FrancieBrady wrote: » Where? Back it up...third time asking.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » *proceeds to post about Madigan's comments about the Kerryman paper moments later without a hint of irony* :pac:
markodaly wrote: » Em, because the very origin of the discussion was a comment made by Garry Gannon, a Social Democrat TD. No one in FG mentioned it, yet people seem to attribute it to FG.. odd and weird I must say. So, yes, the root of the discussion was a SD TD making a comment about the leader of the opposition. Best discuss it either here or in the SD mega thread.
markodaly wrote: » You gave very good coverage and have spoken very positively about Catherine Murphy, Holly Cairns and Roisin Shorthall in the past, therefore you gave their views and position support.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where have I supported the SD's as a party mark? I have praised positively Simon Coveney, Helen McEntee and others from other parties too. Does that now mean I support those parties? You lied and have been caught out on it again.
markodaly wrote: » Oh not at all. I stand by what I said about your implicit support for the SD's. It seems the SD's are the flavour of the month around these parts. To some, they can do no wrong, and that is fine by the way. They have some impressive speakers. However, it is amusing that the one time we see a SD TD criticise SF, we get very very defensive about it. Like calling someone a liar multiple times, over this?? Em... OK! :pac: But sure, lets all talk about FG, or something something.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Are SF aware that 'Leader of the Oppostion' is a role in Westminster (currently Keir Starmer) and isn't a thing in Ireland? Strange to see them referring to it today.https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1371866810283401217?s=19
markodaly wrote: » To be fair, she is a FG female TD, so they always come in for that extra bit of stick around some parts.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Did you find where Mary Lou claimed that she had a 'right' Bubbaclaus?
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Sure, refer to the interview where she claimed that the Taoiseach's job is to deal with her because she is "leader of the opposition". I'm sure you can dig it up.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Which isn't saying anything remotely like 'I have a right'.
McMurphy wrote: » Em, no it was not, and it's fairly easy to call that out as the untruth it is. Here's the "very origin" of the discussion. No mention of the SDs. **Shrugs**? Keep up mark, it's why I asked the pertinent question ref if anyone told Leo yet that he expected to be the leader of something that's "not a thing here" Now, with that in mind, how do you think this is going for you here right now might I ask?
Bubbaclaus wrote: » What did she mean so by the Taoiseach's role is to deal with her then? Sounds like she feels there is some extra entitlement there for a response to her letters.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The Taoiseach is the head of a representative democracy, and part of his role is to answer questions from the opposition. Fairly simple. If she had a 'right' there would be a facility to ensure that 'right' is vindicated, like there is with any rights. You invented the word here in order to have a rant. Happening on another thread with another issue with SF with markodaly inventing a story around Shinners claiming they had won the election. That has mutated into them saying they had a 'right' to be in government. No Shinner I know of has claimed that either.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » I haven't had any "rant", its not even something that remotely concerns me. I posted something small which came to my attention when Gary Gannon tweeted about it and appeared on my news feed. It isn't even a big deal other than McDonald seeming to think the Dail is more akin to Westminster, as pointed out by Gannon. The only reason I am even still posting about it is due to the 3 poster pile on that occured afterwards, which was veering towards getting personal and were extremely defensive for something so immaterial, which required repeated responses.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » You seem very worked up mate, are you alright? I'm just wondering why they seem to be using the term and thinking there is some special privilege that comes with it, when their isn't. There is no such thing as 'Leader of the Opposition in Ireland. McDonald seems to think the Taoiseach is required to answer her because of her role, based on what she was saying yesterday, except there is no such role in the Constitution. She has the same right to a response from the Taoiseach as any other TD in the Dail, nothing more or less. Very different to the Leader of the Opposition that other countries have, such as in Westminster. Gary Gannon of the SDs seems to have find it odd also. Clearly he sees it as disrespectful to the SDs and other parties not in Government.https://twitter.com/GaryGannonTD/status/1371927948828246028?s=19 As does journalist Ronan Duffyhttps://twitter.com/ronanduffy_/status/1371930512646930432?s=19
FrancieBrady wrote: » The 'I wasn't ranting, others were' argument to cover yourself here and your failed attempt to misrepresent what was said (A 'right) and it being embarrassingly pointed out that FG's leader said the same thing about being 'leader of the opposition' is not very convincing in fairness. Do you now agree that McDonald never said it was a 'right' and that other party leaders have seen themselves as 'leaders of the opposition'?
McMurphy wrote: » You posteda tweet about McDonald from the SF Twitter account, at 0045 no mention of Gannon or the SDS... The "Gannon tweet" came almost 8.5 hours later when you were called out. Little details like this are important if you're going to try and rewrite history bubbs.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Show me where I was "ranting" so if you are so adamant about it? McDonald mispoke when thinking the Taoiseach's role involves responding to a role that doesn't exist in the Constitution, Gary Gannon and others pointed it out, we should all be able to move on from it. I'm sure you can understand the difference between using the term 'Leader of the Opposition' informally vs using it to claim the Taoiseach has to deal with you, without any constitutional backing to support that assertion.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Wrong. It literally came to my attention by reading Gary Gannon's tweet, as I said, as I follow him and it came up on my twitter feed. You can try and dig all you like, but my post came after Gannon tweeted. Feel free to go check the time of the tweet vs my post if you are that bothered.
McMurphy wrote: » The Oireachtas recognises opposition leaders too.... Seems a very strange thing to try and claim is not a thing here tbh.
McMurphy wrote: » No, we'll leave it there, your own posting timeline on this very thread is available for anyone else that wants to read it. Next time you're going to cling to a tweet, post the actual tweet you're clinging to, not a different one first. You can see how one might "accidentally" think you only posted the follow up post after being called out. There'll be no confusion next time then.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Never said anything about not recognising opposition leaders. Are you sure you know what point was being made? Gary Gannon summarised the minor point pretty well in his tweet, linked again for you below.https://twitter.com/GaryGannonTD/status/1371927948828246028?s=19 If SF hope to form an coalition with parties from the left in the next Dail, then they need to be more careful with their words and not annoy the left parties.
James Brown wrote: » I don't believe a word of this. You raised it citing it not being a thing. Myself and others called it out for the nothing it was. You came back quoting an SD in some attempt at validity then accused others of being worked up or insulting. You've made claims you can't support. Now Leo is on record for same it's suddenly a 'minding my own business, not interested, casual SD matter' :rolleyes: This is all you.
McMurphy wrote: » Keep up mark, it's why I asked the pertinent question ref if anyone told Leo yet that he expected to be the leader of something that's "not a thing here"
