OOOOOOOOOHHHHH you got me.
He mentioned Devaney Gardens.
Sit yourself down there now in your righteousness, and tell us, did he answer the question he was asked about it?
The rising was in 1916. Where was the mandate?
The 1918 UK election, where the House of commons was the seat of government?
The terrorism wasn't voted on. Neither was partition. But we look to these as the terrorists we like. Thats the only difference. Can you understand why people in other times and places might think their terrorists are heroes?
The Irish freedom fighters have always been without a mandate. People looking to fight an authority can't get a mandate.
She called out FF's record on housing during a series of questions to MM about housing.
It seems the rot in FG has gotten so deep that if you call out FF on their housing record you deserve to be attacked with murders and rapes.
MM showed himself up to be no better than the usual common or garden government online troll.
Didn't Sinn Fein vote against the O Devanney gardens redevelopment
Always amazed that two groups of people can watch the same video/read the same transcript.....and always happen to come away ever more certain that it supports the position they had beforehand.
Was MLMD's question a reasonable one? Yes
Did she throw in a few cheap shots to play to the audience on social media? Most definitely
Did MM actually answer the question asked? Absolutely not.
Yet we have one group insisting that MLMD didn't bring up the past to try and stick the boot in and another claiming MM did answer the question and his ranting about the RA was relevant?
Cop yourselves on.
If the person asking the question is screeching and roaring and rambling so much that you have to read the transcript to understand what she was going on about then it's hard to blame the answerer for not properly answering the question.
Thanks for proving my point. The hyperbole of referring to anything in that video (which I was able to understand just fine) as, 'screeching and roaring'.....well you're just seeing whatever you want to see.
It's a textbook ad hominem response and completely undermines the legitimate criticism of the pot shots MLMD peppered through her questioning. You're half a step away from sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, 'Shinners Bad' over and over again.
The only ad hominem attack in the exchange yesterday was Mary Lou’s bitter personal attack on Michael Martin “you are pathetic”, which the shinnerbots on here defended while simultaneously lying repeatedly about who said what when.
The leader of the opposition deliberately derailed the exchange by resorting to the usual sound bite nonsense.
She didn’t have to throw insults and drag up the past but that’s exactly what she did and did first.
ad hominem attack? Did you even watch it. She blatantly lied and accused the Taoiseach of being corrupt and profiting from bribes etc from developers. I'm actually amazed she has not been suspended from the Dail. If she had the courage to repeat that outside Dail privilege she could quite rightly be sued for slander.
Yet instead of this criticism, the post I responded to was moaning about how she was, 'screeching and roaring' to such an extent that the transcript was required to understand her.
That is the ad hominem I'm referring to, not MM's non-response.
Precisely the point I was making; certain posters are more concerned with getting digs in at MLMD (see the repeated hyperbolic use in thread of the terms screeching and roaring) than actually addressing the substance of what she said; a question that she had every right to ask, peppered with her sticking the boot in to play to social media.
She didn’t have to throw insults and drag up the past but that’s exactly what she did and did first
No disagreement from me on that point, though MM hardly took the high road in his response. All in all, the pair of them come off more like bickering school children than serious politicians from the exchange. Yet both sides of the thread are firm in their belief that the video demonstrates some sort of great win for, 'their side' over the other.
The absolute fantasy that what Mary Lou did yesterday was somehow abnormal is the issue here. The idea that the government benches behave respectfully is also the invention of a fantasist.
Utter nonsense.
MLMD asked a question and MM deflected away from it, first waffling about government housing policy, then when challenged again to the 'RA.
Given FF's corruption in the past, it was entirely relevant to reference the past in the debate. The 'RA was totally irrelevant.
Perfectly descriptive word? Now that is pathetic.
Do you still consider the actions of the men of 1916 as equivalent to the RIRA and the CIRA? All IRAs are the same in your world, aren't they?
Yes, perfectly fine descriptive term.
Here's Micheál using it himself.
You neatly avoided the question.
So you made it about a poster rather than about the real incident?
You are correct about them looking like bickering school children. Leo was much better at putting Mary-Lou in her place.
This is a stunning level of hypocrisy, probably the worst I have seen in my time on boards.
According to Francie, Mary-Lou is allowed mention the Ansbacher scandal which relates to the activities of Des Traynor from 1971 to the mid-1990s:
"The accounts were in operation from 1971 until the mid-1990s."
Yet, Martin is not allowed refer to the PIRA campaign which operated during the exact same time period.
Not a single bit of credibility left here.
Micheál is absolutely allowed to mention PIRA and the Dáil has an onus on it to address PIRA if it is active.
The issue here is, using PIRA to deflect from current issues.
I responded directly to a poster who replied to my initial post, Blanch. I addressed the content of the exchange separately. The nature of the reactions on both sides of the argument here was what I was highlighting in my initial post. I pointed out how two groups of people can watch the exact same exchange and come away with totally opposite impressions, which just happen to support their pre-existing views....that poster replied with a textbook example of what I was talking about, so of course I addressed that in my reply.
As you know, I have limited time for Leo but he certainly dealt with questioning much better than Micheál. He's done a fantastic job of making Leo look like a strong and articulate leader, something I never thought I'd say.
She brought up Ansbacher immediately after Martin brought up The Troubles. Not the other way around.
They voted against giving public land to a private developer to build private housing which would have been sold or rented out at full market rates.
The issue here is allowing the use of Ansbacher to deflect from current issues while not permitting the use of PIRA to deflect from current issues.
As I said, a stunning level of hypocrisy.
I accept that, there are quite a number of posters who are displaying doublethink on this issue.
Housing needs to be built. Government do not build their own housing. Developers have to do the building. Why are they objecting to housing?
I've been watching this particular 'lack of' development for years, no movement. It's ridiculous
Read the transcript again. Martin began to accuse SF of historical corruption in relation to The Troubles, and it was in response to this that Mary Lou brought up Ansbacher. He dredged up the past first and she countered with her own dredging up of the past - the only difference being that in her case it was at least somewhat relevant to the matter under discussion.
I still say she shouldn't have done it, by the way, because of course it opens the door to the entire incident being twisted the way it has been here.
The possibility of corruption in what she was asking about is very current. She also mentioned 'the Galway tent' which it smacks off and is therefore relevant. PIRA are NOT relevant.
.
Government always used to build their own housing, and the left's argument is that it is precisely the abandonment of this paradigm two decades ago which is partly responsible for the commodification of housing and the crisis we have now. Government *should* be building their own housing to meet the demand without exploiting people, just like it did for the vast majority of this state's history. That's what SF and the left have been demanding a return to, that's why they've been objecting to allowing private housing to be built on public land and sold or rented out at full market rates.
And that is what FF and FG have disingenuously twisted into their fooling-nobody slogan of "SF keep objecting to housing projects".
still hoping every one will just forget about them ?
"they haven't gone always you know " Gerry Adams December 2021
No, the onus is on the government, as signatories of an internationally binding agreement to take action if PIRA still pose an active threat. That is relevant.
Insinuating that PIRA are still active or deflecting to them when asked about current issues, is deflection and a misuse of democracy.
Very simple.
There is nothing more corrupt in a society than a private army and security force, especially one that continues to intimidate within its own communities in the North.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/paramilitary-attacks-they-hand-down-brutality-and-call-it-peace-40979480.html
They should but they are not. Therefore private developers have to fill the void.
There is no reason to have Dublin city centre full of social housing. The more public land they sell to private developers who will create mixed developments the better.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
