Why the disregard of Sinn Féin?

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 01:32AM

Dotsey wrote: »

The end justifies the means.

I think that this is where I differ from terrorist apologists. I don't think it does.

Hannibal · 22-01-2011 02:45AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Curran was a member of the IRA? This is certainly news to me...can you prove it? It was never mentioned in the press during the trial or at the time of his murder.

The guy who murdered him on the other hand, he was a former PIRA member and current Sinn Fein election worker when he executed an innocent man who objected to people taking protection money from drug dealers.

Where did I say Curran was a member of the IRA? can you not read simple English or do you deliberately misquote people and generally lie as shown time again on several threads??
How can the guy that murdered him be a current Sinn Fein election worker when he's in prison serving a life sentence?? He never had anything to do with Sinn Fein, he was a PIRA member in the 1980's and early 90's and later joined the Real IRA after the ceasefire.
I also see you sourced your information from Jim Cusack who is one of Irelands most well known fictional writers. He generally writes what he feels the public need to believe rather than the truth. Don't make yourself a laughing stock by repeating gutter press accusations on here that anyone with their ear to the ground in Dublin knows to be untrue.

Liam Byrne · 22-01-2011 02:46AM

Nehaxak wrote: »

As if they were ever on your possibility list. Who are you trying to fool :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Hence the keep them off, and as you apparently didn't actually bother to read what was clearly stated in the post, I'll clarify.

If someone is outside, and you keep them outside, then they stay outside.

If someone is inside, you wouldn't say that you'll keep them outside.

If you want to misrepresent what I clearly said and pretend that I'm "trying to fool" anyone, go right ahead, but a basic understanding of the English language would clearly show that you are 100% wrong.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but the next attempt at suggesting that I'm "trying to fool" anyone will get reported.

Hannibal · 22-01-2011 02:57AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think that this is where I differ from terrorist apologists. I don't think it does.

So you'd rather the situation that existed in particular in Derry and Belfast in the 1960's to what's there now?? or take what I said and apply it to Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone, Pearse, etc.. Take a trip outside your cupboard and realise there's a whole world thats long moved on.

lugha · 22-01-2011 10:00AM

Dotsey wrote: »

The end justifies the means.

The republican dissidents could say the same thing. After all, the end they aspire to of a united Ireland is shared by a majority on this island?

Nonsense of course. If you are to employ violent means you must, at a minimum, have the support of the people you claim to represent. PIRA demonstrably did not have the support of anything more than a minority of Irish nationals for the means they employed. Sinn Fein backed PIRA, and that for me is fascism. To this day, they insist that such a stance was justified.

And therein is one of the problems with SF. If this was a justified course of action in the past, why couldn't they use it again in the future if this democracy malarkey doesn't deliver for them.

Di0genes · 22-01-2011 02:40PM

Dotsey wrote: »

Its not exactly him restricting criticism of his government if you read the article and other articles about it properly. I personally have always believed the internet should have some sort of censorship the question is always how far do you go with it and thats the difficult part. Chavez's restrictions mention shielding messages promoting drug use, prostitution and crime. If a daily newspaper isn't allowed print certain things then why should be able to freely access it on the web? The internet is something that has to be looked at to protect the law of the land and as I said its difficult. But like Chavez we've to look at drug use, prostitution, crime, porn etc.. to stop this medium being abused for the wrong reasons.

Oh really did you even read the article?

The new law also prohibits contents which is deemed to disrespect public officials.

Opposition politicians voted against the measure, which they say is a threat to freedom of speech.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says it will help protect citizens against online crimes.

Under the new rules, providers of online contents and internet portals could be fined if images or messages appearing on their sites "disrespect public authorities, incite or promote hatred or create anxiety in the citizenry or alter public order".

Drugs and online crime me arse.

KeithAFC · 22-01-2011 08:27PM

lugha wrote: »

The republican dissidents could say the same thing. After all, the end they aspire to of a united Ireland is shared by a majority on this island?

Nonsense of course. If you are to employ violent means you must, at a minimum, have the support of the people you claim to represent. PIRA demonstrably did not have the support of anything more than a minority of Irish nationals for the means they employed. Sinn Fein backed PIRA, and that for me is fascism. To this day, they insist that such a stance was justified.

And therein is one of the problems with SF. If this was a justified course of action in the past, why couldn't they use it again in the future if this democracy malarkey doesn't deliver for them.

Which is what will probably happen. We will still be here though.

ragg · 22-01-2011 08:30PM

I love the way the same people that tell everyoe that will listen that we should judge the candiate \ policies ad not follow a party blindly, disregard SF out of hand.

I am impressed at the passion displayed by SF candidates, they have far more to offer now then they did a few years ago. They will see a huge bump this time around, possibly the 3rd highest polling party

lugha · 22-01-2011 11:59PM

ragg wrote: »

I love the way the same people that tell everyoe that will listen that we should judge the candiate \ policies ad not follow a party blindly, disregard SF out of hand.

I am impressed at the passion displayed by SF candidates, they have far more to offer now then they did a few years ago. They will see a huge bump this time around, possibly the 3rd highest polling party

Yes a lot of people are duped impressed by their passion. Of course their populist "no cuts" solution goes down well with many but their approach will be irrelevant unless they are in power, which is most unlikely.
And if they are, and are influential enough to see their approach adopted, then the IMF will simply walk away. With their money. Welfare will then be cut, not by 5% or 10%, but 100% as their will be no money to pay welfare and public sector salaries.

Wolfe Tone · 23-01-2011 12:05AM

Europe cant afford to walk away, we would drag them down with us.

Di0genes · 23-01-2011 12:32AM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Europe cant afford to walk away, we would drag them down with us.

Are you effing kidding me? Europe and in particular germany are one further financial crisis away from kicking Ireland out of the euro, before we destroy the Euro.

This kind of mind boggling arrogance is going to reduce us to our own currency of "lenny pennys" and the kind of hyper inflation of Zimbabwean proportions.

Wolfe Tone · 23-01-2011 12:36AM

Di0genes wrote: »

Are you effing kidding me? Europe and in particular germany are one further financial crisis away from kicking Ireland out of the euro, before we destroy the Euro.

This kind of mind boggling arrogance is going to reduce us to our own currency of "lenny pennys" and the kind of hyper inflation of Zimbabwean proportions.

I thought the British had huge exposure?

Iwasfrozen · 23-01-2011 12:38AM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Europe cant afford to walk away, we would drag them down with us.

The guy above me is right, we are small fry to Germany. If they thought for a second that we would bring Spain down they would kick us out so fast we wouldn't even have time to spill our collective guinness.

Iwasfrozen · 23-01-2011 12:40AM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I thought the British had huge exposure?

Not huge exposure, big. But not huge, certainly nothing the UK would suffer from without.

Hannibal · 23-01-2011 01:02AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The guy above me is right, we are small fry to Germany. If they thought for a second that we would bring Spain down they would kick us out so fast we wouldn't even have time to spill our collective guinness.

I always thought the same. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Britain is what makes the EU tick whereas we're just an island of 4m on the outskirts only making up the numbers in reality. I think to look at Norway and Switzerland who never joined and look in pretty good knick shows there is life outside the EU if it ever comes to it.

Di0genes · 23-01-2011 01:15AM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I thought the British had huge exposure?

They loaned us 6b sterling. They'll get that back in favorable export terms if nothing else. But 6b is a huge amount of money, but in the grand scheme of European finance it's not a massive amount.

You and other posters need to wake up fast. We're an insignificant Island with massive debts. Right now all we have going for us is that we speak English, have low corporate tax, and are within the EU.

We have appalling infrastructure, a mediocre education system, and very little to show for a decade plus of economic boom.

European finances are in a difficult state, if a major european state like Spain or Italy starts to collapse like Ireland, they'll have no choice but to withdraw the Euro to a handful of the most financial viable countries.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 23-01-2011 01:22AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The guy above me is right, we are small fry to Germany. If they thought for a second that we would bring Spain down they would kick us out so fast we wouldn't even have time to spill our collective guinness.

Possible but that action in itself could cause loss of confidence in the Euro. It would be admitting that the euro failed one of its members. That being the fault of the Irish governmet is incidental.

Of course kicking Ireland out is better than dragging down a larger economy but both are scenarios the Eurozone wants to avoid at all cost.

I think our best bet is to default and join Sterling. Though A may prevent B from happening of course.

If that were the case and we don't default I still think it would make more economic sense to be linked to the Bank of England than the European Central Bank. Our financial needs(interest rates etc) are always going to be better more similar to theirs than those of France/Germany

Wolfe Tone · 23-01-2011 01:24AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Possible but that action in itself could cause loss of confidence in the Euro. It would be admitting that the euro failed one of its members. That being the fault of the Irish governmet is incidental.

Of course kicking Ireland out is better than dragging down a larger economy but both are scenarios the Eurozone wants to avoid at all cost.

I think our best bet is to default and join Sterling. Though A may prevent B from happening of course.

If that were the case and we don't default I still think it would make more economic sense to be linked to the Bank of England than the European Central Bank. Our financial needs(interest rates etc) are always going to be better more similar to theirs than those of France/Germany

Go back to the Punt and link it to Sterling, people wont use British notes!

Di0genes · 23-01-2011 01:48AM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Go back to the Punt and link it to Sterling, people wont use British notes!

What a wonderfully naive position. And what about our national debt? What if we need to borrow on the international markets?

We may be linked to sterling but that would mean it could be 100,000 Lenny Pennies to the pound.

You think people heading north for food is bad, wait till our entire economy is based on black market Euros and Sterling.

jimmycrackcorm · 23-01-2011 05:15AM

I don't know where this thread is going as from a brief scan it seems to have dis-solved. But from the OPs original question, the main problem with SF is their whacky economics policies.

My most recent observation was after the election of Pearse Doherty, who seemed to become the media darling, being asked about the banking problem. He was adamant that they bond holders should be totally burned. Did this guy, as the new SF finance spokesperson, think for even a second, what implications such a policy would have?

It's no wonder that their support base is based in the most impoverished and isolated areas where their supports don't care about the realities of their policies.

SF are the party who fight against the British but will accept their House of commons expenses; who welcome EC money but would happily say FU to the ECB.

Their support is grounded in the poorer sections of society and the republican tradition strongholds. They haven't a clue how to appeal to anyone outside those areas.

If they were ready to be a mainstream party then they should actually put Gerry Adams in a different area electoral area instead of the guaranteed SF stronghold held by an existing TD. The reason they can't is because, despite his profile, no-one would support him. You'd think that they could retain the existing seat and be able to parachute such a high profile candidate into any other area..... But the truth is that the people of louth would vote for kermit the frog with a SF badge.

southsiderosie · 23-01-2011 05:23PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Care to rephrase that?

LOL, I shouldn't post when I'm tired and jetlagged!

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't know where this thread is going as from a brief scan it seems to have dis-solved. But from the OPs original question, the main problem with SF is their whacky economics policies.

My most recent observation was after the election of Pearse Doherty, who seemed to become the media darling, being asked about the banking problem. He was adamant that they bond holders should be totally burned. Did this guy, as the new SF finance spokesperson, think for even a second, what implications such a policy would have?

It's no wonder that their support base is based in the most impoverished and isolated areas where their supports don't care about the realities of their policies.

SF are the party who fight against the British but will accept their House of commons expenses; who welcome EC money but would happily say FU to the ECB.

Their support is grounded in the poorer sections of society and the republican tradition strongholds. They haven't a clue how to appeal to anyone outside those areas.

Two things on this:

1) Although I think SF's economic policies leave a lot to be desired, Doherty isn't that far off the reservation. The problem is, the markets jump whenever anyone suggests that investors may need to pay for their bad decisions. Angela Merkel said as much a few months ago, and investors panicked. Admittedly Merkel has a lot more weight in this argument than SF, but people are increasingly befuddled/pissed about the way banks and investors have been treated by governments versus taxpayers. Which brings me to my second point...

2) I think there is a hell of a lot of support out there for investors and bondholders taking some serious haircuts, and it is not limited to working-class communities.

Speaking of which, why do people always raise the issue of SF appealing to poor/working-class people as such a huge knock against them? Given their behavior, the wealthy in Ireland seek (and receive) far more handouts from the government than poorer people - yet there seems to be a sneering undertone in how many people on boards describe working-class voting and political behavior.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-01-2011 10:17PM

Dotsey wrote: »

I always thought the same. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Britain is what makes the EU tick whereas we're just an island of 4m on the outskirts only making up the numbers in reality.

That's funny, I thought we were an island of almost 6 million people. Who's a partitionist now - or do prods not count?

OK so I'm having a laugh, but there is a serious point there - the views of 1,000,000 unionists have never entered into the thinking of SF/IRA and short of murdering or deporting them all they seem to have no idea what to do with them.

I think to look at Norway and Switzerland who never joined and look in pretty good knick shows there is life outside the EU if it ever comes to it.

Yeah it's easy to stand 'ourselves alone' when you're a very rich nation. We thought we were rich, but weren't really, do try to keep up.

Bhoy_ · 24-01-2011 01:50AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Their support is grounded in the poorer sections of society and the republican tradition strongholds. They haven't a clue how to appeal to anyone outside those areas.

You're almost right there. I have to say SF have pretty large youth support, at least among my peers.

KeithAFC · 24-01-2011 01:56AM

ninja900 wrote: »

That's funny, I thought we were an island of almost 6 million people. Who's a partitionist now - or do prods not count?

OK so I'm having a laugh, but there is a serious point there - the views of 1,000,000 unionists have never entered into the thinking of SF/IRA and short of murdering or deporting them all they seem to have no idea what to do with them.

Yeah it's easy to stand 'ourselves alone' when you're a very rich nation. We thought we were rich, but weren't really, do try to keep up.

What do you want Sinn Fein to do with them?

femur61 · 24-01-2011 07:23AM

Bhoy_ wrote: »

You're almost right there. I have to say SF have pretty large youth support, at least among my peers.

I have been shouted down on this point. I don't think a lot of the youth were around during the height of the troubles so we can see the lies Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Martin Ferris tell us.

Maj Malfunction · 24-01-2011 09:19AM

People don't take Sinn Fein seriously as a credible party because there polices don't stand up their own two feet (see their economic policies, for example). The Irish voter is usually centre-right so lefty politics and their ideals is not attractive.

That's why people disregard Sinn Fein.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 24-01-2011 09:40AM

Di0genes wrote: »

What a wonderfully naive position. And what about our national debt? What if we need to borrow on the international markets?

We may be linked to sterling but that would mean it could be 100,000 Lenny Pennies to the pound.

You think people heading north for food is bad, wait till our entire economy is based on black market Euros and Sterling.

I think he meant directly linked. IE use GBP but have different notes. Up north every bank has different notes so it wouldn't be a problem.

maccored · 24-01-2011 10:17AM

Maj Malfunction wrote: »

People don't take Sinn Fein seriously as a credible party because there polices don't stand up their own two feet (see their economic policies, for example). The Irish voter is usually centre-right so lefty politics and their ideals is not attractive.

That's why people disregard Sinn Fein.

a lot of people who have that view have never actually read SF policies. It's usually repeating what someone else has said.

For example, does the poster somewhere in this thread who was talking about Doherty burning the bond holders not realise Doherty was talking about the bank debt that has been thrown on the publics shoulders for replayment and NOT the national sovereign debt (even though the bank debt is now sovereign)?

Is doherty's suggestion *that* crazy? I dont think it is. In fact I think it makes damned good sense.

danbohan · 24-01-2011 10:23AM

femur61 wrote: »

I have been shouted down on this point. I don't think a lot of the youth were around during the height of the troubles so we can see the lies Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Martin Ferris tell us.

i am sure you were well clear of ''height of the troubles '' exactly what lies would that be then ?

Scofflaw · 24-01-2011 10:47AM

maccored wrote: »

a lot of people who have that view have never actually read SF policies. It's usually repeating what someone else has said.

For example, does the poster somewhere in this thread who was talking about Doherty burning the bond holders not realise Doherty was talking about the bank debt that has been thrown on the publics shoulders for replayment and NOT the national sovereign debt (even though the bank debt is now sovereign)?

Is doherty's suggestion *that* crazy? I dont think it is. In fact I think it makes damned good sense.

Except that the bank debt is now sovereign.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why the disregard of Sinn Féin?

Comments