97 thoughts on “De Sunday Papers

    1. bisted

      …the proud part that Broadsheet played in the downfall of crooked Hillary is acknowledged globally…but in fairness…she did play a small part herself…

    2. Clampers Outside

      Hahahahahahahahaha…..
      *cough*… sorry, you were sayin’….
      .
      .

      “Bring out your gimps!”

      *rings bell and flagelates some more*

      “Bring out your gimps!”

      repeat

    1. classter

      @Adama

      My understanding of of Chris’ comment is that given that Trump is turning out to be (see newspaper above for demonstration) every bit as destructive & embarrassing as one might have predicted, whether BS now regrets (even a little bit) their embarrassingly one-sided and frankly weird pro-Trump/anti-Clinton coverage.

      Did you really, honestly not understand that?
      ‘Cause you should have.

      But if you did, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

  1. justpassing

    Very bad news for The Irish Times. Will any of female reporters have anything to say about THAT story? Or will they all go to ground? Discriminating against new mothers!!! What has Miriam Lord, Orna Mulcahy, Eileen Battersby, Breda O’Brien, Kathy Sheridan, Una Mullally to say about this? Very little, I suspect. They and the paper ought to be ashamed of themselves.

          1. Frilly Keane

            Heh?

            Who d’ F U
            Are you

            Annuder Blow In …. Annunder spineless shirt changer
            Were you even here this time last week?

            You’re nothing but a disposable hankie lad
            Make a bitta’ve nuisance of yourself
            Make a show ‘ve yerself
            And end up getting your own snot all over yourself
            Bin yourself

            And dress up into a new shirt by next week

          2. Neil is a gum

            You take yourself and this whole blogging thing a bit too seriously I feel. If you tried writing in full sentences and coherent phrasing maybe others would take your drivel seriously as well.

    1. Mourning Ireland

      You forgot Jennifer O’Connell and the serially appalling Roisín Ingle winched in to do “The Women’s Podcast”.

      They’ll do nothing of course.

    2. classter

      @justpassing
      Do you know any of the facts of the case? Did you feel it was a fair judgement from the Workplace Relations Commission? Or unusually tough/lax/etc.?

      I don’t pay for the Murdoch press so I haven’t read their story & Bodger’s post elsewhere has a screenshot of only the most limited set of details.

      Fancy filling the rest of us in on the relevant details?

  2. Listrade

    Nope, nothing at all happened yesterday that would be worthy if hitting the front pages.

    Goddamned lefties media.

    Not one mention of Liverpool getting knocked out the FA cup.

          1. Neil is a gum

            It was extremely interesting to see how good he actually was at that time. There were several ones where he chipped the goalkeeper from the edge of the box for example. One in particular v Chelsea where left Terry, Cech and Ivanovic standing around looking like spare opposite of lady parts. He was literally unplayable.

          2. rotide

            It amuses me to see liverpool fans come out with this sort of guff.

            If he was ‘literally unplayable’, then Liverpool would have won the league at a canter. He wasn’t and they didn’t. He’s a good player overshadowed by far greater ones from his peer group and country.

          3. bertie blenkinsop

            Here’s the thing –
            you don’t have to be a Liverpool fan to recognise that Torres was a special talent in the same way that you don’t have to be a United fan to acknowledge that 4 or 5 years ago Rooney was superb, all you need to do is cast aside the blinkers that some feel they’re obliged to wear as a part of club allegiance.

          4. Brother Barnabas

            similar in more ways than just the extraordinary, explosive early talent – similar too in the rapid, premature decline

            as an arsenal fan, while I should maybe enjoy it, I find it sad watching both Torres and Rooney scramble around, fairly pathetically, trying to find a flicker of what they once both had

          5. Brother Barnabas

            well, yes and no. I’m not sure wenger was ever quite as brilliant as a in-their-peak rooney or torres

            wenger’s humbling decline is more of a Michael Owen

          6. Neil is a gum

            They did finish second and win the champions league. Igor Biscan and Djimi Traore were playing. I’d call that over achieving but whatever.

          7. rotide

            You seem to be under the impression that Torres played for Liverpool when they won the champions league

          8. esǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            It’s okay rotide… I got this one…
            Neil is a gowl girl, masquerading as a boy.

            It’s easy when you’re psychic. ;-)

          9. rotide

            Sure you were.

            Not that benitez or indeed liverpool of that time had been mentioned. only torres.

            but of course you were talking about rafa.

          10. Neil is a gum

            I was having a nice chat with my mate Bertie until you got involved rotide. As usual you added zero to the discussion.

        1. Loan Some Cow Boy

          rotide – seriously mate are you ok?

          You seem to be somewhat deficient in the old social skills department.

          1. classter

            That’s not this works ‘Neil is a gum’

            Other can comment whether you want them getting involved or not.

  3. Twunt

    Lots of bleeding hearts getting all worked up about Trumps ban. I don’t remember them saying much when Obama stopped Iraqi refuges back in 2011. I suppose, in their perfectly partisan world view, Obama could only do good, Trump can only do bad.

    1. Nigel

      I’d say your memory and interpretation are entirely truthful, accurate and reliable and not amother stupid false equivalence at all at all.

      1. classter

        Do you see no difference in the two cases?

        Obama’s ban involved a delay in processing visas from one country based on carrying out additional background checks. It was against the backfrop of a president who spoke widely and thoughtfully about interfaith relations.

        Trumps’ ban has (almost arbitrarily) chosen seven Muslim countries, the nationals of which have not been known for their involvement in anti US terror. It is to last 90 days (and will then be reviewed so perhaps much longer). It comes from a President who has exploited fears of Islam & Islamic terrorism for political gain.

        If you don’t see the difference between the two scenarios you have being either willfullyor unconsciously obtuse.

    2. Neil is a gum

      I’m sure you will find it in your heart one day to be a bit more reflective and less deliberately obtuse

  4. jimmy russell

    How could trump keep his campaign promises?!?!?!?! he is literally hitler I cant even right now I’m literally shaking

      1. Listrade

        But Neil it isn’t a ban on Muslims. It’s only a ban on some countries with a Muslim majority that Trump doesn’t have business deals with and haven’t as of yet had any link terrorism in the US.

        Those from “minority” religions from those countries will be fast tracked and not subject to additional scrutiny…but it isn’t a Muslim ban you bleading heart fake newser as there’s no mention on Mulsim in the text (text that is practically unreadable and authorities can’t interpret).

    1. The Real Chris

      Well Hitler was renowned for keeping his campaign promises. Including promised referendums including removing Germany from, which in turn dissolved, the League of Nations. Every kept campaign promise was a slow clap towards complete and total global conflict. But there’s clearly no parallels here, it’s just a bunch of old stuff that happened.

  5. Deluded

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
    On the 22nd January 2009, his second day in office, President Obama signed an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. He said that the internment and mistreatment of innocent people was counterproductive and terrorists should stand trial in the US or the country they attacked.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13492
    This order was rejected by a military judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, on a technical point saying that a pause in prosecutions while transfers were organised would impede the detainees right to speedy prosecution.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100017133
    While the matter was being debated the Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman added a provision to the appropriations bill to block any funds to move detainees.
    Republicans said that military bases in America that housed prisoners would become targets, they even claimed that terror suspects would be held in city jails and among the general population.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19585886/ns/politics/t/what-are-alternatives-guantanamo/
    Provisions in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act further impeded the movement of detainees to the US or other countries, effectively securing that Guantanamo Bay would remain open until Congress (i.e. the Republican party) voted to close it.

    Now Obama is widely reported as “releasing terrorists” when the military has processed these detainees and cannot bring them to trial or has handed them over to other authorities which Republicans once claimed was right.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/18/steny-hoyer/hoyer-correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/
    Trump claims that torture works and that he will fill up Guantanamo again.
    The US is slipping back into terrorism in its war against selected clients.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956
    “Not a single American was killed on U.S. soil by citizens from any of those countries (listed by Trump) between 1975 and 2015, according to statistics tallied by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.”

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            Are you pro-Trump jusayinlike? Not attempting to have a go or anything, it’s a genuine question.

    1. Deluded

      Interesting, the White House are claiming it’s not about Muslims.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/muslim-ban-statement-removed-from-donald-trumps-website/
      Apparently people are now trying to draw an equivalence between Obama’s visa waiver programme and Trump’s ban because Trump used the same list.
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/no-barack-obama-jimmy-carter-9717520

      The business connection is purely coincidental yet believable which shows my bias.

      “Section 1, Purpose” of Trump’s order cites 9/11 as a reason yet the countries those terrorists were from are unaffected by this ban.
      http://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-trumps-executive-order-on-refugees-travel-restrictions/
      (The ban was first proposed by Trump in response to the Orlando nightclub shooting which was committed by a US citizen born in New York.)

      1. Clampers Outside!

        Fair play for showing your own bias…. it can still get ya lynched by the mob around here, but kudos from me.

        Great work Deluded on the links and reading material… some of those I haven’t seen… more reading for me :)

      1. EightersGonnaEight

        Forget about what Obama did or didn’t do. He’s gone. It’s history. Get on with the present and the future.

      2. Deluded

        That’s true, f_lawless, I hadn’t considered it so I looked it up.
        Torture was authorised so that made prosecuting agents practically impossible.
        Pursuing those who authorised it was politically impossible, Bush would claim they were working in the national interest.
        Obama had to let it go, he had to “pick his battles” as he rapidly ran out of political capital.
        (The only reason I looked at any of this was because Trump and Trumpets keep referring to Obama. They are using half-truths and lies to claim precedent.
        I happen to believe that not all politicians are as bad as each other. I think that understanding the difference is important)

        1. kneel issa or go home

          Not entirely accurate though Deluded. My understanding is President Obama made unprecedented use of executive orders. Trump is merely pointing to that as precedent. Some folks did warn about this at the time as well.

          1. Deluded

            Good point.
            The danger of extending executive power was flagged at the time. (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/12/31/commentary/world-commentary/obama-limits-executive-power/)
            I though a comparison could be made with JFK’s cabinet and how he reorganised the power structure, appointing his younger brother and inexperienced people (with JFK at the centre of control) while side-lining his vice-president.
            In an effort to “get something done” the temptation is to tinker with the system.

  6. Deluded

    Obama supported TPP because, he said, “if we don’t establish rules — norms — for how trade and commerce are conducted in the Asia-Pacific region, then China will.”
    “They’re sure not worried about labor standards, or environmental standards, or human trafficking or anti-corruption measures,”
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/pushing-tpp-president-obama-argument-trump-clinton/story?id=41074632
    However TPP was widely opposed for varying reasons (even though it would make little difference to US law) and was not expected to pass.
    http://fortune.com/2016/08/17/obama-tpp-congress-lame-duck-trade/
    Perhaps Clinton or Sanders had an alternative plan to raise standards among their trading partners to a US level (small steps, I know) while appeasing concerns listed in the Fortune link regarding automation, pharmaceutical profits and currency speculation, maybe even limiting corporate power which was a concern of many.
    https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-finished-off-tpp-but-what-is-his-real-trade-agenda/
    We are now depending on Republicans to apply the checks and balances but I expect a lot of tokenism and handwringing while any judges that find against them are branded as enemies of the people for doing their job.
    http://www.theonion.com/article/i-promise-work-tirelessly-achieve-my-campaigns-goa-55094

    1. Neil is a gum

      I don’t know. I would not dismiss all Republicans as simians and neither would I embrace all Democrats.
      I believe Trump will energise opposed factions even within his own party but it will take some meteoric event to truly rouse them from feeding at the trough of self-interest.

  7. Mourning Ireland

    Niamh Horan- surely shades of orange is more in her keeping a straight face on the matter ?

  8. Deluded

    Good point.
    The danger of extending executive power was flagged at the time. (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/12/31/commentary/world-commentary/obama-limits-executive-power/)
    I though a comparison could be made with JFK’s cabinet and how he reorganised the power structure, appointing his younger brother and inexperienced people (with JFK at the centre of control) while side-lining his vice-president.
    In an effort to “get something done” the temptation is to tinker with the system.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie