Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

Apparently, in SF-land, defying the whip is the same as impugning the reputation and hard work of a murdered public servant, judging by the punishment meted out to Deputy Nolan......

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/976512018822975489?s=21

Jawgap wrote: »

Apparently, in SF-land, defying the whip is the same as impugning the reputation and hard work of a murdered public servant, judging by the punishment meted out to Deputy Nolan......

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/976512018822975489?s=21

Did P.T vote with or against the party ?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did P.T vote with or against the party ?

I'm not sure who PT is but good luck to them whoever they are.

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not sure who PT is but good luck to them whoever they are.

P. Toibin.

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah, SF narrative #2.......the "SF are better than others because their sins are known" - that presumes people are willing to overlook those sins, it also presumes, rather ridiculously, that SF are being completely transparent about those sins

......so now we're expected to believe that SF are the champions of probity in public life, as well as the party of law and order, and the party of the environment.......as a group they would certainly not be out of place in a Terry Gilliam film

....next they'll be trying to persuade people that shinnernomics is the essence of prudence

You keep insisting on a narrative and perceived agenda. I've been quite clear.
I don't believe they would view much of the troubles as 'sins'. That's your spin. 'Sins' infers regretful wrong doing. Putting your idea and faux morals on the actions of others.
And you go on to twist. Not saying they are a bastion of transparency.
You can keep slipping in propaganda and I'll get bored denying things I never eluded to. But that's the crux and point of a SF thread; keeping throwing in ifs and buts to get to a good slag. Great debate that man.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You keep insisting on a narrative and perceived agenda. I've been quite clear.
I don't believe they would view much of the troubles as 'sins'. That's your spin. 'Sins' infers regretful wrong doing. Putting your idea on the actions of others.
And you go on to twist. Not saying they are bastions of transparency.
You can keep slipping in propaganda and I'll get bored denying things I never eluded to, but that's the crux of a SF thread, keeping throwing in ifs and buts to get to a good slag. Great debate that man.

And therein lies the kernel of the problem. The vast majority of Irish people - around 80% I would guess - would view most if not all of the acts committed by the IRA as sins and as being far outside normal behaviour.

It is the main reason why SF struggle to get above 15% in elections. Until we see some distance between the past and today, that will never change.

blanch152 wrote: »

And therein lies the kernel of the problem. The vast majority of Irish people - around 80% I would guess - would view most if not all of the acts committed by the IRA as sins and as being far outside normal behaviour.

It is the main reason why SF struggle to get above 15% in elections. Until we see some distance between the past and today, that will never change.

I don't believe that 80%. Any stats or a link? Anyway, it matters not. They are affiliated by choice so obviously not in your 80%.
Folks are trying to argue that the senator should not have the opinion Stack was a sadist. That's the great thing about opinions, I can't say you are 100% wrong, but I can disagree. Generally when people kill someone it's because of a dislike.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You keep insisting on a narrative and perceived agenda. I've been quite clear.
I don't believe they would view much of the troubles as 'sins'. That's your spin. 'Sins' infers regretful wrong doing. Putting your idea and faux morals on the actions of others.
And you go on to twist. Not saying they are a bastion of transparency.
You can keep slipping in propaganda and I'll get bored denying things I never eluded to. But that's the crux and point of a SF thread; keeping throwing in ifs and buts to get to a good slag. Great debate that man.

I'm just pointing out that SF and their acolytes have a repertoire, somewhat limited, of responses to criticism......stretching from simple deflection and whataboutery to various narratives that are intended to suggest SF is better than other parties and/or more virtuous - that have all the substance of a soaked paper bag.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't believe that 80%. Any stats or a link? Anyway, it matters not. They are affiliated by choice so obviously not in your 80%.
Folks are trying to argue that the senator should not have the opinion Stack was a sadist. That's the great thing about opinions, I can't say you are 100% wrong, but I can disagree. Generally when people kill someone it's because of a dislike.

I'm guessing the fact SF rarely poll above 20% suggests 80% disagree with them.......the polls are the stats.

For Forks Sake

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did P.T vote with or against the party ?

He skipped out on the vote (presumably with the intention of avoiding another suspension for voting against the party)

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Doubtful the killers would agree with you. However this isn't about the killing itself. As I've said the retweet was in bad taste but labeling someone a sadist is opinion based on belief. It can be argued he was and it can be argued he wasn't.

That's nonsense. You've absolutely nothing to back that up, but if it suits your bias, go with it.
I didn't commend the senator. I simply said it wasn't sackable. I fully supported the sacking of the kingsmill buffoon. We can go down the 'whatabout' road if you like.

Other than, of course, your posting history which is there for all to see. Some fairly clear evidence of bias there for anyone who follows these forums.

You’ve claimed it wasn’t even worthy of suspension - never mind sackable - don’t start trying to backtrack when the posts are there for all to see.

For Forks Sake wrote: »

He skipped out on the vote (presumably with the intention of avoiding another suspension for voting against the party)

Seen that on the indo (I think) earlier.

Said he had family reasons for not being able to make it.

That was some stroke of bad luck.

Red_Wake

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

For Forks Sake wrote: »

He skipped out on the vote (presumably with the intention of avoiding another suspension for voting against the party)

Seen that on the indo (I think) earlier.

Said he had family reasons for not being able to make it.

That was some stroke of bad luck.

Is there any available data on how each individual td voted?

I'd be interested to to see how many TDs, across all parties, were unable to make it.

Edward M

Red_Wake wrote: »

Is there any available data on how each individual td voted?

I'd be interested to to see how many TDs, across all parties, were unable to make it.

There's a guide to the vote here in the examiner.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/half-of-ff-tds-vote-against-eighth-referendum-468614.html

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Folks are trying to argue that the senator should not have the opinion Stack was a sadist. That's the great thing about opinions, I can't say you are 100% wrong, but I can disagree. Generally when people kill someone it's because of a dislike.

No, we are not trying to argue that the senator should not have the opinion Stack was a sadist.

What we are saying is that holding that opinion makes her unfit to be a public representative. Similarly, she can have the opinion that the legal age of sexual consent should be 8 or the opinion that it is ok for gangs to murder gardai, but those opinions would also make her unfit to be a public representative.

There is a subtle but important distinction.

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/party-leaders-unite-in-call-for-sinn-fin-senator-to-resign-over-stack-tweet-36726796.html

Pretty much every political leader is calling for her to resign (other than SF obviously).

I don't see why that's important tbh

blackwhite wrote: »

Other than, of course, your posting history which is there for all to see. Some fairly clear evidence of bias there for anyone who follows these forums.

You’ve claimed it wasn’t even worthy of suspension - never mind sackable - don’t start trying to backtrack when the posts are there for all to see.

Bias infers no reason just 'cause. I always have an actual issue. If you don't like it, talk to FG. I can see it's bothersome for folks who 'look after their own'.

As regards the retweet, no back track. Your are spinning yarns. It was in bad taste. It didn't warrant any action in my view. If senators were elected by the public, I mightn't give her my vote, but it's her opinion. Not actionable IMO.

blanch152 wrote: »

No, we are not trying to argue that the senator should not have the opinion Stack was a sadist.

What we are saying is that holding that opinion makes her unfit to be a public representative. Similarly, she can have the opinion that the legal age of sexual consent should be 8 or the opinion that it is ok for gangs to murder gardai, but those opinions would also make her unfit to be a public representative.

There is a subtle but important distinction.

You are confused. An opinion on a persons nature and legislation are different things. We vote on legislation and yes, people have opinions. Having an opinion isn't a crime. You're embarrassing yourself at this point.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

No, we are not trying to argue that the senator should not have the opinion Stack was a sadist.

What we are saying is that holding that opinion makes her unfit to be a public representative. Similarly, she can have the opinion that the legal age of sexual consent should be 8 or the opinion that it is ok for gangs to murder gardai, but those opinions would also make her unfit to be a public representative.

There is a subtle but important distinction.

Lets not forget that the period Stack was in Portlaoise was around the time of the Heavy Gang with Paddy Cooney Minister for Justice.

jm08 wrote: »

Lets not forget that the period Stack was in Portlaoise was around the time of the Heavy Gang with Paddy Cooney Minister for Justice.

Let's also not forget that SF have a habit of denigrating the reputation of their victims as a way of indirectly suggesting their murder was somehow justified - it's becoming something of regular occurrence of which this is just the latest example....along with suggesting McConville was some kind of agent for the British and McCabe had roughed up some 'RA-head.

Incidentally, has the good senator explained why she was even following such a parody account that originally published the tweet (and has since "up and vanished like a fart in the wind)?

Jawgap wrote: »

Let's also not forget that SF have a habit of denigrating the reputation of their victims as a way of indirectly suggesting their murder was somehow justified - it's becoming something of regular occurrence of which this is just the latest example....along with suggesting McConville was some kind of agent for the British and McCabe had roughed up some 'RA-head.

Incidentally, has the good senator explained why she was even following such a parody account that originally published the tweet (and has since "up and vanished like a fart in the wind)?

All people/governments/parties speak ill of people they have intentionally killed. It makes sense. Of course these killings are deemed justified.
The laboured arguments might work if people involved had a change of opinion about the victim after the fact.

Jawgap wrote: »

Let's also not forget that SF have a habit of denigrating the reputation of their victims as a way of indirectly suggesting their murder was somehow justified - it's becoming something of regular occurrence of which this is just the latest example....along with suggesting McConville was some kind of agent for the British and McCabe had roughed up some 'RA-head.

Incidentally, has the good senator explained why she was even following such a parody account that originally published the tweet (and has since "up and vanished like a fart in the wind)?

When did Sinn Fein justify Stacks murder?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

All people/governments/parties speak ill of people they have intentionally killed. It makes sense. Of course these killings are deemed justified.
The laboured arguments might work if people involved had a change of opinion about the victim after the fact.

.....only by a few - thankfully.

btw, if Senator Devine's 'opinions' are within the bounds of reasonableness, even for SF, how come she got her holliers early?

jm08

Jawgap wrote: »

Let's also not forget that SF have a habit of denigrating the reputation of their victims as a way of indirectly suggesting their murder was somehow justified - it's becoming something of regular occurrence of which this is just the latest example....along with suggesting McConville was some kind of agent for the British and McCabe had roughed up some 'RA-head.

The IRA apologised to all the families of the disappeared in 2003.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ira-issues-apology-to-families-of-disappeared-1.506521

Have you a link to where they claimed she was an agent after that apology?

Gerry Adams met with Jean McConville's son and apologised to the family on behalf of the Republican movement.
http://www.thejournal.ie/mcconville-family-gerry-adams-1188907-Nov2013/

Incidentally, has the good senator explained why she was even following such a parody account that originally published the tweet (and has since "up and vanished like a fart in the wind)?

Don't think you need to follow an account to pick up on tweets. Are you suggesting now that the parody account was set up by Devine to have a go at the Stack family now? :rolleyes:

Jawgap wrote: »

.....only by a few - thankfully.

btw, if Senator Devine's 'opinions' are within the bounds of reasonableness, even for SF, how come she got her holliers early?

Now you're gasping

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

When did Sinn Fein justify Stacks murder?

Ah, the ol' SF trick of responding to something that wasn't written as if it was......

I never said they directly justified those murders only that they are quite passive when it comes to suggesting that certain narratives are indeed false.

Jawgap wrote: »

Let's also not forget that SF have a habit of denigrating the reputation of their victims as a way of indirectly suggesting their murder was somehow justified - it's becoming something of regular occurrence of which this is just the latest example....along with suggesting McConville was some kind of agent for the British and McCabe had roughed up some 'RA-head.

Incidentally, has the good senator explained why she was even following such a parody account that originally published the tweet (and has since "up and vanished like a fart in the wind)?

.....it's a dog-whistle for their acolytes.

jm08 wrote: »

The IRA apologised to all the families of the disappeared in 2003.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ira-issues-apology-to-families-of-disappeared-1.506521

Have you a link to where they claimed she was an agent after that apology?

Gerry Adams met with Jean McConville's son and apologised to the family on behalf of the Republican movement.
http://www.thejournal.ie/mcconville-family-gerry-adams-1188907-Nov2013/

Don't think you need to follow an account to pick up on tweets. Are you suggesting now that the parody account was set up by Devine to have a go at the Stack family now? :rolleyes:

The ol' non-apology apology - apologising for the "grief caused" is hardly saying "we were wrong" - it's an apology for prolonging the period during which the remains of the people they murdered were not found - hardly an apology for killing them in the first place.

But look if that's good enough for SF and their followers then good luck to them.......and I doubt anyone expects them to hand over the murderers? That kind of suggests that words, unsupported by actions, are just words - and pretty meaningless ones.

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah, the ol' SF trick of responding to something that wasn't written as if it was......

I never said they directly justified those murders only that they are quite passive when it comes to suggesting that certain narratives are indeed false.

.....it's a dog-whistle for their acolytes.

So you just indirectly implied they justified it, and simultaneously whinge about indirect justification?

Jesus.

Jawgap wrote: »

The ol' non-apology apology - apologising for the "grief caused" is hardly saying "we were wrong" - it's an apology for prolonging the period during which the remains of the people they murdered were not found - hardly an apology for killing them in the first place.

But look if that's good enough for SF and their followers then good luck to them.......and I doubt anyone expects them to hand over the murderers? That kind of suggests that words, unsupported by actions, are just words - and pretty meaningless ones.

Yet words, one of their, allegedly, own calling Stack a 'sadist' gets the blood up? Odd that. Stands to it just being a mere vehicle to score points. Faux moral outrage.

jm08

Jawgap wrote: »

The ol' non-apology apology - apologising for the "grief caused" is hardly saying "we were wrong" - it's an apology for prolonging the period during which the remains of the people they murdered were not found - hardly an apology for killing them in the first place.

But look if that's good enough for SF and their followers then good luck to them.......and I doubt anyone expects them to hand over the murderers? That kind of suggests that words, unsupported by actions, are just words - and pretty meaningless ones.

Gerry Adams to Jean McConville's son:

He says to me for what it’s worth Michael, I’ll apologise to you… he says it was wrong, he says, for the Republican movement, the murder of your mother. He says, it was wrong of the Republican movement to treat your family and yourself the way what they did. He says, I am sorry for what had happened your mother and I’m sorry for what happened to your family.

Sinn Fein is no worse than Fianna Fail or Fine Gael after the War of Independence and Civil war. For instance, Frank Aiken, known as 'The Butcher of Altnaveigh' for his part in the murder of 7 innocent Presbyterians in retaliation for the rape of a Catholic woman. He was a founding member of Fianna Fail and became a prominent Government Minister.