ohnonotgmail wrote: » what does that have to do with the post you quoted?
FrancieBrady wrote: » If the cap fits etc etc. The Shinisteristcs have form in not believing what SF say Nowt personal really.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What does it matter if there is a 'council'? We who voted for the GFA encouraged the IRA to get involved in democratic politics. They di...and people still want to exclude them.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what does that have to do with them picking the leadership of SF?
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » The CCP membership also didn't overrule Xi Jinping at its national congress. After all, what's the point of overruling when there isn't a choice? Incidentally, What were the numbers voting in favour of Mary Lou at that special Ard fheis - seeing as you know FG numbers, surely you must also know the equivalent transparent number for SF? FG does use an electoral college voting system; If you want to make a point about that, how about adding another about how Michael Martin is Taoiseach with FF getting only 22% of the popular vote. Still is vastly more democratically transparent than the Chinese Communist Party system adopted by SF to designate its leaders.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » it very much was personal Francie. I thought you were better than that. I have no idea what a Shinisteristcs is but i presume you think it makes you look clever and witty to say it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The poster asked was Mary Lou a member of this 'council'...keep up with the thread.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Is she? You seem very rattled Francie which is very odd given you claim not to be a SF supporter.
Deleted User wrote: » It’s mad how Gerry Adams, Mary Lou, and O’Neill were all the only nominees. Listen, Francie, we all know the truth of it. Adams, Howell, (the late Storey), Murphy etc decide who is leader, they get nominated, and then the useful gombeens in the cumanns give a gloss coat of democracy to the entire charade. The only question now is Mary Lou a member of the council? Was it Mary Lou who decided that Martina Anderson had to go for example, or was that a decision made by the lads?
guy2231 wrote: » I would have no problem with the former IRA army council overseeing Sinn Fein and helping them towards taking power in Ireland which they are on the way to achieving, I have trust in what used to be the army council, I guess now it is just a council. A couple of alleged former army council members only retired from Sinn Fein in the last couple of years.
jm08 wrote: » The peace is being maintained by keeping them involved in the political process. Exclude them and they may become disillusioned with the process and become dissident republicans.
blanch152 wrote: » Ah yes, the old threat of the old republicans, be nice to us or we might blow you up. Last century thinking.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Isn't that what aircraft carriers are for when they moor off your coast?
blanch152 wrote: » Ok, poster suggests that secret cabal outside this jurisdiction is controlling political party within this jurisdiction, and your reaction is "what does it matter"? Seriously, dude?
blanch152 wrote: » In this case, it is a non-State actor doing the threatening, but you are ok with it?
jm08 wrote: » Just face facts Blanch - there are dissident republicans who do not support the GFA and the fewer of them there are, the better it is for all the people of Northern Ireland.
Bambi wrote: » And yet you constantly trot out the threat of loaylists blowing us up if they dont get their way as an argument against a united Ireland Weird, eh?
blanch152 wrote: » I don't want to ever live in a society where some thugs can hold a threat of violence over others. Another reason that a united Ireland is further away than many think.
jm08 wrote: » They are not threatening violence. Official MI5/PSNI/Gardai say they are completely wedded to the GFA. Its a pity that the former loyalists paramilitaries are not in a similar position with unionist parties.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Your forebears saw to it (with violence by the way) that you would not have to be oppressed and threatened by an invading force and their agents. Sadly, some of the liberated here forgot and ignored their countrymen and women in the north as they endured decades more oppression and state thuggery.
blanch152 wrote: » Oh dearie me. Let us take one issue - decriminalisation of homosexualityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#European_Union 1993 in Ireland. 1967 in England and Wales 1982 in Northern Ireland. Try telling the LGBTQ population they were better living in Ireland than if the UK had continued in the South. Ditto rights for women. Women in the South still have a repugnant clause in the Constitution about women in the home. Don't see that in the UK. The UK has always been a more welcoming place for minorities and the oppressed than the so-called Republic in Ireland dominated for decades by exclusionary nationalism infused with a strong Catholic ethos. We have a lot to be ashamed of since we became an independent country, and in many many ways our neighbours have shown us up.
blanch152 wrote: » Why would they explicitly threaten violence when there are so many who will do so on their behalf?
FrancieBrady wrote: » ???We know how the power swap messed up only too well. The point was about your forbears being freed from violent oppression and the threat of violence. They had to use violence to achieve that . Achieve that for you to live on the high moral ground you live on now. Eaten bread is soon forgotten as they say.
