The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Having tried to force SF to give into the DUP on the ILA and getting out maneuvered, Colum Eastwood throws the toys out of the pram in the HOC and make the kind of strategic gaff with nationalists that seemed to be the preserve of the DUP.

Funny how nationalists getting what has been agreed to sends so many into a tailspin.

https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1407366592170762243

Once again shows up the pointlessness of Sinn Fein, more interested in one-up on them-ums than in actually looking after people. Well done Colum.

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again shows up the pointlessness of Sinn Fein, more interested in one-up on them-ums than in actually looking after people. Well done Colum.

Ah blanch...caught out again. Rights being delivered to 'people' is such a disgraceful thing to deliver...eh?

Brendan Bendar

I was tuned into OTV for the SCC debate.

The party which seems so righteous on everything else vanished .

Connolly House must have given them the word?

Hmmm..

batman75

I see Mary Lou observing that Unionism is in a tizz over the delivery of human rights to all the people of NI. I presume she is referring to the Irish Language Act. She goes on to say 15 years is too long to wait for such basic human rights. I think she is encompassing not just the ILA but other rights around LGBT etc. Mary Lou or anyone from SF observing about human rights is ironic. I'm sure Mary Lou is intelligent enough to know that the most fundamental human right is the right to life something which some of her SF colleagues in their IRA days actively sought to and actually did sadly deny to many. Indeed the IRA went a step further and disappeared some they murdered denying their relatives the closure of a burial. Some were disappeared for far longer than 15 years. Boils my blood the hypocrisy of her.

Is she actually stupid or does she think we have all erased the past? It's brass neck on a huge scale.

batman75 wrote: »

I see Mary Lou observing that Unionism is in a tizz over the delivery of human rights to all the people of NI. I presume she is referring to the Irish Language Act. She goes on to say 15 years is too long to wait for such basic human rights. I think she is encompassing not just the ILA but other rights around LGBT etc. Mary Lou or anyone from SF observing about human rights is ironic. I'm sure Mary Lou is intelligent enough to know that the most fundamental human right is the right to life something which some of her SF colleagues in their IRA days actively sought to and actually did sadly deny to many. Indeed the IRA went a step further and disappeared some they murdered denying their relatives the closure of a burial. Some were disappeared for far longer than 15 years. Boils my blood the hypocrisy of her.

Is she actually stupid or does she think we have all erased the past? It's brass neck on a huge scale.

I genuinely don't get this point of view.

It is as I have said before of others, a totally selective and useless point of view.

You can ask it of most of the political parties on this island who were born out of violence taken part in, at one time or another.

The real point you are making is that there is a cut off point historically for this accusation to be made.

The conflict/war is over, men and women have returned to civilian life, just as they have from conflicts/wars all over the world.

McDonald has addressed what happened in the past, ad nauseum at this stage, and has as much right to talk about human rights as any of our current government or any of the current British governments.

If McDonald was still secretly directing violence contrary to an international agreement you might have a point, but you are just selecting what to get upset about. If you were genuine you would be complaining about the hypocrisy of other talking about human rights too.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I genuinely don't get this point of view.

It is as I have said before of others, a totally selective and useless point of view.

You can ask it of most of the political parties on this island who were born out of violence taken part in, at one time or another.

The real point you are making is that there is a cut off point historically for this accusation to be made.

The conflict/war is over, men and women have returned to civilian life, just as they have from conflicts/wars all over the world.

McDonald has addressed what happened in the past, ad nauseum at this stage, and has as much right to talk about human rights as any of our current government or any of the current British governments.

If McDonald was still secretly directing violence contrary to an international agreement you might have a point, but you are just selecting what to get upset about. If you were genuine you would be complaining about the hypocrisy of other talking about human rights too.

The fact that you don't get the view exposes the darker underbelly of Sinn Fein supporters. How anyone can not understand that people are revulsed by Sinn Fein because of their support for violence is beyond me.

Fair enough, you can hold on to your support of what the PIRA did and defend it ad nauseum on here to the extent that you make others sick, but claiming not to understand why people are revulsed by Sinn Fein shows a shocking lack of awareness of the values of decent people.

What the PIRA did was wrong, very wrong. Sinn Fein supported that and have never apologised for the actions of the PIRA, and accepted that the PIRA were wrong, just mealy-mouthed apologies for all victims. Own what you supported, and apologise for it, is all that is being asked. However, that is too much for them, putting them beyond redemption in many people's eyes.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I genuinely don't get this point of view.

It is as I have said before of others, a totally selective and useless point of view.

You can ask it of most of the political parties on this island who were born out of violence taken part in, at one time or another.

The real point you are making is that there is a cut off point historically for this accusation to be made.

The conflict/war is over, men and women have returned to civilian life, just as they have from conflicts/wars all over the world.

McDonald has addressed what happened in the past, ad nauseum at this stage, and has as much right to talk about human rights as any of our current government or any of the current British governments.

If McDonald was still secretly directing violence contrary to an international agreement you might have a point, but you are just selecting what to get upset about. If you were genuine you would be complaining about the hypocrisy of other talking about human rights too.

If this was true then why do Sinn Fein feel the need to roll out Gerry Adams at every possible occasion? we all know his history so no need to repeat it and you can make excuses for the PIRA etc but for the affect he had on his own family?

Any other political party would have cut all ties and moved on. Sinn Fein can't have it both way, tell everyone they have to put the past in the past and then bring up the past and rub it in peoples face when it suits them.

blanch152 wrote: »

The fact that you don't get the view exposes the darker underbelly of Sinn Fein supporters. How anyone can not understand that people are revulsed by Sinn Fein because of their support for violence is beyond me.

Fair enough, you can hold on to your support of what the PIRA did and defend it ad nauseum on here to the extent that you make others sick, but claiming not to understand why people are revulsed by Sinn Fein shows a shocking lack of awareness of the values of decent people.

What the PIRA did was wrong, very wrong. Sinn Fein supported that and have never apologised for the actions of the PIRA, and accepted that the PIRA were wrong, just mealy-mouthed apologies for all victims. Own what you supported, and apologise for it, is all that is being asked. However, that is too much for them, putting them beyond redemption in many people's eyes.

I think I have shown that I do understand why people are 'revulsed' blanch. It is because they are being selective and lazy.

I have long since done something you have never done here and moved on...'it was ALL wrong from the get go'. That includes what the IRA did, it isn't exclusively what they did though.

What marks us as different is that I don't blame one side for what happened here, I blame them all to some degree.

I also am different in being prepared to see who is genuinely working the peace agreement we all (on these forums anyway) say we signed up to. By silence and constant pointing over there we can deduce the views of people who select victims and those to blame.

SF and it's supporters an republicans could just as easily come up with a list for partitionists and the facilitators of the sectarian bigoted state to apologise for, but invariably they don't bog down political discourse with this kind of pettiness and selective outrage.

ineedeuro wrote: »

If this was true then why do Sinn Fein feel the need to roll out Gerry Adams at every possible occasion? we all know his history so no need to repeat it and you can make excuses for the PIRA etc but for the affect he had on his own family?

Any other political party would have cut all ties and moved on. Sinn Fein can't have it both way, tell everyone they have to put the past in the past and then bring up the past and rub it in peoples face when it suits them.

A good point, the glorification of the likes of Adams and Storey by Sinn Fein, on social media and in places like these threads, only adds to the hurt of the people they have abused and damaged over the years.

The fact is, those deeds aren't history like Brian Boru, they are events in living memory with living victims still suffering losses. The Stacks, the Fallons, the McCabes, the McConvilles, Mairia Cahill, Aine Adams, Paudie McGahon, these people have to get up every morning and see the disgusting antics of Sinn Fein politicians pretending nothing bad ever happened. And some people claim not to get this point of view? They must be completely lacking in empathy.

ineedeuro wrote: »

If this was true then why do Sinn Fein feel the need to roll out Gerry Adams at every possible occasion? we all know his history so no need to repeat it and you can make excuses for the PIRA etc but for the affect he had on his own family?

Any other political party would have cut all ties and moved on. Sinn Fein can't have it both way, tell everyone they have to put the past in the past and then bring up the past and rub it in peoples face when it suits them.

John Bruton,
Bertie Ahern,
Tony Blair,
Any number of former political leaders routinely and regularly used by the media.

Selective outrage again ineedeuro?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think I have shown that I do understand why people are 'revulsed' blanch. It is because they are being selective and lazy.

I have long since done something you have never done here and moved on...it was ALL wrong from the get go'. That includes what the IRA did, it isn't exclusively what they did though.

What marks us as different is that I don't blame one side for what happened here, I blame them all to some degree.

I also am different in being prepared to see who is genuinely working the peace agreement we all (on these forums anyway) say we signed up to. By silence and constant pointing over there we can deduce the views of people who select victims and those to blame.

SF and it's supporters an republicans could just as easily come up with a list for partitionists and the facilitators of the sectarian bigoted state to apologise for, but invariably they don't bog down political discourse with this kind of pettiness and selective outrage.

Whataboutery and name-calling, the first point of call for every Sinn Fein supporter.

The lack of empathy on display is shocking.

blanch152 wrote: »

A good point, the glorification of the likes of Adams and Storey by Sinn Fein, on social media and in places like these threads, only adds to the hurt of the people they have abused and damaged over the years.

The fact is, those deeds aren't history like Brian Boru, they are events in living memory with living victims still suffering losses. The Stacks, the Fallons, the McCabes, the McConvilles, Mairia Cahill, Aine Adams, Paudie McGahon, these people have to get up every morning and see the disgusting antics of Sinn Fein politicians pretending nothing bad ever happened. And some people claim not to get this point of view? They must be completely lacking in empathy.

Are we allowed to mention the 'losses' of SF members or supporters or are we in victim exploitation mode AGAIN?

blanch152 wrote: »

Whataboutery and name-calling, the first point of call for every Sinn Fein supporter.

The lack of empathy on display is shocking.

The post I responded to is the very essence of 'whataboutery' as I explained.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think I have shown that I do understand why people are 'revulsed' blanch. It is because they are being selective and lazy.

I have long since done something you have never done here and moved on...'it was ALL wrong from the get go'. That includes what the IRA did, it isn't exclusively what they did though.

What marks us as different is that I don't blame one side for what happened here, I blame them all to some degree.

I also am different in being prepared to see who is genuinely working the peace agreement we all (on these forums anyway) say we signed up to. By silence and constant pointing over there we can deduce the views of people who select victims and those to blame.

SF and it's supporters an republicans could just as easily come up with a list for partitionists and the facilitators of the sectarian bigoted state to apologise for, but invariably they don't bog down political discourse with this kind of pettiness and selective outrage.

See you made such a good point and then you had to add the bit into the bottom. Then you mention "pettiness" while seemingly blind to the fact that using those terms is exactly that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

John Bruton,
Bertie Ahern,
Tony Blair,
Any number of former political leaders routinely and regularly used by the media.

Selective outrage again ineedeuro?

And please tell me when John Bruton or Bertie Ahern covered up the sexual abuse of their niece, or ordered the disappearance of young mothers?

Selective outrage isn't an insult in the way you think. It is right and proper that people are selectively outraged about the worst kind of acts and the worst kind of people in public life.

I won't get outraged about a SF activist picking up a parking ticket, but I will be selectively outraged by the glorification of criminal thugs.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are we allowed to mention the 'losses' of SF members or supporters or are we in victim exploitation mode AGAIN?

Of course you can mention the losses of SF members of supporters, and in the context of this discussion of current affairs, how many of those who inflicted those losses are looking for our votes?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

John Bruton,
Bertie Ahern,
Tony Blair,
Any number of former political leaders routinely and regularly used by the media.

Selective outrage again ineedeuro?

I don't get your point?
Ahern & Blair I haven't seen in years, last time I heard of Ahern he was running out of an interview on UK tv because they asked about crashing Ireland.

Who is outraged by the way?

ineedeuro wrote: »

See you made such a good point and then you had to add the bit into the bottom. Then you mention "pettiness" while seemingly blind to the fact that using those terms is exactly that.

Your objection to a perfectly ordinary word included in all dictionaries is your issue, not mine.

Other than that, no idea what issue you have with 'facilitators of a sectarian bigoted state'.

ineedeuro wrote: »

I don't get your point?
Ahern & Blair I haven't seen in years, last time I heard of Ahern he was running out of an interview on UK tv because they asked about crashing Ireland.

Who is outraged by the way?

Sorry, you need to research that one frankly. Then get back to me.

RTE Prime Time held a major debate on a UI a short while ago, they had no representative from SF on the panel or even the republican tradition but they had the DUP...and they had Bruton, both of whom had a pop at SF.

blanch152 wrote: »

And please tell me when John Bruton or Bertie Ahern covered up the sexual abuse of their niece, or ordered the disappearance of young mothers?

Selective outrage isn't an insult in the way you think. It is right and proper that people are selectively outraged about the worst kind of acts and the worst kind of people in public life.

I won't get outraged about a SF activist picking up a parking ticket, but I will be selectively outraged by the glorification of criminal thugs.

Adams faced police inquiry about what he did with regard to his brother - he faced no criminal charge.
He addressed what he did and apologised and accepted it was the morally wrong thing to do.

Seems that is not acceptable to the selectively outraged but when others 'apologise' for doing the wrong thing they are to be defended.

Maybe you cannot see the hypocrisy but others can. Remarkable really, that you prove the point over and over again.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your objection to a perfectly ordinary word included in all dictionaries is your issue, not mine.

Other than that, no idea what issue you have with 'facilitators of a sectarian bigoted state'.

It is the sneering use of the word "partitionist" that is insulting, particularly the way it is used on here. You probably don't get that either, given your self-admitted lack of empathy for different views.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, you need to research that one frankly. Then get back to me.

RTE Prime Time held a major debate on a UI a short while ago, they had no representative from SF on the panel or even the republican tradition but they had the DUP...and they had Bruton, both of whom had a pop at SF.

I never posted about Bruton did it? Ahern & Blair I mentioned. So no idea why you are talking about Bruton or DUP? strange comment. You seem to find an angle to post about DUP or unionist at every occasion.

ineedeuro wrote: »

I never posted about Bruton did it? Ahern & Blair I mentioned. So no idea why you are talking about Bruton or DUP? strange comment. You seem to find an angle to post about DUP or unionist at every occasion.

I highlighted what you said about Ahern and said you should research it. He has been a frequent 'go to' for the media on NI affairs recently.

I personally have no issue with that, just pointing out that long running political leaders are frequently sought out for comment...like Adams. Big deal!

I mentioned Bruton and the DUP to show you that you may be remiss in 'balanced outrage' about who is 'rolled out'.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the sneering use of the word "partitionist" that is insulting, particularly the way it is used on here. You probably don't get that either, given your self-admitted lack of empathy for different views.

I object to yours and others partitionism, and I stand politically opposed to it.

If you see that as 'sneering' that is your issue. You have your right to be partitionist but you don't have a right to silence my objection/opposition to it.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the sneering use of the word "partitionist" that is insulting, particularly the way it is used on here. You probably don't get that either, given your self-admitted lack of empathy for different views.

It's a tactic of some political parties. Put everyone into a bracket and then try to ridicule them. You see it here with Nationalists, belligerent unionists, partitionist, etc etc etc

This is what originally happened in Ireland, then in the North. Instead of people trying to get rid of these sort of brackets some want to double down and create more brackets.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I object to yours and others partitionism, and I stand politically opposed to it.

If you see that as 'sneering' that is your issue. You have your right to be partitionist but you don't have a right to silence my objection/opposition to it.

Your attitude on the partitionist point is at one with your failure to show empathy to the living victims of the PIRA.

I am not a partitionist, I don't identify as a partitionist, yet you refuse me that right to self-identify, because your worldview does not allow it. I haven't seen any actual partitionists posting on here, where posters differ from you is on the timescale and conditions for unity. Because some posters would like to see a unity of people first, or a united Ireland happening when there is a substantial majority in favour, and you don't like that, it is definitely sneering on your behalf to refer to them as partitionist.

ineedeuro wrote: »

It's a tactic of some political parties. Put everyone into a bracket and then try to ridicule them. You see it here with Nationalists, belligerent unionists, partitionist, etc etc etc

This is what originally happened in Ireland, then in the North. Instead of people trying to get rid of these sort of brackets some want to double down and create more brackets.

What 'bracket' have you guys been trying to put SF in?

Honestly, the lack of self awareness about the outrage here at times is funny.

If you are arguing for the continuance of partition it is correct to use the term partitionist to describe that.

As I said previously, I do not think and would argue the case that a UI should be voted on tomorrow, the time is not right and the proper discussion has not yet been held. In that context it is correct to call me a partitionist too as I am arguing the case that partition should be continued.

Is my political ideology partitionist = No. But there are those for whom it is and who will never change that. I am unashamedly opposed to that and will argue my case.

If you have guilt about it then I can see why you object to the term, but that is your own issue frankly. I personally believe there are politicians that are in the closet about their partitionism and that is why I repeatedly express my fascination to see who will come out of the closet and represent partitionism come a Border Poll.

batman75

Whataboutery ah Francie such a lovely sounding phrase to dismiss any criticism of SF. You're entitled to see it as such most will disagree with you thankfully. Most people can spot hypocrisy a mile off and McDonald's spouting about human rights reeks of it. If you embrace your past as readily as SF do in commemorating murderers then you are more likely to be pulled up when you talk out of both sides of your mouth as McDonald does.

You see things through SF tinted glasses and that is absolutely you're entitlement.