riddance to them.

I'm drawing a very fair conclusion based on personal experience.

The most bitter anti Catholics I've come across are < 35. Given their stance it's fair to assume they have had some previous harrowing and frightening experience.

Or they could be victim mongering attention seeking idiots. But I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The church had/has absolutely no business using it's myths and legends to enslave the population causing generations of misery. As an organisation they should be ran out of the country IMO.

They are as bad as a bunch of socialists with their myths and legends.

Vote for us and everything will be free because Denis O'Brien will pay for it all.

Pray with us and everything will be free because God will provide it all in heaven.


Edit: Leo, Pascal and Simon as the Three Devils!!!

ohnonotgmail

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

I'm drawing a very fair conclusion based on personal experience.

The most bitter anti Catholics I've come across are < 35. Given their stance it's fair to assume they have had some previous harrowing and frightening experience.

Or they could be victim mongering attention seeking idiots. But I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.

you said those under 30 have suffered most. luckily for them they missed the worst excesses of the CC. given the revelations about the CC church in the last 20 years everybody has a right to be angry about it, not just those who directly experienced it. What is worse is that the CC have never been held accountable for what they did. they are a cancer on this country.

Ruraldweller56

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you said those under 30 have suffered most. luckily for them they missed the worst excesses of the CC. given the revelations about the CC church in the last 20 years everybody has a right to be angry about it, not just those who directly experienced it. What is worse is that the CC have never been held accountable for what they did. they are a cancer on this country.

Hey don't shoot the messenger. I'm telling you now that the most bitter, sectarian anti Catholics I've come across are generally younger.

Surely it stands to reason they've suffered more than anyone else no? If not, why are they so much more bitter than everyone else about it?

Older people heard about those revelations too you know.

Hotblack Desiato

Bitter? It's just your way of invalidating the opinion of people who disagree with you.

mariaalice

blanch152 wrote: »

They are as bad as a bunch of socialists with their myths and legends.

Vote for us and everything will be free because Denis O'Brien will pay for it all.

Pray with us and everything will be free because God will provide it all in heaven.


Edit: Leo, Pascal and Simon as the Three Devils!!!

I am wading my way through The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics
by Christopher Lasch very academic so hard going.

It explains it perfectly its a form of secular salvation a mirror image of what the church was or is offering i.e follow us and paradise is just around the corner.

zanador

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Hey don't shoot the messenger. I'm telling you now that the most bitter, sectarian anti Catholics I've come across are generally younger.

Surely it stands to reason they've suffered more than anyone else no? If not, why are they so much more bitter than everyone else about it?

Older people heard about those revelations too you know.

Once again I disagree- I'm in my 40s and most.of the really anti-Catholics I know are 35 plus. The younger ones aren't anti-Catholic so.much as anti returning to life where the country is ruled by the Catholic church and as they don't have the same guilt/shame social conditioning of older ones they dont have the same visceral reaction to the Church, more they recognise it's irrelevance to them and how they live (whilst also understanding the horrors it has inflicted, don't get.me wrong).

I wasn't brought up Catholic and am no means anti-Catholic but I am anti a church (any church) forcing its doctrine on an entire citizenship.

mariaalice

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

People like Paul Murphy attack institutions that have served as the glue which has held society together for centuries. Religion, national identity, the family unit and community spirit must all take a backseat (or be wiped out completely) by the liberal communist manifesto.

All to be replaced with shallow Materialism and selfish individualism. An eradication of the entrepreneurial spirit and a child like, pathetic helpless dependency on the state to regulate everything and anything for them.

Every Marxist I know is obsessed with property. Its the be all and end all of their philosophy.

There was a flavor of socialism in ireland that would agree with you, it was not in favour of free for all divorce and abortion rights and so on they were not religious fanatics either , it saw such concerns as a sort of D4 liberalism.

James Brown

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Enslave? Ran out of the country? IMO?

That's some woke **** right there.

Woke? Do you know what that Trumpism even means? I'm not sure myself TBF.
I think you mean exaggeration maybe? If so, no, tell that to the families of suicide victims and survivors of the laundries, child abuse etc.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

They are as bad as a bunch of socialists with their myths and legends.

Vote for us and everything will be free because Denis O'Brien will pay for it all.

Pray with us and everything will be free because God will provide it all in heaven.


Edit: Leo, Pascal and Simon as the Three Devils!!!

You don't follow politics much do you? We give Denis wheelbarrows of tax monies. All he has to do is set up a company or even be looking like he is and FG will give him a state contract. For a man tax resident in Malta? You really have no clue Blanch.

The market will provide though right? :rolleyes:

Edit: Three chancer wasters

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You don't follow politics much do you? We give Denis wheelbarrows of tax monies. All he has to do is set up a company or even be looking like he is and FG will give him a state contract. For a man tax resident in Malta? You really have no clue Blanch.

None of that has anything to do with my post. You saw the words "Denis O'Brien" and went on a rant.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

None of that has anything to do with my post. You saw the words "Denis O'Brien" and went on a rant.

Not at all. You said Denis would pay for everything. He doesn't pay tax in Ireland Blanch. We give him money.

normanoffside

I also don’t get Murphy’s obsession with transgender rights. It’s not exactly a tenant of Marxist Ideology. Quite the opposite in fact.

Dyr

normanoffside wrote: »

I also don’t get Murphy’s obsession with transgender rights. It’s not exactly a tenant of Marxist Ideology. Quite the opposite in fact.

Everything serves the revolution comrade

nkl12xtw5goz70

normanoffside wrote: »

I also don’t get Murphy’s obsession with transgender rights. It’s not exactly a tenant of Marxist Ideology. Quite the opposite in fact.

It's pure bandwagonism. Same with turning himself into a climate activist as soon as he saw all the attention Greta Thunberg was getting.

James Brown

My impression is he's jumping on the climate (solar powered) train. I can't find any key policies aside from a lot or generalisations on socialism.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How do you think housing crises come about?

Government policy has distorted the markets enormously. Due to historically low interest rates, we've seen institutional money flooding into the property market in search of returns, which has naturally increased housing prices. Domestic government policy hasn't helped much either.

We will have a situation very shortly were only a tiny minority will own property. The wealthy buying housing, building housing and the vast majority being renters. That's were the market has us going.

Again, this isn't the fault of the markets. It's the fault of central banking policy and terrible domestic policy.

James Brown

Kason Witty Beehive wrote: »

Government policy has distorted the markets enormously. Due to historically low interest rates, we've seen institutional money flooding into the property market in search of returns, which has naturally increased housing prices. Domestic government policy hasn't helped much either.

It makes it worse. Any government interference seems to feed the problem.
I think the government should be biased on the side of the working tax payer rather than the market during a housing crisis.

Kason Witty Beehive wrote: »

Again, this isn't the fault of the markets. It's the fault of central banking policy and terrible domestic policy.

...that believes the market will take care of everything.

So it's no government interference on some things and a little on others?

nkl12xtw5goz70

Matt Barrett wrote: »

...that believes the market will take care of everything.

Markets merely transmit price signals, which have become distorted due to central banking policy, leading to an overheated stock market in the US and overheated property markets in other countries. People are piling their money into the few asset classes in which they believe they can make money.

To blame "the markets" for this is missing the point. The market is just a mechanism. Blame those who are manipulating the markets.

James Brown

Kason Witty Beehive wrote: »

Markets merely transmit price signals, which have become distorted due to central banking policy, leading to an overheated stock market in the US and overheated property markets in other countries. People are piling their money into the few asset classes in which they believe they can make money.

To blame "the markets" for this is missing the point. The market is just a mechanism. Blame those who are manipulating the markets.

No, I disagree. The markets aren't a force of nature, they are a man made construct with the sole purpose of people doing business for the making of a profit.
How much or little they are regulated differs from time to time.
We have the 'economy', people think if the economy is going well so by default is everything else, which isn't the case either.
When I speak of the market I'm talking about the exchange of goods and services for money. The government will err on the side of big business while bleeding the tax payer to keep big business big.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The markets aren't a force of nature, they are a man made construct with the sole purpose of people doing business for the making of a profit.

That's correct. And those profit signals ensure that capital is allocated efficiently, as long as governments don't interfere to distort the signals.

The government will err on the side of big business while bleeding the tax payer to keep big business big.

It's not all "big business," by any means. When workers invest their pension savings in REITs run by institutional firms, that also helps push up the price of property. And that's happening on a massive level as funds seek anything other than red-hot equities that will give decent returns.

NoteAgent

Kason Witty Beehive wrote: »

That's correct. And those profit signals ensure that capital is allocated efficiently, as long as governments don't interfere to distort the signals.

You might as well be talking to the wall.
Basically his view is profit = evil.

nkl12xtw5goz70

NoteAgent wrote: »

You might as well be talking to the wall.
Basically his view is profit = evil.

Many people take that view, sadly.

It's true that investors are driving the market -- but to characterize those investors as cigar-puffing capitalists with their foot on the neck of the Irish renter is missing the point. The money is often coming through international pension funds filled with the retirement savings of teachers, nurses, etc. Sure, fund managers and firms benefit, but the main beneficiaries are those small investors.

NoteAgent

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, I disagree. The markets aren't a force of nature, they are a man made construct with the sole purpose of people doing business for the making of a profit.

So you expect to be employed (ie take no risk) by a business owner while the business owner who employs you takes all the risk but you think he shouldnt be allowed to earn a profit for takimg the risk?

.....talk about entitlement

ohnonotgmail

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Hey don't shoot the messenger. I'm telling you now that the most bitter, sectarian anti Catholics I've come across are generally younger.

Surely it stands to reason they've suffered more than anyone else no? If not, why are they so much more bitter than everyone else about it?

Older people heard about those revelations too you know.

you will have to forgive me if i dont believe a word of that.

James Brown

Kason Witty Beehive wrote: »

That's correct. And those profit signals ensure that capital is allocated efficiently, as long as governments don't interfere to distort the signals.

My point is if there is government interference, which there is, it should be on the side of the public.

Kason Witty Beehive wrote: »

It's not all "big business," by any means. When workers invest their pension savings in REITs run by institutional firms, that also helps push up the price of property. And that's happening on a massive level as funds seek anything other than red-hot equities that will give decent returns.

And these pension funds behave like big business. A good example would be pension funds buying up properties to rent out while the public, some possibly in the fund, find it harder to pay for accommodation.

NoteAgent wrote: »

You might as well be talking to the wall.
Basically his view is profit = evil.

That's a very simple view. It's about how government, who work for the tax payer, deal with various entities in the interest of the tax payer. Cop yourself on.

Kason Witty Beehive wrote: »

Many people take that view, sadly.

It's true that investors are driving the market -- but to characterize those investors as cigar-puffing capitalists with their foot on the neck of the Irish renter is missing the point. The money is often coming through international pension funds filled with the retirement savings of teachers, nurses, etc. Sure, fund managers and firms benefit, but the main beneficiaries are those small investors.

Over simplification. Greed knows no bounds. The state needs to keep a firm hand on anything that colours the quality of greater society.

James Brown

NoteAgent wrote: »

So you expect to be employed (ie take no risk) by a business owner while the business owner who employs you takes all the risk but you think he shouldnt be allowed to earn a profit for takimg the risk?

.....talk about entitlement

Hold on there chief, you put forward the profit is evil sh*te not me so don't take it from there like you're quoting me. If he/she earns profits, good on them, but the tax payer shouldn't be subsidising the profit or taking the austerity hit when the risk taker loses the arse from his trousers.