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

standardg60 wrote: »

Lol call for an election then.

You do want to live in a democracy don't you?

I presume that's what the people on protest will be doing.

Personally, as stated since the night of the election, I can live with the present arrangement because I know it will copper fasten the final step of breaking the power swap/share.
The pressure brought to bear on it already has brought historic change.

standardg60

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I presume that's what the people on protest will be doing.

Personally, as stated since the night of the election, I can live with the present arrangement because I know it will copper fasten the final step of breaking the power swap/share.
The pressure brought to bear on it already has brought historic change.

I don't disagree with you in relation to the power swap/share idea.
But it's nothing to do with protest, we are simply catching up with the rational left/right argument which occurs in most democracies.
We have for too long been trapped in civil war politics at the expense of societal progress. It will eventually happen in the North too.
Don't get me wrong, i am no Capitalist, but proposing that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else is nonsense.

Welcome to the debate :-).

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you have data to back up 76% voted for this coalition?

Dont waste pixels...you don't.

Huh?

Hypothetical here, Francie. If SF led an alternative coalition of the left then how much support would that coalition have had amongst the electorate?

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Huh?

Hypothetical here, Francie. If SF led an alternative coalition of the left then how much support would that coalition have had amongst the electorate?

We wouldn't know until they faced the people.

Right back at you...how many FF voters would be feeling betrayed having belived Martin's pledge not to coalesce with FG, how many FG voters would be dismayed that John Delaney had been put back in charge of the FAI?

We won't know the answers to that until the people get a chance to give their verdict.

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We wouldn't know until they faced the people.

Right back at you...how many FF voters would be feeling betrayed having belived Martin's pledge not to coalesce with FG, how many FG voters would be dismayed that John Delaney had been put back in charge of the FAI?

We won't know the answers to that until the people get a chance to give their verdict.

So this coalition doesn’t have support of the people, but we wouldn’t know about one with SF unless it was formed?

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

So this coalition doesn’t have support of the people, but we wouldn’t know about one with SF unless it was formed?

I don't know if it has support or not.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We wouldn't know until they faced the people.

Right back at you...how many FF voters would be feeling betrayed having belived Martin's pledge not to coalesce with FG, how many FG voters would be dismayed that John Delaney had been put back in charge of the FAI?

We won't know the answers to that until the people get a chance to give their verdict.

Only party die-hards pay any attention to FF and FG / Greens forming a coalition together. The fact is that the majorty of their members voted to accept it.

Rationale people understand that we need a solid government.

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

a solid government.

Even that remains to be seen. Seems to me the electorate didn't think too much of both C&S parties in the election. 7% voted for the greens.

We'll see how 'solid' they are. Inauspicious start.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it over? The campaign for a UI? Nobody told me! :eek:

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you have data to back up 76% voted for this coalition?

Dont waste pixels...you don't.

Francie, stop protesting against democratic outcomes.

Protest against something that is done, that happens, or a policy that you don't like. Protesting against a democratic government after a democratic election and posting #notmytaoiseach is either extremely childish or deeply sinister.

I prefer to have you in the former category than the latter, but keep digging the hole if you want to.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

It shows you up as not genuine. I've explained it numerous times. They don't cancel each other out. You can't be outraged by Holohan and indifferent to O'Leary who quite clearly showed admiration for the fascist Blueshirts.
Hey it's not my place to tell people whether or not to be outraged I'm just saying I don't believe you are.

Start a thread about O'Leary and I might comment on that.

However, I am perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that Paddy Holohan's repeated homophobic, racist and misogynist rants across a number of podcasts are much more sinister and much more disturbing than a single tweet which has been twisted by you out of context.

Genuineness and empathy are not characteristics oozing from your posts. In fact, they most often demonstrate the opposite.

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

Are you still going on and on and on. Never knew the Green supporters hated SF as much as FG do

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

The IRA didn't achieve their aim militarily. It wasn't necessarily a lie, they tried and failed.
Michael Martin said he wouldn't do something, then did. He was in talks with FG at the beginning of March ffs. A lie all day long and everybody here knew it was because that is the way it has been done in the power swap...say one thing, do another. He didn't say, I won't unless x y or z happens. He said he wouldn't and did.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Francie, stop protesting against democratic outcomes.

Protest against something that is done, that happens, or a policy that you don't like. Protesting against a democratic government after a democratic election and posting #notmytaoiseach is either extremely childish or deeply sinister.

I prefer to have you in the former category than the latter, but keep digging the hole if you want to.

I'm not protesting it. I am defending the right to protest. Like you, those protestors have a right to their opinion and to express it.

Sorry to ruin your perceptions there.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Start a thread about O'Leary and I might comment on that.

However, I am perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that Paddy Holohan's repeated homophobic, racist and misogynist rants across a number of podcasts are much more sinister and much more disturbing than a single tweet which has been twisted by you out of context.

Genuineness and empathy are not characteristics oozing from your posts. In fact, they most often demonstrate the opposite.

Sure.

joeguevara

I think it’s an absolute disgrwce that no government party would talk to Gemma O Doherty. Even if they have no interest and disagree with what she stands for that’s irrelevant. Surely SF supporters should march for her right to be Taoiseach. Like SF she didn’t get the democratic vote but the same as them it doesn’t matter.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

Can you clarify something. Why are you looking to ridicule the IRA for signing up to peace? Are you just trying to get a rise or do you miss the Troubles?
Not a very moral or responsible attitude to try belittle sides took politics and peace over violence.
By the way 'No Surrender' was Paisley's line.
That's him no surrendering on the left.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IRA didn't achieve their aim militarily. It wasn't necessarily a lie, they tried and failed.

So, the PIRA did indeed surrender.
Good to finally admit it.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure.

I asked him several times and he eventually said it (O'Leary admiring fascists) was a throwaway tweet and due to the seriousness of covid we've more important things to worry about ...but working 'Mean Girls' into a national address on covid was okay

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not protesting it. I am defending the right to protest. Like you, those protestors have a right to their opinion and to express it.

Sorry to ruin your perceptions there.

I think you are confused.

No one is saying one does not have a right to protest, they are just calling out the motivations behind it as nonsensical, immature and idiotic, as is ones right as well.

Bishop of hope

Poor old bad losers.
Someday these lads might put their brain in gear before they open their mouths.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mary-lou-is-my-taoiseach-isnt-a-micheal-slur-says-sf-td-thomas-gould-1008202.html

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

The IRA gave up on it, were they telling a lie when they said "Brits Out, No Surrender"? By your definition, they were telling the biggest porkies.

Sounds to me like you dont know the difference between the struggle for freedom in the north and the aspiration for a United Ireland

maccored

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Poor old bad losers.
Someday these lads might put their brain in gear before they open their mouths.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mary-lou-is-my-taoiseach-isnt-a-micheal-slur-says-sf-td-thomas-gould-1008202.html

slow news day?

Mortelaro

Bowie wrote: »

Can you clarify something. Why are you looking to ridicule the IRA for signing up to peace? Are you just trying to get a rise or do you miss the Troubles?
Not a very moral or responsible attitude to try belittle sides took politics and peace over violence.
By the way 'No Surrender' was Paisley's line.
That's him no surrendering on the left.

He certainly didn't surrender, he got 90% of the Republic's population to amend articles 2 and 3 of its constitution removing the claim to jurisdiction over northern Ireland

JohnnyFlash

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Poor old bad losers.
Someday these lads might put their brain in gear before they open their mouths.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mary-lou-is-my-taoiseach-isnt-a-micheal-slur-says-sf-td-thomas-gould-1008202.html

Replacing Jonathan O’Brien with Gould shows just how little effort was put into selecting SF candidates to run for election. They’ve some real mouth-breathers and knuckle-draggers in the ranks. Damage limitation will be the order of the day for Mary Lou.

Bishop of hope

maccored wrote: »

slow news day?

It is í suppose, the #not my Taoiseach should be dead and buried at this stage though don't you think?
It's childish and undemocratic at best.
Taoiseach means chief says Marylou, I'm his chief.
Jesus.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Can you clarify something. Why are you looking to ridicule the IRA for signing up to peace? Are you just trying to get a rise or do you miss the Troubles?
Not a very moral or responsible attitude to try belittle sides took politics and peace over violence.
By the way 'No Surrender' was Paisley's line.
That's him no surrendering on the left.

I am pointing out the ridiculous nature of Francie's definition of politicians lying. If he is correct, the IRA and Sinn Fein are the biggest liars of the lot.

The IRA should have signed up to peace 40 years before they did eventually cop on.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am pointing out the ridiculous nature of Francie's definition of politicians lying. If he is correct, the IRA and Sinn Fein are the biggest liars of the lot.

The IRA should have signed up to peace 40 years before they did eventually cop on.

And I think the British should have capitulated 40 years earlier and removed the Unionist and Loyalist veto. A veto they had used for 80 years (with the blessing of FG and FF) to subjugate, gerrymander, and oppress our fellow Irish people.

Had the British copped on to that simple thing, say 'No' to Unionists in 1968/69 then there'd have been no violence, no conflict/war and 3000+ people would have had the chance to live out their lives in peace.

Like Michael Martin knew he would coalesce with FG if it came to it, the Brtish KNEW what the problems were in 1969 but they took a side and tried to re-oppress and re-subjugate on behalf of Unionism/Loyalism.

If you tell the story of what happened on this island and you do not put the primary blame for what happened at the door of those with the primary responsibility, then to me you are also a liar, an historian who cannot be trusted in other words.

Why would we trust a word out of yours or Michael Martin's mouth when you lie about fundamental things so easily?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I think the British should have capitulated 40 years earlier and removed the Unionist and Loyalist veto. A veto they had used for 80 years (with the blessing of FG and FF) to subjugate, gerrymander, and oppress our fellow Irish people.

Had the British copped on to that simple thing, say 'No' to Unionists in 1968/69 then there'd have been no violence, no conflict/war and 3000+ people would have had the chance to live out their lives in peace.

Like Michael Martin knew he would coalesce with FG if it came to it, the Brtish KNEW what the problems were in 1969 but they took a side and tried to re-oppress and re-subjugate on behalf of Unionism/Loyalism.

If you tell the story of what happened on this island and you do not put the primary blame for what happened at the door of those with the primary responsibility, then to me you are also a liar, an historian who cannot be trusted in other words.

Why would we trust a word out of yours or Michael Martin's mouth when you lie about fundamental things so easily?

The veto is still there the last I checked.

Delighted to be compared to Micheal Martin, me an anonymous boards poster that you put up there in the same category of the Taoiseach.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The veto is still there the last I checked.

Even though that is another lie and typical misrepresentation, I am sure most here know that you would be perfectly happy if the Unionists could still legally subjugate, oppress and gerrymander our fellow Irish citizens.

Pretending their petty use of the Petition Of Concern is the same as the Unionist Veto that was removed with the Anglo Irish Agreement is the kind of ****ty triumphalism I would expect from you to be honest.

You tell lies about people and events in the hope that those not informed enough will believe you and cheer you on.

Exactly the kind of stuff our new Taoiseach engages in.