59 thoughts on “A Limerick A Day

    1. Weedless

      These aren’t just gannies, they’re M&S grannies.

      (Which are mostly Aldi grannies with better lighting and a 20% price mark-up.)

  1. Drogg

    This is the most moronic thing i have read yet, if i was UCD i would be sacking people because their findings are so idiotic.

    Do gay men and women not have parents? cause if they do then their child will have a gran parent and as for the child needs a mother and father. I will say it one more fupping time that there have been single parent families that have been churning out normal everyday people for centuries, so stop f**king going on like if you have two mam’s it will be the end of the f**king world all i think when i hear a child has two dads or two mam’s is that a child has two people who love them unconditionally.

        1. Mani

          I’d say you’re probably older than me. So unless I impregnated her while chasing Biff Tannin for that Sports Almanac, it was some other cowboy.

          1. Mani

            She was a very tender lover, Fluffy. We made love on the barricades outside the GPO. She made quite the proclamation. I know I proclaimated all over her.

  2. Clampers Outside!

    I never knew my grannies nor one of my grandads…..
    Does that mean I’m all fupped up now….
    what did I miss, how could I miss it if it was never there….
    is my loss the same as the loss inflicted on children for decades by the Catholic Church when it swept up young women and their “illegitimate” children and stuck them in homes, separated mothers and children, made mothers feel like total scumbags, and illegally, and for profit, sold on those children?

    AM I SUPPOSED TO TAKE FUPPING GUIDANCE FROM PIG IGNORANT RELIGIOUS FUPP WITS …FUPP OFF YOU “KNUCKLE DRAGGING NEANDERTHALS” as that professors colleague called him.

    JUST FUPP OFF!

        1. Odis

          Well nothing more than the usual. Maybe we could approach the matter of your lack of grand parents, at some stage in the future.

    1. Weedless

      You had a right to those grandparents Clampers. I say you sue whichever deity it was that allowed them to die before you got to meet them.

      Oh wait,I re-read the article, grannies are a luxury not a right. That’s why they’re taxed at the higher rate I guess.

      1. Weedless

        Which means we’re setting up a future where granny-privilege is a thing you may have to check.

    2. sickofallthisbs

      Just wondering, is it just Catholic clergy you despise, or are Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim clerics also on your hate list?

    3. Sidewinder

      Jesus that never even occured to me. There was only my paternal grandmother left by the time I came along. She lasted another 25 years mind and was a hell of a woman but still. Didn’t have a granddad in my life and yet somehow I function as a member of society.

  3. Gdo

    I knew this guy when I was in Uni. He was friendly and very good at his job.

    This is disappointing.

    1. Colin

      Would strongly disagree. Probably the most arrogant lecturer I ever met. Not remotely surprised by this. If you were not on his level, you were nothing.

    2. JustSayin'

      I agree, he always seemed to have time for people and seem(ed) like a nice guy. This has definitely changed my opinion….

      1. Gdo

        Hello fellow engineers. Two very contrasting experiences! He always had his door open if students wanted to ask questions but I now vaguely remember someone giving out about him.

        As I said, disappointing.

  4. Don Pidgeoni

    These people are deliberately confusing the right of a children to KNOW their father and mother and the “right” of a child to be RAISED by their father AND mother. Which is stupid.

  5. ahyeah

    “If this referendum is passed, there will be students who won’t have a granny..”

    Seriously, does anyone know how he explained this point? He’s clearly a hateful bigot, but I doubt he’s stupid – and certainly not as stupid as this quote suggests.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      Just because one has been to a number of colleges and or or achieved a number of degrees, PhDs etc. does not automatically mean they are bright and intelligent when speaking outside of their area of study. Not one single iota.
      So, yes, he could be just that ‘stupid’ on the subject, or as I like to call it ‘willfully ignorant’. I’ve met more pig ignorant dumbasses with degrees and PhDs than I care to recall.

      College achievements are not a measure of intelligence but a measure of expertise in a particular field… at best.

      1. scottser

        it’s just plain old fashioned sophistry clamps, nowt to do with intelligent or reasoned debate at all.

      2. Don Pidgeoni

        I love having chats with people who are all “Well, I have a PhD in X.. let me tell you my learned opinion on Y (completely unrelated area)”. No, you know a lot about one focused area of study and just as much as the rest of us about everything else.

        Having a PhD doesn’t stop you from pretending you know stuff, you are maybe just better able to make it up

  6. ReproBertie

    “The referendum is not about how we feel about gay people. It’s about what marriage means and what it means to us as a society,” said Senator Rónán Mullen

    OK, let’s take that as our starting point.

    “What a Yes vote in this referendum would do is it would copperfasten the radical legislation the Government has pushed through like a steam train [the Children and Family Relationships Bill]… because when you change the definition of marriage, you also change the definition of family in the Constitution,”

    Well now you’re disagreeing with yourself. You’re saying it’s not about what marriage means but is about what the family means. Well lets just look at how the Constitution defines the family.
    Article 41.1.1 – The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
    Article 41.1.2 – The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensible to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
    Article 41.3.1 – The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    That, to me is a farily loose definite of a family which means it could cover man, woman and children as easily as it covers man, man and adopted children or man, woman and no children or whatever. Arguably, in the face of modern families, this change to clarify that marriage is not restricted to man and woman is demanded by Article 41.3.1.

    Bottom line, for me, is that the Family, as defined by the Constitution, is not harmed or altered by this referendum and I’d love to hear people who say that it is explain how and why rather than spout emotional misdirection about grannys and the like.

  7. Jane

    I was a student once and I knew both my grannies. I would have been far better off not knowing one of them, in particular. She was horrible to me from a small child. So as with parents, just being genetically related to someone doesn’t mean you’re going to have a healthy, positive and useful relationship.

    What a silly old man.

  8. singingdetective

    Aw man, the more guys these guys talk the more votes they lose. They have so little influence it just raises a smile more than anything.

  9. Sinabhfuil

    “The referendum is not about how we feel about gay people. It’s about what marriage means and what it means to us as a society,” said Senator Rónán Mullen

    You’d have to agree with Senator Mullen on that. We do have to consider what marriage means.

    Does marriage mean only a man and woman marrying and having two children and going to Mass every Sunday with them? Or does it also mean that two men or two women can live in love together, and if they too are lucky enough to have or to adopt children, to raise them in a loving family? And can be grandparents to their children’s children when the time comes?

    This whole debate reminds me of the times when people said it was wrong for black and white people to marry because “it wouldn’t be fair on the children, they won’t be accepted by either side”.

    1. Don Pidgeoni

      The difficulty is the no side conflating marriage and family. They are not the same things, though they are linked. The constitution has a very fluid definition of family. Marriage at the moment is one man, one woman but that can change and have no effect on the idea of family, which seems to be where their concern lies because its all “surrogacy” this, “poor children” this.

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!