Numbers up Gerry

michael999999 wrote: »

Micheal martins political career doesn't seem to have suffered, even though he was right hand man to fianna fails beloved leader ahern.

A party that have bankrupt a country, caused mass emigration and countless suicides. And is now leader of the party up to there necks in involvement in the fraud that the banks pulled on the country.

But ya, I guess only Gerry has a history!

Don't think Micheal Martin was ever involved in the IRA. ?????
Indeed not really sure what Fianna Fail has to do with this issue, though no argument over what a financial mess, and social mess they left Ireland in.

Like most, no wish to see Fianna Failed rise from the ashes, but with Adams at the helm SF stand no realistic chance of being the alternative Party .
At this stage he is a liability , not an asset, and the reason SF have no credibility for the undecided voter

Gerry was hardly carrying coffins at IRA funerals, representing Linfield Supporters Club!
The suspicion remains that Gerry has blood on his hands. No smoke without fire!!!
If he was not a member why has he not sued the various media organisations for defamation???
There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.

No doubt the suspicion will always remain....................

Crooked Jack wrote: »

yes, he could. Troubles based convictions can still see you jailed for two years.
If he was indeed in the IRA he would be an idiot to admit it now.
His supporters dont care if he was or wasnt and those who are calling for him to admit (and by admit they mean say what we want to hear) his past arent going to change their opinion of him one iota if he does. It's lose/lose.
As an astute political strategist I'd be worried if he did admit it

Are his supporters that brainwashed? Are they unable to think for themselves?

Sounds a bit like a Dictatorship? What happens if one of his followers diagree?

Will they disappear too?

Yes it may be a case of lose/lose:)

Spring Onion wrote: »

Could Adams be jailed today if he admitted IRA membership? I doubt it.

Whether he could or not, are you aware of how the 'suspicion' is being used against him and his party? Can you imagine what our child leader Enda would do if he had that info to spit across the Dail??

delthedriver wrote: »

If he was not a member why has he not sued the various media organisations for defamation???

I think the answer to that is simple in the extreme. If you have some common charity of thought.
Think for a minute what Adams has achieved within his own organisation, he had to sell the deal to the IRA, at great personal and political risk. He had to make sure that when he signed on the dotted line and went down the path of peace and democratic politics that he had a lot of extreme and differing opinions onside. Anybody who reads about the last days of the IRA knows what was rumoured to be planned by some factions within it(a bloody and intensified campaign) knows exactly what was achieved here.

If he went to court in a defamation case he would have to start naming names and hauling other members into court and that would instantly fracture what is a very fragile internal organisation. SF has a history of splitting, at this time, I for one do not want the main organisation splitting.
The above may also be a reason why he cannot now admit to being a member at sometime or other.

*As I am neither a member or a voter for SF please don't see the above as a threat, it is just my opinion, looking at the cold facts.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Whether he could or not, are you aware of how the 'suspicion' is being used against him and his party? Can you imagine what our child leader Enda would do if he had that info to spit across the Dail??



I think the answer to that is simple in the extreme. If you have some common charity of thought.
Think for a minute what Adams has achieved within his own organisation, he had to sell the deal to the IRA, at great personal and political risk. He had to make sure that when he signed on the dotted line and went down the path of peace and democratic politics that he had a lot of extreme and differing opinions onside. Anybody who reads about the last days of the IRA knows what was rumoured to be planned by some factions within it(a bloody and intensified campaign) knows exactly what was achieved here.

If he went to court in a defamation case he would have to start naming names and hauling other members into court and that would instantly fracture what is a very fragile internal organisation. SF has a history of splitting, at this time, I for one do not want the main organisation splitting.
The above may also be a reason why he cannot now admit to being a member at sometime or other.

*As I am neither a member or a voter for SF please don't see the above as a threat, it is just my opinion, looking at the cold facts.

Sure, I accept your points as being objective.
Yes Adams did well to get the various factions on side in order to get the Peace process through.
Nonetheless his credibility issues have remained ,with Adams at the helm I think there will be an inevitable split if SF are serious about becoming an alternative party.
Inevitably SF will need to be rebranded in order to offload the baggage of the past and present their policies and aspirations on the economy, health education.
Their present party name and branding still sadly has the hallmarks of a very bitter and difficult background.
Having said that, I also believe that all the major Parties, need rebranding to represent their ideals and policies for Ireland now and in the future.
Hanging onto old names is like living in the past, it is time to live in the Now! It is the only way to plan for the future.:)

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What are you waffling about? Adams' supporters wouldnt care if he was or wasnt in the IRA because they wouldnt see being in the IRA as a fundamentally bad thing.
How on earth did you come to the above conclusions? How is anyone meant to take people like you seriously when all you can come out with fantasy and innuendo?
The irony is that these are the same people accusing republicans of being brainwashed.

I am trying to be objective here.

Adams has a credibility issue, until he comes clean or resigns SF have no chance of attracting the additional voters needed for them to become serious , credible, political opponents.

Of course Adams has lots of hardcore , brainwashed people like yourself willing to die for his cause, just like the followers of other dictators, Stalin, Hitler............:D

fishy fishy wrote: »

hilarious - all about the re-branding then....ahhhhh why didn't they think of that before.

Hilarious indeed, so we haven't seen any rebranding yet?

Sinn Fein will always be associated with its IRA links, how can they be take seriously.

It is time for a name change and a change of leader, otherwise the undecided voter , will either not vote or swing back to the traditional parties.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why? if SF are always going to be associated with the IRA (and why wouldn't they, they never made any secret of the association, remember 'the armalite in one hand, the ballot box in the other) why would a change of leadership change that?
Are you suggesting here that they hoodwink the voter and pretend to be something other than they are? That is just mad, considering how the current establishment parties are criticised for attempting to distance themselves from what happened to the economic health of the country.

Think it is time for lunch!!!!!:)

delthedriver wrote: »

Think it is time for lunch!!!!!:)

Humble pie is on special!

K-9 wrote: »

That's funny. I remember McGuinness leading the polls all right, then he got questioned about his past history in the IRA and he fell back in the polls, finishing a distant 3rd.

That's a bit simplistic imo. All you can say about that campaign is that the voter went for the safest candidate.
SF where pivotal to the final outcome though and I am sure they are very happy with how they did, without them we would have had somebody in the Aras who was really playing fast and lose with his past as a FF henchman.
Job well done imo.

awec wrote: »

SF prevent individual with questionable history becoming president. That's like political satire.

You forgot this bit 'actual and proven'..questionable history'