rdwight wrote: » So maybe they should have voted against the bill.
tikkahunter wrote: » Ah twisting it into what happens to be populist at the moment- wouldn’t be like SF now would it . Wouldn’t matter if it was two men in the positions- they would still be sock puppets .
maccored wrote: » unlike others, I wont condemn them for not voting against a bill I havent read
maccored wrote: » conspiracy forum thataway
Deleted User wrote: » You don't have to read it. The DUP put forward a bill that would pull back reproductive rights for women in NI. SF abstained on that bill, despite claiming to be a pro-choice party. Yet another partitionist decision from SF. They love that border! That's the long and the short of it.
maccored wrote: » how do you how if you havent read it? Christ on a bike - you dont need to read something in order to understand what its about? crazy talk. no wonder ye's are posting the bollocks that yous are.
Deleted User wrote: » Do you read every piece of legislation and bill before you form an opinion on it? I trust these folks called journalists to synopsise news items for me so I can form opinions on them. Saves a lot of time tbh. And the reality of that is that SF abstained on a anti-woman bill put forward by the DUP. They could have voted against the bill like the SDLP, The Alliance Party, some independents, and even a UUP MLA. They didn't though. Moral cowardice and a deeply unpopular decision amongst some of their younger members if Twitter is anything to go by..
Deleted User wrote: » SF abstained from a vote that will limit reproductive healthcare for women in Northern Ireland. That's the long and the short of it. Sided yet again with the DUP when it suits them. Saying one thing down South, and something completely different up North. Partitionist party. Spoofers.
Deleted User wrote: » One might be cynical and suggest SF didn't want to upset their voter base up North, and voted to abstain. They've lost a lot of the younger demographic up there to the Alliance and the SDLP. Advocating very different down South though. Nothing new tbh - voting for water charges in NI, against them down here; rates up North, against property tax down south; saying they'll keep the pension age at 66 down South, voting in changes in NI. It's almost like they don't really have any policies apart from a UI. Rhetoric doesn't keep a country afloat though.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Did somebody spike Mary Lou's drink last week? Having a go at Boris on his visit to Northern Ireland, then she was calling for Varadkars head, and now she's taking aim at our Taoiseach! Is there no end to this woman's arrogance and hostility. Her little fat fface all screwed up with a furrowed brow, sounding like a fish wife from Moore Street. She needs to calm down and get back to her stall.
jm08 wrote: » Mark Durkan of the SDLP supported the motion. Presumably people were voting on their conscience/represent the views of their constituents. As I have pointed out to you already, the substance of the Sinn Fein debate was to mimic the legislation down here.
jm08 wrote: » If you looked at the debate in the Assembly, the Sinn Fein representative was recommending that the Assembly adopt the exact same legislation as down down here. I know who the spoofers are!
rdwight wrote: » The issue isn't whether you have read the bill or not. Presumably Mary Lou and Michelle have read it because they feel competent to condemn it. They just can't bring themselves to vote against it.
James Brown wrote: » You don't know what the bill is but you'll take the side against the shinners anyway? Makes sense :rolleyes:
wicklowstevo wrote: » for a party that claim to be all about unity they have made a long habit of speaking out of both sides of their mouths . I guess it depends how the wind is blowing with bottom of the barrel populists like sf , which is the kindest description you can have of the "organisation"
James Brown wrote: » We were discussing the GFA.
FG/Lab made a dissident Republican, opposed to the GFA a senator. I believe that's relevant.
Why did you use her abuse to try counter a point on the GFA? Why are you persisting in using her in such a manner?
It's a matter of record that a person who was a dissident Republican opposed to the GFA, was gifted a senate seat by FG/Lab. I cited it in reference to the credibility of FG.
Am I to believe in a conversation about the GFA
markodaly wrote: » No sorry, that isn't true. I looked at the previous posts and no one was talking about the GFA, until you shoehorned it in as some negative remark against a rape victim. You can believe what you want, but again, we were not discussing the GFA, or dissidents or FG/Labour. This is a SF thread remember! It is relevant because there is a history of outright misogynistic comments about her on this thread. It is relevant because other posters bring her up as some 'gotcha' moment to try and steer the conversation away from SF. It is relevant because there is, in my opinion, and unconscious sexism at play when many posters bring her up, without any cause, other than to try and discredit her and other political parties, without having any consideration to the abuse she suffered from SF/PIRA and continues to suffer online and in her community.People need to have some decency and just stop it. In what context? I looked there and no one was talking about FG or Labour in the GFA context, in the past 48 hours. NO ONE! Yet, here you are using a rape victim to try and discredit FG/Labour. If you cannot see the problem with that, then perhaps you need to consider how people may view your posts? No one was talking about the GFA, NO ONE! So stop flapping about the place, trying to justify as to the 'WHY' you brought up Maria Cahill (again!!) and perhaps reflect on the 'How'. How can you make your point without having to engage in this type of posting, which many may infer as low-level abuse of Maria Cahill? If you honestly think Maria Cahill is still fair game, then fine, but expect to be called out on it.
blanch152 wrote: » You can't expect decency when there are people prepared to repeat the nauseating slurs of that slimeball Greenslade who worked for the Guardian, despite numerous apologies having been made for what he wrote. There are posters who will keep posting the fantasy of Cahill being a rabid dissident when that is as far from the truth as it is possible to be, yet they somehow think it excuses what Sinn Fein did to her and what many of the shinnerbots out there on social media continue to do to her. They are despicable human beings out there on Twitter and other platforms harrassing her.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Mairia Cahill made allegations. There is somebody who went to court to proclaim his innocence. To defend himself along with 4 others. They didn't run away or hide. Apparently their right to innocence until proven guilty has been taken away but then you and mark are demanding it for somebody else on another thread. Weird compasses tbh. Which is it?
blanch152 wrote: » None of that justifies the abuse hurled on her by posters on here and Shinnerbots on Twitter and Facebook. Anyone who repeats the discredited hatchet job of Greenslade is equally despicable.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who justifies abuse? On here? Where?
blanch152 wrote: » So you agree that the repeating of the discredited smears of Greenslade are unjustified abuse?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
