The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

blanch152 wrote: »

If someone had the time to go through your posts on the DUP and Brexit, I am certain that some inconsistency would be found.

We're desperate today are we not?

Tell you what, why don't you for once back up your own ****e? Filthy unbacked up insinuations from you again.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We're desperate today are we not?

Tell you what, why don't you for once back up your own ****e? Filthy unbacked up insinuations from you again.

Are you suggesting that it would have been out-of-character for you to foam at the mouth over the DUP helping Brexit by accepting foreign money to advertise in mainland UK advocating Brexit?

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it would have been out-of-character for you to foam at the mouth over the DUP helping Brexit by accepting foreign money to advertise in mainland UK advocating Brexit?

As I said to you...YOU back up your own insidious and insinuating ****e.

Maybe first try to understand the essential difference between these two things:

As long as it is legal and transparent, I don't have any issue with it happening on this island.

and

the DUP helping Brexit by accepting foreign money to advertise in mainland UK advocating Brexit?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it would have been out-of-character for you to foam at the mouth over the DUP helping Brexit by accepting foreign money to advertise in mainland UK advocating Brexit?

The problem with the DUP money was that they refused to say where the money came from.

NI is different to the rest of the UK in that they don't have to say where the money came from.

mynamejeff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We're desperate today are we not?

Tell you what, why don't you for once back up your own ****e? Filthy unbacked up insinuations from you again.

that's some nerve he hit there though isn't it lol

mynamejeff wrote: »

that's some nerve he hit there though isn't it lol

The fact that blanch has done the usual and insinuated something neither you nor he can back up?

That's three that have been called out on lies they haven't been able to back up:
Truthvader
a very cool kid
and blanch.

Oh and Bish was trawling the SF website this AM early trying to find something salacious.

Not my nerves on edge at all jeff.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said to you...YOU back up your own insidious and insinuating ****e.

Maybe first try to understand the essential difference between these two things:

and

Once again the default exclusionary nationalism comes to the fore.

It is ok for Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland to accept money and use it to promote on an island basis, but it is not ok for the DUP to accept money and promote on a UK basis.

Typical two-faced Irish Republican approach.

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again the default exclusionary nationalism comes to the fore.

It is ok for Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland to accept money and use it to promote on an island basis, but it is not ok for the DUP to accept money and promote on a UK basis.

Typical two-faced Irish Republican approach.

I made no comment on the DUP raising money.

I pointed out though that raising money on the island in an open and transparent way is different to receiving foreign money from unknown sources.

Stop twisting and lying about what is being said.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I made no comment on the DUP raising money.

I pointed out though that raising money on the island in an open and transparent way is different to receiving foreign money from unknown sources.

Stop twisting and lying about what is being said.

Unknown sources? Such as a bequest from a recluse with a grudge who nobody knows anything about how he got his money?

blanch152 wrote: »

Unknown sources? Such as a bequest from a recluse with a grudge who nobody knows anything about how he got his money?

Open and transparent. We know where it came from, if anybody has issue with where and how he got it then British Revenue and police are the ones to question.

Do we know where the DUP money came from? No. I.E. Not open and transparent SO THEREFORE not what I was talking about at all.

Try again blanch, this is like the proverbial fish in the barrel.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The fact that blanch has done the usual and insinuated something neither you nor he can back up?

That's three that have been called out on lies they haven't been able to back up:
Truthvader
a very cool kid
and blanch.

Oh and Bish was trawling the SF website this AM early trying to find something salacious.

Not my nerves on edge at all jeff.

Really? You're the spoofer. Got some neck calling other people liars.

Caught out time after time. And still trying to pretend that when the members of the party you are not a member of (ho ho) got caught trying to make off with €30K it is somehow OK because they gave the money back when they were caught. Spoofer.

Truthvader wrote: »

Really? You're the spoofer. Got some neck calling other people liars.

Caught out time after time. And still trying to pretend that when the members of the party you are not a member of (ho ho) got caught trying to make off with €30K it is somehow OK because they gave the money back when they were caught. Spoofer.

Ha ha Ha!!!!

Truth changes the story and thinks nobody will notice.

'Trying to make off with' is slightly different to the outright lie 'made off with'.

As I pointed out to you again and again, NOBODY made off with anything the money is back with the department.

You are of course free to speculate that it was an attempt to 'make off' with the money.

We are all free to speculate, we are not free to lie.

imme

To lighten the mood, do Shinners watch James Bond movies, given the portrayal of an imperialist agent.

Idbatterim

a thought I have been having lads, the next election, SF win the most seats. Will it be possible in that case, that FF or FG would refuse to go in with them and form another coalition, despite the fact that as a party, most voted SF? Would it be accepted by the public, who will feel like they have spoken?

I see SF winning the most seats, just wonder, where that would leave the practicalities though?

Loafing Oaf

Idbatterim wrote: »

a thought I have been having lads, the next election, SF win the most seats. Will it be possible in that case, that FF or FG would refuse to go in with them and form another coalition, despite the fact that as a party, most voted SF? Would it be accepted by the public, who will feel like they have spoken?

I see SF winning the most seats, just wonder, where that would leave the practicalities though?

Well obviously SF's preference would be to form a broad left government not involving FF or FG. Failing that depend on what sort of commitments FF and FG made prior to the election. If either of them had 'left the door open' I don't see any insuperable obstacle to doing a deal with SF. But if both of them had ruled it out, we're in the same position as we were after the last election.

Idbatterim

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well obviously SF's preference would be to form a broad left government not involving FF or FG. Failing that depend on what sort of commitments FF and FG made prior to the election. If either of them had 'left the door open' I don't see any insuperable obstacle to doing a deal with SF. But if both of them had ruled it out, we're in the same position as we were after the last election.

yeah, I dont see there being enough support to form a broad left government... The one big issue I see, that is driving the SF issue is housing or FF or FG go in with them, making out like its a buffer against SF excesses, this current rotating taoiseach thing, depending on how it pans out, might become a thing going forward, if parties roughly matched seat wise. Given how much of this is merely about ego and not actually governing...

I think it would be interesting to see what SF would actually do in government, I would like to find out at this stage, particularly on housing, which FFG just see as a way of enriching themselves and their cronies... I dont fear the SF will ruin us economically etc bull****, FFG and both totally economically inept and magic money trees pop up any time they are needed, the last bust borrowing tens of billions, same this time round...

The absolute irony that the money trees that pop up, are mainly the multinations and FG voters taxes to a large part, the irony is comedy!

Idbatterim wrote: »

a thought I have been having lads, the next election, SF win the most seats. Will it be possible in that case, that FF or FG would refuse to go in with them and form another coalition, despite the fact that as a party, most voted SF? Would it be accepted by the public, who will feel like they have spoken?

I see SF winning the most seats, just wonder, where that would leave the practicalities though?

Doesn't look to me that either Michael or Leo will lead FF and FG into the next election.

Can't see FF under anyone else in the party resisting going into a coalition with SF anymore.

Either way, I don't think they can resist the will of the electorate again and both will talk if SF end up with most seats.

Feisar

Idbatterim wrote: »

a thought I have been having lads, the next election, SF win the most seats. Will it be possible in that case, that FF or FG would refuse to go in with them and form another coalition, despite the fact that as a party, most voted SF? Would it be accepted by the public, who will feel like they have spoken?

I see SF winning the most seats, just wonder, where that would leave the practicalities though?

What you are talking about there correct me if I'm wrong, is a situation where the majority of people will have not voted SF. They may be the largest party however there is nothing stopping our band of incumbents forming a coalition, the people will have spoken and away our merry men go again.

Idbatterim

Feisar wrote: »

What you are talking about there correct me if I'm wrong, is a situation where the majority of people will have not voted SF. They may be the largest party however there is nothing stopping our band of incumbents forming a coalition, the people will have spoken and away our merry men go again.

yeah that is the interesting bit and the unknown, we will see!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ha ha Ha!!!!

Truth changes the story and thinks nobody will notice.

'Trying to make off with' is slightly different to the outright lie 'made off with'.

As I pointed out to you again and again, NOBODY made off with anything the money is back with the department.

You are of course free to speculate that it was an attempt to 'make off' with the money.

We are all free to speculate, we are not free to lie.

They "made off with it" until they were caught. Spoofer.

Truthvader wrote: »

They "made off with it" until they were caught. Spoofer.

If they made off with it, how come the department have the money?

You can't continue to lie Truth because the truth catches you out every time. Nobody 'made off' with anything.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they made off with it, how come the department have the money?

You can't continue to lie Truth because the truth catches you out every time. Nobody 'made off' with anything.

As before they gave it back WHEN THEY WERE CAUGHT.

How long can you keep up this nonsnese?

Truthvader wrote: »

As before they gave it back WHEN THEY WERE CAUGHT.

How long can you keep up this nonsnese?

If I am late payng back a loan can I be done for 'making off with the money'?

No I can't.

If the money is not repaid THEN I can be done for 'making off with the money'

If you still don't get it - try this.

Where is the money in this instance? Will you tell us or will I?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I am late payng back a loan can I be done for 'making off with the money'?

No I can't.

If the money is not repaid THEN I can be done for 'making off with the money'

If you still don't get it - try this.

Where is the money in this instance? Will you tell us or will I?

Was it a loan?

blanch152 wrote: »

Was it a loan?

Doesn't matter what it was, NOBODY made off with it.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they made off with it, how come the department have the money?

You can't continue to lie Truth because the truth catches you out every time. Nobody 'made off' with anything.

You think they just happened to realise they shouldn't keep the money as soon as they were caught having it? If there was no wrong doing, why the resignations?

Deleted User wrote: »

You think they just happened to realise they shouldn't keep the money as soon as they were caught having it? If there was no wrong doing, why the resignations?

I have no idea why they delayed.

Speculating that they 'made off with it' is speculation. Insisting that they did is a lie, as the money is now back where it belongs.

Speculate away to your hearts content, but don't lie about theft being a fact.

dundalkfc10

What's the chances tomorrow Leo will try and have a go at Sinn Féin when trying to explain the corruption he has been upto?