Apologies if this has been talked about before.
Dossing about on youtube there and found these old clips of Gerry Adams on the late late show in the early 90's. I'm a bit young to remember it properly so it was a bit of an eye opener to see Gay Byrne really trying to grill Gerry like he did, in fact was very surprised to see how they (Gay and the other guests) tried to ambush him and how bad a job they made of it. You don't have to be a fan of Gerry to appreciate it. Very surprised by Gaybo, thought he would have stayed out of politics to a degree, the fact that the audience end up cheering the big man says it all.
Im sure the older crowd would remember this well but its interesting viewing for younger posters (if you have time ;))
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxw4a0e_NmU
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z3t4_0Hjh4&feature=related
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjcqMUhrjI&feature=related
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j44dA9M-gWc&feature=related
5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egom6-LIxdM&feature=related
6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGAr6rLPCqg&feature=related
UTV news reaction after: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wNtuKuZrGs&feature=related
while gaybo was always a bit of an ersewipe, its not surprising that there was this 'fear' or dislike of adams and sf etc because the media propaganda in the south was in overdrive all the time spouting the british slant in pretty much everything.
I recall the likes of dunphy who was akin to gaybo and almost as bad as his 'idol' at the time - conor cruise obrien.
then when the negotiating and real truth got out and the media could no longer paper over the unionist/british intransigence (at best - willfull sectarianism at worst) then dunphy publically admitted he was wrong for all those years and then saw what the nationalist/catholic/working class had to endure up there !
He is just one higher profile media person that had the b@lls to state that he was previously wrong.
But as I said, how could anyone down here think otherwise given the abhorrent propaganda they were being fed.
I watched the all last year.
Adams was unreal.
I remember this well when it was first aired. Gaybo refused to shake hands with Adams (he later said that RTE bosses instructed him not to do so). His line about Hugh Leonard being sanctimonious and theatrical was spot on. RTE's lowest point untill theGAA 125 show ;)
Never liked gaybo....should have run the f**er over when i had the chance in tralee all those years ago.....never forgive myself, but there were worse including
Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards >:(
Remember it well at the time. The total stupidity of RTE lining up a firing squad (don't forget STOOP Austin Currie was also involved) against an individual and the inevitable sympathy that would bring from the audience to an individual as cute as Adams.
But did Gerry not say in one of his books that Gay shook hands with him in the green room later over a bottle of stout?
I once saw Harris in Dublin and had to restrain myself from going over and giving the cnut a mouthful... I honestly don't know if I could restrain myself if I ever bumped into Ruth Puddly Shiteturds >:(
some of the things that was said to adams like calling him a murderer and such like and gay let it go but when adams for instance asked the audience there opinion gay jumped in more or less saying he's out of order,cringe worthy stuff and although i think gay is a wee p***k he is always professional and can make a show out of nothing this was not one of his best moments.
Obviously this is the first ambush Gerry was ever involved in.
No Chris, he was ambushed by loyalists in 1984. Obviously unsuccessfully, thank god :) ;)
To be fair, that was the first time that people in the south who would not be of that political persuasion would have heard Adams speak (without being voiced by an actor).
Baby steps Baby steps.
Quote from: T Fearon on August 10, 2009, 12:58:14 PM
I once saw Harris in Dublin and had to restrain myself from going over and giving the cnut a mouthful... I honestly don't know if I could restrain myself if I ever bumped into Ruth Puddly Shiteturds >:(
tbh never heard of her before but I checked her out and this is an article written by her:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388256/Why-does-Ken-Loach-loathe-country-much.html
apparently she hadnt even seen 'the wind that shakes the barley'. says it all really >:(
Although I disagreed strongly with Gaybo's treatment of Adams that night, you have to put it into context. The IRA were not fully married to the political route. There had been a campaign to bring them into line. Gaybo claimed later that he was under instruction what to do and say.
It was embarassing when he asked him where he got the money to build the house in Donegal.
Definitely not one of Gaybo's best moments.
Quote from: haranguerer on August 10, 2009, 01:35:21 PM
No Chris, he was ambushed by loyalists in 1984. Obviously unsuccessfully, thank god :) ;)
Got me! ;D
Gaybo was always more anglo in his outlook.
He was in his element in the bad days of the 80s.
His shows spent a lot of time lamenting the state of the country, implying that Irish people were unfit for self rule and that we'd be better off being run by the Brits.
That said, back in the 80s and early 90s, Sinn Fein and the IRA weren't exactly winning over hearts and minds down South with their carry on.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on August 10, 2009, 09:39:36 PM
Gaybo was always more anglo in his outlook.
He was in his element in the bad days of the 80s.
His shows spent a lot of time lamenting the state of the country, implying that Irish people were unfit for self rule and that we'd be better off being run by the Brits.
That said, back in the 80s and early 90s, Sinn Fein and the IRA weren't exactly winning over hearts and minds down South with their carry on.
Not doing much better now without their carry on.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 10, 2009, 10:00:15 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on August 10, 2009, 09:39:36 PM
Gaybo was always more anglo in his outlook.
He was in his element in the bad days of the 80s.
His shows spent a lot of time lamenting the state of the country, implying that Irish people were unfit for self rule and that we'd be better off being run by the Brits.
That said, back in the 80s and early 90s, Sinn Fein and the IRA weren't exactly winning over hearts and minds down South with their carry on.
Not doing much better now without their carry on.
20 years ago Sinn Fein got 1.2% of the total vote in a general election. Their current showings of about 6-7% are a fairly big increase.
20 years ago Sinn Fein got 1.2% of the total vote in a general election. Their current showings of about 6-7% are a fairly big increase.
Fair enough, but they were going to do great things at the last election down south and they bombed ( :D ). When times get tight, people vote for people they trust to run the economy. Those with nothing to offer but a whiff of cordite and a few half baked policies on the 'national question' get pushed to one side fairly quickly.
Aye, that crowd in the Dail have done a GREAT job running the country, totally trustworthy ... Christ, you post some shite
QuoteWhen times get tight, people vote for people they trust to run the economy.
I think you put that laughing smiley in the wrong place...
Quote from: red hander on August 10, 2009, 10:35:08 PM
Aye, that crowd in the Dail have done a GREAT job running the country, totally trustworthy ... Christ, you post some shite
But still more trustworthy than Gerry's crowd, obviously. What does that tell you about the Shinners' credibility down south?
Myles na Gobsh, no better man to be spouting about credibility.
That was a hell of a display by Adams. In a cauldron of emotion to keep so calm and get his message across in what was essentially a 5 v 1 debate... even his most ardent critic would admire that performance for intelligence and eloquence.
Quote from: Diet Coke on August 10, 2009, 12:55:26 PM
Never liked gaybo....should have run the f**er over when i had the chance in tralee all those years ago.....never forgive myself, but there were worse including
Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards >:(
Bonus territory getting the three of them at once ;D
Unreal stuff having someone like Hugh Leonard on making out like he was going to burst out crying while describing little girls in wheel chairs etc. "theatrical" as Gerry described it.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 10, 2009, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 10, 2009, 10:35:08 PM
Aye, that crowd in the Dail have done a GREAT job running the country, totally trustworthy ... Christ, you post some shite
But still more trustworthy than Gerry's crowd, obviously. What does that tell you about the Shinners' credibility down south?
Nothing at all.
Quote from: nifan on August 10, 2009, 10:39:05 PM
QuoteWhen times get tight, people vote for people they trust to run the economy.
I think you put that laughing smiley in the wrong place...
ah Myles...ever the clown..
dont forget to paint your face so we can't recognise you ;)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 10, 2009, 10:26:29 PM
When times get tight, people vote for people they trust to run the economy. Those with nothing to offer but a whiff of cordite and a few half baked policies on the 'national question' get pushed to one side fairly quickly.
Would this explain why a fair few Huns voted for Jim Allister, Traditional Unionist Voice instead of the DUP in the last European election?
Sinn Fein 6 V Rest of Ireland 0
Gay's horse was shot before he could work up a gallop.
Weak link, Austin Currie, the sole moderate mouthpiece of the 6 county supremacists got nutmegged time and time again.
Had to be pitied though, when he went on about the RUC should be let do their job.
What planet did he live on?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 10, 2009, 10:26:29 PM
20 years ago Sinn Fein got 1.2% of the total vote in a general election. Their current showings of about 6-7% are a fairly big increase.
Fair enough, but they were going to do great things at the last election down south and they bombed ( :D ). When times get tight, people vote for people they trust to run the economy. Those with nothing to offer but a whiff of cordite and a few half baked policies on the 'national question' get pushed to one side fairly quickly.
Does it then follow that the voters across the water place their trust in the BNP to run the british economy? Yet again more shite from Miley. ::)
Very impressive by Adams alright. And I'd seen him in Trinity around the same time being equally good.
Makes it all the more amazing that Michael McDowell gave him such an ass whuppin on live TV before the last general election.
Quote from: Hound on August 11, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
Very impressive by Adams alright. And I'd seen him in Trinity around the same time being equally good.
Makes it all the more amazing that Michael McDowell gave him such an ass whuppin on live TV before the last general election.
not really
adams is well able to debate and discuss the problems in the northern counties, but he has spent his life on these topics and not in the realm of southern politics that is more about the economy and work/business/health etc - and he doesnt have the experience , background or knowledge in this.
imo adams is past his sell by date by about 5 years at least. His old topics and spheres of knowledge are no longer day to day issues.
He needs to hand over the reigns of sf to someone with a better business mind. the north still has a long way to go to catch up in a business sense with the south and therefore sf would still need co-leaders, one for up there with one here and someone to be the figure head of their party.
they will only become strong when the reunification occurs.
However theres a good chance they will have merged with FF by then !
imo !
Quote from: Main Street on August 11, 2009, 10:49:25 AM
Sinn Fein 6 V Rest of Ireland 0
Gay's horse was shot before he could work up a gallop.
Weak link, Austin Currie, the sole moderate mouthpiece of the 6 county supremacists got nutmegged time and time again.
Had to be pitied though, when he went on about the RUC should be let do their job.
What planet did he live on?
The one over the shuck from yours.
Saying anything about the Ra or their mouthpiece fairly gets the rabble roused in these parts
Quote from: Chrisowc on August 11, 2009, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: Main Street on August 11, 2009, 10:49:25 AM
Sinn Fein 6 V Rest of Ireland 0
Gay's horse was shot before he could work up a gallop.
Weak link, Austin Currie, the sole moderate mouthpiece of the 6 county supremacists got nutmegged time and time again.
Had to be pitied though, when he went on about the RUC should be let do their job.
What planet did he live on?
The one over the shuck from yours.
Saying anything about the Ra or their mouthpiece fairly gets the rabble roused in these parts
who is the 'ra's 'mouthpiece' ?
Quote from: Chrisowc on August 11, 2009, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: Main Street on August 11, 2009, 10:49:25 AM
Sinn Fein 6 V Rest of Ireland 0
Gay's horse was shot before he could work up a gallop.
Weak link, Austin Currie, the sole moderate mouthpiece of the 6 county supremacists got nutmegged time and time again.
Had to be pitied though, when he went on about the RUC should be let do their job.
What planet did he live on?
The one over the shuck from yours.
Saying anything about the Ra or their mouthpiece fairly gets the rabble roused in these parts
You are directing comments to the context of my post?
Austin made a long winded passionate case for the RUC to be allowed get on their job.
So my commenting that he was was another planet equates to being part of a rabble.
You are a bright spark amongst deadwood. ;D
ah Myles...ever the clown..
dont forget to paint your face so we can't recognise you
Thought a ski mask or a balaclava would have been more your style. ;D
Does it then follow that the voters across the water place their trust in the BNP to run the british economy?
Did they win the election across the water then? :o
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 11, 2009, 05:53:24 PM
ah Myles...ever the clown..
dont forget to paint your face so we can't recognise you
Thought a ski mask or a balaclava would have been more your style. ;D
Does it then follow that the voters across the water place their trust in the BNP to run the british economy?
Did they win the election across the water then? :o
No but they had their best ever election results recently and correct me if i'm wrong but 'times are tight' at the minute.
When 'times are tight' history has almost always shown that the voters tend to turn to the more extreme parties, (e.g. Nazis in Depression era Germany - I don't know why, perhaps expecting more radical action?).* You just made up a bullshit line in the vain hope that it would back up your point.
* And I'm sure there are exceptions before you trawl Wikipedia to come up with a case which doesn't conform to this.
The BNP had their best election result for a number of reasons.
1 - The overall turnout was significantly reduced. This affected the bigger parties more than the smaller ones. If the actual number of votes for the BNP increased, it was minimal.
2 - There was some level of protest vote against the bigger parties due to the 'expenses scandal'.
I don't think anyone voted for the BNP believing that they would/could fix the economy.
No but they had their best ever election results recently and correct me if i'm wrong but 'times are tight' at the minute.
When 'times are tight' history has almost always shown that the voters tend to turn to the more extreme parties, (e.g. Nazis in Depression era Germany - I don't know why, perhaps expecting more radical action?).* You just made up a bullshit line in the vain hope that it would back up your point.
* And I'm sure there are exceptions before you trawl Wikipedia to come up with a case which doesn't conform to this.
The Shinners result was considered a stinker because they are a party with ambitions to hold the balance of power in the Dail - they believe, in other words, that there is a realistic chance that they'll be part of the government. By that yardstick, they failed in a big way. The BNP is a party of racists who unexpectedly picked up the votes of a small number of disenchanted white people. You're hardly comparing like with like, are you?
When did I compare the BNP with Sinn Fein? FFS It's like talking to a child.
I'm not sure if you are masquerading as EG now. At least he manages to make some coherent points. You're just an idiot with an agenda.
Quote from: Franko on August 11, 2009, 06:51:50 PM
When did I compare the BNP with Sinn Fein? FFS It's like talking to a child.
I'm not sure if you are masquerading as EG now. At least he manages to make some coherent points. You're just an idiot with an agenda.
:D
Quote from: Franko on August 11, 2009, 06:51:50 PM
When did I compare the BNP with Sinn Fein? FFS It's like talking to a child.
I'm not sure if you are masquerading as EG now. At least he manages to make some coherent points. You're just an idiot with an agenda.
That's very unfair ... to idiots
Quote from: Maguire01 on August 11, 2009, 06:23:18 PM
The BNP had their best election result for a number of reasons.
1 - The overall turnout was significantly reduced. This affected the bigger parties more than the smaller ones. If the actual number of votes for the BNP increased, it was minimal.
2 - There was some level of protest vote against the bigger parties due to the 'expenses scandal'.
I don't think anyone voted for the BNP believing that they would/could fix the economy.
Agreed Maguire01, you a re-inforcing my point.
Myles statement basically said that Sinn Fein had a worse than expected performance at the recent elections because voters turned away from them due to some sort of perceived inability to manage the finances of the country.
I merely pointed out that by his logic, a sizeable portion of the UK electorate must have somehow got it into their heads that the BNP has some sort of economic know-how. (Due to their strong relative performance).
Obviously this is not the case! I was really just pointing out that Miley was spouting rubbish in his quest to get a dig in at the Shinners.
Quote from: Franko on August 11, 2009, 06:51:50 PM
When did I compare the BNP with Sinn Fein? FFS It's like talking to a child.
I'm not sure if you are masquerading as EG now. At least he manages to make some coherent points. You're just an idiot with an agenda.
LMAO :D
He's either a very talented comedian or an escapee from a high security mental home..i have my suspicions which (may even be schizophrenia ;) )
When 'times are tight' history has almost always shown that the voters tend to turn to the more extreme parties, (e.g. Nazis in Depression era Germany - I don't know why, perhaps expecting more radical action?).* You just made up a bullshit line in the vain hope that it would back up your point.
No they don't - they turn to people they think can fix a bad situation. Mussolini made the trains run on time, the Nazis dug Germany out of an economic hole, albeit by building up the country's armed forces. People don't just vote for a bunch of extremists because they're feeling a bit hacked off. My point was that voters down south chose to vote for the established parties, even though they have no great track record on the economy. That shows that the people in the republic have absolutely no faith in the Shinners to fix anything. You chose to drag the BNP into the conversation because you missed the point.
That's very unfair ... to idiots
You're absolutely right to take that personally - complain to the mods. You have a great case.
i have my suspicions which (may even be schizophrenia
You certainly appear to have a few problems in that area.
Great display by Adams at the time though as some have said he is somewhat past his sell by date at this point. That isn't to say that he has nothing to offer to politics in Ireland or that he shouldn't be applauded for his contributions throughout the past 30+ years
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 11, 2009, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Hound on August 11, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
Very impressive by Adams alright. And I'd seen him in Trinity around the same time being equally good.
Makes it all the more amazing that Michael McDowell gave him such an ass whuppin on live TV before the last general election.
not really
adams is well able to debate and discuss the problems in the northern counties, but he has spent his life on these topics and not in the realm of southern politics that is more about the economy and work/business/health etc - and he doesnt have the experience , background or knowledge in this.
imo adams is past his sell by date by about 5 years at least. His old topics and spheres of knowledge are no longer day to day issues.
He needs to hand over the reigns of sf to someone with a better business mind. the north still has a long way to go to catch up in a business sense with the south and therefore sf would still need co-leaders, one for up there with one here and someone to be the figure head of their party.
they will only become strong when the reunification occurs.
However theres a good chance they will have merged with FF by then !
imo !
maybe so but who would you suggest?
'No they don't - they turn to people they think can fix a bad situation. Mussolini made the trains run on time, the Nazis dug Germany out of an economic hole, albeit by building up the country's armed forces. People don't just vote for a bunch of extremists because they're feeling a bit hacked off. My point was that voters down south chose to vote for the established parties, even though they have no great track record on the economy. That shows that the people in the republic have absolutely no faith in the Shinners to fix anything. You chose to drag the BNP into the conversation because you missed the point.'
The Italian people didn't 'turn to' Mussolini ... the Italian Fascist Party came to power in a coup d'etat in 1922 - namely The March on Rome. Also, the German people didn't 'turn' to Hitler either. In every election they contested in Germany more people voted against the Nazis than for them, they never achieved a majority, something Hitler always wanted ... when he saw it would never happen he introduced the Enabling Act to suspend democracy and instigate a dictatorship. Also, Hitler didn't dig Germany out of an economic hole by building up the country's armed forces (a simplistic assumption indeed from the board's biggest simpleton). Most historians agree Germany's economic woes were easing before 1933 and the economy was on the up. Hitler arrived in time to take the credit. He also introducied compulsory (badly-paid i.e cheap) work service for all citizens, he stopped paying any more reparations as ordered by the Versailles treaty and he seized the assets of persecuted Jews, which all aided the inevitable recovery... your continued playing hard and loose with the facts is an education in how to tie oneself up in knots by talking complete and utter shit ... keep it up, it gives everybody a good laugh ;D
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 11, 2009, 09:11:10 PM
No they don't - they turn to people they think can fix a bad situation. Mussolini made the trains run on time, the Nazis dug Germany out of an economic hole, albeit by building up the country's armed forces. People don't just vote for a bunch of extremists because they're feeling a bit hacked off. My point was that voters down south chose to vote for the established parties, even though they have no great track record on the economy. That shows that the people in the republic have absolutely no faith in the Shinners to fix anything. You chose to drag the BNP into the conversation because you missed the point.
I think you will find that they voted for th people tht created the better economy that spawned the celtic tiger, that FG had proven themslves useless prev and had a muppet of a leader that no one wanted in the top position in the dail.
sf are a new party in the south and dont have a lot of verifiable experience so how could people vote for them but your point is not correct that people wouldnt vote for them because they are rubbish, they havent proven anything either way yet !
FF were the only option in the last election which is why they just about got back in
if fg get a new leader though they could win next time out
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 11, 2009, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 11, 2009, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Hound on August 11, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
Very impressive by Adams alright. And I'd seen him in Trinity around the same time being equally good.
Makes it all the more amazing that Michael McDowell gave him such an ass whuppin on live TV before the last general election.
not really
adams is well able to debate and discuss the problems in the northern counties, but he has spent his life on these topics and not in the realm of southern politics that is more about the economy and work/business/health etc - and he doesnt have the experience , background or knowledge in this.
imo adams is past his sell by date by about 5 years at least. His old topics and spheres of knowledge are no longer day to day issues.
He needs to hand over the reigns of sf to someone with a better business mind. the north still has a long way to go to catch up in a business sense with the south and therefore sf would still need co-leaders, one for up there with one here and someone to be the figure head of their party.
they will only become strong when the reunification occurs.
However theres a good chance they will have merged with FF by then !
imo !
maybe so but who would you suggest?
dont know Pog
dont really care either
its far easier taking pot shots from the sideline and not having to come up with a solution though !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 11, 2009, 11:22:23 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 11, 2009, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 11, 2009, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Hound on August 11, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
Very impressive by Adams alright. And I'd seen him in Trinity around the same time being equally good.
Makes it all the more amazing that Michael McDowell gave him such an ass whuppin on live TV before the last general election.
not really
adams is well able to debate and discuss the problems in the northern counties, but he has spent his life on these topics and not in the realm of southern politics that is more about the economy and work/business/health etc - and he doesnt have the experience , background or knowledge in this.
imo adams is past his sell by date by about 5 years at least. His old topics and spheres of knowledge are no longer day to day issues.
He needs to hand over the reigns of sf to someone with a better business mind. the north still has a long way to go to catch up in a business sense with the south and therefore sf would still need co-leaders, one for up there with one here and someone to be the figure head of their party.
they will only become strong when the reunification occurs.
However theres a good chance they will have merged with FF by then !
imo !
maybe so but who would you suggest?
dont know Pog
dont really care either
its far easier taking pot shots from the sideline and not having to come up with a solution though !
Yeah that's what I was thinking, outside of Adams and McGuinness I don't see who they could put in as leader.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 11, 2009, 11:31:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 11, 2009, 11:22:23 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 11, 2009, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 11, 2009, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Hound on August 11, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
Very impressive by Adams alright. And I'd seen him in Trinity around the same time being equally good.
Makes it all the more amazing that Michael McDowell gave him such an ass whuppin on live TV before the last general election.
not really
adams is well able to debate and discuss the problems in the northern counties, but he has spent his life on these topics and not in the realm of southern politics that is more about the economy and work/business/health etc - and he doesnt have the experience , background or knowledge in this.
imo adams is past his sell by date by about 5 years at least. His old topics and spheres of knowledge are no longer day to day issues.
He needs to hand over the reigns of sf to someone with a better business mind. the north still has a long way to go to catch up in a business sense with the south and therefore sf would still need co-leaders, one for up there with one here and someone to be the figure head of their party.
they will only become strong when the reunification occurs.
However theres a good chance they will have merged with FF by then !
imo !
maybe so but who would you suggest?
dont know Pog
dont really care either
its far easier taking pot shots from the sideline and not having to come up with a solution though !
Yeah that's what I was thinking, outside of Adams and McGuinness I don't see who they could put in as leader.
A few years ago it was thought Mary Lou McDonald would be a possibility but her star's dimmed since losing the European seat. Its been ages since I read a Dublin paper so I don't know if she has a high profile any more. Obviously she'd need to get elected somewhere first though I would say!
Not just get elected, but secure a 'safe' seat.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 11, 2009, 11:31:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 11, 2009, 11:22:23 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 11, 2009, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 11, 2009, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Hound on August 11, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
Very impressive by Adams alright. And I'd seen him in Trinity around the same time being equally good.
Makes it all the more amazing that Michael McDowell gave him such an ass whuppin on live TV before the last general election.
not really
adams is well able to debate and discuss the problems in the northern counties, but he has spent his life on these topics and not in the realm of southern politics that is more about the economy and work/business/health etc - and he doesnt have the experience , background or knowledge in this.
imo adams is past his sell by date by about 5 years at least. His old topics and spheres of knowledge are no longer day to day issues.
He needs to hand over the reigns of sf to someone with a better business mind. the north still has a long way to go to catch up in a business sense with the south and therefore sf would still need co-leaders, one for up there with one here and someone to be the figure head of their party.
they will only become strong when the reunification occurs.
However theres a good chance they will have merged with FF by then !
imo !
maybe so but who would you suggest?
dont know Pog
dont really care either
its far easier taking pot shots from the sideline and not having to come up with a solution though !
Yeah that's what I was thinking, outside of Adams and McGuinness I don't see who they could put in as leader.
Conor Murphy
Derek Warfield.
Also, the German people didn't 'turn' to Hitler either. In every election they contested in Germany more people voted against the Nazis than for them, they never achieved a majority, something Hitler always wanted ...
That's the way democracy often works in a first past the post system. Let's put it a different way for the terminally slow of thought - more German people turned to Hitler than turned to any other political leader. As for Mussolini - did he carry out his coup d'etat single handed? Don't think he did, though you can check that on Wiki and get back to me. In fact, Mussolini enjoyed popular support amongst the people of Italy who were looking for someone to establish stability and order in their country.
Have you contacted the mods yet? :D
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 04:59:29 PM
That's the way democracy often works in a first past the post system. Let's put it a different way for the terminally slow of thought - more German people turned to Hitler than turned to any other political leader. As for Mussolini - did he carry out his coup d'etat single handed? Don't think he did, though you can check that on Wiki and get back to me. In fact, Mussolini enjoyed popular support amongst the people of Italy who were looking for someone to establish stability and order in their country.
They didn't have a first-past-the-post system in Germany, they used PR (http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/week2_theweimarconsitution.htm).
QuoteThe Reichstag was the main legislative body under the Weimar constitution. Members of the Reichstag were elected using a system of Proportional Representation based on Universal Suffrage for all adults aged 20 or older. This system worked as follows. Germany was divided into electoral regions. Within each of these regions a political party would put forward a number of candidates. The number of these who became deputies within the Reichstag was based on the total number of votes the party received within that electoral region. One member could be sent for every 60,000 votes cast for the party.
:D :D :D :D
Yep, playing fast and loose with the facts as always
In the 1932 election, Hitler's party took 37% of the vote. Is anybody on here disputing that figure? Is anyone on here disputing that this share of the vote gave Hitler the right to take power?
In your own time...
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 04:59:29 PM
Also, the German people didn't 'turn' to Hitler either. In every election they contested in Germany more people voted against the Nazis than for them, they never achieved a majority, something Hitler always wanted ...
That's the way democracy often works in a first past the post system. Let's put it a different way for the terminally slow of thought - more German people turned to Hitler than turned to any other political leader. As for Mussolini - did he carry out his coup d'etat single handed? Don't think he did, though you can check that on Wiki and get back to me. In fact, Mussolini enjoyed popular support amongst the people of Italy who were looking for someone to establish stability and order in their country.
Have you contacted the mods yet? :D
So let me get this straight...
The Italian people began to support a more extreme leader/party when times were difficult? Hmmmm, sounds familiar...
One of the basic features of democracy Myles is that more extreme parties prosper in difficult socio-economic times. This is a FACT.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 05:36:24 PM
In the 1932 election, Hitler's party took 37% of the vote. Is anybody on here disputing that figure? Is anyone on here disputing that this share of the vote gave Hitler the right to take power?
In your own time...
He had no right to take power on the basis of 37% of the vote. Which might explain why he was unable to take power.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 05:36:24 PM
In the 1932 election, Hitler's party took 37% of the vote. Is anybody on here disputing that figure? Is anyone on here disputing that this share of the vote gave Hitler the right to take power?
In your own time...
Yeah, I am. The 1932 German government was a coalition involving the Nazis and another party. If that 37% of the vote was so impressive, how come the Nazis had a bigger percentage vote in the previous elections ... its vote had peaked and Hitler knew this. If that 37% of the vote was so impressive, how come Hitler and another deputy were the ONLY Nazis given a portfolio in the cabinet. Hitler 'took' power after the 1933 election when he used the pretext of the Reichstag fire to persuade Hindenburg to give him as chancellor the power to suspend habeas corpus and thus instigate a dictatorship ... now, move along there child
In both elections in 1932, the Nazis emerged the largest political party. In normal circumstances, the President would've invited the leader of that party to become Chancellor. The fact that Hindenburg did not speaks volumes for his judgment, but it can't disguise the fact that the Nazi party had more 'right' than any of the other political parties to hold the highest office in the land. In one sense Hindenburg thwarted the democratic wishes of the German people, though he did so in the interests of democracy itself.
How old are you RH? I'm starting to think you're about 14. If that's the case, apologies for my earlier 'idiot' gibes. Very unfair.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 06:03:22 PM
In both elections in 1932, the Nazis emerged the largest political party. In normal circumstances, the President would've invited the leader of that party to become Chancellor. The fact that Hindenburg did not speaks volumes for his judgment, but it can't disguise the fact that the Nazi party had more 'right' than any of the other political parties to hold the highest office in the land. In one sense Hindenburg thwarted the democratic wishes of the German people, though he did so in the interests of democracy itself.
Why vest the elected President with the power to choose a Chancellor if he is just going to rubber-stamp the selection of the leader of the largest party? Fianna Fáil have been the largest party in Ireland after every election since 1932. Presumably you think they had the 'right' to form every government.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 06:03:22 PM
In both elections in 1932, the Nazis emerged the largest political party. In normal circumstances, the President would've invited the leader of that party to become Chancellor. The fact that Hindenburg did not speaks volumes for his judgment, but it can't disguise the fact that the Nazi party had more 'right' than any of the other political parties to hold the highest office in the land. In one sense Hindenburg thwarted the democratic wishes of the German people, though he did so in the interests of democracy itself.
How old are you RH? I'm starting to think you're about 14. If that's the case, apologies for my earlier 'idiot' gibes. Very unfair.
You must be half way to Australia with that hole by now ... if you can't talk any sense, then at least try and base your idiotic diatribes on fact, rather than what pops up in your brain the odd time the tumbleweeds aren't blowing across it
Why vest the elected President with the power to choose a Chancellor if he is just going to rubber-stamp the selection of the leader of the largest party? Fianna Fáil have been the largest party in Ireland after every election since 1932. Presumably you think they had the 'right' to form every government.
Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall majority? While a president isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp, neither is he or she in place to thwart what the eletorate votes for. If two or three smaller parties manage to put together a coalition, it is right and proper that the leading job should go to someone from one of those (whether or not the president agrees with that choice). My point about the German election is that there was no obvious alternative to Hitler, given that the smaller parties seemed unable to put together a stable and durable coalition of interests.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 06:38:02 PM
Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall majority? While a president isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp, neither is he or she in place to thwart what the eletorate votes for. If two or three smaller parties manage to put together a coalition, it is right and proper that the leading job should go to someone from one of those (whether or not the president agrees with that choice). My point about the German election is that there was no obvious alternative to Hitler, given that the smaller parties seemed unable to put together a stable and durable coalition of interests.
You're just babbling now. There is no inherent right for the largest party to form the government in any parliamentary system - otherwise Fianna Fáil would have never been out of government since 1932. There is no inherent right to the largest party providing the leader of the government - Lloyd George was the PM after the 1918 election even though the Tories were the largest party. There is not even an inherent right for the leader of any party to become the leader of the government - John Costelloe was never leader of Fine Gael and Gladstone was not leader of the Liberals for his third and fourth stints as PM. Different countries have different systems. Learning what they are would be useful.
You're just babbling now. There is no inherent right for the largest party to form the government in any parliamentary system - otherwise Fianna Fáil would have never been out of government since 1932. There is no inherent right to the largest party providing the leader of the government - Lloyd George was the PM after the 1918 election even though the Tories were the largest party. There is not even an inherent right for the leader of any party to become the leader of the government - John Costelloe was never leader of Fine Gael and Gladstone was not leader of the Liberals for his third and fourth stints as PM. Different countries have different systems. Learning what they are would be useful.
My apologies - my first sentence is unclear and makes the rest of the point seem nonsensical. Allow me to edit:
Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall parliamentary majority?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 07:45:36 PM
Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall parliamentary majority?
I don't think it should be allowed. But that doesn't mean it would be inconceivable. As recently as 1975 an unelected proxy for the head of state in a liberal democracy was able to remove the leader of a government with an absolute majority in the directly elected chamber. Whether I think this was acceptable is neither here nor there. It happened and it was legitimate.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 07:45:36 PM
Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall parliamentary majority?
The unquenchable desire to revise history.
More nonsense in relation to the Nazis, they did not hold an overall parliamentary majority when Hitler grabbed power.
Largest parliamentary party and largest minority party are 2 different things.
The Nazis electorial base was seriously waning when according to all respected historians Hitler grabbed power easily enough with he Reichstag fire ruse.
Quote from: Main Street on August 12, 2009, 08:41:45 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 12, 2009, 07:45:36 PM
Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall parliamentary majority?
The unquenchable desire to revise history.
More nonsense in relation to the Nazis, they did not hold an overall parliamentary majority when Hitler grabbed power.
Largest parliamentary party and largest minority party are 2 different things.
The Nazis electorial base was seriously waning when according to all respected historians Hitler grabbed power easily enough with he Reichstag fire ruse.
The unquenchable desire to misinterpret posts. I didn't say the Nazis had an overall majority. I was asking a question on a point of principle.
Carry on.
I can follow quite well how you could not support your point that the people turned to Mussolini (plus using that tired worn train cliche) and slithering into a maze of trying to put sense on your statement that the German people turned to Hitler in times of desperation.
The German people were turning away from Hitler in their millions, he knew it and Goebbels knew it.
Your history is not knowledgable, just a mish mash of accepting cliches that stuck with you since 3rd grade European history.