nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Pkiernan

I haven't seen or heard anything from Mary Lou, Slab Murphy and other good Republicans in ages.

What's going on?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Poor old gill makes an arse biscuit post.

I ask old gill to clarify his post.

Blanch responds to my query to old gill asking me to take it up with Francie.

As an aside, did my eyes deceive me, or did I not see you post earlier in full acknowledgment that Sinn Fein didn't have anything to do with this organised protest planned for today?

Yet when he made the post, which clearly insinuates the shinners organised it, despite this being completely factually wrong, and you knowing it to be wrong, you "thank" his post?

Did someone say something about fork tongues a couple of minutes ago may I ask?

It's any punch will do stuff from blanch again.

The 1930's Germany stuff ...didn't we hear all that before about water protests etc?

JOBSOXO

Your right, the bloody cheek of them using their franchise. Who the hell do they think they are ?.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's any punch will do stuff from blanch again.

The 1930's Germany stuff ...didn't we hear all that before about water protests etc?

Anything that gets a dig, no matter of its authenticity, blanch is like the Churchill dog from the insurance commercial nodding along in agreement.

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

Anything that gets a dig, no matter of its authenticity, blanch is like the Churchill dog from the insurance commercial nodding along in agreement.

You watch British tv :eek:

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

You watch British tv :eek:

I don't really watch much TV at all Morty British or otherwise, but I've 4 kids who do, and that dog always made me want to throw a lump hammer through the telly.

maccored

landofthetree wrote: »

It will be a shock to all the wasters who vote for them.

They will be told to go on training courses like they currently are.

They already get free housing and healthcare so you cant say SF will give them that.

good to see you havent a clue about the SF base vote then

landofthetree

maccored wrote: »

good to see you havent a clue about the SF base vote then

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/the-view-from-clondalkin-if-sinn-f%C3%A9in-don-t-get-in-there-will-be-marches-1.4180858

Its mainly the victim classes who vote for them.

Bonniedog

landofthetree wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/the-view-from-clondalkin-if-sinn-f%C3%A9in-don-t-get-in-there-will-be-marches-1.4180858

Its mainly the victim classes who vote for them.

It is a strange vote, and it balanced well for them in January.

Main components are:

Republicans who haven't woken up and realised SF is now partitionist

Nationalists who think SF is still suspicious of EU expansion

The social welfare protest vote - which they got out last time

The woke vote that used to go to Labour.

And the usual TD vote where they have good reps like Crowe, Stanley, O Caoláin, Ferris, Ellis. Most of rest are useless backed by jokes of councillors. Which is why they bombed in locals and will do again.

Can they hold that together for another go like January? Possibly. But one suspects last time was their best shot at it. A lot of the 24.5% won't vote SF again if they think they won't be in power.

maccored

landofthetree wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/the-view-from-clondalkin-if-sinn-f%C3%A9in-don-t-get-in-there-will-be-marches-1.4180858

Its mainly the victim classes who vote for them.

how does that article prove what you have said? It doesnt. I know more SF voters at my income level than SF voters on the dole. My hearsay trumps your hearsay (to me anyway)

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where have SF published constant homophobic comments on a website or the 'Jewish' thing with Harris?

You are not the reader of my comments that you say you are. I have been called everything from a murderer, apologist for pedophilia to scum on here. And the female members of SF are constantly denigrated and demeaned on this very site.
I am not denying nasty things are said by those supporting SF either. All parties have their bombastic and ignorant.

Just reading this now I think I missed it. You misunderstood what I said. I said I have never witness the level of caustic insults like I have recently, not that I have never witnessed. I think all abuse should stop with everybody as its pointless and is not befitting of anyone who is genuinely engaged and interested in political discussion.

christy c

maccored wrote: »

how does that article prove what you have said? It doesnt. I know more SF voters at my income level than SF voters on the dole. My hearsay trumps your hearsay (to me anyway)

Id agree, given that they got to twenty something per cent of the vote, I think the idea that it is just scroungers voting for them should be put to bed. Anecdotally, I know people reasonably well paid who voted for them because of housing issues which is understandable. Separately, do I think SF would solve our problems? Not in a month of Sundays.

Whether they can maintain or grow that vote remains to be seen, especially with the huge recession we are facing.

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

So speaks the forked tongue again.

If Sinn Fein are in power in the North, how do you explain the horrific way they treated those who lost their jobs because of Covid-19 with miniscule social welfare payments?..............oh wait, they are not in power in the North, because the UK are in control.............................So if the North administration is not in control of the North, why did the IRA surrender to the GFA?...................................the IRA did not surrender, they won.....................Then why don't we have a united Ireland?

And so it goes around and around. The forked tongue of republicanism, whereby no responsibility falls on Sinn Fein or the IRA, that it is always someone else's fault, that they lie and dissemble and contradict themselves, over and over again.

This, so this.

SF/PIRA sued for peace so they can have a joint assembly with Unionists, but then when push comes to shove, sure Westminster rules the lot, right??
So then why did the IRA put their arms beyond use when the British Army are still there?
Oh, but they didn't surrender??
So what did they actually do then?

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Just reading this now I think I missed it. You misunderstood what I said. I said I have never witness the level of caustic insults like I have recently, not that I have never witnessed. I think all abuse should stop with everybody as its pointless and is not befitting of anyone who is genuinely engaged and interested in political discussion.

Hold on a second.
You were asked this:

Where have SF published constant homophobic comments on a website or the 'Jewish' thing with Harris?

and you haven't backed it up.

False allegations are as much a form of abuse as name calling or caustic insults.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

This, so this.

SF/PIRA sued for peace so they can have a joint assembly with Unionists, but then when push comes to shove, sure Westminster rules the lot, right??
So then why did the IRA put their arms beyond use when the British Army are still there?
Oh, but they didn't surrender??
So what did they actually do then?

This is such nonsense.

Westminster controls ultimately...full stop.

There was also no surrender, The IRA did not decommission until agreement was reached, despite British and Unionist demands that they do. John Major quietly dropped the demand when he seen it was not going to happen and SF where allowed to the table...also a fact.

I never seen anyone claim that the IRA won, certainly didn't come from any regular posters that I have seen. A stalemate was reached and no side can claim victory.

So keep misrepresenting lads...it's all you seem to have.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Calling a racist homophobe as just "an ejit (sic) being an ejit (sic)" is defending him.

I don't think he's racist based on that. I think he's an ejit made a stupid comment based on idiocy.
You call him a racist as part of building it up to be more than it was. You can't label someone and then hold everyone to your opinion.
If you don't think O'Leary is worth even half the outrage I cant believe you are genuine about Holohan. I've explained that.
You find a FG'er said similar I'll call him an ejit too not pretend to be outraged to get more mileage out of it as you are doing.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

I don't think he's racist based on that. I think he's an ejit made a stupid comment based on idiocy.
You call him a racist as part of building it up to be more than it was. You can't label someone and then hold everyone to your opinion.
If you don't think O'Leary is worth even half the outrage I cant believe you are genuine about Holohan. I've explained that.
You find a FG'er said similar I'll call him an ejit too not pretend to be outraged to get more mileage out of it as you are doing.

What has O'Leary to do with Holohan being a racist, misogynist homophobe on a thread about Sinn Fein? And I am sure that Holohan is proud of all that, it appeals to his followers.

I am not sure that you understand low-level homophobia and racism, and in particular, how prevalent they are in Irish society.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is such nonsense.

Westminster controls ultimately...full stop.

There was also no surrender, The IRA did not decommission until agreement was reached, despite British and Unionist demands that they do. John Major quietly dropped the demand when he seen it was not going to happen and SF where allowed to the table...also a fact.

I never seen anyone claim that the IRA won, certainly didn't come from any regular posters that I have seen. A stalemate was reached and no side can claim victory.

So keep misrepresenting lads...it's all you seem to have.

A stalemate was reached, but Westminister continued to rule, the British Army still have sovereignty over the North, but the IRA didn't surrender?

Seriously, Francie, can you not see the problem with your analysis? Yes, there was no formal surrender, but anyone with half an eye can see it for what it was. Why do you think the hardmen in the IRA have refused to go away? They know they got beaten, but they are sitting in Belfast thinking they can make mischief in other ways.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is such nonsense.

Westminster controls ultimately...full stop.

And SF/IRA agreed to this capitulation?
So what is the point of the Northern Assembly then?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A stalemate was reached, but Westminister continued to rule, the British Army still have sovereignty over the North, but the IRA didn't surrender?

Seriously, Francie, can you not see the problem with your analysis? Yes, there was no formal surrender, but anyone with half an eye can see it for what it was. Why do you think the hardmen in the IRA have refused to go away? They know they got beaten, but they are sitting in Belfast thinking they can make mischief in other ways.

If you think SF sitting around a table negotiating a deal while the IRA was still fully armed, is a 'surrender', 'knock yourself out mate'...as they'd say up north.

It's typical of the high moral ground partitionists to pretend though.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

And SF/IRA agreed to this capitulation?
So what is the point of the Northern Assembly then?

This bitter auld ****e again from a poster over on other threads blowing smoke up FG's ass for 'acting in de national interest'.

**** happens when a conflict/war reaches a stalemate and compromises have to be made. Would you have preferred/thought more of them had they fought to the death and turned the place into a bloodbath?

If you don't know how devolved governments work or how peace in northern Ireland was structured, isn't it time you learnt?

piplip87

I see some Shinners still mourning the death of "Bobby the peacemaker Storey". Its mad how somebody can be called a Peacemaker once they stop ordering the murder of people..... Its a bit like giving Hitler credit for ending the holocaust....

maccored

piplip87 wrote: »

I see some Shinners still mourning the death of "Bobby the peacemaker Storey". Its mad how somebody can be called a Peacemaker once they stop ordering the murder of people..... Its a bit like giving Hitler credit for ending the holocaust....

whats that got to do with again?

maccored

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This bitter auld ****e again from a poster over on other threads blowing smoke up FG's ass for 'acting in de national interest'.

**** happens when a conflict/war reaches a stalemate and compromises have to be made. Would you have preferred/thought more of them had they fought to the death and turned the place into a bloodbath?

If you don't know how devolved governments work or how peace in northern Ireland was structured, isn't it time you learnt?

you can always tell a good oul unionist with the 'sf/ira' wafffle

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you think SF sitting around a table negotiating a deal while the IRA was still fully armed, is a 'surrender', 'knock yourself out mate'...as they'd say up north.

It's typical of the high moral ground partitionists to pretend though.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This bitter auld ****e again from a poster over on other threads blowing smoke up FG's ass for 'acting in de national interest'.

**** happens when a conflict/war reaches a stalemate and compromises have to be made. Would you have preferred/thought more of them had they fought to the death and turned the place into a bloodbath?

If you don't know how devolved governments work or how peace in northern Ireland was structured, isn't it time you learnt?

That was a well-constructed argument in rebuttal, thanks for that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That was a well-constructed argument in rebuttal, thanks for that.

It is an argument unique to partitionists here and Unionists/loyalists in the north and it is also a bitter one.

I didn't support the IRA or any of the violence, but that doesn't blinker me to what actually happened.

The IRA came off ceasefire when the process stalled and bombed the heart of England...progress resumed very quickly, they also refused to decommission, in spite of demands, and John Major quietly dropped the demand. An agreement was reached and decommissioning happened on IRA terms.

Those are the facts. The word 'surrender' doesn't even hove into view there. It is as I said a familiar crutch for partitionists and Unionists/Loyalists to fall back on though.

You could just as easily portray John Major's capitulation as 'surrender' (and Unionists/Loyalists did claim that).

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

.

You could just as easily portray John Major's capitulation as 'surrender' (and Unionists/Loyalists did claim that).

Yerra,their devaluation of surrender word is second only to yours of the lie word
Meaningless and neither I'd hold up as a fitting example of anything

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Yerra,their devaluation of surrender word is second only to yours of the lie word
Meaningless and neither I'd hold up as a fitting example of anything

Somebody who thinks that you cannot lie about something in the future believes you can surrender while still fully armed?

No surprise there Mort...no surprise.

landofthetree

There were 218,817 (25.4%) family units with children (of any age) headed by a lone parent. This is an increase of over 3,500 families since 2011. Almost 90,000 were single; a further 50,496 were widowed while the remaining 68,378 were separated or divorced.

So SF want me to pay even more. :rolleyes:

https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/52641
These irresponsible single parents get everything for free.

They take from responsible couples and those that are widowed.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody who thinks that you cannot lie about something in the future believes you can surrender while still fully armed?

No surprise there Mort...no surprise.

I was referring above to unionists 'no surrender ' cries (comparing their frequency to your 'lies' cries) and you know that :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

I was referring above to unionists 'no surrender ' cries (comparing their frequency to your 'lies' cries) and you know that :rolleyes:

It was a hilarious defence of Michael Martin to be honest.

I 'devalued the word 'lie'.

What special occasion were you waiting to use it for? Can you not call something a lie and then go on and call something different a lie?

If I call something leather and round you play football with a 'ball' and then go on to describe something you play tennis with as a 'ball', am I devaluing the word 'ball'?

Listen to yourself Mort.