blanch152 wrote: » 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.
Finty Lemon wrote: » The point of the NI assembly was to give SF something to sell to its base, while it surrendered its claim to legitimacy in carrying on an armed campaign. All Westminster wanted was an end to bombs on the UK mainland; as long as a deal could be structured to make that happen then they would go with it. SF will argue in public that the NI assembly was hard won and can be used as stepping stone as a means to justify the body count. But privately they now know they are in a noose. If middle class northern nationalist opinion supports the structures for peace and prosperity sake it will set back the project. The only hope is to constantly destabilize things. RHI and Irish language are classics and more will come. More victimhood equals more votes. Naïve southern idealists' support comes as a nice bonus. But the truth is Northern Nationalists have it easy. There is no oppression.
markodaly wrote: » And SF/IRA agreed to this capitulation? So what is the point of the Northern Assembly then?
FrancieBrady wrote: » For someone who finds it hard to recognise a lie, you don't have any issue telling them. 'every non shinner'? Really? Not responding anymore to this Mort. Back on topic.
Mortelaro wrote: » This is most amusing Every non shinner regular on these threads frequently refers to you and 3 or 4 other shinner posters as colleagues who work together in coordination I'm quite happy with that contention Ergo it must be you and they are your words,that think ye are ganging up on me It's very revealing language from ye Barely freudian, maskless in fact, speaking to your processes
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sure you did...you dug the hole deeper. Look at you insinuating we are all 'friends' here...ganging up on you or just pointing out that you contention was defensive goobleygook? I'll leave it there again or 'give up' as you would say no point repeating stuff. Maybe you might have something to say on the thread subject?
Mortelaro wrote: » Nonsense, I dealt with every one of your 'friends ' queries So much so ye gsve up You in particular muttering something about never wanting me on a jury :rolleyes:
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well that's certainly a lie. A vainglorious one at that too. You got told by several posters that you were talking protective and defensive rubbish.
Mortelaro wrote: » Nope,I brought you through all that 40 pages back You just ignore it because without it you can't carry on I suppose,we do have to listen to it
blanch152 wrote: » Did the IRA tell a lie when they proclaimed "No Surrender, Brits Out" and gave up (I prefer surrendered) before that was achieved?
FrancieBrady wrote: » No need for the toe curling twisting and turning. I use the perfectly ordinary descriptive word 'lie' when somebody tells a lie. You find other words for it which excuse the lie.
Mortelaro wrote: » No special occasion really,just use it for what it's meant for
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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.
Mortelaro wrote: » I was referring above to unionists 'no surrender ' cries (comparing their frequency to your 'lies' cries) and you know that :rolleyes:
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.
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
FrancieBrady wrote: » . You could just as easily portray John Major's capitulation as 'surrender' (and Unionists/Loyalists did claim that).
blanch152 wrote: » That was a well-constructed argument in rebuttal, thanks for that.
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?
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....
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » This is such nonsense. Westminster controls ultimately...full stop.
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.
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.
blanch152 wrote: » Calling a racist homophobe as just "an ejit (sic) being an ejit (sic)" is defending him.
