The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Back to my quesation:

Are you saying that you cannot reference gay rights in a tweet that also mentions somebody who happens to be gay...even if they are, in your eyes, depriving workers of rights?

*Are you withdrawing the claim that he used the words 'because we have a gay Taoiseach' BTW? Or are you like others just going to slide away from it?

You cannot be this dumb so you're obviously lying and trolling or something. Because this is beyond pathetic that you need this explained to you.

He said "yippie 4 d tory". You know d tory is Leo. You've already said it was an insult directed at Leo. Stanley has said the yippie part of "yippie 4 Leo" was a reference to gay rights. As in a great day for gay rights because a gay man is going to be taoiseach.

I mean a 5 year old would understand this lol.

You have said critics of Stanley are wrong.
You've said FG are wrong.
You've said RTE are wrong.
You've accused multiple posters here of lying.
You've even contradicted Stanley himself on what he meant.

Everyone is wrong or a liar apparently other than Francie who can't comprehend even the most basic of sentences. Hurray for Francie! The hurray BTW is a celebration of cheese and onion crisps. Absolutely nothing to do with you or this conversation. That's how dumb your argument is lol.

marieholmfan

jh79 wrote: »

Mary Lou tried the same on twitter. She posted a video of him talking about LGBQT rights and was slated. One poster pointed out that the very people that bullied him would all wear rainbow colours on Pride Day.

SF practice "centralised democracy", you don't know what his true feelings are.

In that case perhaps the posters bullying had nothing to do with his sexuality.

Kraftwerk wrote: »

You cannot be this dumb so you're obviously lying and trolling or something. Because this is beyond pathetic that you need this explained to you.

He said "yippie 4 d tory". You know d tory is Leo. You've already said it was an insult directed at Leo. Stanley has said the yippie part of "yippie 4 Leo" was a reference to gay rights. As in a great day for gay rights because a gay man is going to be taoiseach.

I mean a 5 year old would understand this lol.

You have said critics of Stanley are wrong.
You've said FG are wrong.
You've said RTE are wrong.
You've accused multiple posters here of lying.
You've even contradicted Stanley himself on what he meant.

Everyone is wrong or a liar apparently other than Francie who can't comprehend even the most basic of sentences. Hurray for Francie! The hurray BTW is a celebration of cheese and onion crisps. Absolutely nothing to do with you or this conversation. That's how dumb your argument is lol.

Calm down dude.

Stanley was making a point about workers rights. The absence of which he was blaming the 'Tory Leo' for and reminding him that sure, we have gotten gay rights, yipee for that but what about....'

Nowhere does he mention Leo's sexuality. Leo HAPPENS to be gay. Had Enda Kenny made the same speech (as I have said) the exact same tweet would have been relevant with only one word changed, the word 'Leo'.

Now are you going to admit that in his explanation Stanley NEVER said he was referring to a 'gay Taoiseach' but was in fact referencing 'gay rights'.

Blanch is inventing a syndrome that Christine O'Mahony is suffering from rather than accept the fact she blew his lying out of the water. Not a leg to stand on, on that.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Calm down dude.

Stanley was making a point about workers rights. The absence of which he was blaming the 'Tory Leo' for and reminding him that sure, we have gotten gay rights, yipee for that but what about....'

Nowhere does he mention Leo's sexuality. Leo HAPPENS to be gay. Had Enda Kenny made the same speech (as I have said) the exact same tweet would have been relevant with only one word changed, the word 'Leo'.

Now are you going to admit that in his explanation Stanley NEVER said he was referring to a 'gay Taoiseach' but was in fact referencing 'gay rights'.

Blanch is inventing a syndrome that Christine O'Mahony is suffering from rather than accept the fact she blew his lying out of the water. Not a leg to stand on, on that.

Even if i was to believe that (I don't) do you think it's appropriate to reduce LGBTQ issues to "do what you like in bed"?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Calm down dude.

Stanley was making a point about workers rights. The absence of which he was blaming the 'Tory Leo' for and reminding him that sure, we have gotten gay rights, yipee for that but what about....'

Nowhere does he mention Leo's sexuality. Leo HAPPENS to be gay. Had Enda Kenny made the same speech (as I have said) the exact same tweet would have been relevant with only one word changed, the word 'Leo'.

Now are you going to admit that in his explanation Stanley NEVER said he was referring to a 'gay Taoiseach' but was in fact referencing 'gay rights'.

Blanch is inventing a syndrome that Christine O'Mahony is suffering from rather than accept the fact she blew his lying out of the water. Not a leg to stand on, on that.

I take it back. I'm starting to think you are actually this dumb lol. Good luck to you.

https://twitter.com/MaryLouMcDonald/status/1335990912682438660

Kraftwerk wrote: »

I take it back. I'm starting to think you are actually this dumb lol. Good luck to you.

You are the guy/gal who has had to invent something Stanley said in order to sledgehammer it into a homophobic comment.

I haven't had to lie about anything he said. He tweeted about workers rights and made no reference to anyone's sexuality at all. Which is probably why, nobody passed the slightest remark on the tweet at the time.

Nobotty

Pointless tete a tete above
If Stanley doesn't apologise Tuesday, regardless of the wokeism of dragging up a 3yr old tweet,he's at nothing

Its like the day I referred to a friend of mine as a blind bat for not seeing me even though I called out to him on the street
My friend is actually legally blind,he has enough sight to get around but thats it
He needs a magnifying glass to read
I apologised and still regret it today
No wokeism involved at all
Stanley needs to draw a line,apologise and move on

[Deleted User]

marieholmfan wrote: »

In that case perhaps the posters bullying had nothing to do with his sexuality.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the guy/gal who has had to invent something Stanley said in order to sledgehammer it into a homophobic comment.

I haven't had to lie about anything he said. He tweeted about workers rights and made no reference to anyone's sexuality at all. Which is probably why, nobody passed the slightest remark on the tweet at the time.

I haven't invented anything. I quoted an RTE article who quoted Stanley who said his comments that were directed at a gay politician on the day is was known he'd be the next taoiseach were in reference to how far gay rights have come. Its obvious to everyone from Stanley to SF to RTE that he was referring to Leo being the first gay taoiseach.

You've continously lied, misrepresented and contradicted everyone from yourself to Stanley himself on his own statement to the committee.

tikkahunter wrote: »

This thread is absolutely pointless, you have all the SF lackeys on here day and night defending rape , child abuse , extortion, robbery , punishment beatings , murder and homophobia. You pull them up on something and they bang on about proof . You post some then they report your post and have it removed.

This is the problem. Blatant lies. Some folk have no interest other than to smear and demean anybody who doesn't buy into or contribute to government spin. It's dishonest and a campaign against people because they may have issue with government policy and swallowing the government spin and an unwillingness to behave civilly towards them. This is not discussion it's insults and name calling designed to distract from government and hit out because FG did so poorly in the election. Using victims and their families to hide government blushes and avoid issues is the theme of this government and it's fellow travelers.

blanch152 wrote: »

You were singularly alone in originally thinking that.

I think there was one other poster who followed your lead on that, but that is all.

Pretending not to be sure to spin an agenda.

AFAIK I was the first to post a query on that. If you aren't sure don't make claims.
When it was released I asked was he referring to LV's 'get up early'. As you well know. Upon hearing Stanley's excuse I decided it was a personal dig and he should apologise directly.

People are allowed to form or even change their opinion as more details emerge.

Have you retracted or posted on how FG, spun by yourself, made up the 'heavies' calling around to that woman and how she asked FG to retract that spin? Have you put your hand up?

Kraftwerk wrote: »

I haven't invented anything. I quoted an RTE article who quoted Stanley who said his comments that were directed at a gay politician on the day is was known he'd be the next taoiseach were in reference to how far gay rights have come. Its obvious to everyone from Stanley to SF to RTE that he was referring to Leo being the first gay taoiseach.

You've continously lied, misrepresented and contradicted everyone from yourself to Stanley himself on his own statement to the committee.

Wrong again after one sentence of your post...RTE DID NOT quote him, RTE did exactly what you did, 'inferred something' from what he actually said. What he ACTUALLY said in his explanation to PAC (which was nothing about a 'gay Taoiseach) is in the sound file I posted and in the artiles that correctly use quote tags.
Stanley is referring to Varadkar's 'Ireland without prejudice' speech.

McMurphy wrote: »

Why was Stanley's tweet not picked up upon, and deemed "offensive/homophobic" whatever when it was originally tweeted back in June 17 has anyone been able to answer?

Seems like 3½ years is an awful long time for a penny to drop.

Somebody had to do a key word search on twitter to find it as I can't see someone filing it and waiting for an opportune moment. In either case it was agenda driven. He should apologise to Varadkar and move on. We've very serious issues to raise with government.
Imagine if a shinner or PBP said FG don't like white males? There'd be ructions.

Bowie wrote: »

Pretending not to be sure to spin an agenda.

AFAIK I was the first to post a query on that. If you aren't sure don't make claims.
When it was released I asked was he referring to LV's 'get up early'. As you well know. Upon hearing Stanley's excuse I decided it was a personal dig and he should apologise directly.

People are allowed to form or even change their opinion as more details emerge.

Have you retracted or posted on how FG, spun by yourself, made up the 'heavies' calling around to that woman and how she asked FG to retract that spin? Have you put your hand up?

No, rather than apologise and say he got something wrong, with typical arrogance he pivots and invents another lie, thatO'Mahony is suffering from a syndrome.

marieholmfan

jh79 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MaryLouMcDonald/status/1335990912682438660

From a member of a rival political party. I wonder if anyone who went to school in the '70s or '80s would perceive the 'bullying' or the 'homophobia' as such.

marieholmfan

Bowie wrote: »

Somebody had to do a key word search on twitter to find it as I can't see someone filing it and waiting for an opportune moment. In either case it was agenda driven. He should apologise to Varadkar and move on. We've very serious issues to raise with government.

There should be no apology to Varadkar.

marieholmfan wrote: »

There should be no apology to Varadkar.

I think on a personal civil level if Varadkar is upset Stanley should apologise in person.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wrong again after one sentence of your post...RTE DID NOT quote him, RTE did exactly what you did, 'inferred something' from what he actually said. What he ACTUALLY said in his explanation to PAC (which was nothing about a 'gay Taoiseach) is in the sound file I posted and in the artiles that correctly use quote tags.
Stanley is referring to Varadkar's 'Ireland without prejudice' speech.

They quoted him and then qualified the quote by referring to what he was speaking about. He was explaining a tweet to Leo and specifically said he was talking about how far gay rights have come.

Please stop making such a fool of yourself.

Kraftwerk wrote: »

They quoted him and then qualified the quote by referring to what he was speaking about. He was explaining a tweet to Leo and specifically said he was talking about how far gay rights have come.

Please stop making such a fool of yourself.

I guess that is as close as we are going to get to a retraction of what you said originally, which was:

Kraftwerk wrote:

His explanation was that "yippee" was a celebration of gay rights and the fact we have a gay taoiseach.

We now know that you and RTE inferred the bit about a gay taoiseach. He DIDN'T say he was referencing that at all.

Here is where I am at;

Stanley tweeted about the lack of workers rights, and while celebrating what Leo referred to as an 'Ireland without prejudice' he criticised Leo and FG for the Tory like policies that denied workers their rights.

When you can portray it as anything else other than that without lying about it, get back to me.

I agree with others here, Stanley should apologise if the ambiguity of the tweet offended Leo or anyone else and move on.

IAMAMORON

It puts Stanley in a very awkward position as regards making an apology insofar as that he only slagged off Leo's sexuality in a rather bland attempt to have a snigger at his personal life, as opposed to it being an attempt at slagging off gay men or women in general?

There lies his predicament. I doubt he give two hoots about who is riding who, no one ever really does. But the fact that he has used homosexuals as some sort of a benchmark for ridicule is what makes me cringe the most?

He would have been better off slagging Leo's fashion sense or taste in music? The fact that he chose to ridicule homosexuals in the same light, indicates that he thinks it is appropriate to use them and their lifestyles as some sort of mud to sling at his political rivals. It really shows him up, to not only being a bigot, but it highlights his lack of political tact when attempting to bully opponents.

If he chooses to apologise he is only really doing it to save face, it is not because he cares about Irish homosexuals..... more so that he is prepared to use their lives and actions as a point of ridicule.

What an arsehole he really is. Not only does he celebrate massacres he also thinks it ok to use Irish homosexuals as a whipping tool for his bland and quite ugly sense of humour. In fact anyone using someone else's sexuality as some sort of avenue to shíts in giggles really needs to check themselves?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Calm down dude.

Stanley was making a point about workers rights. The absence of which he was blaming the 'Tory Leo' for and reminding him that sure, we have gotten gay rights, yipee for that but what about....'

Nowhere does he mention Leo's sexuality. Leo HAPPENS to be gay. Had Enda Kenny made the same speech (as I have said) the exact same tweet would have been relevant with only one word changed, the word 'Leo'.

Now are you going to admit that in his explanation Stanley NEVER said he was referring to a 'gay Taoiseach' but was in fact referencing 'gay rights'.

Blanch is inventing a syndrome that Christine O'Mahony is suffering from rather than accept the fact she blew his lying out of the water. Not a leg to stand on, on that.

Ha, ha, ha.

Nowhere in his tweet does Stanley make a point about workers' rights. That is so obtuse that it is quite possibly the funniest interpretation you have made to date.

As for Christine O'Mahony, I am not inventing a syndrome - it is one that has been linked female victims of male intimidation and bullying in research - and suggesting that it could be applicable to her. That is an opinion, only an opinion, that fits the facts.

On the other hand, it is a fantasy to suggest that Stanley was talking about workers' rights.

blanch152 wrote: »

Ha, ha, ha.

Nowhere in his tweet does Stanley make a point about workers' rights. That is so obtuse that it is quite possibly the funniest interpretation you have made to date.

As for Christine O'Mahony, I am not inventing a syndrome - it is one that has been linked female victims of male intimidation and bullying in research - and suggesting that it could be applicable to her. That is an opinion, only an opinion, that fits the facts.

On the other hand, it is a fantasy to suggest that Stanley was talking about workers' rights.

Speaking of facts, you know the 'heavies calling around' was made up FG spin peddled by yourself and she asked FG retract it?

Bowie wrote: »

Speaking of facts, you know the 'heavies calling around' was made up FG spin peddled by yourself and she asked FG retract it?

Tell that to Martin Browne who is going around telling radio that he does it all the time.

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/1336610925692874753?s=19

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1293663127809204233?s=19

Hard to keep up with Sinn Fein today.

https://www.independent.ie/news/psni-did-not-disperse-bobby-storey-funeral-crowds-for-fear-of-widespread-violence-police-chief-39844191.html

"PSNI chief constable Simon Byrne has said his officers did not attempt to disperse large crowds at the funeral of IRA veteran Bobby Storey for fear of "widespread violence and disorder"."

"The PSNI's approach to the funeral was in stark contrast to that of Black Lives Matters protests in June, which saw many participants issued with on the spot fines.

Police largely stayed away from the Storey funeral, leaving Sinn Féin stewards in charge of mourners, which included senior Sinn Féin politicians Michelle O'Neill and Conor Murphy."

Wow, who was it on here who was denying that Sinn Fein organised policing of nationalist areas. This is a damning admission by the Chief Constable that they abdicated policing to a group of men in white shirts.

We were also told that they weren't organised, that they all just happened to turn up in white shirts. Sinn Fein lies are catching up with them.

McMurphy

Bowie wrote: »

Somebody had to do a key word search on twitter to find it as I can't see someone filing it and waiting for an opportune moment. In either case it was agenda driven. He should apologise to Varadkar and move on. We've very serious issues to raise with government.
Imagine if a shinner or PBP said FG don't like white males? There'd be ructions.

Not trying to take credit for it, so quoted it in full.

Sums it up here, 110% proof the divisive nature of Leo Varadkar, and the utter poison he's trying to wedge into Irish politics.

smurgen wrote: »

The narrative is simply all over the place. Spinning around in circles. One month it's the white males next month it's the gay people and mixed race. This dude needs to re-sign.

blanch152 wrote: »

Tell that to Martin Browne who is going around telling radio that he does it all the time.

Mary Lou said she would call to a members house too.
No big deal.

blanch152 wrote: »

Tell that to Martin Browne who is going around telling radio that he does it all the time.

That he was 'the heavies' FG and you falsely claimed were sent around to intimidate the woman? A claim she even asked FG to retract?
You are reading my comments before you reply right?
It was made up and you helped push it.

Bowie wrote: »

That he was 'the heavies' FG and you falsely claimed were sent around to intimidate the woman? A claim she even asked FG to retract?
You are reading my comments before you reply right?
It was made up and you helped push it.

As I said, that is old news. Since then, a number of Sinn Fein TDs have admitted to calling round intimidating politely requesting members to take down social media posts.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

As I said, that is old news. Since then, a number of Sinn Fein TDs have admitted to calling round intimidating politely requesting members to take down social media posts.

Its hard to know what the right thing to do is in these circumstances. Personally, I think it is better to actually talk to the person face-to-face rather than hide behind a text message. That maybe more an old fashioned way of doing things.
What I do find really weird is how strange it to Irish culture that seemingly now you have to make an appointment before you can call to someone's house nowadays (maybe only in urban areas). That really doesn't happen down the country yet. People still drop into people unannounced.

As for Christine - still living at home with her parents at age 22, she doesn't have any privacy. Leo & Co. shoulder the blame for that issue that she has to live at home still.