How about Eddie Hobbs for our next MOF?

Brendan Burgess said:
The new party is certainly proving attractive to opinion formers.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...ace-in-party-says-lucinda-creighton-1.2059679
Click to expand...
She should name the party Je suis Charlie.

Her rejection of Dr Selim on the grounds that freedom of speech is the be all is a tad hypocritical. You can respect FoS and still ask that papers desist from publishing inflammatory material. Or was she accusing him of being in some way supportive of the attack?

Many countries have laws against incitement to hatred so FoS is not as absolute a moral imperative as Lucy suggests.

Of course the telling thing is Lucy's appeal to fundamentalists of whatever persuasion.
 
Last edited:
Purple {country has drifted strongly to the left }?

I do not think so .
1. Flat rate type charges are rightish.
2. Making sure Variable rate mortgage rates stay high is rightish.
3. Putting economy ahead of social spending is rightish.
4. Allowing the property market to re-heat is rightish.
5. Not sorting social housing is rightish.
6. Reducing income tax ,whilst we have homelessness is uncaring (rightish)
7. Negativity on refugees is rightish.

I think country has drifted into a self protectionist and fear filled me-feiner type mindset, and that's not good.
Maybe that's both on rightish and leftish ?
 
Gerry Canning said:
Purple {country has drifted strongly to the left }?


I do not think so .

1. Flat rate type charges are rightish.
Click to expand...
Not when people on low incomes don’t pay most of them.

Gerry Canning said:
2. Making sure Variable rate mortgage rates stay high is rightish.
Click to expand...
No it’s not.

Gerry Canning said:
3. Putting economy ahead of social spending is rightish.
Click to expand...
No, making sure that unsustainable spending doesn’t derail the economy is just sensible.

Gerry Canning said:
4. Allowing the property market to re-heat is rightish.
Click to expand...
No, it’s just stupid. Keeping mortgage rates high helps to counter that problem.

Gerry Canning said:
5. Not sorting social housing is rightish.
Click to expand...
No, not having social housing is right wing. Having it is centralist/ left wing (and a good thing in my opinion).

Gerry Canning said:
6. Reducing income tax ,whilst we have homelessness is uncaring (rightish)
Click to expand...
No, it’s populist. We have massively increased income taxes on high earners while not reducing welfare rates or pensions and we still, by international standards, massively over tax high earners relative to low and middle income earners. That’s hardly right wing.

Gerry Canning said:
7. Negativity on refugees is rightish.
Click to expand...
No, it’s racist. There’s no monopoly on that.

Gerry Canning said:
I think country has drifted into a self protectionist and fear filled me-feiner type mindset, and that's not good. Maybe that's both on rightish and leftish ?
Click to expand...
I think the country has always been in that mindset and that’s the root cause of our problems.
 
Reactions: Leo
Purple ,
I used (rightish) not as a mandatory call but to slightly differentiate and maybe I too fell into this (lazy left-right) language.

1. Flat rate charges.
Private home owners on low wages can get deferral on property taxes but it keeps clocking up .

2. High SVR is wrong and I don,t see our (rightish) Government sorting.

3. Agreed unsustainable spending is out , then why borrow to reduce taxes?

4.Agreed = stupid.

5.Agreed.

6.Agreed ,its populist to reduce taxes, but reducing pensions/welfare is hardly fair/sensible?

7.Agreed, sadly both Pinkos or Blueshirts have rascists.

Purple on {mindset} wouldn,t you think having our 100 year be -muddled history we would have more sense ?
 
Negativity on Refugees is Racist! Well, that's 1 way to shut down a debate
 
Delboy,

{negativity on Refugees is Rascist!}

I had hoped that my short comment would be taken in a fuller sense, not just jumped on as a bald fact.
To clarify,
I perceive an anti refugee bias that has minimal bearing on the plight refugees have versus any perceived threat they might bring.

Its difficult on a short thread to fully expand and I wouldn,t wish to close off debate.
 
Racism is a much abused term. The dictionary definition refers to a belief that persons inherit different traits because of their race. When I see the outrageous behaviour of Germany's refugees I do not afford them the defence that they couldn't help it - they inherited it. No, they got it from their culture (ok still maybe not their fault you could argue). And I for one refuse to accept that it is politically incorrect to abhor certain cultures.
 
Duke,

No one disagrees that you can abhor certain cultures.

Within the bulk of refugee cultures ,mostly Islam at present , there is zilch support or cultural inheritance in Islam, of the actions of those few thugs.
There is NO way those thugs inherited those traits.

To say so is bit like saying because of the Provos or Dissidents{all Paddies are inherited terrorists }

We don,t all (inherit) the (traits) of the misguided.

More importantly we can,t all be tarred with a negative brush.
 
Gerry Canning said:
To say so is bit like saying because of the Provos or Dissidents{all Paddies are inherited terrorists }
Click to expand...
You have a tad misunderstood my reference to inheritance but here is a perfect example. The majority of catholics in NI were reasonably law abiding citizens but there is no doubt that there was an underlying culture in the bulk of that community that tacitly supported the terrorist campaign. (I suggest we avoid arguing whether that cultural disposition was justified or not.)

The fact is that the actual perpretators of abhorrent behaviour are usually in a minority - I presume that this is even true of Nazi Germany. So I am afraid that in certain circumstances it is justified to tar whole cultures with the same brush.
 
This is seriously off topic but I have just been reading an interesting insert in today's Indo. It purports to be a reproduction of the issue at the time of the rising. Lots and lots of references to O'Connell Street. But on the front page there are adverts citing Sackville Street. Wiki then informs me that Sackville Street was not renamed O'Connell Street until 1924. Ho Hum
 
Duke,

In NO way did the bulk (tacitly support the terrorist campaign).
What was clear is that they could identify where the terror campaign came out of , but again in NO way was it supported.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Duke,

In NO way did the bulk (tacitly support the terrorist campaign).
What was clear is that they could identify where the terror campaign came out of , but again in NO way was it supported.
Click to expand...
Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Bobby Sands etc. winning handsome electoral majorities. I am not sure how you square these facts with your assertion. Possibilities are:

1. These people were in fact elected by protestant votes .
2. They were indeed elected by catholics but in the belief that their supposed involvement in the violent campaign was government lies.
3. Because of discrimination catholics lacked the literacy to understand how the electoral ballot worked.

None of these seem very convincing but perhaps you can help clarify the matter.
 
Not sure what all this has to do with Eddie Hobbs, so I'll make a point to get us back on topic.

Was Eddie Hobbs not doing adverts telling us to buy Bulgarian properties just before the crash?
 
I thought it was the Cape Verde islands, the ones that are 2 hours flying time south of the Canaries and without a natural source of freshwater!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register