Is it just me or have SF vanished?

FrancieBrady · 27-06-2020 10:13PM

Bonniedog wrote: »

I was referring to historical illiterates like yourself who clearly can't understand simple statements.

GFA commits the two governments to " ...recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the union with Great Britain or a sovereign United Ireland."

Sunningdale: "The Irish government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of people in Northern Ireland desired a change in that status."

Hillsborough 1985 - "The two governments affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland."

Perhaps our constitutional experts here will explain the difference?

Change the goalposts when caught out. You were spouting this rubbish a while ago:

The "unionist veto" in the GFA is exactly the same as it was in Sunningdale:

Do you accept that this was rubbish of the highest order or not?

Edgware · 27-06-2020 10:24PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Change the goalposts when caught out. You were spouting this rubbish a while ago:

Do you accept that this was rubbish of the highest order or not?

Could you go through that again. I lost you at the first Quote

FrancieBrady · 27-06-2020 10:32PM

Edgware wrote: »

Could you go through that again. I lost you at the first Quote

Bonniedog doesn't even know what the 'Unionist Veto' refers to. I posted the Hume piece to try and educate him.

Edgware · 27-06-2020 10:39PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bonniedog doesn't even know what the 'Unionist Veto' refers to. I posted the Hume piece to try and educate him.

And?

Bonniedog · 27-06-2020 10:40PM

You are not very bright are you, young Francis?

The "unionist veto" is the right to consent to change constitutional status of NI. It's still there.

Only difference between 1973 is that erstwhile republicans are prepared to accept it and administer part of Ireland for the Brits.

FrancieBrady · 27-06-2020 10:51PM

Bonniedog wrote: »

You are not very bright are you, young Francis?

The "unionist veto" is the right to consent to change constitutional status of NI. It's still there.

Only difference between 1973 is that erstwhile republicans are prepared to accept it and administer part of Ireland for the Brits.

Stop digging Bonnie.

Hume again...read and learn because you know nothing of what you talk about. Embarrassing.

The fundamental change that has taken place as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a change that is deeply and fully understood by every Unionist. What it means is that their exclusive hold on power has gone and is not coming back. The power of veto on British policy which they have always had, and which goes to the heart of our problem here, has gone and is not coming back.

That is why the Unionists see it as the ultimate betrayal. It was pivotal to the GFA coming around because it enabled Hume to do his solo run convincing SF of the change in British attitudes.

Unionist pulled down Sunningdale because it was a nationalist settlement and quite correctly perceived to be a road to a UI.
The GFA is fundamentally different because neither side can see it as one or the other.

Bonniedog · 27-06-2020 11:47PM

So the Provos did support Sunningdale but decided for the crack to keep killing people and having Volunteers killed for nothing for another 25 years?

Genius.

BTW,when the army surrendered Volunteers were told that the Brits would be gone "within five years." Don't know if you noticed this, but they are still here 22 years after the GFA.

Genius.

So now, the shinners run the 6 for the Brits, the IRA has surrendered and handed over all its weapons, and the party is dominated by people who wouldn't have had had anything to do with it 25 years ago. And no nearer a united Ireland than 1922.

Pure genius.

I wonder do they have a tip for the Derby?

FrancieBrady · 27-06-2020 11:51PM

Bonniedog wrote: »

So the Provos did support Sunningdale but decided for the crack to keep killing people and having Volunteers killed for nothing for another 25 years?

Genius.

BTW,when the army surrendered Volunteers were told that the Brits would be gone "within five years." Don't know if you noticed this, but they are still here 22 years after the GFA.

Genius.

So now, the shinners run the 6 for the Brits, the IRA has surrendered and handed over all its weapons, and the party is dominated by people who wouldn't have had had anything to do with it 25 years ago. And no nearer a united Ireland than 1922.

Pure genius.

I wonder do they have a tip for the Derby?

On the sauce Bonnie? Fair play.

Caught out and does a complete deflection...complete. Not often you see that on boards,ie. Most posters are more subtle and at least try.

Bonniedog · 28-06-2020 12:01AM

Am bored. So went to trouble not only of explaining what consent/veto means in context of the three agreements, but posting the relevant sections. You respond with meaningless quote from a man who unlike myself was often on the sauce!

Hume was part of conning the shinners - or rather supplying Adams with enough to con them into the surrender. He was hardly going to say that in public! "By the way lads we rogered you sideways without the courtesy of a reach around." :-)

You are even less coherent than a shinner TD, and that's saying something.

Paper hat in the post :-)

FrancieBrady · 28-06-2020 12:04AM

Bonniedog wrote: »

Am bored. So went to trouble not only of explaining what consent/veto means in context of the three agreements, but posting the relevant sections. You respond with meaningless quote from a man who unlike myself was often on the sauce!

Hume was part of conning the shinners - or rather supplying Adams with enough to con them into the surrender. He was hardly going to say that in public! "By the way lads we rogered you sideways without the courtesy of a reach around." :-)

You are even less coherent that a shinner TD, and that's saying something.

Paper hat in the post :-)

You had no idea what the Unionist veto was, got found out - deflected more completely than anyone I ever read on boards.ie and have now resorted to the invective of a teenager.

Enjoy the drink.

JohnnyFlash · 28-06-2020 12:17AM

Don't like to see John Humes name dragged through the mud here, lads. The finest Republican since Collins.

James Brown · 28-06-2020 12:21AM

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

Only came onto this thread for the pathetic whataboutery, so thank you.

You're cool with O'Leary though, who openly admires the Blueshirts?

FrancieBrady · 28-06-2020 12:26AM

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Don't like to see John Humes name dragged through the mud here, lads. The finest Republican since Collins.

Hume's solo run on foot of the Anglo Irish Agreement and Adams/SF's receptiveness to it was pivotal.
For somebody to be so lazy as to not understand what the Unionist veto was and what the AIA did to it, is unforgiveable really. Hume deserves every plaudit he gets for what he did.

Bonniedog · 28-06-2020 01:39AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hume's solo run on foot of the Anglo Irish Agreement and Adams/SF's receptiveness to it was pivotal.
For somebody to be so lazy as to not understand what the Unionist veto was and what the AIA did to it, is unforgiveable really. Hume deserves every plaudit he gets for what he did.

Are you an SF supporter?

Has their degeneracy gotten so bad that people like you vote for them?

To think that people like Bobby Sands died for this. A shame.

Poor_old_gill · 28-06-2020 08:53AM

Bowie wrote: »

You're cool with O'Leary though, who openly admires the Blueshirts?

From the irony in your posts- I can’t decide whether you are just not very bright or you are the wittiest person on here.

But answering a post where the constant whataboutery of SF supporters is being called out- with more whataboutery- gave me a little chuckle this morning.

Thank you

FrancieBrady · 28-06-2020 10:17AM

Bonniedog wrote: »

Are you an SF supporter?

Has their degeneracy gotten so bad that people like you vote for them?

To think that people like Bobby Sands died for this. A shame.

And we pivot and deflect again.

Mortelaro · 28-06-2020 10:29AM

https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1276801701316460544?s=19

FrancieBrady · 28-06-2020 10:37AM

Mortelaro wrote: »

https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1276801701316460544?s=19

Did Colum offer an opinion on why a party would deliberately embroil themselves in bad publicity?

Like this proposal/nomination came across one of the white bearded old men in the Antrim hill's desk and he thought to himself...'what a brilliant idea to make the party look good, this will really advance our plot to take over the state...approved'.

That how it works?

Bonniedog · 28-06-2020 10:40AM

Another new Sinn Féin south Dublin councillor Dermot Richardson was given suspended sentence last October for an assault on his former wife's partner.

Headbutted him and knocked two of his teeth out.

Some set up down there it would seem!

Strange mixture of people who should be in Greens or some other touchy feely party, and basically a gang of thugs.

Poor_old_gill · 28-06-2020 10:44AM

Bonniedog wrote: »

Another new Sinn Féin south Dublin councillor Dermot Richardson was given suspended sentence last October for an assault on his former wife's partner.

Headbutted him and knocked two of his teeth out.

Some set up down there it would seem!

Strange mixture of people who should be in Greens or some other touchy feely party, and basically a gang of thugs.

CHANGE.

Mortelaro · 28-06-2020 10:45AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did Colum offer an opinion on why a party would deliberately embroil themselves in bad publicity?

Like this proposal/nomination came across one of the white bearded old men in the Antrim hill's desk and he thought to himself...'what a brilliant idea to make the party look good, this will really advance our plot to take over the state...approved'.

That how it works?

Ha! It's a wonder you dont apply that kind of analysis to other parties,I don't think
But yes it seems that's how it works

FrancieBrady · 28-06-2020 10:58AM

Mortelaro wrote: »

Ha! It's a wonder you dont apply that kind of analysis to other parties,I don't think
But yes it seems that's how it works

A wee political lesson for you here Mort...when wanting to have a go at a party, taking the word of a competitor politician is invariably shaky. You should ask yourself first, is somebody having a cheap shot?

Which makes more practical sense, that the decision to propose Holohan was handed down from the party elders or simple taking the eye off the ball?

Is SF deliberately hurting itself for some nefarious end or was a mistake made?

Because IMO it was a mistake and those behind it are to be criticised.

Bonniedog · 28-06-2020 11:30AM

When a party has a record of inviting people to meet them in barns in north Mon and beating them to death with iron bars and cudgels with nails, the bar is not being set very high.

Add that to the large number of rapists, child abusers, informers, and so on and you can see the yawning gap between them and nice guys like Ó Broin whose life is devoted to helping the homeless and helping old ladies cross the road to bingo.

Edgware · 28-06-2020 11:40AM

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Don't like to see John Humes name dragged through the mud here, lads. The finest Republican since Collins.

Hume and Mallon were the true Republicans unlike the Provos who want to ape the Unionist/Loyalist block who believed that 50% +1% is justification to claim a majority and discriminate against the 49%.

Mortelaro · 28-06-2020 11:42AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A wee political lesson for you here Mort...when wanting to have a go at a party, taking the word of a competitor politician is invariably shaky. You should ask yourself first, is somebody having a cheap shot?

Which makes more practical sense, that the decision to propose Holohan was handed down from the party elders or simple taking the eye off the ball?

Is SF deliberately hurting itself for some nefarious end or was a mistake made?

Because IMO it was a mistake and those behind it are to be criticised.

Said competitor politician got more votes than anyone else on the island

I see so it was a mistake now
I'll bet it was one in their arrogance, they thought they'd get away with
Is he still a SF councillor?

Edgware · 28-06-2020 11:44AM

Bonniedog wrote: »

When a party has a record of inviting people to meet them in barns in north Mon and beating them to death with iron bars and cudgels with nails, the bar is not being set very high.

Add that to the large number of rapists, child abusers, informers, and so on and you can see the yawning gap between them and nice guys like Ó Broin whose life is devoted to helping the homeless and helping old ladies cross the road to bingo.

That is the problem with SF. Some of the crew they had canvassing door to door I would not have within a mile of my house as they are recognised as the local hardmen. The decent people like O Broin, Kenny, Stanley will have to start weeding out these thugs

FrancieBrady · 28-06-2020 11:50AM

Edgware wrote: »

Hume and Mallon were the true Republicans unlike the Provos who want to ape the Unionist/Loyalist block who believed that 50% +1% is justification to claim a majority and discriminate against the 49%.

Mallon, along with Eddie O'Grady forced Hume to do a solo run in talks with SF.

Stop the revisionism...know the history. Mallon was bitter about his own mistake and tried to blame everything and everyone else.

Hume was the visionary and should get the credit. The rest of the SDLP tried to protect and promote the party above real peacemaking. The electorate didn't miss it and showed what they thought of the SDLP.

Bonniedog · 28-06-2020 11:52AM

Most of the "hardmen" only joined after the IRA was disbanded. It is strange dichotomy between these characters who use the shinners to intimidate people, and the mostly eijits who think they are in the Labour Party, or would have been 20 years ago.

I have had dealings with Stanley and he is nice chap. Shinners tried to dump him in favour of a Portlaoise gang led by a former prison warder whose previous contact with republicans was locking them up at night!

You couldn't make this up. They were like a punter whose Lucky 15 came in last January. Previous to that they were going nowhere. Hopefully, they missed the boat for all our sakes.

Edgware · 28-06-2020 12:00PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Always struck me,senior members of sdlp were compromised by mi5 and for this reason hume kept.them out of the loop in the intial peace talks

Ha ha. Thats a laugh. We all know who was compromised by M15. Scapaticci, Donaldson and the other higher echelons of SF in Belfast who were on the payroll of the British.

Edgware · 28-06-2020 12:03PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mallon, along with Eddie O'Grady forced Hume to do a solo run in talks with SF.

Stop the revisionism...know the history. Mallon was bitter about his own mistake and tried to blame everything and everyone else.

Hume was the visionary and should get the credit. The rest of the SDLP tried to protect and promote the party above real peacemaking. The electorate didn't miss it and showed what they thought of the SDLP.

Thats a tired old line wheeled out about a decent Republican like Seamus Mallon who would never justify the sectarian slaughter at Kingsmill and Darkley Chapel unlike the S.F. apologists

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Comments