Is it really uncool to support Fianna Fail

ISAW

Wheely wrote:

I dont think thats what was painful for them seeing as how the country votd overwhelmingly in favour of that treaty!

No it wasnt! It was split down the middle. thats how one ends up in civil war!

While I have to slow down a little bit here in my opposition of your argument, in that I dont agree with the death penalty in any shape or form and I agree that the methods pursued by the Free State govt were harsh and maybe axcessive, they have to be put in context. They were fighting against an illegal, undemocratic, terrorist orginisation in the midsts of a Civil War so bitter that it turnde brother on brother and tore failys apart. And in retrospect, their tactics worked.

It is not for the State to behave as enemies of the State behave. You can not justify it based on any context! Otherwisr uyou can justify Heroshima, torture, Guantanamo Bay, gun Boat diplomacy and a host of other things! Results do not justify methods!

Whatever you want to say about the Free State and their tactics they brought an end to the Irish Civil War, and the stood by, consistently, the priciples of democracy that De Valera and his cronies claimed to hold dear.

Ever heard of Tyrrany of the Majority?

Maybe there was another way to do it but nonetheless what they did worked. And the Free State did transform Ireland into the Republic it is today, and it ended British Rule completely and without further resort to armed struggle

So say you. and others would claim it solidified foreign rule on part of the island! Hence the whole history since then!


...can open, worms everywhere...

Wheely

ISAW wrote:

No it wasnt! It was split down the middle. thats how one ends up in civil war!

The elections to the Third Dáil took place on 16th June, 1922. Unlike the Second Dáil, which was notionally elected by the whole island of Ireland, the Third Dáil would not include members elected in Northern Ireland. Since the election of the Second Dáil in 1921, Sinn Fein, the only political party represented in the Dáil, had split into pro and anti-treaty factions and these two factions became the major contestants of the 1922 elections. The elections were therefore effectively a referendum on the Anglo-Irish Treaty. In the event the pro-treaty side won a majority of seats and the anti-treaty faction boycotted the assembly, refusing to recognise the body as the legitimate heir to the Second Dáil. The Civil War broke out shortly afterwards.

There's the election results below. 56 seats to 35 is, as Im sure you know, not a 50/50 split. As you cansee there was almost twice as much support for the pro-treaty faction as there was for the anti-treaty one! On this reasoning can you tell me how the country was split down the middle. Also, De Valera's reprehensibly irresponsible behaviour and his downright stupid inflammatory speeches had a huge part to play in inciting the Civil War. Himself and Collins were by far the 2 most poplular personalities to emerge from the war and for de Valera to stand up encouraging young impressionable men to "wade through the blood of some members of this government" knowing the position of influence he held was downright wrong. The Free Staters were "quick enough" to use guns....check your history books lads...they didnt start it.


58 pro-Treaty* 35 anti-Treaty* 17 Lab 7 Fmr 11 oth*
38.5% 21.3% 21.4% 7.9%

ISAW

AngelofFire wrote:

In real terms it has not, in 2003 UCD cut back on library opening hours due to a lack of funding (which was eventually overturned due to student protests) The funding for the back to education allowence stood at 15 million before budget 2002, in that budget it was decimated as part of a series of cutbacks, total funding was 5 million in 2003 and the qualifying period for it was increased from 6 months to 18 months. In last years book of estimates the increase in spending for education was 6%, even UCD president Hugh Brady said that in real terms that it amounted to a cutback.

Okay, I am interested in your UCD example. Let me put it this way and get the whole thrust of you position and my position together.

Suppose UCD wants to build a student centre. the following could be built in Being an economics student you might nit pick these but I will try to eliminate the variables which can be built in and stick to the main principle.

Suppose they wnat to own it outright and UCD gives them the land for free. Suppose there are exactly 20,000 students and they never decrease or increase (as I have already stated they will decrease). Suppose the cost of the building is 20 million. Suppose the EU bank decides to introduce zero percent interest.

ISAW says: Now 20 million for 20,000 students is 1000 each. Let the students who use this building pay for it. They can pay say 50 euros a year for the next 20 years and the students after that have it for free. If students are poor then charge all the rich students say 1000 extra and let 19 other poor students off the payment of 50 Euro for the one rich student. Well I would actually say 950 and get the poor guy to pay 50 but let mer not gnit pick. Whatever way they want but let the actual users pay.

Angleoffire says: Let us get the PAYE taxpayers in Kerry whose children go to Tralee IT and the working taxpaying student in Kilkenny and the Aer Rianta worker in shannon to pay more tax to pay for this building.

Do you see my point? The user should pay. If you continue down your road we could get rid of VAT and just put everything into income tax. Dont you agree we need less income tax and more direct tax? How about a wealth tax for example? Labour were not so hot on this last time in government were they? They backed down from a property tax. Even FF backed down when pushed on it but a wealth tax be done. But as I stated isnt it far easier to tax the user at source?

Wheely

ISAW wrote:

It is not for the State to behave as enemies of the State behave. You can not justify it based on any context! Otherwisr uyou can justify Heroshima, torture, Guantanamo Bay, gun Boat diplomacy and a host of other things! Results do not justify methods!

I didnt mean to. Maybe i came off wrong. I didnt mean to justify there methods and I oppose the death penalty in all its forms. Results justifying methods is a little fuzzier...that whole utilitarian theory has its merits and sometimes it is necassary to view things in retrospect. Im still not condoning the meaures they took tho.

ISAW

Wheely wrote:

The elections to the Third Dáil took place on 16th June, 1922. ...
There's the election results below. 56 seats to 35 is, as Im sure you know, not a 50/50 split.

first my idea of closer to a 50 50 split came as result of you incorrect claim of

the country votd overwhelmingly in favour of that treaty!

On 7 January 1922 The Dáil voted by 64 votes to 57 to accept 'The Treaty'.

that is close to 50/50.

As you cansee there was almost twice as much support for the pro-treaty faction as there was for the anti-treaty one! On this reasoning can you tell me how the country was split down the middle.

Among the minority of 57 who opposed ratification of the treaty was de Valéra, who resigned as President of the Dáil on 9th January; a motion for his re-election the same day was defeated by 60-58.

as you can see 64 to 57 is "split down the middle". so is 60 to 58!

You neglected what happened in the meantime which illustrates the division.

Control of the Army was a basic requirement of effective rule; on the one hand the IRA was predominantly (but not wholly) anti-Treaty, and its allegiance was to Dáil Éireann. On the other hand was the Police force (re-formed as the Civil Guard, Garda Siochana, to replace the former Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police) together with those elements of the army that had broken away from the IRA and were under the control of the Provisional Government under a new designation, the National Army.

Tension rose, and a crisis occurred on 14th April 1922 (before your election date) when units of Republican forces occupied a number of buildings in Dublin, including the Four Courts. To avoid a confrontation, the Provisional Government did not try to evict them. On 1st May a conciliatory Army Document was signed, but Rory O'Connor leading the elements in the Four Courts repudiated it and continued the occupation. The following weeks were marred by violence as anti-Treaty forces seized barracks evacuated by the departing British forces, and banks and post offices were raided to finance the running of the anti-Provisional Government forces. Armed clashes between the National Army and the IRA became more frequent and violent, with many casualties on both sides. The Civil War had, in effect, begun.

58 pro-Treaty* 35 anti-Treaty* 17 Lab 7 Fmr 11 oth*
38.5% 21.3% 21.4% 7.9%

[/quote]

http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/eng/stamps/eire01.htm
Despite th above problems, a General Election was held on 16th June 1922, though the results were not announced until 24th June. The intention was to assemble a (single!) new Parliament on 30th June. The election resulted in 58 successful pro-Treaty candidates, 35 anti-Treaty candidates, 4 members for Trinity College, 17 Labour Party, 7 Farmers and 7 Independents.

It is clearly nonsencical to base your argument on the authority of the third Dáil and assert that the pro treaty had "overwhelming popular support " as you claim.

No single party had won an overall majority, and 40% of the total votes were cast for neither of the two main protagonists. A whole 40 percent of those who actually voted didnt express support by voting for for either side! Your result which shows that 60 percent of seats were of the two pro and anti treaty sides.
Even today if FF with 40 per cent of the vote decided they wanted to adopt say the EU constitution and demanded that the people do so then they would have civil war! Even without force and with FG and Lab supporting them them might have problems in getting a majority of people to support it!
And that is not because of loopers in SF and mad leftie parties have better policies. It is because the people would think they are not ready to be pushed into a form of government or a treaty they dont want and havent really thought about. so you see your "pro treaty overwhelming numbers argument.

Does that answer your question as to how rather than your "overwhelming support for the treaty" one could see that there were splits far from consensus?

segaBOY

Angry Banana wrote:

The Blueshirts had, in their early days, extremely bad elements. I completely agree that the banning of Jews and their militant tendencies were deplorable. But they were not Fascist - they were a Church-loving group of anti-Communists. Which in fairness, is what de Valera and everyone else in Ireland was. By the time the reality of fascism reared its ugly head, they had the sense to shut up. Granted it's a partisan view, but Fine Gael rationalised and un-radicalised them.

Taken from http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/freeearth/fe2_ireland.html

Irish Conservatism too has its Fascist skeletons in the cupboard, even more so than the Conservative Party. Ireland also has it's own peculiar version of Holocaust denial where it is claimed that the Blueshirt movement was not Fascist usually on the basis of criteria so strict one could conclude that no Fascist ever existed anywhere. The Blueshirts were a continuation of Civil War politics but they were also part of European Fascism, the Irish strain of a European disease. The development of the Blueshirt movement came as Cumann Na nGaedheal, victors in the '22 to '23 Civil War handed power over to the vanquished Fianna Fail in 1932. They emerged out of the Army Comrades Association, a Blueshirted veterans group which claimed in 1931 a membership of 100,000. In 1933 the recently fired ex-police commissioner Eoin O'Duffy became leader of the A.C.A. (now named the National Guard) and began to move it in a Fascist direction. O'Duffy had been a close college of Michael Collins during the War of Independence and Civil War and had become notorious among Unionists for making a speech in South Armagh in which he promised to "Give 'em the lead", and he was also hated by Republicans for carrying out several atrocities against them during the Civil War as well as much repression against them afterward. One of the mainsprings of the Blueshirt movement was an anti-Communist paranoia, they believed that DeValera, the Fianna Fail leader was Ireland's answer to Kerensky and that waiting in the shadows for him to fall was a Bolshevised I.R.A. . This line of thinking was justified to a degree, Fianna Fail were spewing a sort of pseudo-radical populism at the time and they were being supported by an increasingly left-wing I.R.A.. In 1931 a new political wing of the Republican Movement was established entitled Saor Eire, as an example of the leftward drift within Republicanism here follows excerpts of it's draft constitution:

"To abolish, without compensation, landlordism in lands, fisheries and minerals"

"To make the national wealth and credit available for the creation and fullest development of essential industries and mineral resources, through Industrial Workers Co-operatives, under State direction and management, workers to regulate internal working conditions" (1)

As Blueshirt James Hogan put it:

"It was the growing menace of the Communist I.R.A. that called forth the Blueshirts as Communist Anarchy called forth the Blackshirts in Italy" (2)

However mostly when they thought of the Red Menace they were simply believing their own exaggerated propaganda. Now who was responsible for this Red tide? Why the international Jewish/Communist/Banking conspiracy of course. As a writer in the Blueshirt journal put it: "The founders of Communism were practically all Jews. This can scarcely be a mere coincidence. It may appear singular that Marx, Engels, Lasalle and Ricardo were all Jews" (3)

The Blueshirts saw themselves as part of the European Fascist movement, as a leading Cumann na nGaedheal member John A. Costello, who was later leader of Fine Gael and Prime Minister of the Irish Republic said in the Dail:

"The Blackshirts have been victorious in Italy and Hitler's Brownshirts have been victorious in Germany, as assuredly the Blueshirts will be victorious in Ireland." (4)

This was not so and much of the credit must go to the people who fought them tooth and nail. O'Duffy planed a Mussolini style March on Rome for Dublin in August 1933 ostensibly to commemorate Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith and Kevin O'Higgins. The Government banned the march and units of the I.R.A. lay in wait to ambush it as it passed over O'Connell bridge. O'Duffy backed down and cancelled the march. The Blueshirt movement was now marginalised, O'Duffy had failed to live up to his hard man rhetoric. Later that year the Blueshirts merged with Cumann Na nGaedheal, the Farmers Party and the National Centre Party to form Fine Gael with O'Duffy as it's leader. O'Duffy was ousted from the leadership after making a speech in which he proposed to invade Northern Ireland.

The Spanish Civil War
O'Duffy re-emerged onto the national stage in 1936 to form a seven hundred strong Irish Brigade to fight for Franco in Spain's Civil War, this effort was vigorously supported by the Catholic Church. The Dean of Cashel endorsed it stating that:

"The Irish Brigade have gone to fight the battle of Christianity against Communism. There are tremendous difficulties facing the men under O'Duffy and only heroes can fight such a battle" (5)

The aforementioned Saor Eire had by contrast been condemned by the Bishops as:

"a sinful and irreligious organisation" (6)

They pressurised the Government into outlawing it.

Cardinal Macrory Archbishop of Armagh and primate of all-Ireland, while addressing seven thousand pilgrims in Drogheda at the shrine of blessed Oliver Plunket - a preserved, severed head with reputed magical powers, nailed his colours to the mast and expressed his support for Franco:

"There is no room any longer for any doubt as to the issues at stake in the Spanish conflict. It is not a question of the Army against the people, nor the Army plus the aristocracy and the Church against Labour. Not at all. It is a question of whether Spain will remain as she has been for so long, a Christian and Catholic land or a Bolshevist and anti-God one" (7)

Newspapers and in particular the Irish Independent took a pro-Franco line:

"It is well that the line of demarcation in Spain should be made clear. On the one side is a so-called Government which has abandoned all the functions of government to a Communist Junta bent upon the destruction of personal liberty, the eradication of religion, the burning of churches, and the wholesale slaughter of clergy. On the other side are the Patriot Army gladly risking liberty, property, and life, in defense of their faith-Fighting the same fight that our Irish ancestors fought for centuries for the same cause" (8)

Unsurprisingly the multitude of widely read Church based publications were even more vociferous in their praise for Fascism.

The main body organising support for Franco was the Irish Christian Front ( I.C.F.) a broad based pressure group which , in the early months of the civil war , organised massive demonstrations and had , initially at least , more widespread support than the Blueshirts . The Front's founders were Patrick Belton , who was formerly a T.D. for both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael as well as being an ex-Blueshirt , and Alexander McCabe , formerly elected for both Sinn Fein (pre-1922) and Cumann Na nGaedheal and later to be a member of Eoin O'Duffy's pro-nazi People's National Party. At one I.C.F. rally in Cork in September 1936 40,000 people assembled to hear Monsignor Patrick Sexton , dean of Cork , blame the civil war on "a gang of murderous Jews in Moscow" (9) while beside him stood Alfred O'Rahilly , the future president of the University College of Cork and Douglas Hyde , the future president of the Irish state who currently has his head on the £50 note.






Heil, Heil Enda Kenny

segaBOY

I really hope Fianna Fáil win the next general election and go into a coalition government with Sinn Féin, just to see the look on the imperial Fine Gael's faces, why did ye get rid of your slogan "A United Ireland Party"??? Was it just one big lie that the party couldn't live with?

Fianna Fáil-The Republican party

Fine Gael-On your side (funny considering Fianna Fáil make most of the decisions.....they are on MY side)

Wheely

ISAW,
Fair enough, maybe i played it a little fast and loose wit the word overwhelmingly, but i stand by the rest of my post. It was undemocratic of the anti-treaty faction to leave the dail after their motion to negate the treaty was defeated. Even if it was 64 to 57. If you claimm you want a democratic government, you dont storm out of the Dail when you dont get ur way, pick up some guns and march into the courthouse! And while the third dail votes might not be entirely conslusive, twice s many people expressed, thru their candidate selection, support for the treaty than those who didnt. That fact reamins. Im still standiny by my post that the irregulars, and De Valera, thru his irresponsible rhetoric, and their occupatoin of the Four Courts were far more responsible for the Civil War than the Pro-treaty. I just cant stand people who insist it was the other way round.

Wheely

Segaboy
trying to imply that Enda Kenny is a facist is just stupid. Also I'd like to know why you think FG are an Imperial party?

segaBOY

Wheely wrote:

Segaboy
trying to imply that Enda Kenny is a facist is just stupid. Also I'd like to know why you think FG are an Imperial party?

The day I accept British arms to slaughter fellow Irishmen who believed in the ideal of a 32 county Irish Republic and the day I accept the wishes of a British Primeminister (Ilyod George) to do so is the day I have trully betrayed my country and accepted Imperialistic rule.

mycroft

segaBOY wrote:

Taken from http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/freeearth/fe2_ireland.html

Anyone else endlessly amused that a self proclaimed FF supported is using an anarchist websites intepretation of events to support his claims?

segaBOY

mycroft wrote:

Anyone else endlessly amused that a self proclaimed FF supported is using an anarchist websites intepretation of events to support his claims?

Okay I only followed a link from google and did not browse the full website, I still however believe that statement is a true one.

segaBOY

Actually thanks mycroft for pointing that out, all debates aside, I do not in anyway support anarchists and I am genuinely grateful for you informing me of my "tainted" link.

mycroft

segaBOY wrote:

Okay I only followed a link from google and did not browse the full website, I still however believe that statement is a true one.

and

segaBOY wrote:

Actually thanks mycroft for pointing that out, all debates aside, I do not in anyway support anarchists and I am genuinely grateful for you informing me of my "tainted" link.

No! I touched the dirty anarchist website! I got anarchist cooties!

Doesn't your 2nd post negate the 1st one?

segaBOY

mycroft wrote:

and



No! I touched the dirty anarchist website! I got anarchist cooties!

Doesn't your 2nd post negate the 1st one?

I knew you'd say that but no it actually does not, I believe their article to be a true one but I do not support them, just like I believe *some* statements Enda Kenny makes would be a true reflection of what I support but that doesn't mean I support his party.

Wheely

segaBOY wrote:

The day I accept British arms to slaughter fellow Irishmen who believed in the ideal of a 32 county Irish Republic and the day I accept the wishes of a British Primeminister (Ilyod George) to do so is the day I have trully betrayed my country and accepted Imperialistic rule.

Well lets hope you never have to do that Sega-boy, although I dont think the Brits would give you arms, and Loyd George has been dead for many many years so unless ur talkin to him thru a Ouija board I dont think that he'll be expressing any of his wishes to you. Now you cant have it both ways, either they're a facist party, created in 1933, 11 years after that "slaughter" I believe ur alluding to...tho calling it a slaughter is ridiculous, which they werent (facist) or they were Cumman na Ngael, who did prosecute a war using the legitimate army of the Free State on a bunch of guys who refused to accept a Dail vote, or a referendum mandate (however slight, ISAW) which they just werent so...ur outta luck!! Enda Kenny is neither a Facist nor an Imperialist, regardless of what you...."think"! I find it odd that any FF'er i talk to these days always brings up the wonderful things the did for the North, in the GFA! Didnt that FF govt, not that this bothers me btw, change our Constitution, or support its changing thru referendum, to exclude our Constitutional claim to the North?? So if as ur post says, you did take up British arms on Loyd George's posthmus wishes, who would the "fellow Irishmen who believed in the ideal of a 32 county Irish Republic" that you would slaughter in order to"trully betrayed my country and accepted Imperialistic rule" BE. sINN fEIN I ASSUME...COS SURLY IF IT WAS ff they wouldnt have allowed that Const. referndum to go ahead, regardless of its good for the country and all!! Did i miss it or did bertie and the boys accupy the Four Courts again after the GFA was accepted??

rsynnott

I love how people are so outraged that when DeV et al decided to defy the will of the people, the legitimate government tried to stop them. Honestly, there was a referendum!

segaBOY

Wheely wrote:

Well lets hope you never have to do that Sega-boy, although I dont think the Brits would give you arms, and Loyd George has been dead for many many years so unless ur talkin to him thru a Ouija board I dont think that he'll be expressing any of his wishes to you. Now you cant have it both ways, either they're a facist party, created in 1933, 11 years after that "slaughter" I believe ur alluding to...tho calling it a slaughter is ridiculous, which they werent (facist) or they were Cumman na Ngael, who did prosecute a war using the legitimate army of the Free State on a bunch of guys who refused to accept a Dail vote, or a referendum mandate (however slight, ISAW) which they just werent so...ur outta luck!! Enda Kenny is neither a Facist nor an Imperialist, regardless of what you...."think"! I find it odd that any FF'er i talk to these days always brings up the wonderful things the did for the North, in the GFA! Didnt that FF govt, not that this bothers me btw, change our Constitution, or support its changing thru referendum, to exclude our Constitutional claim to the North?? So if as ur post says, you did take up British arms on Loyd George's posthmus wishes, who would the "fellow Irishmen who believed in the ideal of a 32 county Irish Republic" that you would slaughter in order to"trully betrayed my country and accepted Imperialistic rule" BE. sINN fEIN I ASSUME...COS SURLY IF IT WAS ff they wouldnt have allowed that Const. referndum to go ahead, regardless of its good for the country and all!! Did i miss it or did bertie and the boys accupy the Four Courts again after the GFA was accepted??

Okay, you are argueing that since Fianna Fáil changed the constitution to redefine "Éire" as not having 32 counties they are not "fellow Irishmen who believed in the ideal of a 32 county Irish Republic", didn't Sinn Féin support the GFA???????? Are they not republicans???????????? Some could see a change to our constitution could actually bring about more republican political gains. That is why they changed the constitution, tit for tat, it had to be done, but both parties still believe in a full 32 county Irish Republic

Wheely

Wasnt arguing anything sega-boy, just pointing it out. Anyway that post was really in response to ur silly one about "that day i take up British arms.....slaughter....betrayal.....blah blah.." I only put in that FF, GFA thing as an afterthought. I supported the GFA and the change to the Const. as its by-product.

segaBOY

Wheely wrote:

Wasnt arguing anything sega-boy, just pointing it out. Anyway that post was really in response to ur silly one about "that day i take up British arms.....slaughter....betrayal.....blah blah.." I only put in that FF, GFA thing as an afterthought. I supported the GFA and the change to the Const. as its by-product.

Looks like both of us do then...

Jesus Trash Can

Anyway back to the original question! what chance would a party have if they said Our aim is:
To secure in violence and all out resistance the unity of Ireland and its people.
or
To guarantee to curb religious and civil liberty.
I think you just state the obvious aspirations and carry on the programme of government regardless of them.

Dave!

I've only started to notice things about how Ireland is, and their relation to the government, lately. Like I was waiting at the bus stop, and there's a map that shows where you are and where the buses travel... only, the map was wrong. It got places totally in the wrong place! I look at the map nearly every day, and it just angers me to see the half-assed, speedy way Dublin Bus put it together. Also, there are bus stops in the most awkward and ridiculous places ever, with 3 or 4 stops on a tiny stretch of road. Also, the LUAS bridge in Dundrum, I think it is... The one with loads of huge band-like things attached to one large erection(don't know what to call it, lmao)... What kind of government approves that architecture? It looks ridiculous, and it sums up what kind of government it is: the half-assed, quick-fix kind.

segaBOY

DaveMcG wrote:

I've only started to notice things about how Ireland is, and their relation to the government, lately. Like I was waiting at the bus stop, and there's a map that shows where you are and where the buses travel... only, the map was wrong. It got places totally in the wrong place! I look at the map nearly every day, and it just angers me to see the half-assed, speedy way Dublin Bus put it together. Also, there are bus stops in the most awkward and ridiculous places ever, with 3 or 4 stops on a tiny stretch of road. Also, the LUAS bridge in Dundrum, I think it is... The one with loads of huge band-like things attached to one large erection(don't know what to call it, lmao)... What kind of government approves that architecture? It looks ridiculous, and it sums up what kind of government it is: the half-assed, quick-fix kind.

I agree, the Cork Bus Station has been out of timetables for several important bus routes for some months now but when I request a timetable they tell me to go on the net. I ask why don't you have any? Why can't you request some? They say "We rely on Dublin to send them out, we have the power to send out the timetables when they want to" What a load of CRAP!!!

I mean did you ever hear such a "I'm too lazy to do some work so I'll just tell you a lie" comment in your life?? I know I'm getting off the point but I think it is relevant to this comment

DaveMcG

DaveMcG wrote:

Also, the LUAS bridge in Dundrum, I think it is... The one with loads of huge band-like things attached to one large erection(don't know what to call it, lmao)... What kind of government approves that architecture? It looks ridiculous, and it sums up what kind of government it is: the half-assed, quick-fix kind.

Well, of all the ways of judging the state of the nation, this one beats all.

I just googled 'Chinese bridge' and got this pretty ugly thing...
http://chinadan.com/03china-bridge/poc.bridge-nanjings.jpg

I then tried 'American bridge' and this concrete debacle was thrown back at me...
http://www.earthquakeprotection.com/images/american_river_bridge2.gif

Heck, I even said I'd give the Europeans a chance but, judging by their bridges, things in France are as good or bad as here...
http://pa.water.usgs.gov/malvern/chesco_graphics_files/french_bridge.jpg

I could go on and on. This bridge thing clearly shows that no government anywhere in the world is remotely good.

Interesting...

Viscosity

segaBOY wrote:

I agree, the Cork Bus Station has been out of timetables for several important bus routes for some months now but when I request a timetable they tell me to go on the net. I ask why don't you have any? Why can't you request some? They say "We rely on Dublin to send them out, we have the power to send out the timetables when they want to" What a load of CRAP!!!

I mean did you ever hear such a "I'm too lazy to do some work so I'll just tell you a lie" comment in your life?? I know I'm getting off the point but I think it is relevant to this comment

You should have realised by now that firms in the public sector are in operation solely for the benefit of their employees. Obviously if the staff in Cork were asked to carry out their duties with any level of care they'd need at least a 10% increase.

rsynnott

DaveMcG wrote:

Also, the LUAS bridge in Dundrum, I think it is... The one with loads of huge band-like things attached to one large erection(don't know what to call it, lmao)... What kind of government approves that architecture? It looks ridiculous, and it sums up what kind of government it is: the half-assed, quick-fix kind.

I thought it was quite pretty, as these things go.

Viscosity wrote:

You should have realised by now that firms in the public sector are in operation solely for the benefit of their employees. Obviously if the staff in Cork were asked to carry out their duties with any level of care they'd need at least a 10% increase.

What nonsense. Ever tried private sector public transport, say in the UK? MUCH better than public; obviously; the high prices and crashes are a small price to pay for a variety of different logos on the vehicles.

Viscosity

rsynnott wrote:

What nonsense. Ever tried private sector public transport, say in the UK? MUCH better than public; obviously; the high prices and crashes are a small price to pay for a variety of different logos on the vehicles.

Oh yeah, public sector transport really is the bees knees, thats if you like the feeling of being bent over a barrel and lubed up by trade unions. God forbid we'd like to have some evil capitalist competition with private investors making profits and being in tents at the Galway Races! :rolleyes:

Should I withdraw that statement and state that all public sector employees are fully accountable for their performance and that their main objective is to maintain current impeccable standards of service without so much as a word of complaint or threat of strike action ?

rsynnott

Viscosity wrote:

Oh yeah, public sector transport really is the bees knees, thats if you like the feeling of being bent over a barrel and lubed up by trade unions. God forbid we'd like to have some evil capitalist competition with private investors making profits and being in tents at the Galway Races! :rolleyes:

I'm simply making the point that though public sector public transport isn't the best, private sector public is TERRIBLE. Almost uniformly. Especially where regulation is poor. (The LUAS isn't too bad, but Connex is very much under the thumb of the Railway Procurement Board.)

lucernarian

I thought about joining FF last year, mainly for their current ecomomic policies especially ideas like "a job is the best social welfare" but then I decided it felt too much like selling my soul to the devil:D

They are failing on that now by being incapable of sorting out the economic development, i.e. jobs, for the regions (look at Donegal) or the mess of semi-Ds that is the commuter belt around Dublin in particular. People cant get a job in their own communities now. Anyway, taxes on goods and services as in the stealth taxes are too high and income tax is a bit too low. Lower VAT would help tourism and to a lesser extent exports.

My 2c, MJET.

Cronus333

Fianna Fail are a mess! Anyone except Sinn Fein are better! The only ministers doing anything are the PD ones, and I would vote for them over Fianna Fail anyday....