Messages

Hopefully whoever does come in can sort out the defence. For example, start by never playing Can at centre back again!  That "clearance" across the goal was plainly the act of someone who has rarely played there growing up and has not been properly coached in how to play there.  Should have eased it out for a corner with his right, nice and easy. And he did the same last week against Villa, but then the big lad up front for them hit his shot just wide in the first half.

Sorry for Rodgers personally,  but it was past time. But he will always be remembered for 13-14. One of the best sides to watch, ever! And it just made the turgid, fearful,  shite since then look so much worse in comparison.

Still in shock about it all this morning. I was down through the area a few months back on a family road trip. I've thought a lot about the conviction of those who were shot and if I would be so bold and brave when asked if I was Christian knowing that a yes would mean execution. I pray for their strength.

Something needs to be done in this country. I think we're passed the point of no return though. There are just too many guns out there and too much access to them. Would a ban or an amnesty even make a difference?

We won't stay too many more years at this rate.

Why the hell would anyone answer in the affirmative that they were Christian after seeing this psychopath mow down others?

Conviction me arse. Do what you have to to live and get back to your family and f**k that deranged judge and executioner.  Any concept of god that would supposedly hold that against someone is fucked up.

FFS! Isn't the whole problem that people are ALLOWED to carry guns. Why make sure no one is carrying a gun, AFTER a shooting?

Obviously to make sure the threat is gone or contained inside the building, no? And those who are carrying a piece will obviously have to tell the cop and produce their permit. One would assume that further investigation or interviews would be necessary to rule out any participation.

As for what would I have them do? Either there is a threat or not. Get them as far away as possible, as quickly as possible, and thus to safety. If they believed there is a shooter, then they simply lined everyone up as cannon fodder. As Last Man said it is just for show.

You don't understand that in a real time situation that they might not know if there is still a threat? These mass shooters don't always work alone.

And how do you know that they were not safe in whatever location these checks were taking place? Where is "safe" in your opinion? Where might they not be at risk to be cannon fodder? Are you just going have them run randomly in all directions just in case there is a sniper up in a tree somewhere? How would you control the situation to ensure that the gunman or gunmen did not escape to kill some more?

I've been through active shooter drills and that is exactly how you are supposed to respond - walking out with hands up. In that situation the cops have no idea who is a threat and who isn't.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Also, are they not risking lining up civilian targets for a shooter?

Look at the body language of the cops in the first photo. Do they look like they believe they are in immediate danger from one of those in front of them?

Who is talking about guilt? It's about getting people out safely and making sure no one is carrying a weapon or has a chance to draw one. Just what would you have them do?

As for lining them up,  it depends on where they are doing the search, doesn't it? These mass murderers generally don't attack crowds filled with armed cops. They may already have killed him by then. But again,  what would you have them do.

This is about saving lives, not worrying about hurt feelings.

I've been through active shooter drills and that is exactly how you are supposed to respond - walking out with hands up. In that situation the cops have no idea who is a threat and who isn't.

[McGuinness] must have a short memory because it wasn't that long ago that he blocked my wife and I from going on a team holiday. The phrase; pot, kettle, black springs to mind!! But then again for me the words Jim McGuinness and hypocrisy go hand in hand!

Thanks for that GBB - that answers my question!

Cassidy is full of shit. He received his voucher. That is these seven lads DID NOT GET and what the row is over. If McGuinness was complaining about not being allowed to go on the trip, THEN that would be hypocrisy!

John Fogarty: Were you compensated for not being invited on the team holiday?

Kevin Cassidy: "Yeah, in fairness they looked after us with a voucher. I wouldn't have been happy with how I was dealt with but that's for another day."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/you-miss-out-on-a-medal-but-its-not-going-to-pay-your-bills-208461.html

For the same reason that he kicked Cassidy off the squad trip that year. Hypocrisy.

He kicked Cassidy off the panel because of hypocrisy?

You will have to explain that!

My understanding is that Cassidy was kicked off the panel because he gave (a relatively innocent) insight into what went on within the squad, and as such was deemed to have broken some sort of confidence?

Jim McGuinness is now airing an issue on a national stage which would probably be better kept within Donegal - by publcising it he has cast a light on issues that reflect badly on the County - as the headline says, airs dirty linen in public.

In light of that, I would have thought that it could be argued that McGuinness was being inconsistent in his approach, or as Shane has alluded to, hypocritical. It was why I posed the question originally as to what Cassidy's thoughts on that headline might be.

But its almost a year since the holiday in question. McGuinness, according to his article, exhausted all other avenues to no avail. Had the county board done as they should have done before now, he wouldn't have written the article. He has been writing for the Times since May or so, and has been on tv all summer, and never mentioned a word. Neither did anyone else.

Cassidy, on the other hand, went behind his back and spilled the beans on what was taking place within the camp. Now you can make an argument that McGuinness overreacted given what was actually put in the book (Brian Dawkins stuff aside), but that is beside the point. There was no need for Cassidy to "air dirty linen" at all. McGuinness, on the other hand, acted out of frustration on behalf of himself and six others.

They're not equivalent at all.

Just looking at some of the older players with a lot of miles on the clock some possibles that jump out

Dublin - Cluxton, Bastic and the two Brogans
Kerry - O'Se, O'Mahoney and Galvin
Mayo - Moran and Dillon
Tyrone - Kavanagh
Monaghan - Clerkin, McAdam,
Donegal - Gallagher, Toye, McFadden, McGee, Lacey and  Durcan I think is gone off/going off to the Middle East
Cork - Donncha o'Connor

Lots of big names there.

Probably a few more of the fringe squad guys who might be edged out.

For Kerry you have Cooper, Donaghy, Darran O'Sullivan and Sheehan too.
For Donegal you could add McGlynn to the mix.
For Monaghan you could add Gollogy, Mone, Lennon, Corey and Finlay.

McGlynn has a few years left in him yet, assuming the commitment is not an issue.

13 reported dead so far - fI can't wrap my head around why anyone would do it - just snuff out innocent lives like that  - there is no reason

There is, every single shooter was a fox network watchin, gun totin, redneck, trump supportin far right nutjob, just ask 99% of the liberals on here!

Don't think I've ever read anything close to that here.

The issue with the Fox News/NRA crowd is their complete and utter unwillingness to cede even a inch towards doing something about free, unchecked, access to guns by anyone and everyone.

The only chance of any action being taken would be if this shooter turned out to be a muslim.

[says that moral law has to come before the constitution:]

She is not issuing a religious marriage certificate, or working for a religious institution Iceman, so her religion is completely irrelevant.

I don't think there is anything in there that says she has to be issuing a religous marriage certificate.
What she was doing or being asked to do went against her religious beliefs and accommodation has been made as a result to change her duties. I'm just pointing out what happened.

The Pope met her, the Pope supports what she is doing and says that moral law has to come before the constitution:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/

You don't have to agree with what he says - I'm just clarifying his position as reported.

He's very much wrong, as is anyone else who believes it.

Moral law can't supersede the law of man?
What about in regard to slavery? Slavery was legal. If you lived in this country at the time and you found slaves on the run it was your constitutional duty to return them to their rightful owner. Would you? Or would you let moral law supersede man's law?
In other countries the stoning of women is part of the law - given the situation and the opportunity would you stand idly by while it happened or intervene because morally its wrong?

Don't think he meant "can't". The way I read it, his objection is to "has to".

Obviously it depends on what issue you are talking about, as with your examples.

I suppose this is back in the limelight now after the Oregon shooting this morning.

For a few hours anyway...

I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"

Plus ca change....

Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.

She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it

One would have thought he could have picked a better example than a right wing nutjob, who is a pawn for political opportunists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Huckabee and Cruz (who were falling over themselves to visit her in jail). The fact the she was "saved" after her four marriages does not save her from the sin of hypocrisy - as a sinner, surely she should have followed Jesus' teachings of judge not, lest ye be judged?

And if she was truly a principled Christian, she would have sacrificed her salary and standing in the community by resigning from her job, and stating exactly why she felt she had to do so. Instead she is trying to keep the gig, whilst still denying other Americans their constitutional rights. As Pope Francis should know, you can't be half crucified. He picked the wrong "martyr" to visit.

I don't know how she is a hypocrite. She admits her wrongdoings - she isn't championing adultery today, she isn't advocating marriage and re-marriage. Can't someone repent and be forgiven and move on?

The constitution allows religious freedom and calls for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion. I agree she could quit but she was elected and the majority of people therefore supported her appointment knowing full well who she was and what she stood for. Someone else can issue the licenses (as has happened).

the Pope is giving the message that you dont want to hear. He is all for traditional marriage. He is all for loving everyone and calling everyone out of their sin.

Someone is issuing the licenses after the courts ordered it. She could have done that from the start, but she wanted to grandstand and have her 15 minutes. She has no right to deny these people marriage licenses and should have been impeached.

I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"

Plus ca change....

Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.

She's not even catholic (well isn't now at least). She was "saved" recently which means the four marriages no longer count and she is not in fact a hypocrite! 

But yeah, the pope is mistaken here. She is no martyr or persecuted victim fighting the "good fight".

All this woman needs to do to satisfy her "conscience" is to resign her position. If you can't meet the requirements of the job, there are plenty out there who can.

Yes but faith must have some basis all the same

Cultural tradition and "god of the gaps" can explain it, but it is hardly a robust basis.

Intuition would probably be the predominant basis followed by tradition.
The "God of the Gaps" basis would only be true if it there was an empirical God, which would be contrary to faith.

You don't think people rationalize and explain faith based on the concept of god of the gaps?

I don't get your meaning regarding the empirical god bit.

Yes but faith must have some basis all the same

Cultural tradition and "god of the gaps" can explain it, but it is hardly a robust basis.