Taoiseach shocked and dismayed at Sinn Fein TDs tweet on IRA attacks

christy c

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When the girl left the party, FG lost control of themselves, and the game they started - headhunting. The girl having to very publicly contact RTE ad FG to ask them to stop lying - embarrassing.
It will hurt SF a bit, but not near as much as FG hoped and they have gone to the attack well too often already to try and curtail SF's rise.

More embarrassing for SF IMO, anyway not going to make much difference either way.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Nope.
We have Doherty on the radio right now talking about tweets more than the covid vaccine roll out not being set up yet. Scoring points off of old tweets is not as important IMO.

Thats fine, your opinion. However the actions of SF caused some members to resign, nothing to do with Regina or FG. That's an issue for them.

Anyway, this chapter is probably closed after today.

FrancieBrady

christy c wrote: »

Thats fine, your opinion. However the actions of SF caused some members to resign, nothing to do with Regina or FG. That's an issue for them.

Anyway, this chapter is probably closed after today.

I don't think a few youngsters who don't understand you cannot be letting lose on Twitter about your own party are going to last long in sny party. Sure you can just about get away with it if you have a power base in the party, like Jim O Callaghan but not as newbies.

FrancieBrady

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That girl was in the right though....always back your youth,its a source of great pride always among republicans to see next generation take up the mantle

V.weak leadership let this fester and not arrange mediation between parties involved,ultimately twitter is unimportant,(and childish) in a country with unfolding scandel of direct provision and 3,000 kids homeless this xmas

I agree. Think SF grew a bit too fast.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Thats fine, your opinion. However the actions of SF caused some members to resign, nothing to do with Regina or FG. That's an issue for them.

Anyway, this chapter is probably closed after today.

It is. But you asked who came out worse and I said the public.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

It is. But you asked who came out worse and I said the public.

My question: "But this particular episode, who do you think came out worse, SF or FG?". Specifically asking about SF and FG

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

My question: "But this particular episode, who do you think came out worse, SF or FG?". Specifically asking about SF and FG

I understood.

Its an expansion of the FG election campaign. I would say FG are digging themselves a hole. People are tired of it.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

I understood.

Its an expansion of the FG election campaign. I would say FG are digging themselves a hole. People are tired of it.

While FG definitely pushed it, others including members of SF also pushed it.

I'd much prefer the focus of the media, FG, SF young members, etc. to be on the economic policies of SF. Unfortunately its this kind of crap that gets the headlines, even though SF did make a balls of handling it.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

While FG definitely pushed it, others including members of SF also pushed it.

I'd much prefer the focus of the media, FG, SF young members, etc. to be on the economic policies of SF. Unfortunately its this kind of crap that gets the headlines, even though SF did make a balls of handling it.

I would suggest people are more concerned about day to day problems not FG using tweets for cover.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

I would suggest people are more concerned about day to day problems not FG using tweets for cover.

As I said, this was pushed by people outside of FG too. I'd be more worried about day to day problems too than some SF idiot's tweets

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

As I said, this was pushed by people outside of FG too. I'd be more worried about day to day problems too than some SF idiot's tweets

Agreed. Imagine if Stanley tweeted that the civil service was very white? Or FG didn't like white males?

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Agreed. Imagine if Stanley tweeted that the civil service was very white? Or FG didn't like white males?

Imagine if he did, imagine if was still being brought up months later while there are more important issues apparently.

For all the good Twitter does a politician, I dont think many would miss it if they all deleted their accounts

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Agreed. Imagine if Stanley tweeted that the civil service was very white?

If he did, he would be correctly pointing to the lack of diversity in the civil service, and well done to him would be my response.

But he didn’t. Instead, he engaged in dog-whistle homophobia, of a type familiar on here, followed up by a tweet glorifying and celebrating the murder of a 19-year old boy.

If you are ok with that, it says a lot about you. Wouldn’t surprise me if you excused it.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

Instead, he engaged in dog-whistle homophobia, of a type familiar on here

Has it occurred to anybody that Stanley's tweet regarding Leo's sexuality was a reaction to the media glorifying him as "Ireland's first gay Taoiseach", and pointing out that this is irrelevant to the fact that his political ideology is abhorrent?

The more I read this tweet the more it reads that way. I could be wrong, of course. I'd liken it to those who point out that feminist cheerleading of Merkel as a female leader is moronic considering her horrendous political beliefs.

followed up by a tweet glorifying and celebrating the murder of a 19-year old boy.

A solider from a hostile, opposing army during a time of civil war. Age is irrelevant in this context, it's very strange that you keep bringing it up.

The British Army killed young IRA members during the conflict as well, but I presume you're ok with that?

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Has it occurred to anybody that Stanley's tweet regarding Leo's sexuality was a reaction to the media glorifying him as "Ireland's first gay Taoiseach", and pointing out that this is irrelevant to the fact that his political ideology is abhorrent?

The more I read this tweet the more it reads that way. I could be wrong, of course. I'd liken it to those who point out that feminist cheerleading of Merkel as a female leader is moronic considering her horrendous political beliefs.



A solider from a hostile, opposing army during a time of civil war. Age is irrelevant in this context, it's very strange that you keep bringing it up.

The British Army killed young IRA members during the conflict as well, but I presume you're ok with that?

There was no civil war.

Amirani

I think Stanley handled this well in the Dáil yesterday. It was an welcome clarification and appropriate apology and delivered in the correct manner. I think also that Mary Lou dealt with the situation quite well overall, letting the heat out of the situation and advising Stanley to do what he did. All together a good day's work for Sinn Fein (after a messy week or so), and a generally positive reflection of our parliamentary democracy in how things like this can be resolved. Think it best to put this episode with Stanley behind us now.

christy c

Amirani wrote: »

I think Stanley handled this well in the Dáil yesterday. It was an welcome clarification and appropriate apology and delivered in the correct manner. I think also that Mary Lou dealt with the situation quite well overall, letting the heat out of the situation and advising Stanley to do what he did. All together a good day's work for Sinn Fein (after a messy week or so), and a generally positive reflection of our parliamentary democracy in how things like this can be resolved. Think it best to put this episode with Stanley behind us now.

I really am not seeing how SF handled this at all well. They had members resign, then let out that clown from Tipp out and consequently had his 9/11 conspiracy theories exposed, etc.

But this isn't likely to make much difference to voters anyway IMO.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If he did, he would be correctly pointing to the lack of diversity in the civil service, and well done to him would be my response.

But he didn’t. Instead, he engaged in dog-whistle homophobia, of a type familiar on here, followed up by a tweet glorifying and celebrating the murder of a 19-year old boy.

If you are ok with that, it says a lot about you. Wouldn’t surprise me if you excused it.

Yes Varadkar and yourself do.

A 19 year old armed soldier. Would he have shot any unarmed civil rights protesters dead do you think? Would he be laughing it off like the BA officer who assisted the UDA in blowing up two teenagers?

Nothing wrong with Stanley's tweet. If he felt he should apologise that's his business. You should cover your eyes in November. They celebrate carpet bombing towns and villages.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Yes Varadkar and yourself do.

A 19 year old armed soldier. Would he have shot any unarmed civil rights protesters dead do you think? Would he be laughing it off like the BA officer who assisted the UDA in blowing up two teenagers?

Nothing wrong with Stanley's tweet. If he felt he should apologise that's his business. You should cover your eyes in November. They celebrate carpet bombing towns and villages.

Even Stanley himself says that his tweet was wrong.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

There was no civil war.

Call it what you like. The downplaying of The Troubles is one of the most idiotic aspects of historical revisionism if you ask me. Regardless, care to comment on the substance of the post, or are you content to argue over semantics because you have no response?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Even Stanley himself says that his tweet was wrong.

No he didn't. He accepted it caused upset and was sorry about that and that's his business. Not the kind of thing I would tweet however I see nothing wrong with holding that view. Supporters of sides in armed conflict tend to commemorate and celebrate victory.

The FG idea that people with differing opinions are wrong and should apologise is ignorant and childish.

ShamNNspace

christy c wrote: »

I really am not seeing how SF handled this at all well. They had members resign, then let out that clown from Tipp out and consequently had his 9/11 conspiracy theories exposed, etc.

But this isn't likely to make much difference to voters anyway IMO.

They weren't HIS conspiracy theories, he shared a post and added the comment "it makes you wonder", for heavens sake this trawling back over tweets or whatever they are is just nonsense, far more important things going on in the country. All these new advisors must be spending their time trawling over twitter accounts and fb posts or whatever but at the end of the day it will matter not one whit where it matters at the end of the day , at the ballot boxes. Transparent as a pane of glass whats going on

James Brown

ShamNNspace wrote: »

They weren't HIS conspiracy theories, he shared a post and added the comment "it makes you wonder", for heavens sake this trawling back over tweets or whatever they are is just nonsense, far more important things going on in the country. All these new advisors must be spending their time trawling over twitter accounts and fb posts or whatever but at the end of the day it will matter not one whit where it matters at the end of the day , at the ballot boxes. Transparent as a pane of glass whats going on

The public are the losers here. FG engage in cronyism and respond with tweets they found when challenged.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

He publicly apologised to Varadkar and said he was trying to reach him to make a personal apology.

He said it wasn't meant as homophobia, but could be interpreted many ways and he apologised. Not everyone believes him.

Brian Stanley is anything but homophobic. Such a gossip talking about people you dont even know

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely its homophobic to ban gay people from donating blood and all previous (and present) ministers of health are,by current standreds,homophobic in not turning this over??

Blanch 152 cant even condemn the British Army for helping kill two teenagers - cant see s/he saying anything about the above

christy c

ShamNNspace wrote: »

They weren't HIS conspiracy theories, he shared a post and added the comment "it makes you wonder", for heavens sake this trawling back over tweets or whatever they are is just nonsense, far more important things going on in the country. All these new advisors must be spending their time trawling over twitter accounts and fb posts or whatever but at the end of the day it will matter not one whit where it matters at the end of the day , at the ballot boxes. Transparent as a pane of glass whats going on

Yeah fair enough, not a good look either way to be sharing that rubbish is it? And hardly would lead one to conclude that SF handled it well.

I said before I'd rather SF be tackled on the rubbish they spout economically, unfortunately it's this kind of stuff that gets headlines.

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Call it what you like. The downplaying of The Troubles is one of the most idiotic aspects of historical revisionism if you ask me. Regardless, care to comment on the substance of the post, or are you content to argue over semantics because you have no response?

Downplaying? Some may say revisionism, that the PIRA were great lads altogether, as some if not many in SF think.

Sorry, but an organisation who kills women and children are not 'great lads'.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Downplaying? Some may say revisionism, that the PIRA were great lads altogether, as some if not many in SF think.

Sorry, but an organisation who kills women and children are not 'great lads'.

you can count every single army and government in the world as "not 'great lads' "

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Downplaying? Some may say revisionism, that the PIRA were great lads altogether, as some if not many in SF think.

Sorry, but an organisation who kills women and children are not 'great lads'.

That's the reason why I wouldn't wear a poppy.

FrancieBrady

Bowie wrote: »

That's the reason why I wouldn't wear a poppy.

The BA killed 18 children that we know about. Not once have I heard them mentioned by the high moral grounders here. Tells you a lot about moral compasses.