FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

I don't think eople might be criticising FG to score points, no. I think anyone criticising them gives a reason, has a point. Same for anyone criticising SF. Where point scoring and diversion come into it is when we are talking on a topic specific to one or more parties and rather than debate it, folk will chime in with Bobby Sands or Eoin O'Duffy. That would be point scoring. In any case, it doesn't matter. It doesn't excuse bringing up Shergar, (or something as irrelevant) because Varadkar fupped up again, IMO.

I included the private beds, apologies if not clear. Every time FG deal with O'Brien the tax payer loses out. Why they repeat this, is open to concern and theory. I think it's cronyism, we don't know, but suspicion that it's in the least cronyism is warranted.

Yes I read you saying that each time. It's called a conversation. You don't set the rules on how I choose to respond.

You don't think people point score? I don't know how you dont see that, throughout the whole Coronavirus people were bursting to have a go at FG, sometimes valid but many times for spurious reasons. Similar to how IRA victims only become important for some people around elections.

Regarding Dinny, I gave a specific example of a conspiracy theory to back up my point. Thats all, not interested in the private beds this evening.

Feel free so to bring up your posting history so if you want, but it's far from any type of standard anyone should aspire to.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Im guessing the sfos

Which spawns all sorts of conspiracy theories,

but afaik used be a series of private forums/type of social media......lads used get oxygen tickets off it,when i was in school

I assume it's related to SF doing so well in the general election. It's another medium, people and organisations will use it.
If people are giving a genuine opinion that's fair enough, even if paid, but coming in just to cite party PR and do damage control ruins decent debate, what ever the party.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

You don't think people point score? I don't know how you dont see that, throughout the whole Coronavirus people were bursting to have a go at FG, sometimes valid but many times for spurious reasons. Similar to how IRA victims only become important for some people around elections.

Regarding Dinny, I gave a specific example of a conspiracy theory to back up my point. Thats all, not interested in the private beds this evening.

Feel free so to bring up your posting history so if you want, but it's far from any type of standard anyone should aspire to.

Point scoring is not genuine IMO. It's like trolling for the sake of it. We do get that but you can spot them.
One-up-manship in a debate, certainly, but it's not made up. It's based on a topic of discussion and opinions held.

I thought I covered that under 'every time'.

Didn't, but I see what you mean by point scoring

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Point scoring is not genuine IMO. It's like trolling for the sake of it. We do get that but you can spot them.
One-up-manship in a debate, certainly, but it's not made up. It's based on a topic of discussion and opinions held.

I thought I covered that under 'every time'.

Didn't.

Exactly, the point scoring is not genuine. The people who regularly clog up these threads with rubbish.

Anyway good evening, I'm clocking off for the weekend. Leo told me to give Dinny a shout for the cheque

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

I assume it's related to SF doing so well in the general election. It's another medium, people and organisations will use it.
If people are giving a genuine opinion that's fair enough, even if paid, but coming in just to cite party PR and do damage control ruins decent debate, what ever the party.

I do love seeing all the conspiracys about it....like its literally just an private online forum,same as millions of others (some school grinds/collage/employment advice etc,is about as co-ordinated it is)

Just people dont get called terrorist for daring to vote for someone other than ffg,nor entertain bullsh1t false arguements on it

dundalkfc10

A thread about FG, and every 2nd post is about SF.

I think SF is getting to them

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Im guessing the sfos

Which spawns all sorts of conspiracy theories,

but afaik used be a series of properly moderated private forums/type of social media......lads used get oxygen tickets off it,when i was in school


Iirc at least 1 person,went on to captain an all ireland winning team in croke park

I always thought a 'bot' was a supporter in disguise?

SFOS was an open call for activists to promote the party was it not?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I always thought a 'bot' was a supporter in disguise?

SFOS was an open call for activists to promote the party was it not?

Haha....i always taught bot was an automated account....ie robot??


Sfos from lads i went to school with,was essentially a private forum,where their support meets up and talks sh1te,mainly about school work etc as lots of teachers used lost there and help.students,that type thing(including several loyalists too afaik)


Like maybe it changed/grew into something else,but theres no evidence imo to support,what is openly speculated



(I never signed up,as internet used be sh1te where im from!!).....but used be heavily linked on bebo back in the day

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Exactly, the point scoring is not genuine. The people who regularly clog up these threads with rubbish.

Anyway good evening, I'm clocking off for the weekend. Leo told me to give Dinny a shout for the cheque

Well point scoring is in the eye of the beholder and doesn't excuse people digging rabbit holes because their team is being rightly criticised.
Is it you or Leo getting the job off him after politics?

James Brown

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Haha....i always taught bot was an automated account....ie robot??


Sfos from lads i went to school with,was essentially a private forum,where their support meets up and talks sh1te,mainly about school work etc as lots of teachers used lost there and help.students,that type thing(including several loyalists too afaik)


Like maybe it changed/grew into something else,but theres no evidence imo to support,what is openly speculated



(I never signed up,as internet used be sh1te where im from!!).....but used be heavily linked on bebo back in the day

I was in a Labour one myself but the group was called Labour, so we were very poor at it

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Well point scoring is in the eye of the beholder and doesn't excuse people digging rabbit holes because their team is being rightly criticised.
Is it you or Leo getting the job off him after politics?

I'm getting the job, Leo is getting bags of cash at the moment. No other possible explanation.

And rabbit holes are also in the eye of the beholder.

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

I see criticism of FG, them being the government, and FG people trying to divert to talk about SF and northern Ireland or get down right nasty. Then many of us call this side show out and get called shinners. It's not genuine discussion, I'll give you that.

No grassy knoll with Mr. O'Brien. History and track record. When FG and himself get into a room the tax payer loses a fortune.

My agenda is wanting rid of FG/FF because of various reasons I raise. I'll call out their latest shenanigans and reference recent ones. That's not singing the Wolfe Tones. I gave Kenny a chance, I gave Varadkar a chance. I even gave Harris a chance, they disappointed. No more chances.

It's Laughable, the moral high ground oozing from your posts.
If you ever get a Govt that can live up to your standards let me know.
If you believe that any, and I mean any, party are going to be squeaky clean you're in for a life of bitter disappointment.
But I don't believe you expect that at all, just post out about your high standard expectations with an edge towards a political party.
The intent has long been exposed, despite the moralistic denials.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's Laughable, the moral high ground oozing from your posts.
If you ever get a Govt that can live up to your standards let me know.
If you believe that any, and I mean any, party are going to be squeaky clean you're in for a life of bitter disappointment.
But I don't believe you expect that at all, just post out about your high standard expectations with an edge towards a political party.
The intent has long been exposed, despite the moralistic denials.

So you accept party's aren't squeaky clean but get into a hoop if people wish to discuss it on a thread designed for it.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you accept party's aren't squeaky clean but get into a hoop if people wish to discuss it on a thread designed for it.

Where did I say that?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Where did I say that?

It's kinda implicit in this.

Bishop of hope wrote:

If you believe that any, and I mean any, party are going to be squeaky clean you're in for a life of bitter disappointment

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's kinda implicit in this.

I just want a bit of honesty Francie.
If someone claims moral high ground with a lobsided slant to a certain side of the peak then that is disengenous.
I make no bones about calling that out.

suicide_circus

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

A thread about FG, and every 2nd post is about SF.

I think SF is getting to them

well SF are the only alternative so its not surprising

FF are the same party as FG

Labour? yeaahhh

Greens? need to professionalise big time and start talking about issues like jobs and the economy.

PBP etc? on yer bike.

SocDems? who?

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's Laughable, the moral high ground oozing from your posts.
If you ever get a Govt that can live up to your standards let me know.
If you believe that any, and I mean any, party are going to be squeaky clean you're in for a life of bitter disappointment.
But I don't believe you expect that at all, just post out about your high standard expectations with an edge towards a political party.
The intent has long been exposed, despite the moralistic denials.

Can you elaborate with examples?
I'd be happy with one looks after the tax payer and puts the public above private profit...party name in there somewhere
I don't. We know what FF/FG are and we deserve better IMO.
Decency only looks like a high standard because you are use to FF/FG governments.
The intent is obvious I would have thought. FG are ****e, I point it out when I see it, I'd like to see something better.
This is where instead of showing me I'm wrong you pipe up about Bobby Sands or something.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I just want a bit of honesty Francie.
If someone claims moral high ground with a lobsided slant to a certain side of the peak then that is disengenous.
I make no bones about calling that out.

Who is claiming high moral ground?

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

Can you elaborate with examples?
I'd be happy with one looks after the tax payer and puts the public above private profit...party name in there somewhere
I don't. We know what FF/FG are and we deserve better IMO.
Decency only looks like a high standard because you are use to FF/FG governments.
The intent is obvious I would have thought. FG are ****e, I'd like to see something better.

We've had successive FG govts, we went from ****e to being back in the game under them.
You're version of ****e and mine are different.
We've had problems under them too, no denying that, health and housing, but given where they started from they achieved quit a lot and it has, stood to us now when we need cheap credit.
If we had burned bondholders and not helped out our banks I wonder how good our credit would have been.
There were signs in the last 12 months that a bit of headway was being made with housing.
Health is, something else, I don't know how that will ever be sorted.
I don't believe any other political party will make one iota of difference to that other than keep throwing money at it.
Value for money for the taxpayer is not always as obvious as it looks, the cheapest option isn't always the best.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is claiming high moral ground?

Jesus Francie, I'm not one bit different than anyone else, I admit that. But I'm not claiming any political party is one bit more honourable than the other and know full well there's shenanigans behind them all.
I live on a hill if that's any help

Jinglejangle69

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

A thread about FG, and every 2nd post is about SF.

I think SF is getting to them

Because the thread is occupied by SF supporters more than anyone else?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Jesus Francie, I'm not one bit different than anyone else, I admit that. But I'm not claiming any political party is one bit more honourable than the other and know full well there's shenanigans behind them all.
I live on a hill if that's any help

I believe in the arrogance of power. That is what is wrong here. SF will suffer from it if they are in power long enough too.

We need a change after 100 years of this...and I'll take every point I get tbh.

Jinglejangle69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I believe in the arrogance of power. That is what is wrong here. SF will suffer from it if they are in power long enough too.

We need a change after 100 years of this...and I'll take every point I get tbh.

Who says we need a change after 100 years of power

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

We've had successive FG govts, we went from ****e to being back in the game under them.
You're version of ****e and mine are different.
We've had problems under them too, no denying that, health and housing, but given where they started from they achieved quit a lot and it has, stood to us now when we need cheap credit.
If we had burned bondholders and not helped out our banks I wonder how good our credit would have been.
There were signs in the last 12 months that a bit of headway was being made with housing.
Health is, something else, I don't know how that will ever be sorted.
I don't believe any other political party will make one iota of difference to that other than keep throwing money at it.
Value for money for the taxpayer is not always as obvious as it looks, the cheapest option isn't always the best.

What game? Are you unaware or ignoring record breaking numbers of children homeless, housing and health crises? The only game we are back in is looking after the ones who deserve the lion's share of the blame for economic meltdown. Having worsening societal crises means they failed and miserably so.
We got a massive generational loan.
And we have the standard FF/FG apologist cop out, 'sure it's always bad'. Yes we have different ideas on what constitutes a ****e government. It should be noted, housing, health, all made worse under FG. Even a stagnation would have been better. Health has always been bad, but FG made it worse.
Meaningless words. A stitch in time had balls she'd be my gather no moss. Or can you show the value for the tax payer in the Siteserv deal, four times more than the UK on private beds or say the NCH build?

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Who says we need a change after 100 years of power

Me and 56% of the electorate that didn't vote for FF or FG

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Because the thread is occupied by SF supporters more than anyone else?

Because people commenting on FG get SF something something from the likes of yourself. It's not SF people coming into FG thread to talk SF as you know well. It's desperate ran out of road others

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

What game? Are you unaware or ignoring record breaking numbers of children homeless, housing and health crises? The only game we are back in is looking after the ones who deserve the lion's share of the blame for economic meltdown. Having worsening societal crises means they failed and miserably so.
We got a massive generational loan.
And we have the standard FF/FG apologist cop out, 'sure it's always bad'. Yes we have different ideas on what constitutes a ****e government. It should be noted, housing, health, all made worse under FG. Even a stagnation would have been better. Health has always been bad, but FG made it worse.
Meaningless words. A stitch in time had balls she'd be my gather no moss. Or can you show the value for the tax payer in the Siteserv deal, four times more than the UK on private beds or say the NCH build?

Even stagnation would have been better?
Near full employment, fast growing economy.
If we hadn't that it would be far far worse.
Progress is being made re housing.
Funny to see the other party's involved in negotiations herding to FG?

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Me and 56% of the electorate that didn't vote for FF or FG

You voted for for a bunch of no hopers and don’t wanters then.

That was clever.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You voted for for a bunch of no hopers and don’t wanters then.

That was clever.

'Rar, rar, rar, rar'.

Love it Bren