McMurphy wrote: » Funny you should say that, I've been applying the same arguments to the state commemorations of members of the IRA, and the condemnation from the same folk when the shinners want to commemorate similar. I don't think you thought your argument through tbh.
rdwight wrote: » You think SF indiscretions get done to death? How about several pages being devoted to Michael Martin's non-trip to Washington?
Bishop of hope wrote: » That may yet come, but the IRA of modern times has not achieved any statehood as yet. They weren't recognised as legitimate in either state, still aren't, so atm its the same as commemorating gangsters really. It's not what you'd like to hear or many others, but no country or state as yet recognises any celebrations of what are still regarded as terrorists. A United Ireland may well look differently on that, but atm, no more than loyalist terrorist celebrations, all they are achieving is further divisiveness really. Not smart.
markodaly wrote: » Well that is a load of codswallop. You were leading the charge when it came to the anti-RIC commemoration. Also, your views on the poppy are well known.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105122184&postcount=190
FrancieBrady wrote: » We need to respect those who died because of partition..all of them.
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » Most certainly not. Those who took the law into their own hands in any way, and died as a result, deserve no respect. A mature and moral society denies them any respect, and call them out for the scum they were. Lads blowing themselves up - the world is a better place without them. Only those innocents who died without having any act or part in violence deserve respect.
James Brown wrote: » Not a fan of the 1916 rising I take it? Not a fan of Remembrance day neither?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Thanks for trawling posts to prove my point. If you do your 'remembrance' to taunt then get lost. It has nothing to do with remembrance and more to do with your superiority complex. The shinners and Ra are as much prone to this as FF FG and all others. We need to respect those who died because of partition..all of them.
McMurphy wrote: » Is what a yes or no? That I'd have no problems cancelling all state commemorations? I wouldn't give two shyts tbh,
FrancieBrady wrote: » Thanks for trawling posts to prove my point. If you do your 'remembrance' to taunt then get lost.
James Brown wrote: » No it isn't. You said Collins' IRA was more restrained.
Barry was an early supporter of the Provisional IRA but he became disillusioned with its tactics especially after the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974 which killed 21 people and injured 182 others, saying that even an Ireland “overflowing with milk and honey” was not worth the price of such an attack. Instead, he would have bombed Whitehall and Scotland Yard. He outlined his views in an interview with The Sunday Independent in March 1976 in which he stated: “I back the right of Republicans to shoot, kill and bomb British occupying forces. Nobody can deny that. But I do not back the bombing of obvious civilian targets like pubs and that bloody carry-on.”
that he should realise that the organisation was losing support from all quarters and that they had only themselves to blame
markodaly wrote: » It was. It didn't launch an extensive bombing campaign in England, targeting civilian population centres, as just one example. Again, read anything about Collins, or the War of Independence, the campaign and the tactics used were more targetted against the apparatus of the state, not against people of Unionist backgrounds, or civilians. And of course, the IRA of 1920 had a popular mandate, from the 1918 election. This is the big key difference between both campaigns. I just love, I mean love to see people floundering over the basic facts, and responding with just randomly thrown together sentences, that just amounts to a fallacy, pilled on fallacy and ahistorical rubbish. Here is Tom Barry's view on the Provos.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/tom-barry-said-provos-only-had-themselves-to-blame-for-losing-support-1.4428970 There is more detail in the article about how Barry became fed up with the Provos and Flounder away with more fallacies if you want.
Bishop of hope wrote: » The SF party has a strong mandate and growing now. That is what needs to be dealt with now. It's a sure sign of disillusion with where our younger people feel we are now with regards to the real issues in Ireland. Parents as well Tbf, watching their children grow and work in a country where housing can't be afforded, to rent or to buy. Slipping health services and past horrors our current party's seen over themselves. The past is none of their saviours, the future with the present FF/FG and helpers doesn't look rosy. It's easy to see why SF support is growing, an alternative is being looked at. That's politics, people expect a reasonable standard of living and to a lot it looks like it's only being eroded further by the other party's as time goes on. It looks like that's what's happening to me anyway.
smurgen wrote: » Well if the real issues could start to get tackled in a sincere way that would give people hope. Right now there's a feeling of rearranging deck chairs on the titanic about it all.
Fionn1952 wrote: » I find this type of rhetoric quite irritating. We're a relatively prosperous and well off country with problems that are by no means unique to us. While some people fall through the cracks in any society, we have a strong safety net in place. While there is certainly serious room for improvement, particularly around housing and the mess that is the HSE, exaggeration like describing the country as the Titanic....I just don't see how that helps. When I see rhetoric like that from a politician, it certainly doesn't fill me with faith that they're the right people to fix these problems. If sorting out our issues is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, there isn't much hope for the vast, vast majority of the world who have it quite a bit worse than we do.
markodaly wrote: » How is wearing a poppy a taunt? Is wearing a hijab also a taunt? Why do you want to stop people wearing things you may not agree with? The offence is taken, not given, Francie.
smurgen wrote: » The term of rearranging deck chairs is used to describe to describe a futile action in the face of impending catastrophe. I would argue that the housing situation is just that.the last ten years has been nothing but changes that have increased asset prices and asset inflation there is now hitting every part of society not just people who have fallen through the cracks. It has also made us uncompetitive. It's directly translates into a request for higher wages which has it's own knock on effect. As regards capital spending again this is a massive issues for me and we're fallen behind big time in infrastructure investment. Public transportation has not been invested in sufficiently and we are car reliant at a massive cost to households. Projects getting finding seem to have little of no fiscal control and there doesn't seem to be any accountability or recourse for officials who projects spiral out of control e.g the NBP and NCH.
Fionn1952 wrote: » I understand the metaphor, I'm pointing out that it is an exaggeration of where we really stand. If I agree with you that all these things are issues (I'm not sure that I would fully agree with your Doomsday analysis of the situation, but each one of those is something I see as problematic) and we're all f*cked; the ship is sinking and the steerage class are already up to their knees in water....how exactly are SF going to fix it? If the issue is as catastrophic and far gone as you're suggesting, we are already doomed. If it is something that can be fixed if only we had the right political personnel and motivation, then your metaphor is a crude exaggeration.
CrazyFather1 wrote: » If he didn't die on the bus how many people would have died if he got to his real target?
CrazyFather1 wrote: » Some people go looking to find something to get upset about and of course they will always find something. Day in day out they have to be outraged about something or someone. Or someone or something is upsetting them. Plenty of examples around these forums.
Bishop of hope wrote: » The SF party has a strong mandate and growing now.
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » This factually incorrect. SF has NO mandate. It is as nonsensical as the SF self delusion, or effort to hoodwink people, after the last election they had 'won' the election, despite not having a majority, being the largest elected party, or forming part of the government. Those elected to form the government have the mandate to govern.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Pretty much sums up your contribution to the forum - no? You are outraged that people would be critical of the government on a politics forum. Or alternatively, you are outraged that people aren't praising the government.
Bishop of hope wrote: » It's easy to see why SF support is growing, an alternative is being looked at.
CrazyFather1 wrote: » If you say so, you seem to think you have a right to tell people what they can/can't post and also seem to think you can pass judgement on people. Bang away mate. No skin off my nose. In terms of outraged, I suggest you review your contribution.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are making things up again CF.
