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: » No special occasion really,just use it for what it's meant for
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.
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?
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
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: » 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: » 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: » 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: » 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.
markodaly wrote: » And SF/IRA agreed to this capitulation? So what is the point of the Northern Assembly then?
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.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » An assessment of what is going on in the north without mentioning the DUP, OO, or Unionism in general. Fascinating.
standardg60 wrote: » I thought it was perfectly rational to be honest, and seeing as you didn't come up with a meaningful response i would still hold that view.
Back OT, given that SF have held to the 'people voted for change' mantra throughout the Government negotiations i would have thought they would have been calling consistently for another election to prove their point. But there wasn't a peep out of them. Why? Because they are smart enough to know that people will only vote for change when things are going well, when there's a crisis people will instead become more conservative and opt for the status quo when they see things are being managed well by the current set up. So they choose to stay in the long grass waiting for the herd to calm down and become nonchalant again.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why would I be bothered with such a myopic mindset? I think a myopic mindset describes you more than me. I'd still be interested to hear a valid response. Did I miss an election during 'the crisis'? Far as I could see had an election happened FG and SF would have been fighting it out with the current Taoiseach's party way back on 13%. Throw up your own unique and heretofore secret polling there so we can see what 'the people' might have done.
standardg60 wrote: » So why didn't SF call for one? Surely the public wouldn't have blamed them for dragging them out to the polls again? Sure they voted for change? Would have been a landslide. What could possibly have gone wrong?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ask SF. I asked you to show your data on which you based your contention. According to polls (the only data we have) the leader of the party currently running the country is the least trusted of the big 3 = 13% and falling in the polls. I call bull on your contention until you back it up.
standardg60 wrote: » You didn't ask me anything. And opinions don't require backing up. They are just that. Opinions. You don't seem to like any that are not of yours. But instead of actually answering them with your own rational one you choose to attack the person forming them. I call bullying my contention until you actually respond to it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't like opinions based on sticking a finger up into the wind. I did ask you to post whatever actual data you had for your contention. You don't have any, that's fine.
Finty Lemon wrote: » Thank you for that. Unionism won out by doing what they do best. Digging in and waiting for Westminster to intervene. They now have SF signed up to the consent principle and engaged in a limited local parliament, and have articles 2 and 3 off the table. Most importantly they have killed the appetite for violence in young nationalists. Not bad for doing nothing. The demographic shift may oust them in 100 years or so (but you will never see it Francie, just like you will never see Monaghan winning big in Croke Park ). If the knuckle dragging bible thumper wing of unionism could realize that the key to NI is in the pocket of upwardly mobile Nationalists, the demographic threat will recede too.
joeguevara wrote: » Can anyone explain to me why so many Sinn Fein and People Before Profit supporters are organising a march to demonstrate against the newly formed government
FrancieBrady wrote: » Are you saying people cannot protest? It's hardly a coup now, hold on to the old hat there. Protests against governments are normal and legal. The difference here is that it is so early in the term.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If you do that expect protest. Again, two parties froze out a third. That is going to bring protest.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, I think if two parties refuse to talk to them and come together themselves to form a government then the 24% have the right to protest that.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If you want you have every right to protest the protests.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Protest has been a legitimate way to express a view since the foundation of the state.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Protests are not whinging. That is going to be protested. If they are big enough to ignore 24% of the population they are big enough to endure a protest.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Protest' is your democratic right. The last government caused more than enough and protest changed things during the term of the last governments. The quickest governmental u-turn I have ever seen was caused by the sudden strength of protest against Charlie Flanagan's an Leo's wee plan to state honour the RIC.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That is what people from across the Dáíl are going to protest.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Oh blanch...it's a protest or demonstration. Nobody's buying coloured shirts and forming militaristic troops of men in the Phoenix Park and Sieg Heiling.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The formation of this government is an 'unpopular action'. How do we know this? Because there will be demonstrations about it.
McMurphy wrote: » Who is organising this protest btw?
standardg60 wrote: » You didn't. Maybe you'd like to read your post again. SF are forming their opinions based on an election held months ago prior to the pandemic without calling for a perfectly rational current one. I assume you don't like that one either?
atticu wrote: » You asked the wrong poster. You might want to read the thread, and all of Francies waffle about protests and demonstrations, and then you might find an answer to your question.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Which question are you referring to?
atticu wrote: » You did not ask the question. Johnny Doggs asked, but it turns out that you had answered before he asked.
standardg60 wrote: » He doesn't answer questions, he'd rather protest against the 76% of people in this country who had a different opinion to his. Or Democracy in other words.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Do you have data to back up 76% voted for this coalition? Dont waste pixels...you don't.
