Is it just me or have SF vanished?

blanch152 wrote: »

It is normal practice among republicans - label the opposition in order to dehumanise them (e.g. partitionists, West Brits etc.) and use that to ignore their valid views.

Well, there has been more mentioned of FG in this thread than SF, which tells you all you need to know.

Any pointed criticism of SF policy or lack of it is met with, 'Ah but Leo/Dinny/FG/Homelessness/<insert-random-tweet>' which passes of as debate.

Runaways

blanch152 wrote: »

It is normal practice among republicans - label the opposition in order to dehumanise them (e.g. partitionists, West Brits etc.) and use that to ignore their valid views.

And anyone disagrees with you is a shinner or republican tho I fail to see how that’s a bad thing and I wonder if you know what the word means

Hint. We live in a Republic

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Poster labels people as 'republicans' generalises about them and then complains about others using labels.

Hmmmm.

Are you not a Republican? I thought that was a nessesary badge of honour for SF and their supporters.

The stuff about FG, the 'West-Brit', 'Tory' etc...etc.. is just nonsense more suited to Facebook. It's used as a pejorative.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

It is normal practice among republicans - label the opposition in order to dehumanise them (e.g. partitionists, West Brits etc.) and use that to ignore their valid views.

I didn't label her as anything (though I do think she has very conservative views on social issues), but I thought that was made up nonsense. She claims that everyone who attacked Sean Cavanagh for saying ''up here in the UK'' were sinnerbots when its just as likely they could have been any number of bots whose allegiance is to the dissident republican groups and who absolutely hate SF.

She then continues to slag off Eoin O Broin for cooking a fancy meal and putting it on Twitter/Instagram. I believe she had a bit of a spat with him on twitter/instagram over this and seems to now have brought it to her column in the ST.

All rather pathetic.

blanch152

Runaways wrote: »

And anyone disagrees with you is a shinner or republican tho I fail to see how that’s a bad thing and I wonder if you know what the word means

Hint. We live in a Republic

I do understand the difference between republicans and "republicans".

There are lots of people who disagree with me on lots of different issues.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Are you not a Republican? I thought that was a nessesary badge of honour for SF and their supporters.

The stuff about FG, the 'West-Brit', 'Tory' etc...etc.. is just nonsense more suited to Facebook. It's used as a pejorative.

Are you not a republican (bearing in mind you actually live in a republic)?

Runaways

If you live in a Republic and use Republican as a pejorative
Does that mean you’re a monarchist??

Asking for a friend who is me

jm08 wrote: »

Are you not a republican (bearing in mind you actually live in a republic)?

Interesting question. I guess I am, as I believe in the rule of law first and foremost, which is the original meaning of the term, not the bastardised 'Up da Ra/Wolfe Tones' version we use in our current vernacular.

Runaways

markodaly wrote: »

Interesting question. I guess I am, as I believe in the rule of law first and foremost, which is the original meaning of the term, not the bastardised 'Up da Ra/Wolfe Tones' version we use in our current vernacular.

I’ve only ever seen it used that way by a ccohort here that have problems with sf or anyone they suspect support them

Funny that

markodaly wrote: »

Are you not a Republican? I thought that was a nessesary badge of honour for SF and their supporters.

The stuff about FG, the 'West-Brit', 'Tory' etc...etc.. is just nonsense more suited to Facebook. It's used as a pejorative.

Are you and blanch not partitionists?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you and blanch not partitionists?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you and blanch not partitionists?

As you well know, the answer is in the negative.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

I never said, he attacked me, he attacked the character of the author who wrote the article, rather than the content of the article itself.

A classic case of an Ad Hominem

what, by proxy? You (the opponent) aren't the author of the article. get a dictionary

[Deleted User]

markodaly wrote: »

Well, there has been more mentioned of FG in this thread than SF, which tells you all you need to know.

Any pointed criticism of SF policy or lack of it is met with, 'Ah but Leo/Dinny/FG/Homelessness/<insert-random-tweet>' which passes of as debate.

What pointed critism of policy has occured??

Going on about someone killed in a shed,yonks ago,which is essentially what this thread has decended into,has nothing to do with policy??

Like if FFG dont like homeless and housing/health issues,coming againest them,maybe they should have sorted them.by now???

Seems fairly obvious to me,that their mantra of market sort itself,simply deosnt work

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems fairly obvious to me,that their mantra of market sort itself,simply deosnt work

I often hear that narrative attributed against FF or FG but can you get me a quote from any high ranking FG TD or minister which says in effect, that the 'market will sort itself out'?

Rent pressure zones, planning laws reform are not indicative of being hands-off, nor is the target of adding 12,000 houses to the social housing stock per annum.

https://twitter.com/skearon/status/1263223891184496644?s=19

Mortelaro wrote: »

https://twitter.com/skearon/status/1263223891184496644?s=19

They should receive the same punishment as Harris and Leo got for breaking the rules in the hospital or at that infamous photoshoot.

Seriously, Louise should put her hand up here and accept that she let the guard slip. Turn it into something valuable - a reminder to the population that it isn't over yet.

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

https://twitter.com/skearon/status/1263223891184496644?s=19

Was it this shot or a different (definitely not for PR purposes) one you had all kinds of excuses for, including camera angles and tricks of the light?

P27.this-week.jpg

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They should receive the same punishment as Harris and Leo got for breaking the rules in the hospital or at that infamous photoshoot.

Seriously, Louise should put her hand up here and accept that she let the guard slip. Turn it into something valuable - a reminder to the population that it isn't over yet.

But Harris and Leo didnt break the rules
That was zoom lens illusion in that hospital like the sign language people at every daily conference beside professor Holahan where they look right beside Holahan but they are not

With Louise above,we can see the bench they are sitting on
No Question on the breach
No expensive journalist camera used,just a phone camera by the looks of it

McMurphy wrote: »

Was it this shot or a different (definitely not for PR purposes) one you had all kinds of excuses for, including camera angles and tricks of the light?

That's a zoom lens Mc
Same as at the Holahan conferences

Mortelaro wrote: »

But Harris and Leo didnt break the rules
That was zoom lens illusion in that hospital like the sign language people at every daily conference beside professor Holahan where they look right beside Holahan but they are not

With Louise above,we can see the bench they are sitting on
No Question on the breach
No expensive journalist camera used,just a phone camera by the looks of it

Did they break the rules at the 'photoshoot'?

Can't believe you are sticking by your forensics on the hospital incident. 'Expensive journalist camera's'???

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did they break the rules at the 'photoshoot'?

Can't believe you are sticking by your forensics on the hospital incident. 'Expensive journalist camera's'???

Have you looked at the daily Holahan conferences?
How close do the sign language people look
Yup right beside Holahan and others
But they are not
That's a zoom lens for you
Yes they are expensive

Mortelaro wrote: »

Have you looked at the daily Holahan conferences?
How close do the sign language people look
Yup right beside Holahan and others
But they are not
That's a zoom lens for you
Yes they are expensive

Dear jesus! ^

As I said, Louise should turn this gaff and mistake into an opportunity to inform.

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

That's a zoom lens Mc
Same as at the Holahan conferences

A zoom lens in a confined space such as a lab.

If you say so.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Dear jesus! ^

As I said, Louise should turn this gaff and mistake into an opportunity to inform.

I agree ,but tbh,we are all human
When Leo was visiting the UCD virus Lab,I remember on the news coverage of him arriving, someone out of force of habit reaching out to shake his hand
He jerked away from him
I'm sure Louise 99 times out of a 100 practices social distancing
Lapsiing so obviously where obviously an opponent could take that shot was slipshod
What's not clear is what they were talking about
The other woman beside her could have had a tragedy in her life who knows
Nothing is simple

McMurphy wrote: »

A zoom lens in a confined space such as a lab.

If you say so.

Yes,I know you don't want to know this
When the camera shops reopen
Go try one zooming in from beyond 6 feet

Mortelaro wrote: »

I agree ,but tbh,we are all human
When Leo was visiting the UCD virus Lab,I remember on the news coverage of him arriving, someone out of force of habit reaching out to shake his hand
He jerked away from him
I'm sure Louise 99 times out of a 100 practices social distancing
Lapsiing so obviously where obviously an opponent could take that shot was slipshod
What's not clear is what they were talking about
The other woman beside her could have had a tragedy in her life who knows
Nothing is simple

Does this mean we are not going get anymore CSIMorte?

Bishop of hope

Tbf that's a zoom lens photo too.
But it's nice to see the conversation from the other day on the FG thread being borne out.
The usual faithful, but Leo and Harris and what about...............
Laughable lads