Friday's rant
Moderator: moderators
- the spoofer
- Shane Horgan
- Posts: 4663
- Joined: February 17th, 2006, 5:35 pm
- Location: Leinster West
Re: Friday's rant
Just had a look at BNhE and it appears that those convicted of offences can become President. That's an Article I'd vote to change.
Re: Friday's rant
Is that one of those WTAF eTLAs?the spoofer wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 9:30 am Just had a look at BNhE and it appears that those convicted of offences can become President. That's an Article I'd vote to change.
Re: Friday's rant
Bachelor of Nutrition and Home Economics
- Laighin Break
- Mullet
- Posts: 1884
- Joined: May 3rd, 2012, 9:35 am
- Location: Scandinavia
Re: Friday's rant
Bunreacht na hÉireann I guess
Re: Friday's rant
Why use a confusing acronym our of any context to describe the first time you've read a document. Absolutely rant worthy.
Do they know nothing of the history of the state. 2 of the first presidents were 1916 revolutionaries arrested at the time. The 3rds father was executed by the Free State during the war. If that was too long ago there's still the hunger strikers.
If we vote in someone with a conviction then that's what we chose to do. American history is different and they do it differently for different reasons.
Re: Friday's rant
I just assumed he was talking about Trump.
- Oldschoolsocks
- Shane Jennings
- Posts: 5139
- Joined: January 4th, 2015, 10:36 am
- Location: Stepping out of the Supernova
Re: Friday's rant
Slow day?ronk wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 11:34 amWhy use a confusing acronym our of any context to describe the first time you've read a document. Absolutely rant worthy.
Do they know nothing of the history of the state. 2 of the first presidents were 1916 revolutionaries arrested at the time. The 3rds father was executed by the Free State during the war. If that was too long ago there's still the hunger strikers.
If we vote in someone with a conviction then that's what we chose to do. American history is different and they do it differently for different reasons.
Re: Friday's rant
No, just 2 pet hates. Obtuse use of acronyms. It's rude to make people ask or exclude themselves from a discussion.
I'm also not a big fan of people complaining about the constitution when they don't even understand it.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of a criminal as head of state but I also recognise that we've had a complicated history and I wouldn't want to exclude people who've turned from violence from participating in the political process. It would be undemocratic even at this stage to do so.
The constitution is the sort of thing we should reflect on before changing.
I'm also not a big fan of people complaining about the constitution when they don't even understand it.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of a criminal as head of state but I also recognise that we've had a complicated history and I wouldn't want to exclude people who've turned from violence from participating in the political process. It would be undemocratic even at this stage to do so.
The constitution is the sort of thing we should reflect on before changing.
Re: Friday's rant
There's certainly merit in the idea that a past conviction from an occupying power shouldn't prevent one from running for office. But having a conviction from the current legitimate government surely is different.
Anyone But New Zealand
- Oldschoolsocks
- Shane Jennings
- Posts: 5139
- Joined: January 4th, 2015, 10:36 am
- Location: Stepping out of the Supernova
Re: Friday's rant
Oh, you’re being serious - sorry.ronk wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 12:03 pm No, just 2 pet hates. Obtuse use of acronyms. It's rude to make people ask or exclude themselves from a discussion.
I'm also not a big fan of people complaining about the constitution when they don't even understand it.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of a criminal as head of state but I also recognise that we've had a complicated history and I wouldn't want to exclude people who've turned from violence from participating in the political process. It would be undemocratic even at this stage to do so.
The constitution is the sort of thing we should reflect on before changing.
I got it from the context (it’s probably the first place I’d check on the rules for election to high office?) and it’s pretty standard to use acronyms/shortcuts when posting from a phone. But I suppose I can see why you might be a bit annoyed by it.
In being ineligible for office due to previous conviction, I wouldn’t be agreeing with that at all. People change…
- the spoofer
- Shane Horgan
- Posts: 4663
- Joined: February 17th, 2006, 5:35 pm
- Location: Leinster West
Re: Friday's rant
The hunger strikers were terrorists. A criminal conviction should rule you out of holding the highest office in the land in my opinion. It would be worth testing the generally held view in a referendum.ronk wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 11:34 amWhy use a confusing acronym our of any context to describe the first time you've read a document. Absolutely rant worthy.
Do they know nothing of the history of the state. 2 of the first presidents were 1916 revolutionaries arrested at the time. The 3rds father was executed by the Free State during the war. If that was too long ago there's still the hunger strikers.
If we vote in someone with a conviction then that's what we chose to do. American history is different and they do it differently for different reasons.
Re: Friday's rant
The median of the top 10%
https://www.thejournal.ie/top-earners-c ... 3-Dec2023/
What a jibberish number. It's not exactly relatable. It's taking the median of a decile.
Percentiles are easier to relate to, to compare and to calculate.
People are bad enough with stats, why make it harder.
https://www.thejournal.ie/top-earners-c ... 3-Dec2023/
What a jibberish number. It's not exactly relatable. It's taking the median of a decile.
Percentiles are easier to relate to, to compare and to calculate.
People are bad enough with stats, why make it harder.
- fourthirtythree
- Leo Cullen
- Posts: 10916
- Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:33 pm
- Location: Eight miles high
Re: Friday's rant
That’s not what referendums are intended to do. They are to enact a proposed change which you have positive reasons to make and which you believe you can persuade the population to ageee with or they already do.the spoofer wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 3:07 pmThe hunger strikers were terrorists. A criminal conviction should rule you out of holding the highest office in the land in my opinion. It would be worth testing the generally held view in a referendum.ronk wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 11:34 amWhy use a confusing acronym our of any context to describe the first time you've read a document. Absolutely rant worthy.
Do they know nothing of the history of the state. 2 of the first presidents were 1916 revolutionaries arrested at the time. The 3rds father was executed by the Free State during the war. If that was too long ago there's still the hunger strikers.
If we vote in someone with a conviction then that's what we chose to do. American history is different and they do it differently for different reasons.
Not allowing people who have served time for convictions to hold office is anti-democratic and against the rule of law.
- offshorerules
- Seán Cronin
- Posts: 3711
- Joined: October 19th, 2012, 1:51 pm
- Location: The Beverly Hills of South County Dublin
Re: Friday's rant
I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
"POC will not be going to Toulon" - All Blacks nil » May 27th, 2015, 12:18 am
- the spoofer
- Shane Horgan
- Posts: 4663
- Joined: February 17th, 2006, 5:35 pm
- Location: Leinster West
Re: Friday's rant
Anyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.offshorerules wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
Re: Friday's rant
Even if you're Mick Collins?the spoofer wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 9:08 amAnyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.offshorerules wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
- the spoofer
- Shane Horgan
- Posts: 4663
- Joined: February 17th, 2006, 5:35 pm
- Location: Leinster West
Re: Friday's rant
It depends whether you recognise the Irish Government, Army and State as the legitimate bodies in this country. I do. Therefore, if you are convicted of murder by our state then you should not hold office. I know lots of Shinners still don't recognise he legitimacy of the state but that's for them.johng wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 9:48 amEven if you're Mick Collins?the spoofer wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 9:08 amAnyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.offshorerules wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
- offshorerules
- Seán Cronin
- Posts: 3711
- Joined: October 19th, 2012, 1:51 pm
- Location: The Beverly Hills of South County Dublin
Re: Friday's rant
Yes if you kill a Guard in the line of duty while at the same time not recognising the legal sovereignty of the Garda in the first place.johng wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 9:48 amEven if you're Mick Collins?the spoofer wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 9:08 amAnyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.offshorerules wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
"POC will not be going to Toulon" - All Blacks nil » May 27th, 2015, 12:18 am
- Oldschoolsocks
- Shane Jennings
- Posts: 5139
- Joined: January 4th, 2015, 10:36 am
- Location: Stepping out of the Supernova
Re: Friday's rant
Having a functioning heartbeat is a prerequisite, no?johng wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 9:48 amEven if you're Mick Collins?the spoofer wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 9:08 amAnyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.offshorerules wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.