Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

Stheno · 29-04-2014 10:55pm

robindch wrote: »

They don't make sense because they know they'll never have to live up to the election promises they make. Which is not to say that all their populist policies are bad - some are not - but the majority are irresponsible, naked populism.

Oh yes, and I'm old enough to remember when SF were the political wing of the kind of people who did this to their fellow human beings in the name of my country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings

It'll be a chill winter in hell before I give any shinner my vote.

I will never forget watching the reporting of that incident on the news, it made me feel ill. The pictures of that priest giving last rights is one of the most haunting of the troubles imo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm sorry, you guys think FF and FG economic policies make sense? :eek:

At least they are consistent and follow through on what they propose, what SF do up North is the polar opposite of what they propose down here. There is no consistency in their policies, they oppose property tax and water charges here, yet legislate for similar in the North, which one could argue is more economically depressed due to dependancy on funding from the UK

Red Kev wrote: »

My biggest issue with SF, and the reason that I won't vote for them is that they oppose cuts in the Republic of Ireland but implement the exact same cuts in Northern Ireland where they are in power. Utter populists, something I despise in politics, be it on the left or right.

comongethappy wrote: »

If you can back that up with stats pertaining to murders and/or acts of terror committed by the Labour party, Socialist party or Green Party I'm sure we would love to read it!

quadrifoglio verde · 29-04-2014 10:58pm

robindch wrote: »

They don't make sense because they know they'll never have to live up to the election promises they make. Which is not to say that all their populist policies are bad - some are not - but the majority are irresponsible, naked populism.

Oh yes, and I'm old enough to remember when SF were the political wing of the kind of people who did this to their fellow human beings in the name of my country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings

It'll be a chill winter in hell before I give any shinner my vote.

As was the execution by the pro treaty forces at ballyseedy, where they tied 9 anti-treaty republican soldiers and tied them to a landmine, detonated it and those who survived were then machine gunned. Only one person survived by being blown safety.

frostyjacks · 29-04-2014 11:00pm

comongethappy wrote: »

If you can back that up with stats pertaining to murders and/or acts of terror committed by the Labour party, Socialist party or Green Party I'm sure we would love to read it!

This is the same old rhetoric from 20 years ago, 'SF/IRA two sides of the same coin blah blah murderers blah blah bombers'. Didn't work then, and it doesn't look like it's working now either.

YueHan · 29-04-2014 11:01pm

Yeah, the heart is to the left but the head is to the right. I have forever voted Labour, (although I once voted for Garrett FitzGerald) but I'm finding it more and more difficult to give subsequent preferences to the Blueshirts. Having said that Enda went up in my estimation after his Dail remarks about the RC Church and his welcome back to the Dail to Jim Higgnins. I swore never to vote FF but the other day I met Mary Fitzpatrick canvassing outside the Chq building in Dublin. She's a sexy little number as well as articulate, she had a good shpeel for me, and she's prettier than her picture, so I may find a vote for her somewhere. Her point was that it's better to fight corruption from inside the tent than shouting ineffectively from outside the tent. I didn't stay to argue with her, but it seems to me that no matter how idealistic before getting elected once the Dail threshold is crossed you're part of a corrupt system which taints you. After the Garda penalty points scandal, I don't remember where I saw a poll which claimed that most of us still don't believe that the Guards as a force are corrupt. As long as the electorate have the attitude 'you'd also do it if you had the chance', we will have a two-tier justice system, one for the nominaclatura and their running dogs, and another for the 'have-nots'. We get the rulers we deserve. In my view corruption is still corruption when it's legalized corruption. Rant over. Joan Burton protected the less well off to some extent in the face of powerful lobby forces, and I'll probably continue to vote Labour with next preferences going to the Shinners. If we exptect Unionists to put up with SF, so can we, even if they're away with the fairies as far as their economic policies in the Republic are concerned.

marienbad · 29-04-2014 11:01pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

As was the execution by the pro treaty forces at ballyseedy, where they tied 9 anti-treaty republican soldiers and tied them to a landmine, detonated it and those who survived were then machine gunned. Only one person survived by being blown safety.

Aside from the fact that what might have happened nearly 100 years ago not being remotely accepted now - what is the relevance ?

Stheno · 29-04-2014 11:04pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is the same old rhetoric from 20 years ago, 'SF/IRA two sides of the same coin blah blah murderers blah blah bombers'. Didn't work then, and it doesn't look like it's working now either.

It's not with their support base which are hard line republicans from the past and the under 35s

Not groups reknowned for their going out to vote.

Go canvass the grey vote on their support for SF, and the current baby boomers, and you'll not find much support

I personally would rather slit my throat than vote SF ever in my lifetime

road_high · 29-04-2014 11:04pm

comongethappy wrote: »

My main beef with them is that they are the party of "No".

Despite a 10-15 billion annual deficit in the the government coffers, SF said no to every spending cut, however modest & every tax increase since 2008.

Their solution to government debt was to inflate the economy through yet more debt.

They seem to dislike wealth creators, enterprise & any household with the audacity to earn over 100k gross per year.

Lazy populism with no bandwagon not jumped upon.

Plus, their leadership being former IRA members/commanders doesn't help.

Couldn't have put it better myself. As someone who works hard for a living, pays through the nose in taxes and gets zilch back from the state, the prospect of SF with a hand on the finances is frankly terrifying, along with their 6th class grasp of economics. Never a mention of a balanced budget or fiscal prudence in their propaganda. Always the lowest common denominator and never a mention of enterprise or fostering a culture of hard work.

Stheno · 29-04-2014 11:06pm

Actually slightly OT but has anyone noticed the vast amount of female candidates they appear to have?

They have at least three if not four running in Dublin?

quadrifoglio verde · 29-04-2014 11:07pm

marienbad wrote: »

Aside from the fact that what might have happened nearly 100 years ago not being remotely accepted now - what is the relevance ?

The relevance is that both FG and FF's history stems from a bitter Civil war, in which atrocities occurring on both sides.
Just because it happened nearly 100 years ago, doesn't mean that their history is blood free as well.

Those who throw out the line of Ill never vote SF because they shot soldiers, innocent people and police officers in the past also need to remember that some of the most prominent founding members of both FF and FG did the very same.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRA for the likes of what happened to jean mcconville, but FF and FG's history isn't blood free

Stheno · 29-04-2014 11:09pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The relevance is that both FG and FF's history stems from a bitter Civil war, in which atrocities occurring on both sides.
Just because it happened nearly 100 years ago, doesn't mean that their history is blood free as well.

Those who throw out the line of Ill never vote SF because they shot soldiers, innocent people and police officers in the past also need to remember that some of the most prominent founding members of both FF and FG did the very same.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRA for the likes of what happened to jean mcconville, but FF and FG's history isn't blood free

SF/IRA did not engage in a civil war though they were terrorists pure and simple. Not happy with an agreement negotiated between two states, they staged a campaign of terror inside and outside their own country and dressed it up as war in their eyes.

marienbad · 29-04-2014 11:12pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The relevance is that both FG and FF's history stems from a bitter Civil war, in which atrocities occurring on both sides.
Just because it happened nearly 100 years ago, doesn't mean that their history is blood free as well.

Those who throw out the line of Ill never vote SF because they shot soldiers, innocent people and police officers in the past also need to remember that some of the most prominent founding members of both FF and FG did the very same.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRA for the likes of what happened to jean mcconville, but FF and FG's history isn't blood free

Times move on , what was acceptable to some in the 1920's was not acceptable in the 1980's never mind this century so you are not comparing like with like. No party with such extreme violence in their recent past would be accepted in government in any mature democracy in the western world.

road_high · 29-04-2014 11:23pm

Local candidate for them here is an unemployed painter...nothing wrong with being unemployed per se (have been for myself short term through redundancy) but this guy appears to be unemployed since the crash. How is this somebody we are supposed to emulate to public office and understand the concerns of taxpayers?
For me they just cultivate the welfare classes and the anti-everything's. SF's motto is let the rest of us pay for it all and of of course "tax the rich" ie grab it off those that likely have worked very hard for what they have and taken risks/opportunities that come their way...rather than sitting on the dole for 5 years whinging about terrible the govt are.

quadrifoglio verde · 29-04-2014 11:27pm

Stheno wrote: »

SF/IRA did not engage in a civil war though they were terrorists pure and simple. Not happy with an agreement negotiated between two states, they staged a campaign of terror inside and outside their own country and dressed it up as war in their eyes.

But you could argue that the flying column tactics was equally a campaign of terror against the establishment.
we are talking about members of SF, who later joined FF, burning the legitimate owners of property out of their homes, for no reason other than they were pro British.

I just hate the two facedness off the argument that someone can't vote for SF because of what happened during the troubles (which is nearly finished 20 years ago) but can vote for FF or FG even though they committed equally awful atrocities 80 years ago.

After all not all SF members carried a gun, especially their younger candidates. Why should they be tarred with the same brush as Gerry kelly, when Enda isn't tarred with the same brush as kevin O higgins who signed the death warrants of 77 political prisoners. At the end of the day, neither Enda, or SF's young candidates had any involvement in past events.
Just because it happened 90 years ago, doesn't mean that it should be exempted or forgotten for that matter.

Anyway before I get accused of being a shinner, Ill never vote for them, unless their economic policies are in my opinion whats best for the country.

thomur · 29-04-2014 11:30pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The relevance is that both FG and FF's history stems from a bitter Civil war, in which atrocities occurring on both sides.
Just because it happened nearly 100 years ago, doesn't mean that their history is blood free as well.

Those who throw out the line of Ill never vote SF because they shot soldiers, innocent people and police officers in the past also need to remember that some of the most prominent founding members of both FF and FG did the very same.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRA for the likes of what happened to jean mcconville, but FF and FG's history isn't blood free

I used to be completely anti Sinn Fein and was always a FG supporter. Still support them but I am now a lot more willing to give SF a listen. Would never vote FF because of GV Wright and P Flynn.In 10-20 years SF will prob be in government here.

Dan_Solo · 29-04-2014 11:32pm

road_high wrote: »

Local candidate for them here is an unemployed painter...nothing wrong with being unemployed per se (have been for myself short term through redundancy) but this guy appears to be unemployed since the crash. How is this somebody we are supposed to emulate to public office and understand the concerns of taxpayers?

I'd rather vote for a dolehead than a lawyer third generation career politician myself. Though maybe not an SF one.

Stheno · 29-04-2014 11:37pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

But you could argue that the flying column tactics was equally a campaign of terror against the establishment.
we are talking about members of SF, who later joined FF, burning the legitimate owners of property out of their homes, for no reason other than they were pro British.

I just hate the two facedness off the argument that someone can't vote for SF because of what happened during the troubles (which is nearly finished 20 years ago) but can vote for FF or FG even though they committed equally awful atrocities 80 years ago.

After all not all SF members carried a gun, especially their younger candidates. Why should they be tarred with the same brush as Gerry kelly, when Enda isn't tarred with the same brush as kevin O higgins who signed the death warrants of 77 political prisoners. At the end of the day, neither Enda, or SF's young candidates had any involvement in past events.
Just because it happened 90 years ago, doesn't mean that it should be exempted or forgotten for that matter.

Anyway before I get accused of being a shinner, Ill never vote for them, unless their economic policies are in my opinion whats best for the country.

Frankly, I think SF in the South are all spit and no substance, using their history in the past to appeal to a generation never affected by their actions up there, and populist claptrap to entice them in.

Absolutely full of crap they are.

And that's on top of my predujice against them for their role in the troubles, I worked with one of their bombers, and met plenty of them, and have no time whatsoever for any of them being in government.

If they got rid of Adams, Ferris, McGuinness etc and reformed as a group with no ties to subversives, and got their act together economically, then fine, but they never will.

Dan_Solo · 29-04-2014 11:38pm

Stheno wrote: »

Frankly, I think SF in the South are all spit and no substance, using their history in the past to appeal to a generation never affected by their actions up there, and populist claptrap to entice them in.

I find they try to cover up their past as much as possible! Never once heard them go on about the troubles.

guinnessdrinker · 29-04-2014 11:44pm

Stheno wrote: »

Frankly, I think SF in the South are all spit and no substance, using their history in the past to appeal to a generation never affected by their actions up there, and populist claptrap to entice them in.

Absolutely full of crap they are.

And that's on top of my predujice against them for their role in the troubles, I worked with one of their bombers, and met plenty of them, and have no time whatsoever for any of them being in government.

If they got rid of Adams, Ferris, McGuinness etc and reformed as a group with no ties to subversives, and got their act together economically, then fine, but they never will.

Why do you think they'd be fine if they simply got rid of Adams etc. when you previously said that they are "all spit and no substance" and that "they are full of crap?"

Stheno · 29-04-2014 11:47pm

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Why do you think they'd be fine if they simply got rid of Adams etc. when you previously said that they are "all spit and no substance" and that "they are full of crap?"

I also said that if they got their act together on the economics side?

So get ride of the paramilitaries, take a course in economics, and then I might take them seriously?

guinnessdrinker · 29-04-2014 11:50pm

Stheno wrote: »

I also said that if they got their act together on the economics side?

So get ride of the paramilitaries, take a course in economics, and then I might take them seriously?

Fair enough but I don't think they are the only party that need to take a course in economics (FF/FG/Labour spring to mind) to be taken seriously.

marienbad · 30-04-2014 12:06am

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

But you could argue that the flying column tactics was equally a campaign of terror against the establishment.
we are talking about members of SF, who later joined FF, burning the legitimate owners of property out of their homes, for no reason other than they were pro British.

I just hate the two facedness off the argument that someone can't vote for SF because of what happened during the troubles (which is nearly finished 20 years ago) but can vote for FF or FG even though they committed equally awful atrocities 80 years ago.

After all not all SF members carried a gun, especially their younger candidates. Why should they be tarred with the same brush as Gerry kelly, when Enda isn't tarred with the same brush as kevin O higgins who signed the death warrants of 77 political prisoners. At the end of the day, neither Enda, or SF's young candidates had any involvement in past events.
Just because it happened 90 years ago, doesn't mean that it should be exempted or forgotten for that matter.

Anyway before I get accused of being a shinner, Ill never vote for them, unless their economic policies are in my opinion whats best for the country.

What was acceptable to some and not all mind you ,in 1920 is not acceptable now . It is unbelievable that a divorce referendum was lost in the not too distant past or the that Oliver J was ever elected to the dail.
Times change

But our standards move on so that people ( as is their right) judge SF by the standards of today and not the 1920's.

Happyman42 · 30-04-2014 12:07am

I think what irks most people in the south from FG and FF is that they know that SF will finish the job that their forebears couldn't and indeed wouldn't.

There is a guilt complex at the heart of establishment politics here (you see it on here in the partitionist rantings too) and they know they are gonna have to deal with that sooner or later with every percentage rise SF achieves and consolidates.
I genuinely believe that is why Enda invited Mrs Windsor back for the 2016 commemorations. He wants something to distract from any deep analysis of how the republic was wrecked and how it's leaders getting fat on power and turned their backs on Irish people and left them to the mercies of a sectarian statelet, that would never have existed had their party's founders took responsibility.

marienbad · 30-04-2014 12:12am

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think what irks most people in the south from FG and FF is that they know that SF will finish the job that their forebears couldn't and indeed wouldn't.

There is a guilt complex at the heart of establishment politics here (you see it on here in the partitionist rantings too) and they know they are gonna have to deal with that sooner or later with every percentage rise SF achieves and consolidates.
I genuinely believe that is why Enda invited Mrs Windsor back for the 2016 commemorations. He wants something to distract from any deep analysis of how the republic was wrecked and how it's leaders getting fat on power and turned their backs on Irish people and left them to the mercies of a sectarian statelet, that would never have existed had their party's founders took responsibility.

That's one way of looking at it I suppose .Won't have many takers though.

endacl · 30-04-2014 12:12am

I could never vote for them. The reasons are many and varied, mostly gut reaction and revulsion. I'd sooner give up my right to vote than pass one their way. In the spirit of "a picture speaks a thousand words", I'll let this sum up the 'why'...

The horrible picture of Gda Gerry McCabe dead in the front of a car would probably sum it up better, but would be in bad taste.

comongethappy · 30-04-2014 12:15am

And the most 'Shinner-tastic' post of the night goes to.......

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think what irks most people in the south from FG and FF is that they know that SF will finish the job that their forebears couldn't and indeed wouldn't.

There is a guilt complex at the heart of establishment politics here (you see it on here in the partitionist rantings too) and they know they are gonna have to deal with that sooner or later with every percentage rise SF achieves and consolidates.
I genuinely believe that is why Enda invited Mrs Windsor back for the 2016 commemorations. He wants something to distract from any deep analysis of how the republic was wrecked and how it's leaders getting fat on power and turned their backs on Irish people and left them to the mercies of a sectarian statelet, that would never have existed had their party's founders took responsibility.

(Whatever you do....
Stick to century old history.... Never mention current economics!)

pablo128 · 30-04-2014 12:17am

marienbad wrote: »

Times move on , what was acceptable to some in the 1920's was not acceptable in the 1980's never mind this century so you are not comparing like with like. No party with such extreme violence in their recent past would be accepted in government in any mature democracy in the western world.

Really? What about Mandela and the ANC?

marienbad · 30-04-2014 12:27am

pablo128 wrote: »

Really? What about Mandela and the ANC?

I know it is not popular to say it but ''mature democracy in the western world''

excludes them.

Happyman42 · 30-04-2014 12:29am

comongethappy wrote: »

And the most 'Shinner-tastic' post of the night goes to.......

(Whatever you do....
Stick to century old history.... Never mention current economics!)

Shame is, it isn't history, the island is still divided, a core reason why we haven't prospered. But this or certainly the next generation will see a united island and a chance to build a proper republic where the people come first.
Please demonstrate how that has been the case with your great 'economists'.
Please refrain from using an 'I'm alright Jack' methodology.

Molester Stallone · 30-04-2014 12:36am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Shame is, it isn't history, the island is still divided, a core reason why we haven't prospered. But this or certainly the next generation will see a united island and a chance to build a proper republic where the people come first.
Please demonstrate how that has been the case with your great 'economists'.
Please refrain from using an 'I'm alright Jack' methodology.

An island does not a country make....and in this islands case, never will

marienbad · 30-04-2014 12:37am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Shame is, it isn't history, the island is still divided, a core reason why we haven't prospered. But this or certainly the next generation will see a united island and a chance to build a proper republic where the people come first.
Please demonstrate how that has been the case with your great 'economists'.
Please refrain from using an 'I'm alright Jack' methodology.

We have prospered- enormously . This country is unrecognisable from even 40 years ago never mind the 1920's . And that includes the current economic mess.

Though I suppose you have to be a certain age to see that without the blinkers on.

Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

Comments