ohnonotgmail wrote: » You replied to blanch. Blanch has not mentioned her. And it is really poor form from SF supporters to dismiss people's genuine concern about a party affiliated (or really two cheeks of the same arse) with an organisation responsible for acts of murder against civilians. Unfortunately i have come to expect nothing less from SF. mention their murderous past and you get accused of cheap point scoring. They seem to be doing well with younger voters because those younger voters dont know the history of SF. You and the other SF supporters get pissed when others remind these younger voters of exactly who SF are. a party of convicted thugs and murderers.
Matt Barrett wrote: » You are not being sincere here. He used Maria Cahill and has used Jean McConville. That's what I posted on. You don't like it, cool. I think it's poor form and disrespectful. If you read back I was commenting about the FG team's insistence on criticising people who vote SF. His response was to use Maria Cahill, so give over. Nasty tactics by the blueshirted brethren IMO. So take your faux moral outrage elsewhere thanks I'm not buying.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » give over nothing. I will continue to mention that lady at any opportunity to remind voters, especially younger voters, exactly what SF are really about. and of course you will go and attack me personally, as you have done to others here, because you are unable to defend SF when it comes to their involvement in violence.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » that is really low but not at all surprising. If you have any decency you will edit your post and remove that.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » and what exactly do you think you are doing by referencing her?
Matt Barrett wrote: » Context. Be sincere. Use them as much as you like. I think it's cheap out of context. Talk on critiques of SF supporters met with the using of Maria Cahill pretty pathetic IMO. Unable or unwilling? It kills you folk when FG are criticised so you go low with critiques of Sinn Fein supporters and using victims of crime/violence. Beats trying to defend the indefensible. As I've said elsewhere you lads bring up SF when FG and their policies are rightly criticised. So don't confuse your fascination with all things SF as support when called out on FG policies and tactics.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I'm not a FG supporter. I've never voted for the blueshirts in my life and never intend.
McMurphy wrote: » It's only low if someone else is doing it? We get it.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what is low, if you thought about it for even a second, is dismissing people valid concerns about SFs past. You dont want anybody to mention it as it makes you feel uncomfortable. As you are unable to defend their past your only option is to attack the person saying it and dismiss them out of hand. that is what i object to.
maccored wrote: » SF's past or the provos? Two different entities
McMurphy wrote: » Oh, and in before Northern bank gets thrown out next
ohnonotgmail wrote: » 2 cheeks of the same arse.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Why? It's true. I think using victims of violence/crime to help scratch a little '1' on your political points scoreboard is poor form.
McMurphy wrote: » On the contrary, I've no issue whatsoever with discussing the past, some of us viewed the IRA as a necessity and a response to terror waged against the nationalist community, not only by the British State, but by the unionist controlled councils at the time. However - The Jean McConville case is coming up to its fiftieth anniversary now, fifty years before that similar things were happening in this state. The main problem I have with people waving corpses about is 9.5/10 it's out of faux concern or compassion, it's just something to have a dig at SF with. This all stemmed from Blanch mentioning Cahill - Cahill of course being a dissident republican opposed to the GFA. BUT of course Cahill had something of which could be used against SF, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend philosophy was brought to the fore. Cahill plonked into the Seanad to be used as a stick to beat the shinners with, and just as quickly discarded like a wet chamois when she was of no use to them anymore.I've been saying it for weeks, people need to change tact when it comes to Sinn Fein bashing. Oh, and in before Northern bank gets thrown out next
Matt Barrett wrote: » This. It's fake. Using victims stories out of context is not genuine IMO. Commenting on FG supporters critiquing SF voters, met with Maria Cahill. That's out of context and not genuine. I believe SF were the political wing of the IRA. Most of us have a view but dishonestly bringing up the troubles or issues related to either out of context because you ran out of road or want to get a dig in is dishonest and disrespectful and takes away any credibility of genuine concern or outrage IMO.
blanch152 wrote: » You are seeing it through a lens of posters wanting success for a particular political party. I don't care whether pointing out the facts about Mairia Cahill or Jean McConville or Jerry McCabe or anyone else damages or helps Fine Gael or the Greens or any other political party. Sometimes it is just the right thing to do to remind people of what Sinn Fein are. If people want to listen great, if they don't want to listen, and go out and vote Sinn Fein, that's their choice.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Nice of you to accuse me of dishonesty is charming. what happend to playing the ball and not the man? and you only "believe" that SF were the political wing of the IRA? talk about being mealy-mouthed.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Mary lou invited to take part in debate. Good job RTE, we have come a long way.
christy c wrote: » Good to see. I reckon the more people see of their economic plans the more harm it will do them
Matt Barrett wrote: » Make it more legitimate for the electorate. Will do damage to FF/FG I reckon.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I believe SF were the political wing of the IRA. Most of us have a view but dishonestly bringing up the troubles or issues related to either out of context because you ran out of road or want to get a dig in is dishonest and disrespectful and takes away any credibility of genuine concern or outrage IMO.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » The more people have to listen to Mary Lou in any context the more harm it will do SF. she has a voice that would curdle milk.
Gunmonkey wrote: » Oh the irony.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not quite RIC/DMP level of a ****-up but not far off. Mary-Lou landing a punch now will score her 10x the points.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The two lads will be tripping over each other trying to throw digs all she need do is keep her cool. Bit unfair SF get one representative and the other party get two
