Sinn Fein appealing to the lowest common denominator

Capt'n Midnight · 27-05-2012 01:07AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It really does make things simpler when you apply labels to vast swathes of people, doesn't it? Us and them, Dubs and Non-Dubs, Catholics and Protestants, British and Irish, Real Irish and West Brits...

Real Irish , is that like Continuity Irish ?

Smidge · 27-05-2012 01:09AM

You wont get a socialist rant from me and most certainly not from the 1800's, but come on............

I'm from one of the toughest areas of Dublin, grew up there in the 70's and 80's and the sh*t that I saw, God nor man should never have allowed.

I am self educated and got out. The difference between me and "them"???

I have a great family

Not everyone was as lucky as me

We were all aware of the families who for them incest and abuse was the norm.

Can you blame the sins of the father on the children???

Some of the things that went on, there was never a hope these children(who would now all be in their 30's) would never be functional members of society.

Monty, its pretty hard to put you're head in a book and become "disadvantaged" as you put it, when you never know which member of your family, brother, father, is going to anally rape you so badly that every one of the kids on the road can see the blood that you leak a week later through your clothes while out on the road

K-9 · 27-05-2012 01:11AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sorry, I though Haughey was a me feiner and in it for the money.
I'm shocked that money transferred out of his grasp into the hands of the IRA, assuming you can provide a link to prove it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/haughey/ITstories/story12.htm

It is generally accepted from any books or articles I've read that he was in charge of the fund that paid for the guns that were imported, he did sanction an import of arms but in his trial claimed it was for military intelligence, heck of a consignment for them but there you are.

Haughey had no interest in a United Ireland, he was backing the wrong horse for his political advancement, incidentally his trial was delayed when he fell of his horse and ended up in hospital! A real life metaphor right there!

Happy Monday · 27-05-2012 01:37AM

Fenian Army wrote: »

Which is an inevitably, might take 10, 20, 30 years but the clock is ticking on the orange state

All depends on the UK government.
If they continue to bankroll the North then no dice.
Most Catholics will bite to stay in the UK.
All the polls show this.

If Scotland leaves the union and the English decide to turn the tap off on cash then a United Ireland becones attractive to middle class Catholics.

shootermacg · 27-05-2012 01:37AM

K-9 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/haughey/ITstories/story12.htm

It is generally accepted from any books or articles I've read that he was in charge of the fund that paid for the guns that were imported, he did sanction an import of arms but in his trial claimed it was for military intelligence, heck of a consignment for them but there you are.

Haughey had no interest in a United Ireland, he was backing the wrong horse for his political advancement, incidentally his trial was delayed when he fell of his horse and ended up in hospital! A real life metaphor right there!

He rejected evidence by the Minister for Defence, Jim Gibbons, and Peter Berry that he was fully aware of and approved a plot to import arms. This defence was to be criticised by his co-defendants who had admitted their roles in the attempted import but claimed that it was authorised by the Government.

So the guy who provided the finance for this operation had no knowledge of it?? What strings did he pull to get around 2 eye witnesses? Smacks of the Bertie defence to me!

K-9 · 27-05-2012 01:56AM

shootermacg wrote: »

He rejected evidence by the Minister for Defence, Jim Gibbons, and Peter Berry that he was fully aware of and approved a plot to import arms. This defence was to be criticised by his co-defendants who had admitted their roles in the attempted import but claimed that it was authorised by the Government.

So the guy who provided the finance for this operation had no knowledge of it?? What strings did he pull to get around 2 eye witnesses? Smacks of the Bertie defence to me!

Indeed. When you compare him to Blayney his defence and his politics throughout their careers well............

Haughey thought he saw a way to Taoiseach, he miscalculated and eventually got there, 9 years later. Things like a United Ireland were just tools to be manipulated in his rise to power and when in it. The archetypal Irish Machiavellian politician, the end being Haughey's political career.

shootermacg · 27-05-2012 02:12AM

This to me is what is wrong in Irish politics at the moment. Noone has any conviction and for all the shinner talk, these people lived with the very real possibility of assassination/ imprisonment for years because of their ideals and principals. Whereas what we have in the south is a pack of career politician whipping boys.
At my age I realise that I would rather take a chance than sacrifice all that I hold dear to be comfortable. Oh and I am comfortable currently. I used to be proud to be irish, but between FG, FF and Jedward that pride has taken a hit.

So what if things need to get hard for a bit, can't be any worse than the eighties and we retain some self respect. This don't wake the sleeping giant crap has to end.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-05-2012 02:47AM

shootermacg wrote: »

This to me is what is wrong in Irish politics at the moment. Noone has any conviction and for all the shinner talk, these people lived with the very real possibility of assassination/ imprisonment for years because of their ideals and principals.

Lots of people in the North lived with the real possibility of assassination 'legitimate targets' they were called. Basically anyone who took the Queen's shilling and anyone they gave it to. Except 'legitimate targets' didn't have to worry about imprisonment or the due process of law.

Weren't the IRA the first terrorist organisation to force people to act as suicide bombers by kidnapping their family ?

And this is the sort of thing that SF have never condemned without trying somehow to normalise it by trying to spread the blame to all parties.

It's the same people in charge of SF and in all that time I haven't heard one clear apology that wasn't diluted or diminished.

The point is that even if SF has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the IRA, any condemnations of IRA activity have come across as lip service.

Wibbs · 27-05-2012 08:50AM

shootermacg wrote: »

Dublin mentality, if you don't know what it is, you're living it, just like generations of dubs before you.

+

shootermacg wrote: »

This post is pretty much the Dublin mentality, I don't have to say a word, I can just pick out some of your choice words. "West Brit?"
I have more respect for the brits, than for you.

shootermacg wrote: »

I agree how is this guy moderating a forum when he's blatantly elitist which is IMO worse than racist because it's racism within one's own race.

Can you not see the irony? Probably not. Then we get "racism within one's own race"? Seriously? Quality stuff.

So because someone disagrees with Sinn Fein's economic policies they become a racist? Because someone disagrees with some of the living in the past rhetoric of some they're a racist? How's that work Ted?

mishkalucy wrote:

You wont get a socialist rant from me and most certainly not from the 1800's, but come on............

I'm from one of the toughest areas of Dublin, grew up there in the 70's and 80's and the sh*t that I saw, God nor man should never have allowed.

I am self educated and got out. The difference between me and "them"???

I have a great family

Not everyone was as lucky as me

+1. Even with a great family it's no guarantee. If you grow up surrounded by antisocial/criminal behavior to the degree it's almost normalised it's very easy to slip. We're all products of our environments to a large degree and it's all too easy to say "oh sure they can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get out". Easier said than done. Even so many many people do.

Wibbs · 27-05-2012 08:53AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's the same people in charge of SF and in all that time I haven't heard one clear apology that wasn't diluted or diminished.

The point is that even if SF has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the IRA, any condemnations of IRA activity have come across as lip service.

True, however it's just as easy to become mired in the past from the other angle too. "Look what the Brits/IRA did", delete as personally applicable kinda thing.

Ms.M · 27-05-2012 09:25AM

The dub-mentality. :rolleyes: (Yep, Dubs agree on everything; we should be a mini- state)
The culturally impoverished ... :eek: (Money=Culture of course)
Dublin culshies...

(Me, me, me! Please, me!)

Among many more. You can learn lots of new insults and labels on this thread.

Yay....... !

Back on topic though. Anyone want to flesh out Sinn Féin's economic policy for me? It doesn't add up for me. I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong. Or is the Sinn Féin vote solely a protest vote?

Ash.J.Williams · 27-05-2012 09:35AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Dublin, going back many generations on one side, on the other going back a fair few, then back to Donegal. If I may be so bold, why do you ask?

NORDIE BLOW-IN!!!

(lol)

Show Time · 27-05-2012 09:46AM

A lot of posters on here bricking it at the thought of SF with real power.

Wibbs · 27-05-2012 09:47AM

IMHO For good reason.

Al Capwned · 27-05-2012 09:54AM

Sinn Féin in power??? - exactly the same as FF or FG or Green or PD or any other bloody incarnation.

All the right noises while in opposition about what they'd do in power, about how we'd all be so much better off with them in power.

Then when it does happen, and it most likely will eventually, they just become the same as every other government party - pocket-lining, promise-dodging chancers, who turn out to be just as inept as their predecessors.

mattjack · 27-05-2012 09:58AM

Ms.M wrote: »

The dub-mentality. :rolleyes: (Yep, Dubs agree on everything; we should be a mini- state)
The culturally impoverished ... :eek: (Money=Culture of course)
Dublin culshies... (Me, me, me! Please, me!)

Among many more. You can learn lots of new insults and labels on this thread. Yay....... !

Back on topic though. Anyone want to flesh out Sinn Féin's economic policy for me? It doesn't add up for me. I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong. Or is the Sinn Féin vote solely a protest vote?

You could contact the veteran Mary Lou she could fill you in on SF's economic policy .I wonder does the Dublin mentality encompass her ?

Legend has it she left FF in '98 because of her opposition to FF's economic policy's and strategy or alternatively because she wasn't allowed run in the Local Elections.

Pretty impressive rise to glory,formerly a SF poster girl ,nowadays a throat lozenge ... she helps make things more easy to swallow.

Morning Wibbs ... sleep well ?

Wibbs · 27-05-2012 10:04AM

Ms.M wrote: »

Back on topic though. Anyone want to flesh out Sinn Féin's economic policy for me? It doesn't add up for me. I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong. Or is the Sinn Féin vote solely a protest vote?

K-9 earlier in the thread fleshed out some of it. IN his opinion of course. One I'd agree with though.

K-9 wrote: »

But SF aren't opposed to property taxes, they'd do it through a wealth tax. From looking at their manifesto they promise to row back changes on income tax bands, cut or abolish USC on incomes under 75k, increase minimum wage but not tax it, spend on services, restore child benefit and welfare cuts etc. etc., you name it, all to be financed by basically taxing anybody with wealth or incomes over 100k, more tax on profits etc. It's dreamland stuff that a Leaving Cert Economic student would laugh at. It's a shame because there are some decent ideas in there.

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 10:08AM

mishkalucy wrote: »

You wont get a socialist rant from me and most certainly not from the 1800's, but come on............

I'm from one of the toughest areas of Dublin, grew up there in the 70's and 80's and the sh*t that I saw, God nor man should never have allowed.

I am self educated and got out. The difference between me and "them"???

I have a great family

Not everyone was as lucky as me

We were all aware of the families who for them incest and abuse was the norm.

Can you blame the sins of the father on the children???

Some of the things that went on, there was never a hope these children(who would now all be in their 30's) would never be functional members of society.

Monty, its pretty hard to put you're head in a book and become "disadvantaged" as you put it, when you never know which member of your family, brother, father, is going to anally rape you so badly that every one of the kids on the road can see the blood that you leak a week later through your clothes while out on the road

Are you saying that skanger adults are - by and large - incestuous paedophiles?

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 10:21AM

Show Time wrote: »

A lot of posters on here bricking it at the thought of SF with real power.

This isn't really something to be proud of, is it? I'd welcome them having a stint at the controls, personally - if people think the economy is a mess now, they haven't seen what happened to Argentina a decade ago.

Mallei · 27-05-2012 11:29AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This isn't really something to be proud of, is it? I'd welcome them having a stint at the controls, personally - if people think the economy is a mess now, they haven't seen what happened to Argentina a decade ago.

The Argentina that is now in economic recovery, has the potential for massive economic growth, and what's more actually has the guts to stand up to the English and fight to reclaim land that was stolen from them?

Sounds like everything we should be aspiring to, actually.

Ms.M · 27-05-2012 11:41AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you saying that skanger adults are - by and large - incestuous paedophiles?

:eek:

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 11:45AM

Mallei wrote: »

The Argentina that is now in economic recovery, has the potential for massive economic growth, and what's more actually has the guts to stand up to the English and fight to reclaim land that was stolen from them?

Sounds like everything we should be aspiring to, actually.

You think Argentina is on a path to recovery now? You think the government moves on pensions and more recently YPF were good ideas? What do you think about their manipulation of official statistics?

Personally, unless they change course PDQ, I predict another Argentinian crash within 5 years.

Incidentally, the Malvinas weren't 'stolen from them'.

Mallei · 27-05-2012 11:48AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You think Argentina is on a path to recovery now? You think the government moves on pensions and more recently YPF were good ideas? What do you think about their manipulation of official statistics?

Personally, unless they change course PDQ, I predict another Argentinian crash within 5 years.

Incidentally, the Malvinas weren't 'stolen from them'.

Sorry, what? Of course Las Malvinas were stolen from them. How else did the English get their hands on them? The same way they got the six counties, Gibraltar, Hong Kong... they stole them through armed force.

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 11:53AM

Mallei wrote: »

Sorry, what? Of course Las Malvinas were stolen from them. How else did the English get their hands on them? The same way they got the six counties, Gibraltar, Hong Kong... they stole them through armed force.

You don't have a breeze about Argentina. I advise you to change the subject fast before this gets more embarrassing.

Mallei · 27-05-2012 12:04PM

I know enough. I suspect your argument will revolve around the English taking "unoccupied" islands. No Argentines were displaced when they seized them; they were empty, devoid of people. Not to mention, Argentina as a country didn't even exist when England took the island, so that's another point that counts against them being Argentine. How can they claim something that was taken before they were in existence? Am I on the right track?

But that's all irrelevent. They are Argentine, they are off the coast of Argentina, and the only reason that Argentina didn't exist when the English took those islands is because it was being oppressed by another colonial power in the Spanish (who weren't and aren't much better than the English for seizing bits of the world and not giving them back, by the way).

K-9 · 27-05-2012 12:07PM

Bets on mention of the Belgrano in next post.

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 12:11PM

Mallei wrote: »

I know enough. I suspect your argument will revolve around the English taking "unoccupied" islands. No Argentines were displaced when they seized them; they were empty, devoid of people. Not to mention, Argentina as a country didn't even exist when England took the island, so that's another point that counts against them being Argentine. How can they claim something that was taken before they were in existence? Am I on the right track?

I think you've just sunk your argument there...

Mallei wrote: »

But that's all irrelevent. They are Argentine, they are off the coast of Argentina

Much like Ireland is off the coast of Britain?

Mallei wrote: »

and the only reason that Argentina didn't exist when the English took those islands is because it was being oppressed by another colonial power in the Spanish (who weren't and aren't much better than the English for seizing bits of the world and not giving them back, by the way).

Um...the Argentines at that time WERE the Spanish, just like the 'Americans' who won their independence WERE the British. A branch of the empire - an empire that drove out the Native South Americans - broke off. I'm not sure how that fits your 'oppressed Argentinian' narrative.

So now that it's clear that your understanding of the history of the Malvinas/Falklands is more than a little muddled ('they stole them'!), perhaps you can give your opinion on the points I raised about the current state of Argentina and the current socio-economic path they are on?

Mallei · 27-05-2012 12:13PM

In a thread talking about Sinn Fein? I'm sure you'd love to drag it off-topic, but you can take that elsewhere.

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 12:16PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You don't have a breeze about Argentina. I advise you to change the subject fast before this gets more embarrassing.

Mallei wrote: »

In a thread talking about Sinn Fein? I'm sure you'd love to drag it off-topic, but you can take that elsewhere.

Well played.

Mallei · 27-05-2012 12:17PM

What I mean is, it doesn't belong in this thread. Which forum would be suitable? A discussion on the imperialist repurcussions of England (and to a degree, other colonial powers like Spain) subjugating a sixth of the world would be very interesting.

Sinn Fein appealing to the lowest common denominator

Comments