dundalkfc10 wrote: » But but but Sinn Féin Same old same old This is not a Sinn Féin thread
dundalkfc10 wrote: » Didnt take too long, but what about SF.
dundalkfc10 wrote: » Just wondering why they left out théite Blueshirts days. Forever ranting about other parties pasts but forgetting their own One would think they have an agenda P. S Dont do Maths jokes if you can't even subtract yourself
blanch152 wrote: » As I understand it, O'Duffy was pushed out of Fine Gael for his fascist tendencies. His views were not acceptable to them. "O'Duffy's approval of illegal agitation against the collection of land annuities by the government, declaration of his support for a republic and the revelation of his connections with the British Union of Fascists and the Fedrelandslaget were the last straws for moderates in Fine Gael. On 5 and 7 September 1934 Cosgrave, Ned Cronin and James Dillon met O'Duffy resulting in an agreement that O'Duffy could "deliver only carefully prepared and concise speeches from manuscripts" and give interviews "only after consultation and in writing". In response O'Duffy resigned from the party on the 18th of September." He then went on to become associated with Sinn Fein and the IRA, who appeared to have no problem with his fascism. "At one point O'Duffy was offered a position as an IRA intelligence officer and on another occasion he was invited to join former IRA Chiefs of Staff Moss Twomey and Andy Cooney in a protest against the "Yankee invasion of the Six Counties" in the summer of 1941" It is quite ironic that you castigate Fine Gael for their association with O'Duffy, yet when they threw him out for being a fascist, you have no issue with his later association with Sinn Fein and the IRA.
dundalkfc10 wrote: » Il just leave this here for youhttps://twitter.com/spyrojoe82/status/1305254672161222669?s=19
Deleted User wrote: » Does it equate to the “years” you’ve been howling about?
dundalkfc10 wrote: » For a start 2020-1934 is not 87.
Deleted User wrote: » Again, I ask. What missing year(S)? A simple maths question for you. 100-34= ? + 20=?
Deleted User wrote: » What missing years?
dundalkfc10 wrote: » https://twitter.com/FineGael/status/1305213489888276481?s=19https://twitter.com/JoeEDwyer/status/1305249846983569409?s=19 Wonder why the missing years? Rewriting History now to suit their agenda
Bowie wrote: » All criticism is policy and attitude based. If he behaved like LV he'd get the same criticism. Couldn't see Coveney quoting 'mean girls' and sending foolish bratty tweets. Or as in the Debenhams workers issue making false statements.
christy c wrote: » Said this before, I think Coveney would have more substance, but he would still come in for the same criticism as Leo. For example, he would have been going in after a stint as housing minister, it would be used as ammunition any chance people get.
Bowie wrote: » Leo was wrong. He either lied or is a fool. As to what the workers are due, there is disagreement. Simply saying one side is wrong doesn't cut it. They are negotiating.
Yurt! wrote: » Coveney represents the better face of the FG tradition IMO. A huge mistake allowing Leo take over, who is a man who has a deeply cynical and partisan approach to politics.
Bishop of hope wrote: » Nice award for Simon. Proof that Irish govts brexit stance is, well regarded in Europe. Lead by FG of course.https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/simon-coveney-wins-european-business-press-award-1.4352517?mode=amp
Bowie wrote: » He is siding against the workers and lying to do it.
blanch152 wrote: » Let's just look carefully at what you have said on this. Entitlements are what you are due, they have been fixed by statute, a contract of some other piece of law. You don't have to negotiate on this. You get it, and if you don't get it, you go to court and the court awards it to you. If you are negotiating, it is no longer about your entitlement or your due, it is about what you can seek and get at the expense of someone else, in this case, creditors and others.
Bowie wrote: » Negotiations are because one side disagrees with another. So they discuss it and negotiate a deal. .
Bowie wrote: » Except you don't know the details on this. They are fighting for what they are entitled to. .
Bowie wrote: » The workers want money they are due.
Bowie wrote: » Its what they are entitled to thats being negotiated.
blanch152 wrote: » If you are entitled to something, you are entitled to it, you don't have to negotiate for it!!!! What they are negotiating for is for something in excess of their entitlement. In your rush to accuse Leo of something else (what's new) you are misrepresenting the facts.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Is Leo negotiating on behalf of Debenhams then? Because they upped the offer by a million, obviously they are prepared to trade. Why is Leo saying there is no money?
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Lookit, a chara, there is always “money there”. If my daughter came up and said she was planning a two year trip to Colombia to do some bird watching and needed €25k to keep her going, I’d tell her I hadn’t the money (for that). There’s always ‘money’ but what you are prepared to spend it on is a totally different matter. A person might have the money but might not spend it on a high spec Beemer while the windows and heating in the hacienda need replacing. Try and think these things through, compadre.
Bowie wrote: » Negotiations are because one side disagrees with another. So they discuss it and negotiate a deal. LV said there was no money. There is. He was wrong. Why did he tell lies? Is he thick or lying? These are the questions.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
