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

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: »

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 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: »

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.

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 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)?

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.