116 thoughts on “De Tuesday Papers”

    1. Matt Lucozade: The Only Reader of the Village

      In fairness, the UK Independent has more readers in Albania than it does in the Republic of Ireland.

    2. ReproBertie (SCU)

      Maybe it was because Ireland wasn’t one of the 16 countries that announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats yesterday.

        1. ReproBertie (SCU)

          Where was I incorrect? Ireland did not expel Russian diplomats yesterday. Ireland did not announce the expulsion of Russian diplomats yesterday, The cabinet met this morning and decided to expel one.

          2. ReproBertie (SCU)

            I was suggesting a theory on why Ireland wasn’t name checked in the Indo. Where was I incorrect?

            Can you actually answer as to where I was incorrect or will you continue to deflect rather than admit that I was correct?

            Hang on. I’ll make it simpler. Was Ireland one of the 16 countries that announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats yesterday?

          3. jusayinlike

            Semantics, you jumped the gun and as per usual don’t have the spinal column to admit it..

          4. ReproBertie (SCU)

            I didn’t jump any gun. I was talking about something printed in today’s paper, something that had already happened.

            Was Ireland one of the 16 countries that announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats yesterday? Because I said Ireland wasn’t and you said I was incorrect. So, again, was Ireland one of the 16 countries that announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats yesterday?

          5. jusayinlike

            Has Ireland expelled a Russian diplomat?

            yesterday/today = semantics

            try not to jump the gun in future

          6. ReproBertie (SCU)

            FFS! Deal with the facts. Why didn’t the Independent include Ireland in the list of 16 countries that expelled Russian diplomats yesterday? Because Ireland wasn’t one.

            Has Ireland expelled one since then? Yes.

            Does that make my statement any less correct? No.

            Bottom line, I was right and you were so eager to score internet points you messed up and can’t admit it.

          7. jusayinlike

            Technically speaking you are wrong, the expulsion was discussed and cemented yday at EU level, the announcement was made today, so technically I’m right.

            BBC announced the expulsion ahead of Irish announcement so hey ho..

          8. ReproBertie (SCU)

            So, technically or otherwise, was Ireland one of the 16 countries that announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats yesterday?

      1. spudnick

        You two ever heard of Occam’s Razor?

        Or is the West blindly going about killing Putin’s enemies for him one by one as part of the most elaborate 4D chess ever devised?

        2. f_lawless

          you ever heard of critical thinking? (a) what Putin has to gain politically from killing a has-been double agent who already served years for his state crimes?
          I can see many things he has to lose, nothing politically he has to gain (b) why is this US/UK-led coalition moving to act against any Russia before any actual evidence has even been presented or the OPCW had time to carry out an investigation (c) are you old enough to remember the precendent of the dodgey WMD dossier presented by British intelligence services which was used to manufacture public consent for the invasion of Iraq?
          I don’t think you really have a firm grasp of Occam’s razor. You’re confusing “superficial” with “simple” and making assumptions of guilt which are not based on empirical evidence.

          2. spudnick

            Putin’s been testing the West for years Mr Lawless. A weakened but resentful and proud former superpower, playing a weak hand very, very well, has managed to claw back former territory in Ukraine, has carried out assassinations in the UK in the past without repercussions, and has shown itself to be preeminent in the use of the internet as a weapon of war.

            But in your view, the fragmenting West, with enough internal problems of its own, actually wants to start a war with Russia. You may have an understandable, very human, but misguided desire to be seen as smarter than everyone else, but the probabilities don’t stack up.

            And don’t bother with the Iraq war whataboutery. I happen to agree with you – in fact the UK government as good as killed David Kelly as the Russians killed Skripal – but that has zero bearing on the situation today.

          3. jusayinlike

            @ spudnick

            Can you provide a link to evidence that unequivocally points the finger at Russia?

          5. Nigel

            Are you asking someone else for clear unequivocal proof about something? Mr Pizzagate Every-Terrorist-Attack-Is-Fake Every-Shooting -Survivor-Is-A- Criss-Actor? How adorable.

          7. f_lawless

            @spudnick “You may have an understandable, very human, but misguided desire to be seen as smarter than everyone else”
            Sorry to be the one to tell you, but isn’t that what they call projection- the human failing of accusing someone what you yourself are guilty of doing? What else can I conclude with your failure to address any of the points I make but instead launch into a misinformed, propagandised narrative of events between Russia and the West – and misuse the term “whataboutery” (precedent is not the same as whataboutery).
            Your comment about “war with Russia” gives the impression that you’re unaware that we’ve entered a new phase of the geopolitical struggle which has been playing out in Syria for years now. Even though the Islamic extremists are now all but defeated, the US-led coalition (who by the way, is in Syria illegally under international law) has, within the last year, greatly expanded its military presence in Northern Syria putting itself in the direct path of conflict with Russia (who are there under invitation from Syria’s sovereign government). Only last month there were Russian casualties due to US airstrikes. The threat of escalated military conflict is very real The US coalition is still not ready to accept that their plans for regime change have been thwarted.

          1. Neilo

            @Nigel: not a member of the thought/tone police either, but that word irks me something fierce.

          2. jusayinlike

            alt right loon, right wing nutjob, Russian bot..

            These are the terms I have to deal with on here every day.

            I don’t see you crying foul over the crack pipe swipe but hey don’t let that get in the way of your agenda.
            Boopy boop is appropriate

          3. Nigel

            You give as good as you get with name-calling. If someone directed the ‘r” word at you I would have the same response. In fact I think I have, though I couldn’t swear that it was you or someone like you

          6. jusayinlike

            Wrong I’m not conservative

            But im correct in calling you neo liberal.

            You thought Hillary Clinton was a left wing politician, that shows how deluded you are..

          7. Nigel

            If thinking Clinton would have been a better choice for president makes me a neoliberal then that makes you a neocon, sorry, I don’t make the rules.

            Haha, though, you think I preferred Clinton to Trump because I thought she was left wing rather than that Trump was an obviously horrible monster.

          8. jusayinlike

            I don’t think the outcome would have been different whoever had won, you do Nigel, they’re both hideous monsters, one is unabashed and the other is a pretender who likes to portray themselves as a prog l/w idealist while at same time having a body count and rap sheet to rival any dictator.

            Now who’s dillusional again?

          9. Nigel

            Even if you believed all the right-wing propaganda about Clinton and your personal misogyny multiplied and magnified her wrongdoings in the way misogyny does, you somehow decided it would be better to put a Republican monster in the presidency with acquiescent Republicans controlling the House and Congress, rather than a Dem monster with a rabidly obstructionist Republican House and Congress that loathed her guts with the heat of a million suns YOU IDIOT. Now you have a neocon in an influential position of power and the party that started the Iraq war controls all three branches of the US executive. So you’re a neocon now, Ted. Congratulations.

          2. spudnick

            Yes. Suggesting you might be under the influence of crack cocaine is exactly equivalent to your use of a derogatory and offensive term relating to disability.

          3. jusayinlike

            I correctly labelled you neo liberal, you reply by saying I’m a crack addict.

            well done

          4. some old queen

            And you know what they say about people who live in glass houses?

            Serves them right for hiring Dermot Bannon.

    5. david

      The dream of a seat on the UN security council
      Its a joke as the non sovereign state of Ireland is used by others to carry out an agenda
      The repercussions will be tit for tat and maybe a ban on Irish goods to Russia
      Maybe verruca’s SCUM unit can reveal what exact proof they have?
      Bad move

  4. GiggidyGoo

    Coveney now realizing that he can’t please everyone. He is now trying a similar route that Alan Kelly and Noonan tried with IW – saying that it will be written into law that any changes will require ‘x’. Like IW, we were supposed to be convinced that the requirement of signatures of two ministers would stop IW being privatized. Currently in the Dail, with almost every party in agreement, he is already at the two thirds.
    Sure isn’t Coveney great? He’s finally cracked the conundrum on how to please everyone. Or, more than likely, a new form of laxative has been discovered by himself.

    1. david

      And as they referendum gets nearer we see the complete mess
      We are talking about human life but not yet born and its abundantly clear that the eighth amendment is to be replaced with abortion on demand
      So if the cold dose not suit it can be aborted
      And anyone who disagrees then they are nutters
      Can you imagine if they can identify the gay gene within 10 weeks that baby could also be aborted along with handicapped
      Science could identify the weak and eradicate them by genetic testing
      A sad backwards step which can bring terrible consequences
      Welcome to the purification of the human kind
      Sick

      1. ReproBertie (SCU)

        “Hello divorce, goodbye daddy!”

        If we allow SSM people will be marrying animals and we’ll have baby factories to meet the demands of gay couples.

        If we repeal the 8th people with DS and gay people will be wiped out.

        1. david

          Now that is drivel
          Its all about pro choice and personally any pro choice into that well its a free country but science can identify what you like or do not like
          So what is shopping those then who think like that
          You miss the point the law is to protect
          Outlandish as it sounds its scientific fact
          You can now get a DNA test that can identify if you have cancer in your genes by a swab and like a health screening know what you could be facing in years to come and plan accordingly

          2. ReproBertie (SCU)

            I’m glad you recognise it as drivel David but it’s the drivel presented by religious groups when campaigning against referendums on divorce, SSM and repealing the 8th.

      3. Nigel

        ‘So if the cold dose not suit it can be aborted’

        Love Both The Mother And The Sniffles. Denying women rudimentary medical treatment because of the right to life of bacteria and viruses does seem like the next logical step.

        1. david

          I am not a religious group
          I am pointing out where things can go
          We are talking by a law that is in our constitution
          This is different from a law brought in by parliament
          The fact a quango ie citizens assembly were involved in drafting legislation dose not sit well
          They were appointed by government and to be honest that disturbs me as to the agenda
          We could have a total reverse of the situation and we have to be very careful with our constitution
          That is why the wording must be on the ballot paper not decided later on when any chance of protection for the un born is made constitutional law
          As we know politicians cannot be trusted
          I ask you do you trust varadka or his Ireland got talent cabinet

          1. ReproBertie (SCU)

            The Citizens Assembley have no hand in drafting the legislation.

            The Constitution is no place for specific legislation. It sets the base law (which is what Bunreacht means) and the specifics are dealt with by legislation which can be changed to suit the needs of a changing society.

          3. Nigel

            Women cannot undergo some cancer tests and treatments without first taking regular pregnancy tests, and if the tests are positive the tests or treatments are suspended. That is the status quo. The 8th is a disaster, and it has to go.

          4. rotide

            The CA is not a ‘quango’
            The CA did not assist in drafting any legislation

            You literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

          5. david

            Bertie
            Its abortion on demand and many will not vote for that
            So the referendum is doomed
            The result will be many more savitas simply because as usual they have handled this in such a manner
            I cannot vote for this and many more than just me will do exactly that
            And boy will we be exercising our rights to ensure this is defeated

          6. ReproBertie (SCU)

            It’s brave of you to admit that you will be voting in favour of more women dying.

            Though many will vote against it many will also vote for it. Hopefully more than vote against it. We’ll know when the votes are counted and not before then no matter how many times you guess the outcome.

        2. david

          They can head over to the UK like before
          But I cannot have it on my conscience that I voted for abortion on demand which will happen
          I have no problem with fatal foetal rape incest
          Do you actually think all women seeking abortion are suffering from fatal foetal are suicidal and denied medical care?
          Well if you do you really are Leos fodder

          1. ReproBertie (SCU)

            I don’t care why women are seeking abortion. That’s none of my business. What I care about is them having the freedom to choose rather than being forced to travel or forced to give birth because of my personal feelings.

          2. david

            Bertie I am not in favour of people dying
            Many women will avail of abortion on demand fact
            The fact that its as in the law introduced regarding abortion is not defined before a referendum I will reject this for that reason simply because
            I do not trust government
            Look at the crash and the threats the Lisbon treaty and the threats
            I want to know before this referendum exactly what law is replacing it
            Once its out as in protection of the unborn enshrined in the constitution then the unborn will have no protection
            Beware what you vote for

          3. ReproBertie (SCU)

            I know exactly what I’m voting for. I’m voting for the right of women to have an abortion up to 12 weeks if they want one. After 12 weeks, in the case of FFA, they will also be entitled to one.

            It has nothing to do with trusting the government and everything to do with trusting women.

            The proposed legislation is out there and available to read before voting so I don’t know why you keep waving that red herring around like some sort of smoking gun.

          4. ReproBertie (SCU)

            “They can head over to the UK like before”
            So you are fine with abortion on demand as long as they can afford the plane or boat.

          5. mildred st. meadowlark

            That’s what I got out of this entire saga.

            That, and the fact that my politely worded comment on the importance of things like spelling, punctuation and grammar went entirely unheeded by dave.

            It’s not worth arguing with him (though it is oddly fun) to change his mind. Even when confronted with facts he prefers to ramble to his own tune.

          6. jusayinlike

            David is rough around the edges but we need the differing opinions, that’s what makes this place tick.

            I like how David polarises the crowd, much like charger used too..

          7. mildred st. meadowlark

            He’s fiercely entertaining, for those of us who like to watch an unravelling car crash thread, but he does little for his own credibility when he’s posting errant nonsense with little regard for what he’s actually saying.

            But I agree with you about differing opinions. It’d be very dull round here without them. Imagine a weekend thread without Clampers and Nigel. Unthinkable.

  5. some old queen

    MP’s in HP discuss Leave campaign’s funding fiddle today. Not sure what good it will do mind as it has been investigated twice before. But sure, giving a 23 year old fashion student nearly 3/4 mil then not actually transferring it into his bank account is perfectly normal practice eh?

      1. some old queen

        Which crime are you referring to?

        If CA used data obtained illegally then yes. Although they are already up and running again under a new company name of course.

        If the Leave campaign used funds above stated limits then yes.

        Why do you keep asking that question? If it was all funded by Soros you’d be jumping up and down I expect, but it is the Mercers so no problem eh?

        And we haven’t even started on the current joke yet. It goes something like ‘A president and a porn star walk into a bar’….

        1. jusayinlike

          My point is that this episode is leading towards internet regulation, not any sort of conspiracy or indictments or congressional hearings, it’s only going to lead to a contrived debate on shoe horning offcom broadcasting licensing to go run the internet.

          All the rest of that Soros/Mercer drivel you came out with is unnecessary..

          1. some old queen

            Yes it is leading to internet regulation which in IMO is needed.

            Facebook is primarily a surveillance tool which the respective authorities already has full access to, so there is no government land grab. Never mind the profiling, if it has got to the point of sophisticated physiological tools are being used, which it has, where is the free speech in people mindlessly parroting the latest fake stream?

            Why CA because the whole thing is funded by far right wing billionaires which is fine as long as people know but in the main, they don’t. There is nothing ‘alternative’ about it.

          2. jusayinlike

            So your all for censorship of the internet, fb will only be the beginning, once offcom is involved broadcasting licences will be the way forward and sites like this will be open to dumbed down to non existence.

            I had a feeling your only concern was pointless chatter about an election 2 years ago, I had hoped you would be more concerned about the clear as day HSBC racket which involved embezzlement for Brexit and illegal Saudi wars..

          1. some old queen

            As for HSBC and the last wave of Tories, yes it’s probably true too but that does not mean one cancels the other. That’s like saying Hillary is more corrupt than Trump except, Trump is the one in power and, a non binding referendum was won under questionable means.

          2. jusayinlike

            “The last wave of Tories..”

            These are current and high ranking Tories prominent in the leave campaign, please stop pointlessly digressing to the US, that ship has sailed and won’t be coming back for a long time.

  6. david

    If they think they can use this to unravel the will of the people they have not one leg to stand on
    Remember when the tweets were used to scupper Gallagher by RTE and the result stood Mickey Dee by default
    The UK are going out get used to it

    1. ReproBertie (SCU)

      If British politicians, who can see the economic disaster that Sasamach will be, wish to work democratically to overturn a decision that was fuelled by lies and misinformation then that’s their right. That’s one of the freedoms that make living in a democracy such a joy.

        1. ReproBertie (SCU)

          Strategic Communications Unit.

          Just to be clear, it’s a joke based on accusations.

      2. david

        Bertie
        A referendum is the will of the people
        This is what democracy is
        The will of the people
        Is that too much for your little fiscal space between your ears to take in ?
        If the British people want to go down a path its their decision and their politicians work for them not the Reich or the republic

        1. ReproBertie (SCU)

          Democracy also means the people get to change their minds. Decisions are not carved in stone.

          1. david

            But a referendum is
            Europe created the atmosphere and the discontent
            It could of been different if Europe gave concessions to Cameron or he government distributed wealth instead of a thriving city and deprived areas
            But no and those people who saw little or no benefits spoke
            They happened to be the majority of British people

          2. ReproBertie (SCU)

            A referendum is not carved in stone. Particularly in this case where the Sasamach referendum was not even legally binding.

            As usual you know not of what you speak. The EU has given dozens of concessions to the UK.

        2. Nigel

          And if the British people decide hey, maybe we don;t want to go down this path after all, that is also democracy.

          1. david

            Great and democracy only after they have experienced that road
            Who knows what that road will be like?
            Maybe the Brits might thrive

        3. some old queen

          Amazing how some can claim the word ‘democracy’ when it suits.

          Add in 16-17 year olds and British people abroad and you would have got a very different result. That’s not to mention Cameron’s incompetence by not putting a two thirds majority limit in place of course, which is standard in such plebiscites. Even no rain in London would have swung it.

          But let’s not any of that get in the way of your offensive anti German rants eh david? Here is a question so. If you hate Ireland so much then why are you still here?

          2. david

            I love my country but I hate what represents it.
            And last time I looked democracy allows you to speak your mind.
            I always believe people living in their country are the only ones that have a right as to how its governed as they are the ones who face the consequences.
            If people want to vote then move back and enrich your society.
            And the legal age to vote is 18 speaking of offensive rants your rants about the UK remind me of the pot calling the kettle black.

Comments are closed.

Broadsheet.ie