FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

And tweet is deleted, probably because it is defamatory, yet you repeat it.

As do you.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again, you resort to personal insult. Tiresome at this stage.

Somebody puts themselves forward for election and you seem to want that stopped? We live in a democracy where even convicted bomb-makers and gun-runners can put themselves forward for election alongside anti-vaxxers and anti-semites. I wouldn't deny any of them the right to put themselves forward for election, though I wouldn't vote for them.

Compared to that, even though I haven't voted for them, the McNeills look like angels.

At the end of the day, the relevant voters will decide.

That's not specific to you nor personal. I've been asking for input from FG supporters and got none. Only some diversion from a few and ridicule/input from a Green for some reason.

Now you are diverting and completely ignoring the content. Party on Wayne....

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

And tweet is deleted, probably because it is defamatory, yet you repeat it.

What part of it would be defamatory btw?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

That's not specific to you nor personal. I've been asking for input from FG supporters and got none. Only some diversion from a few and ridicule/input from a Green for some reason.

Now you are diverting and completely ignoring the content. Party on Wayne....

I have given an opinion that it is ridiculous to criticise a business person for putting themselves forward for election in a democracy that allows gun-runners, bomb-makers, anti-vaxxers and anti-semites to stand.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I have given an opinion that it is ridiculous to criticise a business person for putting themselves forward for election in a democracy that allows gun-runners, bomb-makers, anti-vaxxers and anti-semites to stand.

Not as ridiculous as trying to censor people's 'opinions'.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I have given an opinion that it is ridiculous to criticise a business person for putting themselves forward for election in a democracy that allows gun-runners, bomb-makers, anti-vaxxers and anti-semites to stand.

Ah, you side stepped my point and created your own on my behalf. I do not believe you think that was my point.
My gripe is the wife of a Goldman Sachs top man advising the housing minister during a housing crisis, were coincidentally, FG favour private business as regards any housing policy.
I don't care if forty coats and bang bang run for seanate.
Enough of your diversion using Charlie Tan-again's antisemite father or Haughey's arms smuggling or the numerous FF/FG TD's casting doubt on vaccinations. .

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Ah, you side stepped my point and created your own on my behalf. I do not believe you think that was my point.
My gripe is the wife of a Goldman Sachs top man advising the housing minister during a housing crisis, were coincidentally, FG favour private business as regards any housing policy.
I don't care if forty coats and bang bang run for seanate.
Enough of your diversion using Charlie Tan-again's antisemite father or Haughey's arms smuggling or the numerous FF/FG TD's casting doubt on vaccinations. .

So you are not going to vote for the McNeill, sure, we get that.

Not sure what point you are trying to make beyond that. You have no argument against him standing for election, presumably because this is a free country you have no difficulty if someone out there decides to vote for him because they agree with him.

So what is your beef with the guy? He has committed no crime, he is standing for election, people are free to vote for him. End of.

In my opinion, it seems that you don't like him and you are baiting people to come along and say they will vote for him so you can start a nonsensical argument.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are not going to vote for the McNeill, sure, we get that.

Not sure what point you are trying to make beyond that. You have no argument against him standing for election, presumably because this is a free country you have no difficulty if someone out there decides to vote for him because they agree with him.

So what is your beef with the guy? He has committed no crime, he is standing for election, people are free to vote for him. End of.

In my opinion, it seems that you don't like him and you are baiting people to come along and say they will vote for him so you can start a nonsensical argument.

Ridiculous statement, especially given the thread it is posted in. You could say the same to you about all and any SF candidate.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are not going to vote for the McNeill, sure, we get that.

Not sure what point you are trying to make beyond that. You have no argument against him standing for election, presumably because this is a free country you have no difficulty if someone out there decides to vote for him because they agree with him.

So what is your beef with the guy? He has committed no crime, he is standing for election, people are free to vote for him. End of.

In my opinion, it seems that you don't like him and you are baiting people to come along and say they will vote for him so you can start a nonsensical argument.

Again, I have absolutely no issue with McNeill running for senate and I'm pretty sure I don't get a say on how he fares in that regard.

My gripe is the wife of a Goldman Sachs top man advising the housing minister during a housing crisis, were coincidentally, FG favour private business as regards any housing policy.
I don't care if forty coats and bang bang run for seanate....

What's your opinion on the wife, (now a FG TD) of a top man at Goldman Sachs advising the housing minister, during a housing crisis where FG policy relies heavily upon the private sector, when Goldman Sachs are a player in the vulture fund field?
Cula bula?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

What's your opinion on the wife, (now a FG TD) of a top man at Goldman Sachs advising the housing minister, during a housing crisis where FG policy relies heavily upon the private sector, when Goldman Sachs are a player in the vulture fund field?
Cula bula?

Are you really saying that what a woman's husband does for a living should affect her career?

I would think carefully before you post sexist nonsense like that.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you really saying that what a woman's husband does for a living should affect her career?

I would think carefully before you post sexist nonsense like that.

You refuse to answer and dodge. Understood.
I honestly don't know why you engage at all.

I assume your follow up to any further repeated post might be:

'Why do you insist on using Arial font? Have you got a problem with Times New Roman?' or something.

FrancieBrady

Oi Oi There's a turn up for the books...who'd have thought it.

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1235258668398112768

Cyrus

Bowie wrote: »

Again, I have absolutely no issue with McNeill running for senate and I'm pretty sure I don't get a say on how he fares in that regard.



What's your opinion on the wife, (now a FG TD) of a top man at Goldman Sachs advising the housing minister, during a housing crisis where FG policy relies heavily upon the private sector, when Goldman Sachs are a player in the vulture fund field?
Cula bula?

I’d imagine her advice on housing would be the same regardless of who her husband was

Do you not think her capable of independent thought ? Or do you think any other fg candidate running in Killiney would have much different ideals?

And I’m coolio eglesias with it for the record

James Brown

Cyrus wrote: »

I’d imagine her advice on housing would be the same regardless of who her husband was

Do you not think her capable of independent thought ? Or do you think any other fg candidate running in Killiney would have much different ideals?

And I’m coolio eglesias with it for the record

Yeah, I don't. We don't know.

The facts are an unelected party consultant (now newly minted FG TD) was advising the housing minister on housing policy while she had a strong personal connection to Goldman Sachs at a time when we were in housing crisis and government policy was using and lightly taxing vulture funds such as Goldman Sachs as government policy.
That's the facts.

My issues are how much was her advice coloured by her husband's position? Did he or she profit from any policies she advised Murphy/FG to follow, we know Goldman Sachs certainly did/do? Were these policies in the interest of herself, her husband or the tax payer?
It's conflict of interest and IMO explains much of why FG exacerbated the crises and used tax payer monies to do business with vulture funds, who they also tax lightly.
It stinks quite frankly.

Cyrus

Bowie wrote: »

Yeah, I don't. We don't know.

The facts are an unelected party consultant (now newly minted FG TD) was advising the housing minister on housing policy while she had a strong personal connection to Goldman Sachs at a time when we were in housing crisis and government policy was using and lightly taxing vulture funds such as Goldman Sachs as government policy.
That's the facts.

My issues are how much was her advice coloured by her husband's position? Did he or she profit from any policies she advised Murphy/FG to follow, we know Goldman Sachs certainly did/do? Were these policies in the interest of herself, her husband or the tax payer?
It's conflict of interest and IMO explains much of why FG exacerbated the crises and used tax payer monies to do business with vulture funds, who they also tax lightly.
It stinks quite frankly.

Seems like a pretty big conspiracy when you put it that way, vulture fund is such an emotive term. Used to rile up a certain cohort.

They were buying assets no one else wanted and without them the whole mess would have lasted a lot longer.

Those are the facts

James Brown

Cyrus wrote: »

Seems like a pretty big conspiracy when you put it that way, vulture fund is such an emotive term. Used to rile up a certain cohort.

They were buying assets no one else wanted and without them the whole mess would have lasted a lot longer.

Those are the facts

They are called that based on their behaviour. Certain cohort? Conspiracy theory? Some laugh.
FG was/is using tax payer money to do business with them. One of their housing advisers was/is married to a top man in Goldman Sachs, who are involved in vulture fund activity.
Facts. Read into it what you will or nothing. Your call.

That's not entirely true. Is it over? You know they are buying up apartment blocks to rent or lease to the tax payer and the government taxes them lightly for the privilege? Anyway I've my opinion on it, you've yours. I appreciate you engaging on topic rather than diverting.

McMurphy

Cyrus wrote: »

Seems like a pretty big conspiracy when you put it that way, vulture fund is such an emotive term. Used to rile up a certain cohort.

They were buying assets no one else wanted and without them the whole mess would have lasted a lot longer.

Those are the facts

Leo Varadkar had zero problems using that emotive term throughout the election campaign.

Perhaps you're a tad too delicate.

Snow Garden

That fraud of a TD Alan Farrell has the cheek to come on the tonight show and talk about crime.

Suckit

Snow Garden wrote: »

That fraud of a TD Alan Farrell has the cheek to come on the tonight show and talk about crime.

Is he still on? Hopefully they'll ask him about his own case. The only time I have ever seen him on TV is hm walking away from the caeras and refusing to talk, and it wasn't always for the same thing.

all about the mane

Shinners point fingers at others in relation to crime. Brilliant

smurgen

Great that Fine Gael are still allowing flights in from Italy. Especially after they were so proactive stopping that match.The caretaker government are like a Leslie Nielsen movie at this stage.

McMurphy

all about the mane wrote: »

Shinners point fingers at others in relation to crime. Brilliant

Talking of which, it's hilarious that Leo is saying that it is up to SF to form a govt and lead the country, while simultaneously saying that he believes they're (SF) under orders from an illegal organisation - ie an IRA army council.

There you have it now.

Leader of the law and order party advocating for a political party, he believes are under the control of an illegal organisation to lead the country.

Confusing? You better frickin believe it is!

all about the mane

Whining in stereo :D:D

Jinglejangle69

smurgen wrote: »

Great that Fine Gael are still allowing flights in from Italy. Especially after they were so proactive stopping that match.The caretaker government are like a Leslie Nielsen movie at this stage.

Time for your hero Mary Lou to stick to her word and form a left wing government so.

Oh wait, that's not possible, so she was lying.

But.......

Its all optics.

smurgen

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Time for your hero Mary Lou to stick to her word and form a left wing government so.

Oh wait, that's not possible, so she was lying.

But.......

Its all optics.

She can't she's in self isolation.
See FG can pick the low hanging fruit.easy stuff like banning match or banning microbeads but cannot make big decisions.

Suckit

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Time for your hero Mary Lou to stick to her word and form a left wing government so.

Oh wait, that's not possible, so she was lying.

But.......

Its all optics.

You like to repeat over and over and over and over and over again "she was lying, mary lou was lying" etc.. it's beyond tiresome. It has been explained to you about numbers. But anyway.

Want to see an example of lying?
Actual lying?
Remember this?


And now Harris is f*cking up even more.

Cancelling a match to stop the spread of the virus, but not cancelling anything else.
Those trolleys will likely be looking like luxury for some in a few weeks, and people won't forget the bullsh*t that went before it.

all about the mane

smurgen wrote: »

She can't she's in self isolation.
See FG can pick the low hanging fruit.easy stuff like banning match or banning microbeads but cannot make big decisions.

Now there’s an outright lie. She’s not in self isolation.

James Brown

Suckit wrote: »

You like to repeat over and over and over and over and over again "she was lying, mary lou was lying" etc.. it's beyond tiresome. It has been explained to you about numbers. But anyway.

Want to see an example of lying?
Actual lying?
Remember this?


And now Harris is f*cking up even more.

Cancelling a match to stop the spread of the virus, but not cancelling anything else.
Those trolleys will likely be looking like luxury for some in a few weeks, and people won't forget the bullsh*t that went before it.

Ah leave aul' Enda 'man with two pints' Kenny out of it. He was good laugh bless. Racism aside...

McMurphy

all about the mane wrote: »

Now there’s an outright lie. She’s not in self isolation.

You might have missed my synopsis.

McMurphy wrote: »

Talking of which, it's hilarious that Leo is saying that it is up to SF to form a govt and lead the country, while simultaneously saying that he believes they're (SF) under orders from an illegal organisation - ie an IRA army council.

There you have it now.

Leader of the law and order party advocating for a political party, he believes are under the control of an illegal organisation to lead the country.

Confusing? You better frickin believe it is!

Any thoughts from king of oneliners?

all about the mane

A poster posted an outright lie. I’ll called them on it.