Makes you proud. Good aul honest Irish Politics.

bohsman

Sergeant wrote: »

Historical inaccuracy and whataboutery rolled into one post.

Congrats dude.

Just trying to stick with the general tone of the thread.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Criticising the other side is not a policy.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies

Iwasfrozen

TINA1984 wrote: »

What's your masters? Clearly it isn't in political science or anything related, because, if it was, you might have a reasonable knowledge on the growth of PSF as a political entity and their divergence away from doctrinaire marxism since they split with OSF.

Nice try. "Sinn Féin is a 32-County party striving for an end to partition on the island of Ireland and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic."
Source: http://www.sinnfein.ie/what-sinn-fein-stands-for

TINA1984 wrote: »

Sheet you don't even need a masters to look at where PSF are in power - Northern Ireland - to see that it isn't a workers republic in the stylings of North Korea or the like, which was another bunkum claim you made.

SF have full power in NI now? That's news to me. Even if there were they still wouldn't be "in" power. Hell Stormont doesn't even have the power to set it's own corporate tax rate.

TINA1984 wrote: »

When someone has resorted to Reds under the beds scare mongering - as witnessed most recently on here with the scare mongering about the Labour Party prior to the 2011 election - you know they've ran out of steam and can only use cliche's in place of logic & reason.

Scare mongering? You'd swear socialism hasn't been a complete failure in every country it's been tested in. Look the modern western European economy consists of a mix of capitalist and socialist ideas. Free education, healthcare, social welfare, and trade unions are all socialist ideas and we are better off for them. But in no country had proper socialism ever been anything other then a failure. And by God there was been many attempts, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries.

golfball37

Sergeant wrote: »

Historical inaccuracy and whataboutery rolled into one post.

Congrats dude.

Fine Gael's first leader was directly involved in sending many Irishmen to fight for Franco in Spain,or is that not true?

At least SF never distanced themselves from the murder gangs, unlike the 2 main Political Parties in Vichy Eire

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies

Here are their economic policies, http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy. Not one number on the main page. Hell their last submission was four years ago in 2009!

laoch na mona

i see nothing wrong with it

laoch na mona

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Here are their economic policies, http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy. Not one number on the main page. Hell their last submission was four years ago in 2009!

they submit alternative budgets every year

bohsman

golfball37 wrote: »

Fine Gael's first leader was directly involved in sending many Irishmen to fight for Franco in Spain,or is that not true?

At least SF never distanced themselves from the murder gangs, unlike the 2 main Political Parties in Vichy Eire

My statement of "Fine Gael went and fought" is inaccurate. Of course they did align themselves with fascists around Europe and had their right hand salute and blue shirts but O'Duffy had been dumped from FG by the time he and his followers went off and fought for Franco.

Iwasfrozen

laoch na mona wrote: »

they submit alternative budgets every year

This? I admit it's something and I didn't see it at the start. It's only 24 pages but at least they're doing something.

TINA1984

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nice try. "Sinn Féin is a 32-County party striving for an end to partition on the island of Ireland and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic."
Source: http://www.sinnfein.ie/what-sinn-fein-stands-for.

Its just rhetoric, empty meaningless rhethoric. All left of centre parties in european countries will have something similar inserted in their party constitutions.

Why here's our very own Labour Party constitution

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party and, through its membership of the Party of European Socialists and Socialist International, is part of the international socialist movement working for equality and to empower citizens, consumers and workers in a world increasingly dominated by big business, greed and selfishness.

Bunch of gibberish, doesn't really carry any weight when they're in power does it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

SF have full power in NI now? That's news to me. Even if there were they still wouldn't be "in" power. Hell Stormont doesn't even have the power to set it's own corporate tax rate.

Going by the cut and thrust of your posts, any placing of PSF members in positions of responsibility will unleash upon an unwilling and unsuspecting public a tyrannical programme of wealth redistribution and execution of class enemies.

This has clearly been borne wherever PSF have squirmed their way into positions of authority - Stormont, local councils north and south of the border etc.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Scare mongering? You'd swear socialism hasn't been a complete failure in every country it's been tested in. Look the modern western European economy consists of a mix of capitalist and socialist ideas. Free education, healthcare, social welfare, and trade unions are all socialist ideas and we are better off for them. But in no country had proper socialism ever been anything other then a failure. And by God there was been many attempts, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries.

the point I'm making is that you're conflating 'socialism' US-style - where everything like you've mentioned above is considered extreme leftist - and 'socialism' classical Marxist style - which entails ownership of everything and the abolition of private property.

Anyone assessing PSF's place on the the ideologial spectrum would classify the party as centre-left party at best, closer in ideology to the 'mixed' model you've outlined above rather then a classical marxist party.

Anyone that is, who may have a reasonable working knowledge of politics.

Iwasfrozen

TINA1984 wrote: »

Its just rhetoric, empty meaningless rhethoric. All left of centre parties in european countries will have something similar inserted in their party constitutions.

Why here's our very own Labour Party constitution

Bunch of gibberish, doesn't really carry any weight when they're in power does it?

Logically that doesn't make sense. You can't say SF don't really mean it just because Labour don't really mean it.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Going by the cut and thrust of your posts, any placing of PSF members in positions of responsibility will unleash upon an unwilling and unsuspecting public a tyrannical programme of wealth redistribution and execution of class enemies.

This has clearly been borne wherever PSF have squirmed their way into positions of authority - Stormont, local councils north and south of the border etc.

Except SF don't have ultimate power in the North. They don't even have ultimate power in Stormont. A body that doesn't even have ultimate power itself. Now I'm not worried about being shot as bourgeois scum. But I am, understandably so, worried about being held back in a socialist economy.

TINA1984 wrote: »

the point I'm making is that you're conflating 'socialism' US-style - where everything like you've mentioned above is considered extreme leftist - and 'socialism' classical Marxist style - which entails ownership of everything and the abolition of private property.

Anyone assessing PSF's place on the the ideologial spectrum would classify the party as centre-left party at best, closer in ideology to the 'mixed' model you've outlined above rather then a classical marxist party.

Anyone that is, who may have a reasonable working knowledge of politics.

What you're talking about is McCarthyism, something no one else even mentioned.

TINA1984

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Logically that doesn't make sense. You can't say SF don't really mean it just because Labour don't really mean it.

If we're using logic here then the logical thing would be to not take aspirational sentences from party constitutions and use them as the only arbitrer when assessing whether a party is a doctrinaire marxist party or a more moderate centre-left one.

If you'd like again I could go cherry-picking through various successful political parties party constitutions to demonstrate my point? Perhaps you might get it if I explain it to you 4 or 5 times?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except SF don't have ultimate power in the North. They don't even have ultimate power in Stormont. A body that doesn't even have ultimate power itself. Now I'm not worried about being shot as bourgeois scum. But I am, understandably so, worried about being held back in a socialist economy.

Worry no more, PSF won't be implementing a "socialist economy" whether they're in power with their natural bed-fellows FF, erstwhile rivals the DUP, or on their own having won "ultimate power"!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What you're talking about is McCarthyism, something no one else even mentioned.

Er, no. I'm talking about you conflating two different meanings to the word socialism. When you call PSF Marxist, you are wrong, they are far closer on the political spectrum to the Irish Labour party and centre-left parties internationally then they are to doctrinaire marxist parties like the CPOI or even far-left parties like thier old rivals the Workers Party.

Iwasfrozen

TINA1984 wrote: »

If we're using logic here then the logical thing would be to not take aspirational sentences from party constitutions and use them as the only arbitrer when assessing whether a party is a doctrinaire marxist party or a more moderate centre-left one.

If you'd like again I could go cherry-picking through various successful political parties party constitutions to demonstrate my point? Perhaps you might get it if I explain it to you 4 or 5 times?

lol sorry but this is ridiculous. The party calls itself socialist and you say they're not. Now I know you seem to fancy yourself as a political analyst but SF are very obviously democratic socialists. You don't need a centrally planned economy to be socialist.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Worry no more, PSF won't be implementing a "socialist economy" whether they're in power with their natural bed-fellows FF, erstwhile rivals the DUP, or on their own having won "ultimate power"!

I don't have to worry because thankfully they will never be in power in the south for the foreseeable future. Now I may be wrong but I highly doubt it.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Er, no. I'm talking about you conflating two different meanings to the word socialism. When you call PSF Marxist, you are wrong, they are far closer on the political spectrum to the Irish Labour party and centre-left parties internationally then they are to doctrinaire marxist parties like the CPOI or even far-left parties like thier old rivals the Workers Party.

Er, no. You're trying to pass off democratic socialism as not socialism. Even when the party describes itself as socialist.

TINA1984

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol sorry but this is ridiculous. The party calls itself socialist and you say their not. Now I know you seem to fancy yourself as a political analyst but SF are very obviously democratic socialists. You don't need a centrally planned economy to be socialist.

Ok then I'm going to let you categorize PSF for me.

Now are they doctrianire marxists, like you originally claimed, intent on turning Ireland into something resembling the USSR...

Or are they now democratic socialists - in the style of the mainstream Euroleft parties, like your Irish & French Labour partys etc. which you're now claiming them to be

Which is it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't have to worry because thankfully they will never be in power in the south for the foreseeable future. Now I may be wrong but I highly doubt it.

Hate to break the badnews to you, but FF/PSF is a highly likely outcome come the next election.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Er, no. You're trying to pass off democratic socialism as not socialism. Even when the party describes itself as socialist.

Er, no. The crux of this tangent of the argument is that you are using terms like communist, socialist & democratic socialism interchangeably, when discussing PSF, as if they all mean one and the same thing.

Clearly they are not.

Iwasfrozen

TINA1984 wrote: »

Ok then I'm going to let you categorize PSF for me.

Now are they doctrianire marxists, like you originally claimed, intent on turning Ireland into something resembling the USSR...

Or are they now democratic socialists - in the style of the mainstream Euroleft parties, like your Irish & French Labour partys etc. which you're now claiming them to be

Which is it?

Where did I claim SF want a centrally planned economy? They are obviously democratic socialists. Who I wouldn't vote for because I am not a socialist.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Hate to break the badnews to you, but FF/PSF is a highly likely outcome come the next election.

lol, that's a funny joke. No mainstream party would work with SF.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Er, no. The crux of this tangent of the argument is that you are using terms like communist, socialist & democratic socialism interchangeably, when discussing PSF, as if they all mean one and the same thing.

Clearly they are not.

Er, no. I never used the word communist. Communism is the final evolution of civilisation after the violent over throw of the bourgeois and the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Democratic socialism on the other hand is a form of socialism what rejects the centrally planned economy. Democratic socialism is a form of socialism. SF are democratic socialists. SF are socialists.

TINA1984

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Where did I claim SF want a centrally planned economy?

Why do you tell porky pies?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You can move on without voting for them.

As an educated person I see the deficiencies in socialism. If you want to end up like these basket cases go ahead and vote SF. You didn't answer my question, what's your master's in?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol, that's a funny joke. No mainstream party would work with SF.

Looks like the Nile ain't just a river in Egypt

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Er, no. I never used the word communist.

Again, one can infer from this post...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You can move on without voting for them.

As an educated person I see the deficiencies in socialism. If you want to end up like these basket cases go ahead and vote SF. You didn't answer my question, what's your master's in?

Iwasfrozen

TINA1984 wrote: »

Why do you tell porky pies?
Looks like the Nile ain't just a river in Egypt

All of the above are examples of socialist states. Every socialist state that has existed has been a failure. Where did I claim SF wanted a centrally planned economy?

TINA1984 wrote: »

Again, one can infer from this post...

Where did I claim SF were communists?

Czarcasm

My name is URL wrote: »

Does that mean you cannot back up the claim you made previously?

HoggyRS wrote: »

So basically you admit your claim was 100% bull****?

Great, glad we're clear now.

Ohh you guys, the collective analphabetism is quite something. You're doing the image of Sinn Féin supporters no favors anyway. What relevance has the statement you quoted, not even addressed to either of you, got to do with a point I made earlier? Absolutely none.

How and ever anyway, to address the point I made earlier- there shall be no evidence forthcoming because I missed the opportunity to take photographs. I genuinely didn't care that much.

One of the reasons I refuse to engage with certain posters is because they need statistics for this and links for that and all sorts of nonsense. If someone is unwilling to take my word for something, then I invite them to share in my personal experience, where I will introduce them to my neighbour who gets all gick-eyed at the thoughts of wedging the fact he is a Sinn Féin supporter into every conversation (the otherwise affable chap carries a photo of himself and MartyMcG in his breast pocket ffs!)

The same chap wouldn't blow his own nose, his house is fairly warm with all the hot air though, but for the next General Election we can tip down to the polling station where we'll get to meet and greet with the foreign nationals exiting the minibus provided by Sinn Féin who were also kind enough to make sure their new found supporters were registered on the supplementary electoral register.

Now, if you're going to take umbrage at me to again back up my point of view, you should also ask Mr. Adams and McGuinness to back up their claims and provide irrefutable proof that Sinn Féin have indeed severed their links with the drug pushing "military wing" of their party, or is it just more of the same shít under a different name, only now that they have nothing to be oppressed about, they've changed their tack and have tried to appeal to the "yoof" of Ireland and foreign nationals who couldn't give a tinkers fcuk one way or the other.

fishy fishy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All of the above are examples of socialist states. Every socialist state that has existed has been a failure. Where did I claim SF wanted a centrally planned economy?


Where did I claim SF were communists?

Frankly you two sound like the "politicians" they have on frontline, etc. too busy trying to out do each other than to actually focus on whats really going on.

tit for tat.

fishy fishy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ohh you guys, the collective analphabetism is quite something. You're doing the image of Sinn Féin supporters no favors anyway. What relevance has the statement you quoted, not even addressed to either of you, got to do with a point I made earlier? Absolutely none.

How and ever anyway, to address the point I made earlier- there shall be no evidence forthcoming because I missed the opportunity to take photographs. I genuinely didn't care that much.

One of the reasons I refuse to engage with certain posters is because they need statistics for this and links for that and all sorts of nonsense. If someone is unwilling to take my word for something, then I invite them to share in my personal experience, where I will introduce them to my neighbour who gets all gick-eyed at the thoughts of wedging the fact he is a Sinn Féin supporter into every conversation (the otherwise affable chap carries a photo of himself and MartyMcG in his breast pocket ffs!)

The same chap wouldn't blow his own nose, his house is fairly warm with all the hot air though, but for the next General Election we can tip down to the polling station where we'll get to meet and greet with the foreign nationals exiting the minibus provided by Sinn Féin who were also kind enough to make sure their new found supporters were registered on the supplementary electoral register.

Now, if you're going to take umbrage at me to again back up my point of view, you should also ask Mr. Adams and McGuinness to back up their claims and provide irrefutable proof that Sinn Féin have indeed severed their links with the drug pushing "military wing" of their party, or is it just more of the same shít under a different name, only now that they have nothing to be oppressed about, they've changed their tack and have tried to appeal to the "yoof" of Ireland and foreign nationals who couldn't give a tinkers fcuk one way or the other.

don't give up the day job - you let yourself down with this post - this post highlights that you no idea what the reality is. :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

fishy fishy wrote: »

Frankly you two sound like the "politicians" they have on frontline, etc. too busy trying to out do each other than to actually focus on whats really going on.

tit for tat.

It's unfortunate, but when one person makes a claim the other person tries to discredit that claim by use of a strawman. In this case saying I called SF communists.

When the original poster then has to go back and dismantle the strawman provided by the second poster the second poster then tries to back up the strawman or be seen to be "losing" the argument. That's why unfortunately it looks like tit for tat.

fishy fishy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's unfortunate, but when one person makes a claim the other person tries to discredit that claim by use of a strawman. In this case saying I called SF communists.

When the original poster then has to go back and dismantle the strawman provided by the second poster the second poster then tries to back up the strawman or be seen to be "losing" the argument. That's why unfortunately it looks like tit for tat.

LOL - it sound like a typical debate between our so called leaders.

Iwasfrozen

fishy fishy wrote: »

LOL - it sound like a typical debate between our so called leaders.

It is.

TINA1984

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

. Where did I claim SF wanted a centrally planned economy?


Where did I claim SF were communists?

When you posted this:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As an educated person I see the deficiencies in socialism. If you want to end up like these basket cases go ahead and vote SF. You didn't answer my question, what's your master's in?

If you're not trying to paint PSF as communists here then what are you trying to do with this post? Please elaborate for me....

Iwasfrozen

TINA1984 wrote: »

When you posted this:

If you're not trying to paint PSF as communists here then what are you trying to do with this post? Please elaborate for me....

Yes, all examples of failed socialist countries. And SF are socialists. This isn't necessarily saying SF want a centrally planned economy. Or that SF are communists*. Only that their basic ideology. Socialism. Is unworkable.

*Communism is the final evolution of civilisation following world conversion to socialism. First the capitalist class have to be deposed and a dictatorship of the proletariat brought in. I don't think SF want anything that desperate! It's certainly not in their manifesto.

TINA1984

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, all examples of failed socialist countries. And SF are socialists. This isn't necessarily saying SF want a centrally planned economy. Or that SF are communists*. Only that their basic ideology. Socialism. Is unworkable.

*Communism is the final evolution of civilisation following world conversion to socialism. First the capitalist class have to be deposed and a dictatorship of the proletariat brought in. I don't think SF want anything that desperate! It's certainly not in their manifesto.

So going by your convoluted and in no way flip-flopping criteria, this can also mean Labour are socialists? Right?

HoggyRS

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ohh you guys, the collective analphabetism is quite something. You're doing the image of Sinn Féin supporters no favors anyway. What relevance has the statement you quoted, not even addressed to either of you, got to do with a point I made earlier? Absolutely none.

How and ever anyway, to address the point I made earlier- there shall be no evidence forthcoming because I missed the opportunity to take photographs. I genuinely didn't care that much.

One of the reasons I refuse to engage with certain posters is because they need statistics for this and links for that and all sorts of nonsense. If someone is unwilling to take my word for something, then I invite them to share in my personal experience, where I will introduce them to my neighbour who gets all gick-eyed at the thoughts of wedging the fact he is a Sinn Féin supporter into every conversation (the otherwise affable chap carries a photo of himself and MartyMcG in his breast pocket ffs!)

The same chap wouldn't blow his own nose, his house is fairly warm with all the hot air though, but for the next General Election we can tip down to the polling station where we'll get to meet and greet with the foreign nationals exiting the minibus provided by Sinn Féin who were also kind enough to make sure their new found supporters were registered on the supplementary electoral register.

Now, if you're going to take umbrage at me to again back up my point of view, you should also ask Mr. Adams and McGuinness to back up their claims and provide irrefutable proof that Sinn Féin have indeed severed their links with the drug pushing "military wing" of their party, or is it just more of the same shít under a different name, only now that they have nothing to be oppressed about, they've changed their tack and have tried to appeal to the "yoof" of Ireland and foreign nationals who couldn't give a tinkers fcuk one way or the other.

Cool story bro. No evidence whatsoever but at least you treated us to some bizarre ramblings.

What if I was to claim Fine Gael round up those dang foreigners for the day and bus then into polling stations for votes. I claim this is now true without any evidence, you my friend are forced by your own logic to accept it.

Iwasfrozen

TINA1984 wrote: »

So going by your convoluted and in no way flip-flopping criteria, this can also mean Labour are socialists? Right?

That's one of those non answerable question like "do you still beat your wife?" By answering I accept your statement that my criteria is convoluted. Which I don't.

HoggyRS

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, all examples of failed socialist countries. And SF are socialists. This isn't necessarily saying SF want a centrally planned economy. Or that SF are communists*. Only that their basic ideology. Socialism. Is unworkable.

*Communism is the final evolution of civilisation following world conversion to socialism. First the capitalist class have to be deposed and a dictatorship of the proletariat brought in. I don't think SF want anything that desperate! It's certainly not in their manifesto.

If Sinn Féin dont want a centrally planned economy, as everyone and their dog knows they don't, then why mention a load of centrally planned economies in your post that was meant to discredit SF's 'socialist' ideas?

Don't worry the question is rhetorical, I know the reason you did it was a cheap point scoring exercise that blew up in your face.

schnitzelEater

Nodin wrote: »

They do have policies. You refuse to acknowledge them as such.

Knee capping people is not a policy. Only kidding...well, sort of. Are they the crowd that support a property tax up north but not down south?

What's the logic there?