The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gerry is not a judge or the police. Adams and McGuinness had whole communities to keep on board as well as an organisation with disparate views.

I can see why he would say what he did. It's not as if it interfered in the justice process, he was careful to criticise Murphy for the crime he was convicted of.

But how far are SF willing to go to placate their "former comrades"? Look at McCartney, the man was disemboweled in front of numerous SF members and they got away with it.

jh79 wrote: »

Maybe if Gerry clarified what makes Slab a "Good Republican" there wouldn't be any need to speculate.

Have you tired asking Gerry Adams? He has a twitter account, you could try interacting with him via that.

jh79 wrote: »

But how far are SF willing to go to placate their "former comrades"? Look at McCartney, the man was disemboweled in front of numerous SF members and they got away with it.

He criticised him for breaking the law.

I believe and have said before that we are living in a post conflict/war society here and these things are going to tragically happen. Plenty of the same savagery across society if you have your eyes opened in an unblinkered way.

SF are certainly not without blame for making mistakes and I have certainly criticised them when they did.

I was not able to vote for them until the last GE as a result. I think of all the participants/players in the conflict/war that they have made the move to democratic politics best and I believe they are committed to that path.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He criticised him for breaking the law.

I believe and have said before that we are living in a post conflict/war society here and these things are going to tragically happen. Plenty of the same savagery across society if you have your eyes opened in an unblinkered way.

SF are certainly not without blame for making mistakes and I have certainly criticised them when they did.

I was not able to vote for them until the last GE as a result. I think of all the participants/players in the conflict/war that they have made the move to democratic politics best and I believe they are committed to that path.

They have to draw a line in sand at some stage. Don't want this to be a generational thing where the future generations of "Good Republicans" have the protection of SF.

jh79 wrote: »

They have to draw a line in sand at some stage. Don't want this to be a generational thing where the future generations of "Good Republicans" have the protection of SF.

What line did FF draw about cronyism and protection, they never disarmed after independence too BTW...or FG for that matter...they went looking for Lowry's support just recently...'good FGer'?

For me SF have been moving in the right direction for a long time...sufficient for me to give them a vote and more and more of my fella citizens.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What line did FF draw about cronyism and protection, they never disarmed after independence too BTW...or FG for that matter...they went looking for Lowry's support just recently...'good FGer'?

For me SF have been moving in the right direction for a long time...sufficient for me to give them a vote and more and more of my fella citizens.

No society has removed corruption from politics but It's different when murders are involved.

jh79 wrote: »

No society has removed corruption from politics but It's different when murders are involved.

Nowt like a bit of exceptionalism when the spotlight comes on you I suppose.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nowt like a bit of exceptionalism when the spotlight comes on you I suppose.

Sure what's a few murder when it's "for the cause"?

a very cool kid wrote: »

During your "transition" people in the six counties will be paid differently to people in the 26 - that's discrimination.

I also noticed you mentioned merging positions, do you mean public sector redundancies by that?

It isn't it's arse. The 'transition' is from one situation to another.
It's giving people due notice of coming adjustments once they are worked out on the ground.

tran·si·tion
/tranˈziSH(ə)n,tranˈsiSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce

noun
the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.
"students in transition from one program to another"

Are you purposefully playing silly here?

I see you likely are; no I do not. I mean if someone is a public servant in some council, they'll be likely under a different body or chain of command.
People will still be needed to do the jobs currently needed. Pretty basic.

blanch152 wrote: »

People will be discriminated against for the length of the transition period as you have just admitted.

Complete nonsense and spoofology on this subject from the SF acolytes on here. Go back to the scenario I put forward for child benefit and tell me which of the three options you will take. There are no other ones.

Complete argumentative nonsense.
This is my opinion and surmising. I think for myself. I am no party shill.
You using SF to dismiss things because you have a narrative about SF, is tiresome and dishonest.

Do you believe under a UI we would not have any kind of transition period? Do you think nothing will be organised and everyone will wake up one day to absolute change? Answer this please and thanks.

statesaver wrote: »

Fear and division ? Hahahahahaha

https://twitter.com/WalkerMarcus/status/1346947578043240448

This a pop at 1916?

jh79 wrote: »

You're right , not the gardai but the justice system.

So was his tax evasion "for the cause" or just to line his own pockets?

He should be fined or whatever.
Fine Gael dodged a tax for 9 years until caught. Not fair on the rest of us but it seems tax dodgers gonna dodge tax.

Bowie wrote: »

He should be fined or whatever.
Fine Gael dodged a tax for 9 years until caught. Not fair on the rest of us but it seems tax dodgers gonna dodge tax.

It's not the tax evaders I'm worried about, as you say tax dodgers gonna dodge tax. It happens in every society. Murders like that of McCartney are my concern. Only equivalent I can think of in the EU is Golden Dawn in Greece where criminal elements had political protection.

Brendan Bendar

jh79 wrote: »

It's not the tax evaders I'm worried about, as you say tax dodgers gonna dodge tax. It happens in every society. Murders like that of McCartney are my concern. Only equivalent I can think of in the EU is Golden Dawn in Greece where criminal elements had political protection.

Golden Dawn...... are they the tossers who had half the lefties in Ireland over supporting them?

Was big Pearse over there....... and Murphy?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Golden Dawn...... are they the tossers who had half the lefties in Ireland over supporting them?

Was big Pearse over there....... and Murphy?

No they are the far right party. They were involved in all sorts of criminality but had political protection due to their success at the election during the bail out fiasco.

jh79 wrote: »

It's not the tax evaders I'm worried about, as you say tax dodgers gonna dodge tax. It happens in every society. Murders like that of McCartney are my concern. Only equivalent I can think of in the EU is Golden Dawn in Greece where criminal elements had political protection.

I was responding to:

So was his tax evasion "for the cause" or just to line his own pockets?

Depends on your politics and understanding of the world. Folk are aghast at myself and Enda Kenny likening the situation in the north of the country to post war Germany pre unification. Yet here you are making comparisons between a far right race hate based group and a murder to IMO imply SF are the Irish equivalent of Golden Dawn, which is a nonsense.
The idea that a party with links to an illegal organisation which consisted of people who engaged in illegal activity, might have links to criminals is very shocking I know.

Bowie wrote: »

I was responding to:

Depends on your politics and understanding of the world. Folk are aghast at myself and Enda Kenny likening the situation in the north of the country to post war Germany pre unification. Yet here you are making comparisons between a far right race hate based group and a murder to IMO imply SF are the Irish equivalent of Golden Dawn, which is a nonsense.
The idea that a party with links to an illegal organisation which consisted of people who engaged in illegal activity, might have links to criminals is very shocking I know.

Name me any other parties in Europe apart from Golden Dawn and SF where members have links with criminal elements involved in murders?

There was a SF piss up in the pub the night McCartney was murdered. There was even a bus load from Derry SF there.

jh79 wrote: »

No they are the far right party. They were involved in all sorts of criminality but had political protection due to their success at the election during the bail out fiasco.

Is this a reference to the eircell/mobile phone licence or the Siteserv deal (still under investigation) or Noonan's Project Eagle 'inappropriate behaviour' (still under investigation?)?
Or a reference to the Garda Commissioner smearing a whistleblower? Or maybe Fianna Fail being Fianna Fail?
These all comparable to Golden Dawn?

jh79 wrote: »

No they are the far right party. They were involved in all sorts of criminality but had political protection due to their success at the election during the bail out fiasco.

Easily to confuse the two j, sure look at Leo - "if you're straight, white, male and middle class, the Shinners don't want you"

Also Leo in the next breath - "the Shinners are racist homophobic sexists"

Seriously lads, is this the best they have:D

jh79 wrote: »

Name me any other parties in Europe apart from Golden Dawn and SF where members have links with criminal elements involved in murders?

There was a SF piss up in the pub the night McCartney was murdered. There was even a bus load from Derry SF there.

Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Labour, DUP, UUP etc.
Of course we are talking in the past in some cases but often politics is born from violence. The GFA would be an example.
I think you are looking back to similar incidents and people with rose tinted romantic glasses.

The tax thing didn't pan out so you've moved on.

jh79 wrote: »

Name me any other parties in Europe apart from Golden Dawn and SF where members have links with criminal elements involved in murders?

.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the (FG approved) Democratic Unionist Party.

Fine Gael audience applauds as DUP's Donaldson says Ireland should join the Commonwealth

A SUGGESTION from the DUP’s Jeffrey Donaldson that Ireland should join the Commonwealth was met with applause at Fine Gael’s National Conference

But like Maira Cahill's links with Dissident republicans, the blueshirts have absolutely zero problems with criminal and terrorist organisations, so long as they share a mutual dislike if the Shinners. .

Get up the yard and stop embarrassing yoursel j.

jh79 wrote: »

Sure what's a few murder when it's "for the cause"?

No, it's your hypocritical exceptionalism. Good corruption/terrorists versus bad corruption/terrorists.

Straight out of FG and increasingly under Martin, FF hypocrisy playbook.

McMurphy wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the (FG approved) Democratic Unionist Party.

Fine Gael audience applauds as DUP's Donaldson says Ireland should join the Commonwealth

But like Maira Cahill's links with Dissident republicans, the blueshirts have absolutely zero problems with criminal and terrorist organisations, so long as they share a mutual dislike if the Shinners. .

Get up the yard and stop embarrassing yoursel j.

This is probably slightly, if not entirely, off-topic but your post made this pop into my head.

Firstly, let's not be ridiculous, Ireland will never be part of the Commonwealth. That being said, if Unionism is a major drive for many in the North, couldn't we negotiate a deal whereby there is a one-island nation but anyone who wants to be a Commonwealth Citizen can choose to be one? I know there are bi-lateral agreements with non-Commonwealth Nations who grant certain rights to Commonwealth Citizens... surely some tweaking of those rules for Ireland as a "special case" wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities?

I can't think of a good objection from a republican standpoint either.

Did I just crack this lads? :pac:

RandomViewer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is probably slightly, if not entirely, off-topic but your post made this pop into my head.

Firstly, let's not be ridiculous, Ireland will never be part of the Commonwealth. That being said, if Unionism is a major drive for many in the North, couldn't we negotiate a deal whereby there is a one-island nation but anyone who wants to be a Commonwealth Citizen can choose to be one? I know there are bi-lateral agreements with non-Commonwealth Nations who grant certain rights to Commonwealth Citizens... surely some tweaking of those rules for Ireland as a "special case" wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities?

I can't think of a good objection from a republican standpoint either.

Did I just crack this lads? :pac:

It was FG who pulled Ireland out of the Commonwealth originally, while the Brutons and Kneel would be all for it the corduroy grassroots wouldnt be

McMurphy wrote: »

Easily to confuse the two j, sure look at Leo - "if you're straight, white, male and middle class, the Shinners don't want you"

It's an interesting comment if you look objectively at SF's "problem" in that they have both sucked up the traditional working-class Labour voters and reflect a lot of the values of the ever-left-shifting GenZ and younger Millennials.

I think the reason they lack broad appeal is because of a narrative of the other parties all going coughIRAcough... but even that is fading rapidly.

If SF manages to hold on and at least have a veneer of "reform" and/or "truth and reconciliation" (and as much as anyone might love Gerry, I think his retirement went a long way towards a newer younger image) and they don't fracture over internal politics, I think they'll do very well in the next GE if they field enough candidates.

Also Leo in the next breath - "the Shinners are racist homophobic sexists"

Despite being accused otherwise in the past by many posters of being an FG-bot (but they're totally not SF supporters either BTW

), I kind of liked Leo in the last government. However, correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't Leo oppose gay marriage and adoption (maybe before he was "out")?

RandomViewer wrote: »

It was FG who pulled Ireland out of the Commonwealth originally, while the Brutons and Kneel would be all for it the corduroy grassroots wouldnt be

I'm aware of that and... it's not what I was suggesting... so?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is probably slightly, if not entirely, off-topic but your post made this pop into my head.

Firstly, let's not be ridiculous, Ireland will never be part of the Commonwealth. That being said, if Unionism is a major drive for many in the North, couldn't we negotiate a deal whereby there is a one-island nation but anyone who wants to be a Commonwealth Citizen can choose to be one? I know there are bi-lateral agreements with non-Commonwealth Nations who grant certain rights to Commonwealth Citizens... surely some tweaking of those rules for Ireland as a "special case" wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities?

I can't think of a good objection from a republican standpoint either.

Did I just crack this lads? :pac:

Irish_republicanism
Irish republicanism (Irish: poblachtánachas Éireannach) is the political movement for the unity and independence of Ireland under a Republic. Irish republicans view British rule in any part of Ireland as inherently illegitimate.

British Commonwealth
Noun. 1. British Commonwealth - an association of nations consisting of the United Kingdom and several former British colonies that are now sovereign states but still pay allegiance to the British Crown.

How about now?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is probably slightly, if not entirely, off-topic but your post made this pop into my head.

Firstly, let's not be ridiculous, Ireland will never be part of the Commonwealth. That being said, if Unionism is a major drive for many in the North, couldn't we negotiate a deal whereby there is a one-island nation but anyone who wants to be a Commonwealth Citizen can choose to be one? I know there are bi-lateral agreements with non-Commonwealth Nations who grant certain rights to Commonwealth Citizens... surely some tweaking of those rules for Ireland as a "special case" wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities?

I can't think of a good objection from a republican standpoint either.

Did I just crack this lads? :pac:

If the British go ahead with their plan (Boris talked about it at one stage) to turn the Commonwealth into a trading bloc/alliance then it would conflict with our membership of the EU.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is probably slightly, if not entirely, off-topic but your post made this pop into my head.

Firstly, let's not be ridiculous, Ireland will never be part of the Commonwealth. That being said, if Unionism is a major drive for many in the North, couldn't we negotiate a deal whereby there is a one-island nation but anyone who wants to be a Commonwealth Citizen can choose to be one? I know there are bi-lateral agreements with non-Commonwealth Nations who grant certain rights to Commonwealth Citizens... surely some tweaking of those rules for Ireland as a "special case" wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities?

I can't think of a good objection from a republican standpoint either.

Did I just crack this lads? :pac:

It's not what the DUP said - it's the fact they are a political party with links to terrorists who said it at the FG national conference, showing they have absolutely no problem with the aforementioned terrorism links.