FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Tell me blanch, I dont think i ever heard your opinion on Eamon Ryan using the "N" word.

I know you claimed the bearded one was a racist for using it, so I'd sure be interested on your opinion on Mr Ryan using it.

As a green voter yourself, did you think it made Eamon a racist like you believed Adams was, and if so would you be ok with him going into Govt with FG?

You are diverting down a rabbit-hole to get away from the Varadkar comments and your absurd stance on them. I'm not going down it with you.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

He should speak from the heart. Be a bit genuine. He could easily say, 'To quote...'.
He lacks empathy and integrity. He could just have easily had his fun in some minor press release. Look if you are claiming 'what of it?' Fair play just don't insult the both of us by trying to dismiss it as an irrelevance or demean anyone critical of it.
You lads really need to respect differing opinions without using the insults.
Seems to me you had the complete opposite response to the Wolfe Tones 'come out you black and tans' becoming a hit over Flanagan's RIC/Tan tribute.
Like your Holohan thread over an off colour stupid remark but silence on FG councilor O'Leary admiring the fascist blueshirts.

People were right to be critical of "up the ra" and "come out you black and tans" because of the sectarian undertones, but also their relationship to recent events of the last few decades. Similarly, Holohan's homophobic and misogynist comments correctly attracted criticism.

But getting the y-fronts in a twist over a quote from Mean Girls or Lord of the Rings? Seriously? There is nothing to criticise, it is only pathetic pedantry.

Politician uses literary reference, so what?

As for lacking empathy and integrity, anyone who thinks that the misogynist and homophobic quotes from Holohan equate to a quote from the Lord of the Rings, doesn't understand the meaning of empathy and integrity.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

This is beyond silly.

What is the problem with the actual words?

"Some have asked whether there is a limit to what we can achieve," Mr Varadkar said, before drawing upon a line from the hit movie: "My answer is that the limit does not exist."

What is the actual issue?

The quote is blatantly crowbarred in there "to win the bet." It's not embellishing the speech in any way. He might just as well have said "My answer is No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit! No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit!"

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

You are diverting down a rabbit-hole to get away from the Varadkar comments and your absurd stance on them. I'm not going down it with you.

Ummmm, no I am not, I was directly following on from your last post here.....

blanch152 wrote: »

This is beyond silly.

What is the problem with the actual words?

"Some have asked whether there is a limit to what we can achieve," Mr Varadkar said, before drawing upon a line from the hit movie: "My answer is that the limit does not exist."

What is the actual issue? If there are y-fronts getting in a twist, I suggest that some people look in the mirror.

So I will follow on seeing as you brought up how anyone might have "a problem with the actual words"...

I will repeat the question.

McMurphy wrote: »

Tell me blanch, I dont think i ever heard your opinion on Eamon Ryan using the "N" word.

I know you claimed the bearded one was a racist for using it, so I'd sure be interested on your opinion on Mr Ryan using it.

As a green voter yourself, did you think it made Eamon a racist like you believed Adams was, and if so would you be ok with him going into Govt with FG?

If you want to outright evade the question/corner you painted yourself into, be my guest.

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Just on this one, you'll forgive me if I file your faux outrage accusations in my "couldn't give a flying shyte" cabinet.

You're on record on this site of accusing Eamon Ryan of being a racist because he used the N word, despite knowing full well the context in which he used it.

Now, I am not naïve bishop I don't really believe you think Ryan's a racist, but you labelled Gerry Adams as one too because he also used the N word (again despite knowing the context) and so the script was written and needed to be adhered to.

It was a silly and inappropriate word to use by both, but using it doesn't make either racist.

Using the movie quote in the same speech Leo mentioned the thousands dead and hundreds of thousands out of work was not the time and the place for it, that doesn't mean I'm "outraged by it" faux or genuine.

Time and a place bishop, time and a place.

You're no different than anyone else I suppose, you're couldn't give a flying shyte cabinet is full to the brim with anything that doesn't suit your particular narrative.
The FG, Leo, members of FG must be demonised at all times narrative is tiring and boring.
I don't have as much time, as most of you on here seem to have for such Faux outrage or replying to posts.
I'm no big fan of Leo, Michael or Éamonn, but all of them are a cut above the rhetoric of the typical shinner.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Ummmm, no I am not, I was directly following on from your last post here.....




So I will follow on seeing as you brought up how anyone might have "a problem with the actual words"...

I will repeat the question.





If you want to outright evade the question/corner you painted yourself into, be my guest.

I haven't painted myself into any corner, when you refuse to answer a question by posing another very different question, why would I follow that rabbit down a rabbit-hole. The example you give is very different as the question of racism hangs over the word used, so not going down the rabbit-hole of a completely different issue.

The question isn't whether I have a problem with any other politician's words or not, the question is what is the problem that people (and you in particular) have with the words that Varadkar used.

There is no question of the words being racist, homophobic, sexist, or any other -ist, so what is the problem?

It is a literary reference, if I scoured the words of every other politician and public figure I would find similar references, except that they would be likely to be more historical and ancient, rather than contemporary.

Conflating it with allegations of use of racist words is a distraction and diversion appropriate to someone avoiding an answer.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

People were right to be critical of "up the ra" and "come out you black and tans" because of the sectarian undertones, but also their relationship to recent events of the last few decades. Similarly, Holohan's homophobic and misogynist comments correctly attracted criticism.

But getting the y-fronts in a twist over a quote from Mean Girls or Lord of the Rings? Seriously? There is nothing to criticise, it is only pathetic pedantry.

Politician uses literary reference, so what?

As for lacking empathy and integrity, anyone who thinks that the misogynist and homophobic quotes from Holohan equate to a quote from the Lord of the Rings, doesn't understand the meaning of empathy and integrity.

There is a lot to criticise however you are only comfortable seizing on the item you feel you can dismiss. The rest you are happy to ignore. O'Leary admiring fascists, the Ireland's Call sham, Eamo using the 'N' word.

People were right to be critical of what you disagree with. I get that.
I think it was disrespectful and lacked empathy for the sick, dead and those put out of work or having their lives changed. You don't. You think myself and others are wrong or making it up. We'll leave it there. As for "Anyone who thinks...." I'm not fond of using underhanded 'only an 'X' would think 'Y' guff.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You're no different than anyone else I suppose, you're couldn't give a flying shyte cabinet is full to the brim with anything that doesn't suit your particular narrative.
The FG, Leo, members of FG must be demonised at all times narrative is tiring and boring.
I don't have as much time, as most of you on here seem to have for such Faux outrage or replying to posts.
I'm no big fan of Leo, Michael or Éamonn, but all of them are a cut above the rhetoric of the typical shinner.

Have you noticed the well worn pattern? People post specific criticisms and views on actual things FG said and did and yourself and others weigh in with dismissive often insulting generalisations?
It's tiring, dishonest and boring.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You're no different than anyone else I suppose, you're couldn't give a flying shyte cabinet is full to the brim with anything that doesn't suit your particular narrative.

It's not that it doesn't suit my narrative, you accused me of having faux outrage - the accusation is what I do not give a flying shyte for, there is no outrage from me, faux or even pretend to be genuine. I think it wasn't the time nor the place for the in joke, that's all.

It's not like I'm making out the man is a complete and utter tool with such a lack of empathy that he would resort to making in-jokes when discussing the thousands of people dying and over half a million out of work wasn't exactly the time or place to do so.

That's not outrage Mr Bishop, that's called "stating the bleedin obvious"

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

There is a lot to criticise however you are only comfortable seizing on the item you feel you can dismiss. The rest you are happy to ignore. O'Leary admiring fascists, the Ireland's Call sham, Eamo using the 'N' word.

People were right to be critical of what you disagree with. I get that.
I think it was disrespectful and lacked empathy for the sick, dead and those put out of work or having their lives changed. You don't. You think myself and others are wrong or making it up. We'll leave it there. As for "Anyone who thinks...." I'm not fond of using underhanded 'only an 'X' would think 'Y' guff.

What are you talking about?

I am not criticising or condoning any of those. What I am doing is expressing my complete incredulity at the silly nonsense being spouted about Varadkar's words.

My criticism or not of other's very different words doesn't matter a whit. All I am saying is that you and others are making even bigger fools of yourselves by working yourselves up into a lather of outrage over a supposed quote from Mean Girls - it is not even clear whether it is a direct quote or not.

How was it disrespectful of anyone to suggest there is no limit? Come off it. How did it lack empathy? I don't know where this nonsense is coming from.

What do you want? A solemn soulless cheerless speech from the Taoiseach? That might suit your agenda, but in contrast, the Taoiseach has hit the spot and got the mood of the country (apart from the cranks). Why else do you think he has hit 75% approval rating? That won't last, but his popularity won't fall because he quoted Mean Girls.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

It's not that it doesn't suit my narrative, you accused me of having faux outrage - the accusation is what I do not give a flying shyte for, there is no outrage from me, faux or even pretend to be genuine. I think it wasn't the time nor the place for the in joke, that's all.

It's not like I'm making out the man is a complete and utter tool with such a lack of empathy that he would resort to making in-jokes when discussing the thousands of people dying and over half a million out of work wasn't exactly the time or place to do so.

That's not outrage Mr Bishop, that's called "stating the bleedin obvious"

I suppose the difference between your view of the what he did and the view of the rest of us is that Varadkar has a 75% popularity rating, and you have a couple of cranks on Twitter and a handful of boards posters agreeing with you.

Pretty easy to see where the balance of the public view lies.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

I suppose the difference between your view of the what he did and the view of the rest of us is that Varadkar has a 75% popularity rating, and you have a couple of cranks on Twitter and a handful of boards posters agreeing with you.

Pretty easy to see where the balance of the public view lies.

75% popularity rating?
Really?

You massaging reality again to fit into your own deluded imaginary world?

FrancieBrady

I thought that was funny on the news...Coveney has downgraded Leo's 'political crisis' if the deal is rejected to a 'political uncertainty'.

RandomViewer

efanton wrote: »

75% popularity rating?
Really?

You massaging reality again to fit into your own deluded imaginary world?

He's officially gone full Trump

Mortelaro

efanton wrote: »

75% popularity rating?
Really?

You massaging reality again to fit into your own deluded imaginary world?

https://www.joe.ie/politics/opinion-poll-approval-rating-leo-varadkar-699043

Geuze

efanton wrote: »

75% popularity rating?
Really?

Yes.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-shows-rise-in-fine-gael-support-while-satisfaction-with-leo-varadkar-soars-1005443.html

Ronin247

efanton wrote: »

75% popularity rating?
Really?

You massaging reality again to fit into your own deluded imaginary world?

https://www.joe.ie/politics/opinion-poll-approval-rating-leo-varadkar-699043

I wonder is there any correlation between Varadkar's 75% approval rating and the 25% support for Sinn Fein?

Pintman Paddy Losty

blanch152 wrote: »

I suppose the difference between your view of the what he did and the view of the rest of us is that Varadkar has a 75% popularity rating, and you have a couple of cranks on Twitter and a handful of boards posters agreeing with you.

Pretty easy to see where the balance of the public view lies.

Nail on the head there blanch.

JohnnyFlash

Twitter is fine as long as you understand it’s a wretched cesspool that reinforces biases and is the natural home of every sort of crank, oddball, malcontent and ne’er-do-well. Full of unemployed shinnerbots, pro-life nutjobs, far-right ‘patriots’, and mouth-breathing cranks who get angry because politicians don’t reply to their incoherent rants.

Apart from that it’s an excellent site.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What are you talking about?

I am not criticising or condoning any of those. What I am doing is expressing my complete incredulity at the silly nonsense being spouted about Varadkar's words.

My criticism or not of other's very different words doesn't matter a whit. All I am saying is that you and others are making even bigger fools of yourselves by working yourselves up into a lather of outrage over a supposed quote from Mean Girls - it is not even clear whether it is a direct quote or not.

How was it disrespectful of anyone to suggest there is no limit? Come off it. How did it lack empathy? I don't know where this nonsense is coming from.

What do you want? A solemn soulless cheerless speech from the Taoiseach? That might suit your agenda, but in contrast, the Taoiseach has hit the spot and got the mood of the country (apart from the cranks). Why else do you think he has hit 75% approval rating? That won't last, but his popularity won't fall because he quoted Mean Girls.

So I mention you ignoring O'Leary admiring fascists and you respond by saying you weren't commenting on O'Leary admiring fascists. Instead deciding to cherry pick one item you feel you can dismiss and ridicule others for disagreeing with you? Kinda my point.
The only one working hard on this is you and few like minded individuals. Varadkar was twee and lacked empathy when speaking on the Covid crisis. You can disagree but you can't claim opposing views are dishonest or wrong. You can theorise, much like I can on matters of hypocrisy.

Again, who's getting into a lather? You see no issue. I disagree. I'd rather a genuine speech dare I say sincere rather than plagiarising film script for laughs while speaking on death, sickness and loss of quality of life. It isn't admirable or appropriate IMO. And it's by far not the biggest deal by any means. Just another reminder of how vacuous and pointless Varadkar can be as a leader.

If he made armpit farts while up on the podium I feel you'd be dismissing that too.

dundalkfc10

Someone tell Varadkar that a celebrity has challenged him to build more houses.

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

Yes.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-shows-rise-in-fine-gael-support-while-satisfaction-with-leo-varadkar-soars-1005443.html

Obviously someone cant count

Leo Vandakar 75% up 45
Mary Lou 49% up 8
Micheal Martin 46% up 16
Eamonn Ryan 40%

So somehow 210% of the population got to vote?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

If you look at the graph, that swing in FG support came from those that previously supported FF or Independents.


The same poll says that only 36% of those polled support the coalition formation, the vast majority wanting another GE or a different formation of government. Well there's only one other possible combination for government and that would be a FF/SF government.

Cant really put much stock in that poll with regards it being a valid reflection if a GE was called.
It shows that more people are happy with the way that the government is currently dealing with the virus crisis really, and that's all.
Given the same week the poll took place restrictions were lifted that's not surprising.

quinnd6

I can't wait to hear the next Taoiseach say "With great power there also comes great responsibility" and the greens will probably quote Captain Planet and the planeteers at some stage.

McMurphy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Twitter is fine as long as you understand it’s a wretched cesspool that reinforces biases and is the natural home of every sort of crank, oddball, malcontent and ne’er-do-well. Full of unemployed shinnerbots, pro-life nutjobs, far-right ‘patriots’, and mouth-breathing cranks who get angry because politicians don’t reply to their incoherent rants.

Apart from that it’s an excellent site.

Just curious John, what category does this fellow party member get assigned under?

https://twitter.com/jimdundrum/status/1270148218723209216?s=19

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Just curious John, what category does this fellow party member get assigned under?

https://twitter.com/jimdundrum/status/1270148218723209216?s=19

Maybe he was just saying it for a bet?

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe he was just saying it for a bet?

Better than that Francie, even though it was posted in the wee hours, and I strongly suspect your man was full of the divils buttermilk, he only went on to play the "I was only being sarcastic" card as his defence strategy. :pac:

My mum always says, "the truth always comes out when the drink is in".

It's a bit of insight into Jim's mind imo.

Loafing Oaf

McMurphy wrote: »

Just curious John, what category does this fellow party member get assigned under?

Well hardly unemployed shinnerbot, unless he's the ultimate agent provocateur...

FrancieBrady

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

unemployed shinnerbot,

Disappointed...I thought they were paid royally for their efforts!



*Rips up application form.

quinnd6

Oh they love getting the dig in at unemployed here.
Easy target ya see.
Always nice bullying and getting the dig at people less fortunate than yourselves.
I don't believe all unemployed people vote for Sinn Fein.
That would be a stereotype.

Mortelaro

efanton wrote: »

Obviously someone cant count

Leo Vandakar 75% up 45
Mary Lou 49% up 8
Micheal Martin 46% up 16
Eamonn Ryan 40%

So somehow 210% of the population got to vote?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

It's not 210%
The same 1000 people were asked what they thought of the various leaders performances
490 of them said they were happy with MLM
750 said they were happy with Leo
So I gather from that,200 people were happy with both Leo and MLM if the 250 who weren't happy with Leo were Sinn Féin supporters