Sinn Féin-A responsible thread for adults.

RandomName2 · 22-06-2012 11:35am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Funny that you can pull the wool over your eyes about the motives and 'actual effects' of other established parties policies but you can't when it comes to Sinn Fein. Thankfully others are facing up to their myopia and can change their minds and allegiances. :rolleyes:

There's no current member of any other party who has engaged either directly or indirectly in terrorism.

Or situations, incidents, pub brawls, disappeared, and spectaculars in Gerry Adams speak

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 12:25pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

There's no current member of any other party who has engaged either directly or indirectly in terrorism.

Or situations, incidents, pub brawls, disappeared, and spectaculars in Gerry Adams speak

^ ^ The onesided partitionist on the high moral ground again. :rolleyes: The environment created on this island was a nasty one. But the fact is the republic would not have been able to write a constitution or form a government if that criteria had been applied.
Time for you to grow up politically if you want this country to normalise.

Laminations · 22-06-2012 12:28pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

Although their ideas are different from FG/FF/Lab, who's to say that their way wouldn't work.

Economists. For a start. SF had to misquote them to fake support.

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 12:30pm

Laminations wrote: »

Economists.

Show me one of them that has gotten it right in the last 5 or 6 years.:rolleyes:

RandomName2 · 22-06-2012 1:33pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

^ ^ The onesided partitionist on the high moral ground again. :rolleyes: The environment created on this island was a nasty one.

Other than 'one-sided' that's pretty accurate.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But the fact is the republic would not have been able to write a constitution or form a government if that criteria had been applied.

Er.. no. Presumably you don't mean 'the republic' as such (as the constitution came before the republic - not the other way round) but something more abstract (Irish nationalists?).

Am I to assume you are going as far back as 1916 (for some reason threads on Sinn Fein tend to do so... cannot think of any legitimate reason for them to do so, mind you). If you are, then the answer is again probably 'no'; but by this stage it would be so off-topic as to require a thread of its own (again).

Happyman42 wrote: »

Time for you to grow up politically if you want this country to normalise.

Again you should probably be a bit more clear. Do you mean normalise the budget vis-a-vis public dept reduction and viable means of repaying the country's loans? (Although I doubt you mean this - partcualrly in relation to SF of all parties!

)

You might mean 'normalise' in terms of peace (well, we essentially already have that...) or normalise in terms of reconciliation and unification... or possibly normalise our relationship specifically and uniquely with the party of Sinn Fein?

The problem is, for all of SF's supporters saying that people should move on (including victims' families...) that Sinn Fein itself refuses to do so (as per the 1916 thing above, and so on). Perhaps 'moving' on or... normalising... is a one way street? :pac:

Crooked Jack · 22-06-2012 1:56pm

Laminations wrote: »

Economists. For a start. SF had to misquote them to fake support.

Wrong. A number of highly respected economists have backed SF's policies. I've seen a few of them speak about them, such as at the Uniting Ireland conference in Newry. Difficult to misquote someone when they're standing up in front of you talking.

There is this general belief among some people that SF's economic policies dont add up but when you probe further and ask what policies they take issue with they cant answer because they dont know any policies. Never bothered to look them up. They just heard someone on RTE say it and decided that was that.

I'm also baffled when people can say with 100% assurance that SF's policies, which have never been tried here, wouldnt work and then go and defend FF or FG policies which have been shown to be a catastrophic failure.
Seems odd to me to opt for what you know doesnt work as opposed to trying something new. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 1:59pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Other than 'one-sided' that's pretty accurate.

Er.. no. Presumably you don't mean 'the republic' as such (as the constitution came before the republic - not the other way round) but something more abstract (Irish nationalists?).

Am I to assume you are going as far back as 1916 (for some reason threads on Sinn Fein tend to do so... cannot think of any legitimate reason for them to do so, mind you). If you are, then the answer is again probably 'no'; but by this stage it would be so off-topic as to require a thread of its own (again).

I'm going back to the foundation of this State by men and women who engaged in violence to achieve their aims. The same State where you now sit on the high moral ground, cowardly condemming one side to the political wilderness, (which is, funnily enough, the same type of wilderness the founders of this state left them in to begin with)
Time for you to take some responsibility as a citizen, it is not for you to proscribe a significant and growing mandated political party.

Again you should probably be a bit more clear. Do you mean normalise the budget vis-a-vis public dept reduction and viable means of repaying the country's loans? (Although I doubt you mean this - partcualrly in relation to SF of all parties! )

You might mean 'normalise' in terms of peace (well, we essentially already have that...) or normalise in terms of reconciliation and unification... or possibly normalise our relationship specifically and uniquely with the party of Sinn Fein?

The problem is, for all of SF's supporters saying that people should move on (including victims' families...) that Sinn Fein itself refuses to do so (as per the 1916 thing above, and so on). Perhaps 'moving' on or... normalising... is a one way street? :pac:

More semantics to pathetically avoid the real issues. You'll be correcting my spelling next.:rolleyes:

junder · 22-06-2012 2:07pm

Dotsey wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Wishful thinking , if sinn fein can't capitalise on mistakes made by the mainstream party what hope have they when things stabilise, bolting the door when the horse had bolted springs to mind, only hope sinn fein have is another major crisis in the 'Republic'

SF are capitalising on mistakes, their vote share and representation levels have risen steadily over the last ten years or so and no amount of spin can dispute these facts.

Please don't correct my posts, I am led to
Believe that I have atleast a modicum of free speech on this site

RandomName2 · 22-06-2012 2:53pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm going back to the foundation of this State by men and women who engaged in violence to achieve their aims. The same State where you now sit on the high moral ground, cowardly condemming one side to the political wilderness, (which is, funnily enough, the same type of wilderness the founders of this state left them in to begin with)
Time for you to take some responsibility as a citizen, it is not for you to proscribe a significant and growing mandated political party.

Oh... so you were going back a hundred years. Not that it's much of a surprise.

It's a different and complicated discussion, for numerous reasons. It makes it too difficult to discuss what is at hand - not to mention the fact that it is anachronistic and contradictory (on the grounds that you are telling me to 'get with the times', as it were, before you yourself fall back upon Michael Collins et al)

Not that I'm saying that that subject doesn't have merit - just that it's difficult to discuss it in these circumstances (although I've already mentioned how Fianna Fail separated itself from Sinn Fein 2 and Fine Gael separated itself from both SF2 and CnG)

Happyman42 wrote: »

More semantics to pathetically avoid the real issues. You'll be correcting my spelling next.:rolleyes:

No.. you still haven't said what you meant. As you haven't clarified I will assume that I was also right with the 'moving on' interpretation; which again nicely contradicts your above position whereby you predicate your argument on events that are not in living memory.

You could make a valid argument from either position, but not both, realistically. If I were you I would stick with the 'moving on' mantra, as SF6 can actually point to work that they have done in relation to the Good Friday Agreement, decommissioning, etc.

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 3:03pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh... so you were going back a hundred years. Not that it's much of a surprise.

It's a different and complicated discussion, for numerous reasons. It makes it too difficult to discuss what is at hand - not to mention the fact that it is anachronistic and contradictory (on the grounds that you are telling me to 'get with the times', as it were, before you yourself fall back upon Michael Collins et al)

Not that I'm saying that that subject doesn't have merit - just that it's difficult to discuss it in these circumstances (although I've already mentioned how Fianna Fail separated itself from Sinn Fein 2 and Fine Gael separated itself from both SF2 and CnG)

No.. you still haven't said what you meant. As you haven't clarified I will assume that I was also right with the 'moving on' interpretation; which again nicely contradicts your above position whereby you predicate your argument on events that are not in living memory.

You could make a valid argument from either position, but not both, realistically. If I were you I would stick with the 'moving on' mantra, as SF6 can actually point to work that they have done in relation to the Good Friday Agreement, decommissioning, etc.

You are the one sitting comfortably in a state founded upon violence, pontificating about the rights of a politically mandated party to govern. SF have long separated themselves from violence as a means to an end. Nobody is saying move on,(what does that mean anyway?) what we are saying is 'be honest'.
Which is something partitionists can't be, because to be a partitionist in this particular state is to be a hypocrite.

RandomName2 · 22-06-2012 3:36pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are the one sitting comfortably in a state founded upon violence, pontificating about the rights of a politically mandated party to govern.

That much is correct.

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF have long separated themselves from violence as a means to an end.

SF has separated itself from violence as a means to an end, sure. But what does that really mean? That today planting bombs will win them less political concessions than engaging in politics? Okay, I'll even take that (with reservations) but my issue is the manner in which such a pragmatic decision seems to be nothing more than... pragmatic. Every time any issue comes up in relation to SF so too do some reference to the Troubles, or 1916, or 800 years of oppression (you have done your bit mentioning the War of Independence and 1916 above). It makes it seem that if they again felt that using armalites instead of pamphlets would be more appropriate, that they would have few qualms about doing so.

Even today there is a hullabaloo about whether or not the Deputy First Minister of NI will shake hands with his head of state - presumably to do with the Troubles or whatever.

I'll accept to a certain extent that SF has to play the nationalist card for the sake of its constituents - but I believe that the sentiment is entirely sincere.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nobody is saying move on,(what does that mean anyway?) what we are saying is 'be honest'.

I believe you did so above.

Certainly it is normal for republican politicians to highlight the act of forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, moving with the present, etc. as part of the peace process. This is, in fact, used as a rebuttal for claims of lack of honesty on their part (do you remember the recent presidential contest?) Generally it is argued that the peace process should take precedence over the raking up of unpleasant details about the Troubles be it honest or not. Again your argument is eating itself.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is something partitionists can't be, because to be a partitionist in this particular state is to be a hypocrite.

Hypocrite? How hypocrite? It would be hypocritical if one said that you believed in a united Ireland and then did not pursue it in any way... or the converse; said that you believed in partition but then attempted to dismantle it. De Valera could be argued to be hypocritical in his handling of the Treaty, and in terms of his actions as Taoiseach.

Are... are you even making any arguments any more?

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 4:09pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

That much is correct.

That's all you need to say, I will leave you to your semantics so. Thankfully, as already pointed out, as SF inevitably grow so also will your 'politcal' breed decline.

K-9 · 22-06-2012 4:42pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Wrong. A number of highly respected economists have backed SF's policies. I've seen a few of them speak about them, such as at the Uniting Ireland conference in Newry. Difficult to misquote someone when they're standing up in front of you talking.

Who would these be?

There is this general belief among some people that SF's economic policies dont add up but when you probe further and ask what policies they take issue with they cant answer because they dont know any policies. Never bothered to look them up. They just heard someone on RTE say it and decided that was that.

I'm also baffled when people can say with 100% assurance that SF's policies, which have never been tried here, wouldnt work and then go and defend FF or FG policies which have been shown to be a catastrophic failure.
Seems odd to me to opt for what you know doesnt work as opposed to trying something new. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Well I read their last budget submission and it seems to consist of something for everybody in the audience if your on welfare, low or medium wages, all mostly paid by those on over 100k.

Laminations · 22-06-2012 5:26pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Show me one of them that has gotten it right in the last 5 or 6 years.:rolleyes:

It's not about economists getting it right or wrong, it's about them using tried and tested methods to make predictions- with some rationale and evidence. It's like a homeopath arguing that scientists have gotten things wrong in the past. So what, it's about the rigorous scientific method vs. some unsupported belief in the memory of water.

Now economics isn't a science but when SF drop the ball on this front with their fanciful populist ideas they demonstrate their unsuitability to run a country. And when their proposals in the south betray their policies/behaviour in the north they show themselves to be hypocrites.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I'm also baffled when people can say with 100% assurance that SF's policies, which have never been tried here, wouldnt work and then go and defend FF or FG policies which have been shown to be a catastrophic failure.
Seems odd to me to opt for what you know doesnt work as opposed to trying something new. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Apart from the initial decisions that made private debt sovereign and bearing in mind that most of our debt doesn't relate to the banks, what policies are you referring to that 'don't work'? Again it's about the rationale for an economic policy/prediction. When it comes to such serious matters it is safer to take the position that 'policies that have never been tried' wouldn't work, rather than believing they would without any evidence. Yeah maybe if you want to take a punt and couldn't care less whether the result could mean all wealth and investment flees the country, then you can take that risk. SF seem to plan to run the country on bluster, bluff and hope.

Oh and I'd also like to know who these economists were who stood before you at your summer camp.

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 5:35pm

Laminations wrote: »

It's not about economists getting it right or wrong, it's about them using tried and tested methods to make predictions- with some rationale and evidence. It's like a homeopath arguing that scientists have gotten things wrong in the past. So what, it's about the rigorous scientific method vs. some unsupported belief in the memory of water.

Now economics isn't a science but when SF drop the ball on this front with their fanciful populist ideas they demonstrate their unsuitability to run a country. And when their proposals in the south betray their policies/behaviour in the north they show themselves to be hypocrites.

Ah right! What you are trying to say is, political parties shouldn't promise things they can't deliver or be populist? Very good! Let's try that system then. :rolleyes:

gerryo777 · 22-06-2012 5:43pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hard put to find anyone who doesn't believe Ireland exists. :rolleyes:

What I mean by that is they have faith in our country and will stand up for our country.:rolleyes:

FF/FG/Lab seem content to allow Europe dictate the shape and future of Ireland.

I want to be seen as Irish first and part of Europe.

FF/FG/Lab seem to want us to be seen as just European.

Laminations · 22-06-2012 5:45pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ah right! What you are trying to say is, political parties shouldn't promise things they can't deliver or be populist? Very good! Let's try that system then. :rolleyes:

Bravo. You got it. Political paties shouldn't try to be populist - maybe we'll allow them a few populist policies but their entire act shouldn't be pandering to the crowds. If you missed it, that kind of politics gave us the big fake boom we've all experienced burst in our faces.

Patrick Cleburne · 22-06-2012 5:45pm

Hell, even the unionist parties have traditionally supported the notion of a united Ireland (albeit within the United Kingdom).

The Protestants of Ulster only demand one thing and that is to be left alone.

All we ask is to be let alone. - Jefferson Davis

gerryo777 · 22-06-2012 5:46pm

Laminations wrote: »

Economists. For a start. SF had to misquote them to fake support.

Jesus, Imagine a politician doing such a thing.:D

Laminations · 22-06-2012 5:48pm

Oh and what exactly about the current government is particularly populist?

gerryo777 · 22-06-2012 5:48pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

as per the 1916 thing

The 1916 'thing'?

gerryo777 · 22-06-2012 5:57pm

Laminations wrote: »

Apart from the initial decisions that made private debt sovereign and bearing in mind that most of our debt doesn't relate to the banks, what policies are you referring to that 'don't work'? Again it's about the rationale for an economic policy/prediction. When it comes to such serious matters it is safer to take the position that 'policies that have never been tried' wouldn't work, rather than believing they would without any evidence. Yeah maybe if you want to take a punt and couldn't care less whether the result could mean all wealth and investment flees the country, then you can take that risk. SF seem to plan to run the country on bluster, bluff and hope.

Oh and I'd also like to know who these economists were who stood before you at your summer camp.

Do you think all economic decisions were made post september/october 2008?

BTW, this country is being run on bluster, bluff and hope if you haven't noticed.

gerryo777 · 22-06-2012 6:19pm

Laminations wrote: »

Oh and what exactly about the current government is particularly populist?

Na, you've got it wrong.

The populist crap comes out in the run up to elections, the more populist your policy's are, the more votes you get.
This is how FG/Lab got such a majority.

After the election the populist crap goes out the window for about 4 years until the run in to the next election starts.

It's Irish politics at it's finest.

Got it now?

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 6:38pm

Laminations wrote: »

Bravo. You got it. Political paties shouldn't try to be populist - maybe we'll allow them a few populist policies but their entire act shouldn't be pandering to the crowds. If you missed it, that kind of politics gave us the big fake boom we've all experienced burst in our faces.

Very good.
Now go look up the word 'socialist', if only to prepare yourself for the future.
SF are the only real socialist choice we have. They deserve the chance to implement their policies when the people decide to elect them to office.

Personally I believe socialism won't work on it's own, but by jesus do we need a more fair government. I look forward to them sharing power in the near future.

RandomName2 · 22-06-2012 7:05pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

The 1916 'thing'?

I'm suspecting you didn't understand my post.

The 'thing' was Happyman's reference... something along the lines of 'how can you not condone violence when you are yourself knee deep in the blood righteously spilled by your predecessors?'

gerryo777 wrote: »

What I mean by that is they have faith in our country and will stand up for our country.:rolleyes:

FF/FG/Lab seem content to allow Europe dictate the shape and future of Ireland.

I want to be seen as Irish first and part of Europe.

FF/FG/Lab seem to want us to be seen as just European.

I can't argue with much of that.

RandomName2 · 22-06-2012 7:06pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Very good.
Now go look up the word 'socialist', if only to prepare yourself for the future.
SF are the only real socialist choice we have.

As opposed to the ... em... Socialist Party?

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 7:32pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

As opposed to the ... em... Socialist Party?

You do know what the function of a capital letter is?

gerryo777 · 22-06-2012 7:43pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

You do know what the function of a capital letter is?

He/she did that earlier when I posted about SF being a party that believed in the country of Ireland, as in has faith in Ireland, came back with 'Hard put to find anyone who doesn't believe Ireland exists,:rolleyes:'

Your saying SF are a socialist party and he comes back with 'The Socialist Party'.

Bit of trolling going on......

RandomName2 · 22-06-2012 8:21pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

He/she did that earlier when I posted about SF being a party that believed in the country of Ireland, as in has faith in Ireland, came back with 'Hard put to find anyone who doesn't believe Ireland exists,:rolleyes:'

Sigh... I suppose humour in a thread about SF was always going to be a lead balloon.

gerryo777 wrote: »

Your saying SF are a socialist party and he comes back with 'The Socialist Party'.

Bit of trolling going on......

I would be somewhat tempted to agree with you, except it is against the forum charter to accuse other posters of trolling.

He says: SF only socialist option
I say: what about the Socialists?
He says: ah but socialists and Socialists are different. (the ASCII values are not the same)

Happyman has not identified his positions, nor backed up his arguments. He has contradicted himself several times and has subsequently abandoned his thread of argument altogether.

As the conversation sounds more like a sales-pitch for SF, I am consequently bowing out. :pac:

Happyman42 · 22-06-2012 8:39pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

He says: SF only socialist option
I say: what about the Socialists?
He says: ah but socialists and Socialists are different. (the ASCII values are not the same)

Happyman has not identified his positions, nor backed up his arguments. He has contradicted himself several times and has subsequently abandoned his thread of argument altogether.

Try as hard as you wish, but I said none of the above, I deliberately didn't use a capital 'S'. You deliberately used what you wanted it to mean to drag the thread further off topic to avoid the issues.

As the conversation sounds more like a sales-pitch for SF, I am consequently bowing out. :pac:

It's quite obvious that your hate for SF clouds anything sensible you might have to say about politics. Maybe it's best you bow out.

Sinn Féin-A responsible thread for adults.

Comments