Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Options
1…204205207209210…334

Comments

  • Options
    #6182
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    costacorta wrote: »
    Oh not a SF supporter and on here 24/7 supporting them . Then running to the mods reporting people’s post . You would have been a great informer if you were involved with the RA . Nothing but a little snitch you big girls blouse .. Now report that as I’m outta here anyway . Mc Murphy the Snitch should be your name ��

    1, you need to reread my post, I said I am not a member of any political party, keeping that in mind - how in under jaysis could I have a "leader"?

    2, I never reported your post, either someone else did, or you got rightfully banned for your piss poor taste post.

    3, following a poster to a different thread personalising the debate isn't a good look.

    I'll leave it there.


  • Options
    #6183
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,974 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Solutionking wrote: »
    Mary Lou had no issues covering up for Gerry Adams over his brother, she didn't think he needed to leave SF after that. Why would anyone think she would call for anyone resignation?
    Unless they walked in a actually killed someone in government building in front of her and the entire population, live on TV, then you might see her call for a resignation.

    eh...the 3 or was it 4 who were remiss in repaying the money to the northern exchequer? While FF FG and the greens were circling the wagons to ignore wrongdoing.


  • Options
    #6184
    Solutionking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭Solutionking


    Bowie wrote: »
    Do you write in a vacuum?

    They resigned. She didn't fire them.
    Plus how long did Mary Lou know they had stole the money without doing anything? Hardly a glowing recommendation when someone broke the law for 6 months, nothing was said till they got found out by external body and then she accepts the resignation.
    Still waiting for Mary Lou to say legal proceedings should be brought against these people for stealing money.


  • Options
    #6185
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,974 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Solutionking wrote: »
    They resigned. She didn't fire them.
    Plus how long did Mary Lou know they had stole the money without doing anything? Hardly a glowing recommendation when someone broke the law for 6 months, nothing was said till they got found out by external body and then she accepts the resignation.
    Still waiting for Mary Lou to say legal proceedings should be brought against these people for stealing money.

    I think you answered your own query there.

    If there is a law broken there then the authorities will prosecute whether ML says anything or not.


  • Options
    #6186
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Solutionking wrote: »
    They resigned. She didn't fire them.
    Plus how long did Mary Lou know they had stole the money without doing anything? Hardly a glowing recommendation when someone broke the law for 6 months, nothing was said till they got found out by external body and then she accepts the resignation.
    Still waiting for Mary Lou to say legal proceedings should be brought against these people for stealing money.

    You listed what would be required, in your mind, for her to call for a resignation.

    Why on earth would she be looking for legal proceedings? Nobody stole anything. You are coming across as foolish with this line.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6187
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,079 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Where are the strong rumours coming from Brendi? Catherine Murphy just wants an apology to the committee and thinks anything else is a matter for SF. Labour PAC members have no issue nor does Mark McSharry.

    MacSharry has no issues with anything which does not involve largesse for himself, Mr F.

    If Micheál had any cahunas, he’d put it to O’Callaghan and MacSharry to either join the party of get the fohhherke out.

    These tools only think of themselves.


  • Options
    #6188
    micosoft
    Registered Users Posts: 2,359 ✭✭✭micosoft


    smurgen wrote: »
    Bigger than the DUP?

    DUP are the single biggest thing driving a united Ireland forward right now. And Brexit support show why - what unionist could possibly think they will be safe in a United Kingdom if Tories and DUP are in charge?


  • Options
    #6189
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,974 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    MacSharry has no issues with anything which does not involve largesse for himself, Mr F.

    If Micheál had any cahunas, he’d put it to O’Callaghan and MacSharry to either join the party of get the fohhherke out.

    These tools only think of themselves.

    So where are the 'strong rumours' coming from Brendi?


  • Options
    #6190
    Solutionking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭Solutionking


    Bowie wrote: »
    Do you write in a vacuum?
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    eh...the 3 or was it 4 who were remiss in repaying the money to the northern exchequer? While FF FG and the greens were circling the wagons to ignore wrongdoing.

    Interesting how neither of you denied the comment about Mary Lou covering up for Gerry and Liam Adams.


  • Options
    #6191
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,974 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Solutionking wrote: »
    Interesting how neither of you denied the comment about Mary Lou covering up for Gerry and Liam Adams.

    I was going to ask you to back that up, but even as recently as yesterday, when challenged you refuse to back up what you claim.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6192
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,079 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So where are the 'strong rumours' coming from Brendi?

    Same place as the Shinners commands come from, dude

    The black hole in space.

    Rumours ,pal, you do know what they are I’m sure.

    Surely you don’t want folk to back up rumours, just like you don’t back up Jerry’s IRA membership career.


    Jeeez man..... 2020 like.


  • Options
    #6193
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Solutionking wrote: »
    Interesting how neither of you denied the comment about Mary Lou covering up for Gerry and Liam Adams.

    I didn't refute Blanch's claim on Paul Quinn either. If we went about addressing all the guff designed to deflect and divert we'd be here all day.
    Don't speak for SF, just point out hypocrisy and spin used to make FF/FG look good. If youse posted on PBP in the same manner I'd be in that too ;)

    Interesting how you ignored my response completely...not really I suppose.


  • Options
    #6194
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,974 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    Same place as the Shinners commands come from, dude

    The black hole in space.

    Rumours ,pal, you do know what they are I’m sure.

    Surely you don’t want folk to back up rumours, just like you don’t back up Jerry’s IRA membership career.


    Jeeez man..... 2020 like.

    So, akin to a feeling in your waters. Get your drift dude! ;)


  • Options
    #6195
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,079 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So, akin to a feeling in your waters. Get your drift dude! ;)

    Have to laugh Francie, given the Shinners capped the party tighter than a bulls hoop going up a hill for the last seven weeks, you expect me to disclose origins of rumours to get rid of Stanley.

    You could’nt make it up.

    Stanley couldn’t resist and immediately The Square emptied the bench to try to stem the leak ;)

    Heh heh.... lot of hard necks around here I have to opine.


    Stanley has a lot of turbulence coming up, but while he may not be outed due to Mary Lou’s lack of political sense, rest assured he is on thin ice.

    Now F, unlike yourself I don’t have hours of 7/24/365 to batter the ‘cause’ so forgive me for taking leave .

    Let the ‘subs’ go back to the bench. :D


  • Options
    #6196
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,974 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    Have to laugh Francie, given the Shinners capped the party tighter than a bulls hoop going up a hill for the last seven weeks, you expect me to disclose origins of rumours to get rid of Stanley.

    You could’nt make it up.

    Stanley couldn’t resist and immediately The Square emptied the bench to try to stem the leak ;)

    Heh heh.... lot of hard necks around here I have to opine.


    Stanley has a lot of turbulence coming up, but while he may not be outed due to Mary Lou’s lack of political sense, rest assured he is on thin ice.

    Now F, unlike yourself I don’t have hours of 7/24/365 to batter the ‘cause’ so forgive me for taking leave .

    Let the ‘subs’ go back to the bench. :D

    You lost me so profoundly after the 'capped' bit Brendi, I didn't bother with the rest.

    I get your drift on the rumours....no worries lad.


  • Options
    #6197
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,961 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Nobotty wrote: »
    I dont think Stanley's tweet is a resigning matter
    All core SF members and politicians hold the same view as him
    Its just not pc to to put it out there in a tweet
    For him and say Mary lou to broadcast these views outside of the core circle would be like an Iman shouting death to America on 5th avenue
    Stupid basically
    All that happened with Stanley is he forgot himself, that's all

    This is hilarious. Not supporting terrorism is now considered being PC. Seriously. WTF!!


  • Options
    #6198
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,974 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    This is hilarious. Not supporting terrorism is now considered being PC. Seriously. WTF!!

    He was supporting two acts of war against terrorists - IRA position
    Or was it one act of war and one act of terrorism - FG FF Partitionist position.
    Or was it two acts of terrorism - British/Unionist position.


  • Options
    #6199
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,225 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Bowie wrote: »
    If we went about addressing all the guff designed to deflect and divert we'd be here all day.

    Find myself agreeing with you again, this could become a habit. Just look at all of the mentions of Leo in this thread on Sinn Fein.


  • Options
    #6200
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,617 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    This is hilarious. Not supporting terrorism is now considered being PC. Seriously. WTF!!

    This is what grates me with some people.

    If you show any kind of care or concern or humanity to the "other side," some so called nationalists and Irish people latch onto it and accuse you of excusing the "other" side.

    It has to be some kind of insecurity. Some Irish people who don't ever want to be seen to be maybe on friendly and warm terms with Britain, or don't ever want to be seen to maybe praise or say any nice things about Brits or loyalists or Unionists

    I am very comfortable in my own skin to be a proud Irishman who has always supported the struggle of my fellow Irishmen up North.

    But times change, we grow, mature, adapt, and see things differently and view things differently, and should become more tolerant and considerate and understanding

    This is not the 1980s when there was real hell up North..real hate shown towards Irish people from Unionists and loyalists...

    I am not saying hate does not still exist, but I'd like to think that both sides have lessened it somewhat....

    Not everyone in SF is a die hard anti Brit either...

    Seems here there are a fair few....

    Some of the defenders here want to jump down your throat at the slightest feeling that they get that maybe you aren't anti Britain enough...


  • Options
    #6201
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1333829962294579201?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6202
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    walshb wrote: »
    This is what grates me with some people.

    If you show any kind of care or concern or humanity to the "other side," some so called nationalists and Irish people latch onto it and accuse you of excusing the "other" side.

    It has to be some kind of insecurity. Some Irish people who don't ever want to be seen to be maybe on friendly and warm terms with Britain, or don't ever want to be seen to maybe praise or say any nice things about Brits or loyalists or Unionists

    I am very comfortable in my own skin to be a proud Irishman who has always supported the struggle of my fellow Irishmen up North.

    But times change, we grow, mature, adapt, and see things differently and view things differently, and should become more tolerant and considerate and understanding

    This is not the 1980s when there was real hell up North..real hate shown towards Irish people from Unionists and loyalists...

    I am not saying hate does not still exist, but I'd like to think that both sides have lessened it somewhat....

    Not everyone in SF is a die hard anti Brit either...

    Seems here there are a fair few....

    Some of the defenders here want to jump down your throat at the slightest feeling that they get that maybe you aren't anti Britain enough...

    I think it's the hypocrisy people point out. The IRA were terrible in great detail followed by 'not defending the BA' or the like doesn't really cover the 'both sides' of it.
    The tweet wasn't a call to arms. I just think FF/FG are desperate to gain some ground.


  • Options
    #6203
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,281 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    walshb wrote: »
    This is what grates me with some people.

    If you show any kind of care or concern or humanity to the "other side," some so called nationalists and Irish people latch onto it and accuse you of excusing the "other" side.

    It has to be some kind of insecurity. Some Irish people who don't ever want to be seen to be maybe on friendly and warm terms with Britain, or don't ever want to be seen to maybe praise or say any nice things about Brits or loyalists or Unionists

    I am very comfortable in my own skin to be a proud Irishman who has always supported the struggle of my fellow Irishmen up North.

    But times change, we grow, mature, adapt, and see things differently and view things differently, and should become more tolerant and considerate and understanding

    This is not the 1980s when there was real hell up North..real hate shown towards Irish people from Unionists and loyalists...

    I am not saying hate does not still exist, but I'd like to think that both sides have lessened it somewhat....

    Not everyone in SF is a die hard anti Brit either...

    Seems here there are a fair few....

    Some of the defenders here want to jump down your throat at the slightest feeling that they get that maybe you aren't anti Britain enough...

    Not anti Brit but I've nothing but admiration for the men who fought the Crown forces at Kilmichael and Narrow water and celebrate them.

    Like many of us here I've met and known people who fought in the North, they weren't anti Brit, they were anti British occupation.

    I don't react online or call for resignations etc when people to on about Poppy day.


  • Options
    #6204
    Solutionking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭Solutionking


    Bowie wrote: »
    I think it's the hypocrisy people point out. The IRA were terrible in great detail followed by 'not defending the BA' or the like doesn't really cover the 'both sides' of it.
    The tweet wasn't a call to arms. I just think FF/FG are desperate to gain some ground.


    Not everything is about FF and FG you do realise that? just because people said the tweet wasn't on can't be brushed away by saying it is only because of political parties
    As I posted before, very very few in Rep and nearly nobody in the North at the end supported the PIRA. The glorification of the PIRA by SF and others disgusts a lot of people.


  • Options
    #6205
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,225 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    He was supporting two acts of war against terrorists - IRA position
    Or was it one act of war and one act of terrorism - FG FF Partitionist position.
    Or was it two acts of terrorism - British/Unionist position.

    There is my position.

    Acts of terrorism, acts of war, acts of violence, all have to be viewed through the lens of the social norms of the time.

    In 1916, homosexuality was a crime, women were considered less equal and couldn't vote, workhouses were the norm, social welfare was non-existent, people believed in the war to end wars, religion had a grip on society. No television, no radio, no mass ownership of cars, misery and degradation were part of everyday life for the masses. It was a different world, a bigger world where people knew little outside their main hometown.

    I remember 1979, it was a very different place. The horrors of the Second World War were widely known and understood. What nuclear bombs could do was now clear. Ireland was a leader in peace, but we had a shameful secret. There were people claiming Irishness who rejected peace in our name and that will never be forgotten.

    It is possible therefore to see 1916 and what followed during the half-decade after through the prism of the times and to understand it, for some, they can celebrate it, others can commemorate it as the steps that started the route to the country we are today, steps that we would not contemplate now, but were seen as appropriate through the lens of the time (Aside: I often wonder was the rejection of their violent past the trigger for the Irish commitment to nuclear disarmament - it resonates with me).

    You can't apply any of that to Warrenpoint or Mountbatten in 1979. Horrific unforgiveable acts. We had peaceful revolutions and change in the 1960s and 1970s, there was no need for violence, it only set back Northern Ireland by decades.


  • Options
    #6206
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Solutionking wrote: »
    Not everything is about FF and FG you do realise that? just because people said the tweet wasn't on can't be brushed away by saying it is only because of political parties
    As I posted before, very very few in Rep and nearly nobody in the North at the end supported the PIRA. The glorification of the PIRA by SF and others disgusts a lot of people.

    Yes. My point, lost on you or ignored as per, is that the hype about the tweet is partially driven by FF/FG.
    Again, sez you.
    You missed the point repeatedly. It's not about glorification, it's about recognising that some people do appreciate and would have supported them.
    The shock and awe is not believable.


  • Options
    #6207
    Solutionking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭Solutionking


    Bowie wrote: »
    Yes. My point, lost on you or ignored as per, is that the hype about the tweet is partially driven by FF/FG.
    Again, sez you.
    You missed the point repeatedly. It's not about glorification, it's about recognising that some people do appreciate and would have supported them.


    Just because "some" people do appreciate it doesn't mean a TD should be glorifying it. I am sure some people still support the Nazi do you think a TD should be sending out tweets about it?

    Look at the racism around here, do you think TD's should be allowed tweet tell XYZ they should leave Ireland?

    According to you because "some" people support it then the TD should do it

    Do you agree that is not a great idea?

    You don't seem to realise the hatred for the PIRA. They sat and planned bombings knowing innocent people would die. They knew for the Shankill bombing that the target was not in the building, it was a chip and it had zero political gain. It was just a bomb to kill men, women and children. Yet you make excuses for them.


  • Options
    #6208
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,225 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Bowie wrote: »
    Yes. My point, lost on you or ignored as per, is that the hype about the tweet is partially driven by FF/FG.
    Again, sez you.
    You missed the point repeatedly. It's not about glorification, it's about recognising that some people do appreciate and would have supported them.
    The shock and awe is not believable.

    Catherine Murphy led the charge on this so you are making things up.

    It is about glorification, that is how most people see it.


  • Options
    #6209
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There is my position.

    Acts of terrorism, acts of war, acts of violence, all have to be viewed through the lens of the social norms of the time.

    In 1916, homosexuality was a crime, women were considered less equal and couldn't vote, workhouses were the norm, social welfare was non-existent, people believed in the war to end wars, religion had a grip on society. No television, no radio, no mass ownership of cars, misery and degradation were part of everyday life for the masses. It was a different world, a bigger world where people knew little outside their main hometown.

    I remember 1979, it was a very different place. The horrors of the Second World War were widely known and understood. What nuclear bombs could do was now clear. Ireland was a leader in peace, but we had a shameful secret. There were people claiming Irishness who rejected peace in our name and that will never be forgotten.

    It is possible therefore to see 1916 and what followed during the half-decade after through the prism of the times and to understand it, for some, they can celebrate it, others can commemorate it as the steps that started the route to the country we are today, steps that we would not contemplate now, but were seen as appropriate through the lens of the time (Aside: I often wonder was the rejection of their violent past the trigger for the Irish commitment to nuclear disarmament - it resonates with me).

    You can't apply any of that to Warrenpoint or Mountbatten in 1979. Horrific unforgiveable acts. We had peaceful revolutions and change in the 1960s and 1970s, there was no need for violence, it only set back Northern Ireland by decades.

    Who sets the 'norms of the time'? Using your Nazi analogy, the norms of pre war Germany were not acceptable. What about the norms of occupied east germany? The norms of shooting unarmed civilians dead by the 'legitimate' authorities in N.I.? Generations of women treated worse than dirt by the state and the church, okay, because sure it was the 'norm'? The 'norm' isn't always acceptable to everyone.
    People are more complex than simply fitting in with your ideology or not.

    Warrenpoint was occupying soldiers killed in a military action IMO. Don't celebrate the death of any person. Soldiers sign up to kill and often be killed. It's a horrible fact. Just because you don't like or maybe understand doesn't mean you get to decide what's 'norms' for everybody.


  • Options
    #6210
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Catherine Murphy led the charge on this so you are making things up.

    It is about glorification, that is how most people see it.

    She didn't her hole. She was looking for him to comment on it. MM was aghast god bless him and the likes of yourselves are up in arms days. Give over.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6211
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,225 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Bowie wrote: »
    Who sets the 'norms of the time'? Using your Nazi analogy, the norms of pre war Germany were not acceptable. What about the norms of occupied east germany? The norms of shooting unarmed civilians dead by the 'legitimate' authorities in N.I.? Generations of women treated worse than dirt by the state and the church, okay, because sure it was the 'norm'?
    People are more complex than simply fitting in with your ideology or not.

    Warrenpoint was occupying soldiers killed in a military action IMO. Don't celebrate the death of any person. Soldiers sign up to kill and often be killed. It's a horrible fact. Just because you don't like or maybe understand doesn't mean you get to decide what's 'norms' for everybody.

    I never said any of it was ok, I said that people could legitimately view the two as different given the passage of time. If you read carefully, I don't give a definitive view of my own on 1916 or 1921. I only say that people are entitled to view the exact same incident at two different points in history in the context of wider society at the time. That goes to the heart of the fallacy of the tweet.

    Warrenpoint was nothing of the kind. The GFA confirms that the wish of the majority of the population North and South is to allow British rule to continue. Once again you deny the legitimacy of democracy.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement