Pat Ryan was excellent on the Indo hurling pod this week. Great insight. Probably the best hurling pod at the moment.
4 Likes
You’d get emotional just listening to Mullane talking about as an amateur your prize money is being presented with the Jersey
Ya agreed on the Indo Pod. Probably just a bit worn out of the OTB Hurling Pod formatting at this stage - Although I still do enjoy it
RTE Hurling Pod is pure shit and I can’t get over the state of the quality of it. Also DOES NOT WORK having some people in studio and some on Zoom.
The Indo Pod somehow gets around that well, just having the Presenter in a clean setting and the other lads zoomed in.
Pat Ryan is excellent on it and I can’t believe it, but I enjoy Mullane too
1 Like
RTE hurling pod this week is some balls. Week of the championship starting and they had one actual hurler on in Shane McGrath (on Zoom) along with an RTE commentator in Marty Morrissey and an RTE producer in Rory O’Neill. Was like they had trawled the RTE canteen at the last minute to see who was available.
1 Like
Might aswell have Doireann Garrihy and James Kavanagh doing it.
5 Likes
Mullane is for connoisseurs. An acquired taste.
Concur with the above on the RTE podcast being total dogshit.
3 Likes
Anyone heading to the TRIH show on Monday?
1 Like
Tickets were sold out very quickly. Not gone on the Titanic subject either. The series they did on it was great, just wouldn’t want to revisit it. A one and done. I guess it’s because they’re above in Belfast too.
1 Like
MacWilliams absolutely cleaned house in the first 15 minutes of his podcast today. Eviscerating brainless nit pickers (his term) desperate to protect the government at all costs (while on the government payroll) by whining about ideas they can’t debate. I better not tag him in case he goes full Karen.
4 Likes
I thought @Tim_Riggins fairly debunked yer wan. He won’t take that kind of abuse lying down.
1 Like
As far as I know he doesn’t work for the government and is terrified to give viewpoints or debate ideas. Tim is the grandest. (Even if i don’t agree he rebuked her at all)
1 Like
Yeah but that makes it even more of a trouncing in the argument I think it was you had with him. The man couldnt be played and he made great use of the ball.
Davids argument was a bit self serving and reminded me a bit of Kevin mulcahy the twitter coach fella. He was basically backing your one up for being caught out spoofing and using facts in a selective way. I wonder what other economist does that 
Did you go
1 Like
You’re going to have to post up examples of this trouncing
I hardly care that much to go searching back. I wanted Tim to be wrong but whatever he wrote made a lot of sense to me. Or at least sounded like it did. Grab a few points he made yourself and see.
1 Like
I didn’t read the McWilliams article. That there is wasteful spending and ineptness within the public service is a given. It doesn’t mean that other countries don’t have similar and secondly that the graph posted wasn’t nonsense.
Am. Ok. His point that there’s hyperbole about the health service was valid. However I think I fairly disputed the argument that it hadn’t gotten worse. That was his main argument from what I remembered. No one wanted to discuss the substance of her post. The second rate decision making and political systems in Ireland. That third rate thinking (ibid) particularly irked me. Not that I’m accusing Tim of that.
I did discuss the substance. I pointed out that’s she used five key inputs that were clearly picked to get the worst possible outcome. On the health service, I’m struggling on this given your explanation for Ireland’s improved outcomes was privatisation, when in fact the system has become less private centric.
The conclusion of her graph would be that Ireland has no infrastructure but amazing outputs. It’s clearly bullshit and standing by it just shows a lack of genuine seriousness on the topic. If the conclusion of her graph was that Ireland had terrible rail electrification and should have spent money on that instead of rural broadband, I’d be all ears.
1 Like
The majority of her argument concerned the legitimacy of the protest (not the reasons behind it) and the response. That was not discussed. Go back and read it and pretend the graph isn’t there.
You didn’t give any explanation as to how the increase in life expectancy, a metric you introduced, was a result of the public health service outperforming the narratives around it. You then tacitly approved private healthcare.
Sorry her post was her post. It literally started with “this graph shows why…”. I’ve called the graph out as bullshit. Just because you feel some of her narrative struck you in the feels as being “right” doesn’t make it so. Again, one of her key inputs (of 5) was rail electrification, a decidedly green policy. Were the farmers and hauliers protesting that? Were they fuck.
2 Likes