De Thursday Papers

at

MORE to folly

53 thoughts on “De Thursday Papers

    1. some old queen

      Interesting comment on that article.

      it’s no coincidence that fascism arrived soon after radio went mainstream. These “populist” movements follow naturally from advances in mass communication.

      People want to believe all sorts of silly nonsense. It’s not that long ago since we here in Ireland had statues of our lady in fields holding aerobic classes?

      1. LW

        I agree SOQ, as someone said the other night, there’s an almost religious level of faith involved in believing some of these conspiracies

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            This is why I married you, and not that harpy down below.

            Pay her no heed. She’s just JEALOUS.

    1. barelylegal

      he’s beyond stupid jusayinlike, there’s literally nothing there, he’s like a yellow pack version of Lowry

    1. Clampers Outside!

      Oh yeah… and still not one single word of support from the so called “Women’s March” organisers…. Isnt that because they support the regime, and are pro-Sharia…

      G’wan Iran!

      1. LW

        Good old Clampers, you didn’t get far into 2018 without another misinformed, hypocritical rant. Remember how angry you got about people taking silence to imply support?

        “if you are silent on a topic, and haven’t voiced upset, then you are painted into the corner with those who upset the leftist regressives.”

        Good to see you’re continuing your proud tradition of posting stuff you haven’t even bothered to read.

    2. Taunton

      BuzzFeed recently posted an article ’37 Things White People Need To Stop Ruining In 2018′.

      It is run by a black woman who appears to have race and gender issues.

    3. Listrade

      Clampers. Read. The. Fupping. Buzzfeed. Article.

      Disclaimer, I hate Buzzfeed. But, they don’t claim it is from years ago as you state. They clearly explain, in the lede that it is a still from a contemporary video taken in December. They don’t claim it is from years ago at all, in fact it couldn’t be clearer that the picture referenced is contemporary. All they state is that the picture is part of a separate movement that has been ongoing since June whereby women protest on a Wednesday by removing their hijab. They’ve been posting images and videos online for months using #WhiteWednesday.

      The issue is that this is a separate protest that has been ongoing. It may well feed into the current protest. It may well have helped galvanise a spirit of protest. But it came first and was independent.

      You either didn’t read it, or you did and decided to lie. Neither is a good look.

      BTW, the photo they talk about being from years ago is this one:

      https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosebuchanan/trump-was-shown-a-picture-of-women-in-mini-skirts-in?utm_term=.ekWE4Qwg8#.ecoxMX6kO

      Maybe you got confused reacting to a tweet that confirmed your own bias.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        The tweet I shared says December 2017.

        The Buzzfeed tweet says “old”. I took the ‘years’ from the Buzzfeed tweet, as “old” I believed referred possibly to the last unrest in 2009. Thank you for the correction, but your assumptions about motivations are just that, assumptions.

        What would you make of “old” from the Buzzfeed tweet? They clearly are trying to completely separate these events, sure why else would they make such a ridiculous claim that it is “old”, when it is clearly current.
        I was suckered by Buzzfeed propaganda, it can happen anyone, that’s why I think it should be rubbished. The picture is current, it is not “old” as Buzzfeed claim in their tweet.

        1. Listrade

          I didn’t make anything of the tweet. I read the article to see what they were claiming before making any assumptions.

          1. Listrade

            I know that’s all people read. I know that people skim tweet, get triggered and then go on a rant that has no basis in fact. I know this. You know this, because that’s exactly what you did.

            How did you turn this around to me missing the point? I ‘m not the one who looks foolish here just because I decided I’d read the article to see what it said before ranting about it.

            The tweet is misleading and clickbait. The article is very clear and is not in any way supporting the Iranian regime.

            “Pro symbols of oppression like the hijab, Buzzfeed, goes full on pro-govt of Iran with claims of that woman without a headscarf protesting in Iran is from a years old protest, and not just this weeks.

            Regressiveleft propagandist new outlet supporting regressive sexist regime…. Is anyone surprised, in fairness.”

            You got all that from a tweet. Not the the actual article. You don’t get to turn this around to me missing the point. You don’t get to walk away from this by blaming a tweet and not your inability/unwillingness to read a couple of paragraphs to see what was actually said.

            That crap you posted above is just that: crap. Crap with no basis in fact. Crap that was not in anyway a feature of that article, an article you admit you didn’t read before writing that.

            There’s a lesson here Clamps, and it isn’t a lesson for me.

          2. Clampers Outside!

            No, I didn’t get all that from a tweet, you’re making assumptions again.

            I got ‘years’ from ‘old’ from the tweet, with knowledge that the last protest was in 2009.

            I didn’t go on a rant, Buzzfeed is a demonstrably regressive left news outlet, always has been.

            The pic is not ‘old’. That is the only point.

          3. Listrade

            Your words Clamps:

            “Pro symbols of oppression like the hijab, Buzzfeed, goes full on pro-govt of Iran with claims of that woman without a headscarf protesting in Iran is from a years old protest, and not just this weeks.

            Regressiveleft propagandist new outlet supporting regressive sexist regime…. Is anyone surprised, in fairness.”

            Nothing about the date of the picture, stating that Buzzfeed is pro-govt. If it’s not a rant then what is it? It’s a very specific accusation, one that would normally require proof. You post that then the link. Aren’t we to assume the link is to support this? It’s a pretty reasonable assumption to make Clampers, I’m not the one in the wrong here.

            But you admit you didn’t actually read the link, just the tweet. The link doesn’t support one word of what you wrote. If you got it from somewhere else, if there is another Buzzfeed article that supports this rant…sorry..opinion, then please share it.

            You set yourself up to fail. There is no way to polish this turd.

          4. edalicious

            FFS Clamps, I don’t know how you’re not getting that the issue is not about a specific item of clothing but about women being forced to wear or not wear what they want to. You’re either UNBELIEVABLY thick or else deliberately misrepresenting the issue to support your preconceptions. There is not option that makes you look good here.

          5. Clampers Outside!

            Again, I say… the tweet cant be just brushed aside like that, the intention is clear. I’d take out the admittedly hyperbolic ‘full on pro govt’ bit then :) Nothing wrong with the rest. Buzzfeed were misleading using ‘old’. That’s me point.

          6. Listrade

            Of course it was misleading. Of course all news outlets do it. That’s why when you want to make a serious point and come across as a rational person you check the source to make sure that is indeed what they are saying.

            You fell for it. You did the one thing that invalidates a whole argument. And you keep digging.

            No one is saying that the protests is about feminism or just economics. The truth is that women have been protesting since June. You could have made a great point about the media silence about the protest since June. All those websites criticising feminists could have made a great point in June. They didn’t.

            The December protest started over simple economics, theocracies skimming off money and people suffering. Then, as always other protests converge into one greater one. But the hijab protest started long before that one. Yes, mostly in silence. But that wasn’t your point, if it was you’d have made it in June.

            You had an opinion, a misleading tweet confirmed the opinion, you didn’t spend 1 minute seeing if that was actually what was said and now your whole statement looks foolish.

          7. Clampers Outside!

            ‘old’ is intentional. I admitted I fell for it already, that’s my point about propaganda. The point I was making is proven, that they are intentionally misleading.

            My opinion was that the pic was recent, the tweet said it was old. This is not confirmation of an opinion, its the opposite.

            The rest of your rant I am largely in agreement with ffs. The pic s not ‘old’.

        2. barelylegal

          I only started posting here recently clampers but I must say I note you made a highly specious argument based on similarly unreferenced claims which you took at face value yesterday in a debate with another poster, (not sure who it was now) and it seems like now you are doing the same.

          As listrade says it’s not really a good look.

          1. Killian G

            Hello barelylegal. Incorrectomondo. I have no disputes with anyone. I am pretty much the Ghandi of Broadsheet – except I dress better. I just know how to spot a big pile of MERDE when it presents itself. Now kindly step aside because your ponging up my path.

          2. barelylegal

            fair enough. sure who isn’t?

            but that’s twice in two days you’ve been ‘hyperbolic’, then went on to argue vainly with the person who called you out on it before retreating with your tail behind your posterior.

            last time I looked, 100% > “at times”.

            not being nasty but based on those kind of stats, it’s a bit of an effort to take you seriously to be frank!

          3. barelylegal

            The late Indian leader’s name is spelled ‘Gandhi’ Killian.
            Now, leave me out of your silly little online spats.
            Thanks.

          4. Killian G

            I have no spats. Once again I assure you I love all, including you in all your various guises.

            Late Indian leader? What are you on about?

  1. GiggidyGoo

    So only for the AIB sale, we would be in a minus situation. Have they another bank sale this year to massage and heil the figures again? And next year and the year after? Donoghue’s strutting about and smiling reminds me of his first budget. Same strutting style, only to be on the radio and TV a week later trying to defend Fitzgerald – no strutting.

      1. GiggidyGoo

        Why is income tax below target? After all, we are told that there are more people at work.

        1. barelylegal

          that’d be the bribes to the various government worker public sector fascist groups, the bribes to the can’t pay won’t pay crowd, paying back the germans, swedish, danes and dutch, the HSE being run like a knocking shop, the lack of income from the license fee for rte (which I know from reading another thread here you personally oppose) but money still being shipped out the door to oul wans like tubridy and finucane and joe duffy, the fines for the climate change shortfall on targets, various holes in public pensions schemes, the ministerial mercs and unvouched TD expenses – it all adds up you know

    1. Taunton

      IIRC the proceeds from the sale of AIB were used to reduce the national debt as per the terms of the bailout.

      So spending up, tax take up, debt down. Good news all round.

Comments are closed.