Is it just me or have SF vanished?

McMurphy · 17-07-2020 10:53AM

blanch152 wrote: »

I see we are in blame the victim territory again.

Just like Lyra McKee stepped into “crossfire”, Mairia Cahill asked for it, probably wanted it, in your opinion.

No depths too low to defend them, is there?

In what part of that post did anyone say Mairia Cahill "asked for it" ?

There's no level to which you're not prepared to stoop apparently.

blackwhite · 17-07-2020 11:43AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness to maccored he has said on numerous occasions that he is a member of SF.

I haven't heard of any other political party where a condition of membership is that you are unable to criticise or disagree with anything that the party does.

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2020 11:46AM

blackwhite wrote: »

I haven't heard of any other political party where a condition of membership is that you are unable to criticise or disagree with anything that the party does.

Is it a 'condition of membership' of SF? Link?

maccored · 17-07-2020 12:11PM

blackwhite wrote: »

I'm that over the last 10 years of posting you can then show all the times you've criticised SF or expressed disagreement with their policies?

Other than, of course, the times you've lied about SF repeatedly campaigning against joining the EEC and the EU :pac:

are you talking of a SF in the 70s, before their split in the 80s? Why yes, I see you are (again)

I cant help your lack of education fella - :pac: to your hearts content, and come back to when when you have an actual point .

In general I dont have any disagreement with SF policies per se - mainly because so far we've never had a chance to see if any of them would work. I like that they think outside the box. Nothing ventured nothing gained

is this a new part of the handbag process now? where you give out if someone agrees in general with how a party is run? Getting desperate there ,no?

maccored · 17-07-2020 12:13PM

blackwhite wrote: »

I haven't heard of any other political party where a condition of membership is that you are unable to criticise or disagree with anything that the party does.

i suppose the parties you support dont encourage freedom of thought. My political thinking is not governed by anyone but myself. Youre so brainwashed with this 'cult' bull****, it borders on irony

maccored · 17-07-2020 12:16PM

blanch152 wrote: »

This is silly propaganda that ignores international law and conventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

"Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention On Human Rights provides that that death resulted from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary":"

Even the European Convention on Human Rights - remember that, Sinn Fein support it - allows for justifiable homicide. Some of the actions (only some) carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland would be covered by those articles, none of the actions carried out by the IRA are.

So yes, in line with the ECHR, I can call one death caused by a soldier justifiable, yet condemn utterly as murder the death of a soldier.

You need to read Article 2 again. the BA is full of suspects and fugatives.

maccored · 17-07-2020 12:20PM

Invidious wrote: »

Your position is that you are not a SF member and don't vote for them, and yet you have nearly 1,200 posts in this thread alone defending them -- is that right?

theres plenty with many many posts (and threads) on SF who apparently dont even like them.

Wheres your condemnation of those?

blackwhite · 17-07-2020 12:45PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it a 'condition of membership' of SF? Link?

You offered up his membership of Sinn Fein as the reason why he appears to be incapable of ever disagreeing with the party position.

Are you now saying that was a completely irrelevant diversion you through out just to deflect? Or are you back to arguing with yourself yet again?

blackwhite · 17-07-2020 12:46PM

maccored wrote: »

are you talking of a SF in the 70s, before their split in the 80s? Why yes, I see you are (again)

I cant help your lack of education fella - :pac: to your hearts content, and come back to when when you have an actual point .

And the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s - and multiple treaties through the 90s and 00s.

Of course - we're back to the word "never" having a time limit when a shinner gets caught telling porkies :rolleyes:

If Sinn Fein told us the sky was purple maccored would be on here throwing dogs abuse at anyone who dared to question it :pac:

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2020 12:55PM

blackwhite wrote: »

You offered up his membership of Sinn Fein as the reason why he appears to be incapable of ever disagreeing with the party position.

Are you now saying that was a completely irrelevant diversion you through out just to deflect? Or are you back to arguing with yourself yet again?

Is it abnormal for a party member to be in line and agreement with party policy?

That was the point.

You introduced the 'cult' notion and 'conditions of membership' in more of the ceaseless deflectionary nonsense that goes on about a party that is here to stay. You'll just have to get over that but I accept you probably never will.

17-07-2020 01:11PM

maccored wrote: »

In general I dont have any disagreement with SF policies per se - mainly because so far we've never had a chance to see if any of them would work. I like that they think outside the box. Nothing ventured nothing gained

We seen similar ideologies fail in other countries.

Bishop of hope · 17-07-2020 01:44PM

RandomViewer wrote: »

Thought Cahill had an affair with her aunts husband and cried wolf when the aunt found out?

And no smiley.
Who said that?

maccored · 17-07-2020 01:47PM

blackwhite wrote: »

You offered up his membership of Sinn Fein as the reason why he appears to be incapable of ever disagreeing with the party position.

Are you now saying that was a completely irrelevant diversion you through out just to deflect? Or are you back to arguing with yourself yet again?

what high horse are you on? How dare you demand I change my political point of view to suit you. go away and cop on to yourself there

maccored · 17-07-2020 01:47PM

jh79 wrote: »

We seen similar ideologies fail in other countries.

like? you are basically assuming social policies all fail for the same reason.

maccored · 17-07-2020 01:58PM

blackwhite wrote: »

And the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s - and multiple treaties through the 90s and 00s.

Of course - we're back to the word "never" having a time limit when a shinner gets caught telling porkies :rolleyes:

If Sinn Fein told us the sky was purple maccored would be on here throwing dogs abuse at anyone who dared to question it :pac:

off you go again - boys but youre so funny. Sides are splitting. That last sentence says a lot about you. Cant debate? that make up ****.

All of those treaties in the 90s and after had specific reasons - NONE WERE LETS LEAVE THE EU.

AS I said already - catch some cop on. Find a debate and have it - dont post absolute ****ing bollocks there please, especially if you are going to mention me in your loopy posts. Attack the post not the poster - if you can manage that

17-07-2020 01:59PM

maccored wrote: »

like? you are basically assuming social policies all fail for the same reason.

Greece and Venezuela. Both thought they could bite the hand that feeds them and get away with it.

We see similar populist rhetoric and policies from SF.

maccored · 17-07-2020 02:00PM

jh79 wrote: »

Greece and Venezuela. Both thought they could bite the hand that feeds them and get away with it.

We see similar populist rhetoric and policies from SF.

Similar as in having a social angle. Wow. great research there.

17-07-2020 02:06PM

maccored wrote: »

Similar as in having a social angle. Wow. great research there.

You're the SF member, so based on your more extensive research why will the same approach work here when it has failed elsewhere?

blackwhite · 17-07-2020 02:07PM

maccored wrote: »

off you go again - boys but youre so funny. Sides are splitting. That last sentence says a lot about you. Cant debate? that make up ****.

All of those treaties in the 90s and after had specific reasons - NONE WERE LETS LEAVE THE EU.

AS I said already - catch some cop on. Find a debate and have it - dont post absolute ****ing bollocks there please, especially if you are going to mention me in your loopy posts. Attack the post not the poster - if you can manage that

Yet again - dare question SF and get a torrent of abuse. Those are some serious anger issues (p.s. I think you'll find you started this interaction by quoting one of my posts - but it supposedly that's my fault for "mentioning you" :rolleyes: ) At least you remain consistent as ever :pac:

The Maastrict Treaty was literally to establish the EU - and SF opposed it. Continuing to repeat your lies just shows you up TBH

maccored · 17-07-2020 02:09PM

blackwhite wrote: »

Yet again - dare question SF and get a torrent of abuse. Those are some serious anger issues (p.s. I think you'll find you started this interaction by quoting one of my posts - but it supposedly that's my fault for "mentioning you" :rolleyes: ) At least you remain consistent as ever :pac:

The Maastrict Treaty was literally to establish the EU - and SF opposed it. Continuing to repeat your lies just shows you up TBH

you are accusing me of being a liar, and of being gullible. come back to me when you have figured out what the word 'abuse' means.

maccored · 17-07-2020 02:10PM

jh79 wrote: »

You're the SF member, so based on your more extensive research why will the same approach work here when it has failed elsewhere?

you claim its the 'same approach'. I disagree.

Explain how you think its the 'same approach'?

blackwhite · 17-07-2020 02:11PM

maccored wrote: »

you are accusing me of being a liar, and of being gullible. come back to me when you have figured out what the word 'abuse' means.

I've pointed out some direct untruthful claims you've made. Your response is to spin, spin, spin and throw abuse at anyone who dares question you. Same as it always is

maccored · 17-07-2020 02:15PM

blackwhite wrote: »

I've pointed out some direct untruthful claims you've made. Your response is to spin, spin, spin and throw abuse at anyone who dares question you. Same as it always is

no you havent. You called me a liar because I had previously pointed out that the SF 70s was a different SF after the split in 1986.

As for abuse - theres only been one person calling another a liar in this, and it hasnt been me. Then you claim I have anger issues, after your insults.

as I say, it all says more about you than anyone fella. Off you go with your waffling as I dont have to listen to your rubbish.

Bishop of hope · 17-07-2020 02:20PM

maccored wrote: »

like? you are basically assuming social policies all fail for the same reason.

Sinn Féin started out with the usual radical ideas borne out of trouble, revolution etc etc.
The system is what's wrong, that's why we are as we are etc etc.
But they're gradually softening and leaning to the centre, because these radical policies have been proven to produce nothing but poverty and deprivation.
That's a fact, not a guess.
Economically successful countries that apply radical socialist policies are probably the likes of China, Russia and North Korea and such like.
Forced socialism.
Left to their own devices, most humans are capitalists in nature, that's just the way the human mind works.

blackwhite · 17-07-2020 02:22PM

maccored wrote: »

no you havent. You called me a liar because I had previously pointed out that the SF 70s was a different SF after the split in 1986.

As for abuse - theres only been one person calling another a liar in this, and it hasnt been me. Then you claim I have anger issues, after your insults.

as I say, it all says more about you than anyone fella. Off you go with your waffling as I dont have to listen to your rubbish.

More lies - I've referred repeatedly to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum, as well as referenda since then - why the need to lie and state I'm talking about the 70s?

Did Sinn Féin campaign for, or against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (you know, the Treaty that founded the EU)?

Or you know - maybe just continue calling anyone who dares disagree with you "loopy" - that'll show everyone what a true SF-believer is really like.

maccored · 17-07-2020 02:26PM

blackwhite wrote: »

More lies - I've referred repeatedly to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum, as well as referenda since then - why the need to lie and state I'm talking about the 70s?

Did Sinn Féin campaign for, or against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (you know, the Treaty that founded the EU)?

Or you know - maybe just continue calling anyone who dares disagree with you "loopy" - that'll show everyone what a true SF-believer is really like.

you got mermory loss or something?

Other than, of course, the times you've lied about SF repeatedly campaigning against joining the EEC and the EU

thats from your earlier waffling when you started accusing me of being a liar _ BEFORE you mentioned any treaties.

And you have the cheek to call me a liar? Caught out there lad.

maccored · 17-07-2020 02:27PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Sinn Féin started out with the usual radical ideas borne out of trouble, revolution etc etc.
The system is what's wrong, that's why we are as we are etc etc.
But they're gradually softening and leaning to the centre, because these radical policies have been proven to produce nothing but poverty and deprivation.
That's a fact, not a guess.
Economically successful countries that apply radical socialist policies are probably the likes of China, Russia and North Korea and such like.
Forced socialism.
Left to their own devices, most humans are capitalists in nature, that's just the way the human mind works.

The minute SF stop representing my own views will be the minute they wont get my vote

blackwhite · 17-07-2020 02:28PM

maccored wrote: »

you got mermory loss or something?

thats from your earlier waffling when you started accusing me of being a liar _ BEFORE you mentioned any treaties.

And you have the cheek to call me a liar? Caught out there lad.

You're the one who claimed that SF have never campainged against EU membership.

How do you square that circle to the Maastrich Treaty referendum? (never mind all the other ones they've opposed as well).

(here's a mad one for you - posters on here can actually remember what you falsely claimed on other threads as well - shocking I know!)

Keep digging - you'll find Oz eventually

blanch152 · 17-07-2020 02:29PM

RandomViewer wrote: »

Thought Cahill had an affair with her aunts husband and cried wolf when the aunt found out?

I think we have probably now reached the bottom of the sewer that Sinn Fein supporters inhabit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29786451

"Mr Adams told her that some abusers can be so manipulative that some victims "enjoy" the abuse"

That is the level you have sunk to.

17-07-2020 02:32PM

maccored wrote: »

you claim its the 'same approach'. I disagree.

Explain how you think its the 'same approach'?

In general terms, these two countries and SF claim all the ills of their respective countries could be solved by targeting the "elites" (big corporations, the EU, bond markets etc) and that they could be made to pay more without affecting the economy.

SF want to spend, i believe 5 times more than the current government and fund a UI without any increases in taxes or cuts in social welfare.

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Comments