FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

Quote my campaign against O'Gorman? I've likely only ever spoke on him in reference. You doubled down on that lying claim and never supported it.
I had expected Humphries to get some kind of wrist slap in the least considering her actions. What of it?
And what has the mother and baby homes got to do with that line of discussion? Are you trying desperately to make a link to justify you trying to create diversions yesterday?
I've often remarked on the legacy of FF/FG governments and their role in aiding and abetting the church when the subject arises.

I'm not going through your posts, but it was because of this, you wanted him gone.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/minister-for-children-condemns-homophobic-attacks-from-far-right-1.4297259%3fmode=amp

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

That's the respect you give this? Pleased with yourself? Be interesting to see your next bout of faux outrage when it's a party you're not married to.

You dare to speak of respect? The person responsible for this nonsense:

Bowie wrote: »

Now who's guiding the Lilly? Ive said no such thing.
They are protecting the reputation of their parties in covering up. Thats my opinion of it.
Not incompetent but covering their arses. They succeeded in sweeping it under the carpet. Time will tell how well and for how long.
Get off your SF kick will you? You are engaging in the very style of 'debate' you claim to dislike.

Really, you have some neck.

When Niall Collins speaks of "a repulsive online campaign where some very nasty people are exploiting this situation and the vulnerabilities of some", he is talking about posts like yours, full of lies, nastiness and conspiracy theory.

You say "they are protecting the reputation of their parties in covering up. Thats my opinion of it."

You are around long enough to know that isn't true. You are around long enough to know the real story of the ins and outs of why this legislation was necessary so that the information would not be destroyed. Yet you and others on here are exploiting the vulnerable who may not be aware of all the nuances and turning this into a political campaign to get at the government, even though the government is doing the only thing legally possible.

I am well used to your repulsive posts, and can respond to them with some levity with the mention of Denis O'Brien, but there are people reading them who will sadly believe some of the nonsense you spout. And you are not the only one, there are a number of others this morning posting in a similar disingenuous manner about the issue.

Let's be clear, there is genuine fear and concern among some victims that their story may never be told. There is also genuine fear and concern among some victims that the story they told in confidence will be released to the world, and they don't want that. Managing that conflict, taking into account the legislation set up for the Commission means that the government has to take a careful path. The likes of you and some other public figures don't care about that. You only care about political point-scoring.

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

I pointed to your post
There is zero difference in saying ffg are covering up abuse and saying they're condoning it
Its that simple IMO
They've certainly been incompetent and done injury to themselves in the handling of what to do with the tribunal files
But do you expect me to read here insinuations against people that they are not guilty of and just smile and ignore it?
I won't
Because if I did,I'd be a hypocrite and so would a lot of people here
Its also counter productive

One is supporting, the other is trying to hide their parties pasts. They most certainly are not the same thing.
Condoning: accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
In any case I am telling you I am not accusing FF/FG, the current Dail, of supporting rape or selling children. That clear enough for you? Settle yourself.

They are incompetent but also very cute hoors. They got to rush it through and suffered little in comparison to what I believe is the damage to their parties legacies in their culpability in what the church/state did for generations.
That's my opinion. Your disagreement is fine and dandy but cut the Jerry Springer outrage.
Now if anything I've posted here is unclear ask and I'll elaborate further.

blanch152

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'm not going through your posts, but it was because of this, you wanted him gone.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/minister-for-children-condemns-homophobic-attacks-from-far-right-1.4297259%3fmode=amp

Not surprised to see that poster going after O'Gorman.

Bishop of hope

blanch152 wrote: »

Not surprised to see that poster going after O'Gorman.

Well he did at the time. That's no lie.
He might well troll back a if he wants, but I have a specific memory of it.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'm not going through your posts, but it was because of this, you wanted him gone.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/minister-for-children-condemns-homophobic-attacks-from-far-right-1.4297259%3fmode=amp

I gave you an out yesterday as I figured you were mixing me up with someone else. Now you are just telling lies.
The only homophobic comments I've seen on this social media is from FG supporters using Varadkar's sexuality to win points in an unrelated discussion.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You dare to speak of respect? The person responsible for this nonsense:




Really, you have some neck.

When Niall Collins speaks of "a repulsive online campaign where some very nasty people are exploiting this situation and the vulnerabilities of some", he is talking about posts like yours, full of lies, nastiness and conspiracy theory.

You say "they are protecting the reputation of their parties in covering up. Thats my opinion of it."

You are around long enough to know that isn't true. You are around long enough to know the real story of the ins and outs of why this legislation was necessary so that the information would not be destroyed. Yet you and others on here are exploiting the vulnerable who may not be aware of all the nuances and turning this into a political campaign to get at the government, even though the government is doing the only thing legally possible.

I am well used to your repulsive posts, and can respond to them with some levity with the mention of Denis O'Brien, but there are people reading them who will sadly believe some of the nonsense you spout. And you are not the only one, there are a number of others this morning posting in a similar disingenuous manner about the issue.

Let's be clear, there is genuine fear and concern among some victims that their story may never be told. There is also genuine fear and concern among some victims that the story they told in confidence will be released to the world, and they don't want that. Managing that conflict, taking into account the legislation set up for the Commission means that the government has to take a careful path. The likes of you and some other public figures don't care about that. You only care about political point-scoring.

Blanch you are making jokes on the Mother and Baby homes because FF/FG are getting bad press. I pointed it out.

Now you are trying to do whatabout, however your example is flawed as explained in my response.

I'm not going into your comments Everyone knows your level. Hit out and insult rather than discuss or debate.

Not everyone is like yourself. Read the threads and look who is speaking on opinion and topics and who is "full of lies, nastiness and conspiracy theory".
You'll have no quotes to back you up.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Not surprised to see that poster going after O'Gorman.

What poster? Quotes?

"When Niall Collins speaks of "a repulsive online campaign where some very nasty people are exploiting this situation and the vulnerabilities of some", he is talking about posts like yours, full of lies, nastiness and conspiracy theory"

Complete hypocrite Blanch.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Well he did at the time. That's no lie.
He might well troll back a if he wants, but I have a specific memory of it.

You are lying. Quotes? Was a time you needed back up claims.

Brendan Bendar

Uuuuhmm........ lot of anger here

Best avoided.......

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Blanch you are making jokes on the Mother and Baby homes .

Hate to disappoint you but I wasn't making jokes on the Mother and Baby homes, the joke was on you.

Adding in the missing part of your conspiracy theory said nothing about Mother and Baby homes.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'm not going through your posts, but it was because of this, you wanted him gone.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/minister-for-children-condemns-homophobic-attacks-from-far-right-1.4297259%3fmode=amp

You need to teach yourself how to use the "advanced search" function.

Username Bowie, keyword "Roderic" no results.

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=Roderic&forum=&user=856590&date_from=&date_to=

Username Bowie, keyword "O'Gorman" no results.
https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=O%27Gorman&forum=&user=856590&threads=1&date_from=&date_to=

Think you might need to consider getting an apology for the lad typed up bish.

smurgen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Uuuuhmm........ lot of anger here

Best avoided.......

You come into the thread everyday saying that. It like the pissed up lad in the pub who spends all night telling everyone he's going home lol.

James Brown

McMurphy wrote: »

You need to teach yourself how to use the "advanced search" function.

Username Bowie, keyword "Roderic" no results.

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=Roderic&forum=&user=856590&date_from=&date_to=

Username Bowie, keyword "O'Gorman" no results.
https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=O%27Gorman&forum=&user=856590&threads=1&date_from=&date_to=

Think you might need to consider getting an apology for the lad typed up bish.

Slim pickings for a 'campaign'.

blanch152 wrote: »

Hate to disappoint you but I wasn't making jokes on the Mother and Baby homes, the joke was on you.

Adding in the missing part of your conspiracy theory said nothing about Mother and Baby homes.

What part of you making jokes on the Mother and Baby homes is incorrect?

No theory on what happened, but a conspiracy theory on why the FF/FG/Green government rushed it through, certainly.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Slim pickings for a 'campaign'.



What part of you making jokes on the Mother and Baby homes is incorrect?

No theory on what happened, but a conspiracy theory on why the FF/FG/Green government rushed it through, certainly.

Sorry mate, but covering your own embarrassment at missing a joke at your own expense by somehow making out it was a joke about Mother and Baby homes is not working.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Sorry mate, but covering your own embarrassment at missing a joke at your own expense by somehow making out it was a joke about Mother and Baby homes is not working.

Blanch you made light of the discussion, insulted people because you disagreed with them..and made a joke on the mother and baby homes. Aimed at myself or not, you used the topic of mother and baby homes to post a joke.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Blanch you made light of the discussion, insulted people because you disagreed with them..and made a joke on the mother and baby homes. Aimed at myself or not, you used the topic of mother and baby homes to post a joke.

You have added mind-reading to your skill-set, it seems. Either that or no joke was ever made or intended about Mother and Baby Homes, as the post clearly shows.

It seems to me you need to reflect even further about the type of people that Niall Collins was referring to, who twist the facts for their own agendas.

RandomViewer

FF and FG were the enablers for the abuse in the homes,

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You have added mind-reading to your skill-set, it seems. Either that or no joke was ever made or intended about Mother and Baby Homes, as the post clearly shows.

It seems to me you need to reflect even further about the type of people that Niall Collins was referring to, who twist the facts for their own agendas.

You posted:

blanch152 wrote: »

You do realise that you have missed the real story?

The Catholic Church have sold out to Denis O’Brien, giving him options on all the old Mother and Baby homes to build new hotels and 5G masts to poison the local population. FG are covering up for him, not for anyone else.

That's a joke on Denis O'Brien and the Mother and Babies homes. Aimed at me? Sure, still on the mother and babies homes. You can try slither out of it but there it is.

By the way, can you tell me what you based this on?

blanch152 wrote: »

Not surprised to see that poster going after O'Gorman.

And please, show your work. Made up Blanchisms don't count.

Most of us have been discussing the events and the players concerned. People like yourself have been going after the posters and ridiculing. It's all there to be read.

FF/FG in their haste, IMO, conspiracy theory, to cover up and hide their parties legacy in their involvement in at best turning a blind eye to the churches actions. That's my opinion based on how they aided and abetted the church in stealing and selling babies and covering up abuse for generations.

FrancieBrady

Bowie wrote: »

Blanch you made light of the discussion, insulted people because you disagreed with them..and made a joke on the mother and baby homes. Aimed at myself or not, you used the topic of mother and baby homes to post a joke.

Pretty much what Collins did, belittle objectors and those concerned about what was happening.

Had he argued against the many serious and thoughtful comments made on social media, he'd have been n the clear, but he never mentioned them.

Nobotty

Bowie wrote: »

One is supporting, the other is trying to hide their parties pasts. They most certainly are not the same thing.
Condoning: accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
In any case I am telling you I am not accusing FF/FG, the current Dail, of supporting rape or selling children. That clear enough for you? Settle yourself.

They are incompetent but also very cute hoors. They got to rush it through and suffered little in comparison to what I believe is the damage to their parties legacies in their culpability in what the church/state did for generations.
That's my opinion. Your disagreement is fine and dandy but cut the Jerry Springer outrage.
Now if anything I've posted here is unclear ask and I'll elaborate further[.

No,that's clarified what you meant I'm glad it is
I still think its stupidty of the highest order for them not to have anticipated this reaction to their solution to what was done with the testimonies
They've done that damage to themselves
Self harm
Thats to me far from cute hoorism

By the way no history book could be written on this story without showing everyone's part in it
And noone analysing it properly could look at it without saying it all happened in an era where what went on was widely accepted and sadly condoned
So No I don't accept your opinion on the cute hoorism or the cover up
I think it was a mis handled unthought out government cock up
One of many to add to the list IMO

Brendan Bendar

smurgen wrote: »

You come into the thread everyday saying that. It like the pissed up lad in the pub who spends all night telling everyone he's going home lol.

Bit over the top, pal.

Basically it’s the bit of incredulence about a bunch of stirrers trying big up an issue they are nowhere personally involved with.

It’s the faux concern that kinda gets to a lad.

Soz if I upset anyone.

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

No,that's clarified what you meant I'm glad it is
I still think its stupidty of the highest order for them not to have anticipated this reaction to their solution to what was done with the testimonies
They've done that damage to themselves
Self harm
Thats to me far from cute hoorism

By the way no history book could be written on this story without showing everyone's part in it
And noone analysing it properly could look at it without saying it all happened in an era where what went on was widely accepted and sadly condoned
So No I don't accept your opinion on the cute hoorism or the cover up
I think it was a mis handled unthought out government cock up
One of many to add to the list IMO

Agreed. You are allowing yourself be locked in the political 'sides' mentality gets sold on every single issue on here. Honest posters are attempting to discuss matters as they happen.
I don't believe the public were widely aware. Some would be. Same goes for the authorities and politicians at the time. The church were not setting up homes, running them as they did, taking and selling babies, officially, often with Garda involvement...without the states involvement at many levels for many years. Incompetence doesn't cut it.
On recent events, people have a right to their data. FF/FG/Green rushing this through as they did was odd. You have to ask yourself why? If they'd no skin in the game why not discuss it and take on board any suggested amendments? I do not believe that no member of FF/FG or the Greens was unsure or unwilling to let it be discussed, so why the rush and vote on party lines? FF/FG making a balls of things again? I don't think so. They likely underestimated the kick back fair enough.

Nobotty

Up until last March,it was a mortal sin not to go to Mass of a Sunday for Catholics
I haven't been since then for public health reasons
Up until about the 1980s having a baby outside of marriage was also a mortal sin
My Grandmother was as Catholic as the next but she referred to some nuns as right bitches
It was widely known I think what went on but it was looked on by the population in a different time as God's will
That herecy was thought and practiced
We are all immensely lucky now to be living in a time where everyone and everything is reported and discussed so easily via the web
When I meet used meet the local near pension age priests here ,not lately,I used say thank God for it

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

Up until last March,it was a mortal sin not to go to Mass of a Sunday for Catholics
I haven't been since then for public health reasons
Up until about the 1980s having a baby outside of marriage was also a mortal sin
My Grandmother was as Catholic as the next but she referred to some nuns as right bitches
It was widely known I think what went on but it was looked on by the population in a different time as God's will
That herecy was thought and practiced
We are all immensely lucky now to be living in a time where everyone and everything is reported and discussed so easily via the web
When I meet used meet the local near pension age priests here ,not lately,I used say thank God for it

Unless it's sealed for 30's years with little to no debate.

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

We are all immensely lucky now to be living in a time where everyone and everything is reported and discussed so easily via the web

And some, like Collins, don't like it one little bit.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Agreed. You are allowing yourself be locked in the political 'sides' mentality gets sold on every single issue on here. Honest posters are attempting to discuss matters as they happen.
I don't believe the public were widely aware. Some would be. Same goes for the authorities and politicians at the time. The church were not setting up homes, running them as they did, taking and selling babies, officially, often with Garda involvement...without the states involvement at many levels for many years. Incompetence doesn't cut it.
On recent events, people have a right to their data. FF/FG/Green rushing this through as they did was odd. You have to ask yourself why? If they'd no skin in the game why not discuss it and take on board any suggested amendments? I do not believe that no member of FF/FG or the Greens was unsure or unwilling to let it be discussed, so why the rush and vote on party lines? FF/FG making a balls of things again? I don't think so. They likely underestimated the kick back fair enough.

I don't see many honest posters opposing what the government did. Any honest poster that looked long and hard at the issues would conclude the government had little choice. Plenty of dishonest posters and commentators using the victims of the homes to have a go at the government, but par for the course for most of them.

People have a right to their data under the law, it is not unconditional, it is not 100% available. For example, information gathered during a Garda investigation is not available to people unless it goes to court.

As you well know, there was a deadline of 30 October, by which time the information would be destroyed by the Commission if there was no legislation, hence the need to get the legislation through without amendment etc.

What the government underestimated was the willingness of the dishonest to exploit the issue.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

Unless it's sealed for 30's years with little to no debate.

Cos there’s nothing to debate. The rules were laid down before the commission began its hearings.

Cluedo Monopoly

Superb interview on Drivetime with Dr Maeve O’Rourke from the Clann Project.

http://clannproject.org/about/

Seriously well worth a listen no matter what your political allegiances are. She makes it very clear what they are campaigning for. It was on around 5:30pm.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't see many honest posters opposing what the government did. Any honest poster that looked long and hard at the issues would conclude the government had little choice. Plenty of dishonest posters and commentators using the victims of the homes to have a go at the government, but par for the course for most of them.

People have a right to their data under the law, it is not unconditional, it is not 100% available. For example, information gathered during a Garda investigation is not available to people unless it goes to court.

As you well know, there was a deadline of 30 October, by which time the information would be destroyed by the Commission if there was no legislation, hence the need to get the legislation through without amendment etc.

What the government underestimated was the willingness of the dishonest to exploit the issue.

You assume posters have no genuine interest and are only out to get FF/FG. That's very cynical, but your opinion based on your feels, which is your business. It doesn't take away from the comments made.

We have had times over the years were the public and opposition are foolish to be asking questions or raising issues. Laughed off as ignorant, such as has been happening on this issue. If you blindly trust FF/FG good for you.
On the right to data, that's believed to have been breached on this matter. If nobody piped up or questioned things we'd be in a sorry state altogether.

Again, in your opinion, based on your feels. It goes against the laws of probability to assume everyone with an issue is doing so cynically only to score points. People are decent and have empathy.