maccored wrote: » why would I want an application for an 'online army'? 'botting'? Youre the one constantly talking about other people being bots with your 'online army' rubbish. Theres this thing called reality. the 'bots' you refer to are actual people who happen to support SF, FG, FF etc. I dont think theres any party that sends out missives telling individuals what to post. If you believe there is then remember - paranoia will destroy ya
maccored wrote: » who is responsible for the general health of the country and that it is successful, with its inhabitants making enough money to afford a pension? really? thats what you are asking?
FrancieBrady wrote: » All parties make promises/offer things in election politics christy. If we were to run a test on election promise made vs election promises fulfilled since the foundation of the state, how do you think it would fare out? As I said, treat election politics with a large doze of salt. None of them keep them anyway. If it's too good to be true you can guarantee it won't be implemented.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-parties-warned-of-insane-election-promises-as-varadkar-offers-martin-coalition-1.4148383I think the DoF said that only one party's manifesto was credible last time out.
mynamejeff wrote: » are you saying your not now a supporter of sf/ira ?https://www.herald.ie/news/sf-member-resigns-after-being-outed-as-online-troll-39442979.htmlhttps://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/malachi-odoherty/imagined-sinn-feins-handbook-for-trolls-dont-argue-just-insult-and-never-ever-say-youre-sorry-39343848.htmlhttp://buncranatogether.com/home/tag/SFOS I hope this isn't your full time job too ,
Deleted User wrote: » You know your middle link is entirely made up right,?? You may aswell link passages to the bible at this stage...... Screaming bot at anyone,who dare disagree with you,simply suggests you arent able to debate and have spent too long in an echo chamber,of your own making
Bishop of hope wrote: » Minimum wage is what they set in govt, but they're not responsible for how much anyone earns. But that's getting away from your point of higher wages and you didn't answer that part of the post.
Deleted User wrote: » You know your middle link is entirely made up right,?? You may aswell link passages to the bible at this stage......Screaming bot at anyone,who dare disagree with you,simply suggests you arent able to debate and have spent too long in an echo chamber,of your own making
McMurphy wrote: » It's a shame they're allowed to ruin the thread tbh, there has been some decent discussion this evening in here ref the pensions etc, and all the time you have the equivalent of the bold boy in class sat at the back making farmyard animal and fart sounds tbh.
mynamejeff wrote: » I agree , skip back a page to post 4321 and see who did that ...
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why don't you research the difference between a bot and a troll and leave the discussion alone?
maccored wrote: » where i said ye's all sound the same? but yous do. I never called anyone a 'bot' or referred to an 'online army'
mynamejeff wrote: » post 4241 so angry
Deleted User wrote: » Yous are gonna have to link these,as im on touch site and cant see them (post number) But iirc,you accused me before of being abusive for simply not agreeing with you Your not rory cowen by any chance?
maccored wrote: » but sure according the lads on here, its SF who wanted the pubs open. I notice Blanch152 never answered my post about the same issue a few pages back,.
maccored wrote: » why are you asking me about your own post. You posted it - you work out how you were talking about. Its somebody you claim would eat 4million euros worth of chocolate so obviously you were attempting to be a keyboard warrior if you cant remember who you were posting about then just dont bother posting anything
maccored wrote: » what bit of smoke? Have you issues with reading? Arent you going to tell me your makey uppy story about the 'retarded man'?
maccored wrote: » Good for you - though its 'Ferrero Rocher'
maccored wrote: » thats my bad and I apologise about that. Youve been waffling so much about this person that I had (mistakenly) thought thats what you had called the person. arent you going to tell me the story though - SF did what to that person? Or is it a case of just more whataboutery from you?
maccored wrote: » are you delusional? sorry for asking but your on about some 'online army'. In not in an online army also - you never told me the story you made up yet. is it as good as mary lou going to the US and those fairytales?
maccored wrote: » you, johhnyflash, blanch152 etc - yous are all talking the same rubbish. easy to mix ye's up .. especially when some like to jump in and deflect questions from the other Why are you quoting the newletter at me? thats a very slanted publication
maccored wrote: » what are you on about? Real paranoia. ......
maccored wrote: » awww .... I say that because anyone can read that post and see its not angry at all. But you did, so Im saying 'awwww ...'
imme wrote: » Is it possible to read between the lines. The Secretary General of Finance wrote to SF on 17 January 2020. "The costings, including those provided by or in conjunction with other Departments are provided on the basis that at no time will the Department be represented as endorsing the proposals costed. Equally, the Department will not comment on the merits or otherwise of the proposals. "
blanch152 wrote: » From that, it is clear that the Department of Finance did not endorse the Sinn Fein manifesto, despite all the spurious claims on here.
Deleted User wrote: » Whereas ffg government have now overseen a sitiation where 1 in 4 renters are paying over 50% of their take home pay in tax,and simply taken to shouting wasters at anyone,who dare suggest this isnt good deal for renters
Mary Lou McDonald, the Sinn Féin leader, had in correspondence with the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) said the ethics watchdog had no jurisdiction over the donation as her party operated separately on “a six-and 26-county basis”. She said the donation was not offered to, or accepted by, her party in the State. Mr Ward said Mr Hampton’s will “specifically states that the donation is for ‘the political party in the Republic of Ireland known at this time as Sinn Féin’”.
markodaly wrote: » This is going to rumble on and on.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » At least 50 properties and 200 employees across the '26 and 6'..... :eek:
markodaly wrote: » I can see a wider investigation here, on how all these properties were paid for and by whom? It is a bit rich when SF going on about financial ethics when they are the richest party on the whole Island by far!
markodaly wrote: » About that €4 Million donation. I think legally, SF don't have a leg to stand on, seeing as in the Will, it was made to SF in the Republic of Ireland. Also... Mary Lou doubling down on the 26 + 6 partitionist thinking in relation to money. I wonder how do the United Ireland folk think about that!! Accepting this money, in this way was a major mistake for SF, as it has thrown into the spotlight the dodgy way SF handle donations and fundraising. This is going to rumble on and on.
blanch152 wrote: » Mark, it is not so simple as that. The trustees of the will are two Sinn Fein finance people. They decided that it would be better to offer the money to Sinn Fein Northern Ireland given the laws regarding donations in the South. Technically Mary-Lou is correct, it wasn't offered to Sinn Fein in the South, but only because two members of Sinn Fein decided not to offer it and to offer it to the North instead. Does anyone believe that that was an arms-length decision? Incidentally, my understanding (and I could be wrong, a lawyer told me this) is that if the will had been followed to the letter and the money donated to Sinn Fein in the South, they would have had to forfeit the money to the Exchequer under the donation rules. So not only are Sinn Fein resting money in their accounts belonging to the Northern Ireland taxpayer, they are smuggling money across the border belonging to the Irish taxpayer.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So where are the Gardai? This has been the subject of a complaint to SIPO by Labour. SIPO have no issue with it. Will you be voting for government parties that ONCE AGAIN have turned a blind eye to this alleged heinous crime? Is it possible to have a vote of confidence in the Garda Commissioner? As I pointed out above, The British and Irish Governments agreed the framework for political donations under the GFA. As far as I can see SF have not broken any rules and their crime seems to have been causing tremendous jealousy among other parties.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » This friends of SF organisation in the US. Any inkling of the sort of people who are donating thousands to the ‘cause’ over there?
Fionn1952 wrote: » I'd put it in the same ethical box as Leo's latest escapade. It may not violate the letter of any law, but it certainly violates the spirit of it. Whether legal or not, I'd certainly consider it unethical and hypocritical. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on ones perspective, Gardai and the courts don't get involved with violating the spirit of the law. By the book, SF and Leo are both going to, 'get away with it', but both will be reputationally damaged by it (I would hope anyway). Due to the nature of Irish politics, the reputational damage is lessened the closer you get to the core support of each, due to the almost blind party fanaticism many seem to suffer from across all parties here.
