FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, in the instance of Paddy Holohan (who was disciplined and any promotion blocked) and because she feels the online abuse she got from people purporting to be members/supporters of SF wasn't dealt with. NOTHING, not a single word about a 'heavy' visiting her.
markodaly wrote: » So, SF are a party that accepts homophobic utterances. Glad we agree.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Think Holohan was disciplined for his comments about women actually. But sure you believe what you want to believe. You seem to be in a permanent state of anger and rant. All parties have these issues, The Greens have has serious allegations made recently, FG FF have had issues too. The ranters and ravers tend to only rant and rave about one party. Read this about what takes place in the Dáil alone and read who wouldn't comment.https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/1113/1178052-politics-bullying/https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/corporate/reports/2019/2019-10-22_houses-of-the-oireachtas-parliamentary-workplace-survey-results_en.pdf Extraordinary the high horse riding that goes on about this when it is clear it is endemic across all parties.
FrancieBrady wrote: » But you are a partitionist. You are of the unionist view, content with partition and vehemently opposed to a UI. Like many moderate unionists, your view may change, but at the moment, you hold the unionist perspective on partition - something that did not cause any problems nor the conflict/war 80 years later. The other perspective takes the opposite view. You can't seriously pretend you don't believe that now to serve your latest argument? :rolleyes:
markodaly wrote: » Ah, yes visited as a friend, left as a friend.... and then the young girl, on reflection left SF over it....
blanch152 wrote: » There you go again, the binary approach, labelling those you disagree with. Surely at this stage you can recognise it in yourself. “The other perspective”, you say, who do you insist there are only two perspectives, with SF or against them?
blanch152 wrote: » Now, listen to me very carefully, young woman, you know who I am, take down that tweet like a good girl, and I am leaving your house still friends, and tell that to everyone......
FrancieBrady wrote: » You of course jumped in with the size nines to misrepresent what I said, which was, there are two perspectives on partition (not the conflict, which is what you jumped to) - that it was a good thing and that it was a bad thing - subdivided into worthy of celebration and an absolute disaster and should be ended. Your posting history puts you most definitely into one of those perspectives. Unless you now want to recant? Not caring or indifferent I discounted as a perspective and call laziness and lack of empathy. Unless of course you do that when you have a responsibility.
FrancieBrady wrote: » , there are two perspectives on partition
blanch152 wrote: » There are more than two perspectives on partition!!!!! Stop dividing people like that. You take an us and them position on everything, which means you can avoid reality.
markodaly wrote: » I guess its not his fault really he thinks Assad and the Russians are a great bunch of lads...!!
markodaly wrote: » Just on this, you have been harping on a while about 'two perspectives' and the alternate view be given credence and credibility, while at the same time jumping in two-footed about the RIC commemorations, complaining about west-brit cap doffing partitionists and being anti-poppy, so much so you want to force people not to wear one if asked.. How very 'tolerant' of you. So, yes, your new-found respect and tollerance for the opinions of others frankly runs very hollow and is bull, as per your posting history shows us all.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't think people should be allowed to taunt mark. That's why I was critiical of Stanley's insensitive triumphalism. Like I do about your opinion, I don't really care what you think privately or Stanley. Knock yourself out as long as you don't triumphalise with the sole purpose of taunting. wear away at your poppy.
Hamsterchops wrote: » No Francie, you don't get it. So, leaving history from 100 years ago out of the discussion, let's talk about Stanley's Warren point/Sligo tweet for slow learners. The Provision IRA murdered Lord Mountbatten, two children, another woman + eighteen soldiers all on the same day, now with this in mind consider this..... If the official forces of this state had committed those crimes Britain would have declared war that very same day, RAF Harriers, Vulcans & Jaguars would have wiped out our defense forces within hours or just a few days! .... but our forces didn't attack anybody, our state didn't attack another sovereign state, neither did our forces murder anybody on that terrible day! We the Irish people were innocent of any wrongdoing that day, we had no part in the murders, and the Irish Army played no part. An illegal terrorist organisation called the Provisional IRA planted the bombs and murderdered UK citizens (within the UK), they also murdered Louis Mountbatten in our country, bringing shame and disgust from all directions aimed at those terrorists who had committed the crimes. So when Brian Stanley sends out a smart arse "dog whistle" tweet, then he's is obviously a total arsehole of the extreme kind, and as such he should be toast, indeed he should have been toast long before now after his "do what you like in bed" tweet. I just hopes he gets serious grief tomorrow, I hope he's kicked out the door of the PAC, and taken to pieces in the Dail from all sides..... I hope so, although the way things are going at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if he gets off Scott free and smiles in our faces.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Yet you are here day and night defending his outlook and his ideals. Very strange attitude to take Ill have to admit. You see Francie, lads like him use the State as a stepping stone to try to achieve other stuff which right now would ruin the State. The last few months should surely have told us what to expect if SF ever got power..........and it wouldn’t be good.
blanch152 wrote: » I didn't say their opinions didn't count, I said the opposite. I said there were many perspectives. Some of those perspectives are unhinged, or sociopathic, others are normal, some are childish, some are balanced and fair. I put forward a balanced fair perspective as one of many.
smurgen wrote: » Balanced and fair . Some people will whitewash anything and try to get away with it. The stuff that went on in our recent history was insane yet for political reasons FG only want to talk of one side. Some FG TD, sound more and more each day like the DUP. It's good to remember what happened clearly in the conflict. One such item I had no knowledge of was actual refuge camps in the south in the 70's to house catholics fleeing persecution in the troubles. "In a bid to to escape the violence in Northern Ireland people cross the border in unprecedented numbers putting immense pressure on the designated centres. Some of those who had left their homes in Northern Ireland are being housed and fed in Ballymullen Barracks in Tralee, County Kerry which is one of the designated centres set up by the government." Interesting to note in the clip on this RTE link also protestants fleeing into the republic also. Highlights to me that they felt safe amongst us in the republic as they always will.https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0809/807967-refugees-from-northern-ireland/
blanch152 wrote: » You see, that is where I differ from you, I do have knowledge of that, I lived through the 1970s and 1980s and therefore my knowledge of the period isn't viewed through some green-tinted glass that paints the PIRA as akin to Robin Hood. They were nothing like that, they were unhinged criminal thugs.
McMurphy wrote: » The people fleeing the attempt to ethnic cleanse some areas of the north by the loyalists/unionists, aided and abetted by British state security forces were unhinged criminal thugs? Maybe you highlighted the wrong piece of text above from smurgen, I don't know, but that's how it reads to me, and I'm sure many more reading that post.
FrancieBrady wrote: » As last night showed beyond doubt, the British were more than willing to collude right from the beginning of the conflict/war. That was known from the beginning by those who lived there and saw it. As one contributor worried, what fate lay in store for them if, aided by the British, Unionits got it together to launch an all out offensive against them. With that atmosphere it was only going to go one way. It was survival.Also apparent that right from the start the Irish FF and FG governments where effectively covering up for what went on. While some in government tried to assist, effectively, they turned their backs on their own people. Belturbet, Clones Monaghan, Dublin etc etc, victims abandoned and forgotten to this day. Awaiting Charlie Flanagan to come out with the blanch line - blame the 'RA and the messengers and anyone else but those tasked with the responsibilities and duties.
blanch152 wrote: » Revised revisionism is one possible description of that piece in bold.
FrancieBrady wrote: » How could you defend it? When you see the crusades for justice for other victims, how in hell could you defend the way all these victims have been left? If it isn't a cover-up it is sniveling cowardice and political safeguarding.
markodaly wrote: » I think the point is he didn't reference it, lying by omission. Funny that he was celebrating the murder of 18 British soldiers, but not the murder of 2 young boys and an old lady.... funny that!! Slow learners indeed.
