The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 1:14am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where was it clear?

I'll tell what is dangerously clear to me...the CC is far from impartial. This coincides with a now almost daily attack on SF from his party leader Michael Martin.

Have you watched every single hour of Dail TV live to be able to say this with any confidence?

Or is it just an impression?

markodaly · 05-02-2021 1:14am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'dangerously clear to me' means it is my opinion which is thankfully not controlled by you.

Yet, you cannot back it up with any evidence...... interesting.
What do we call that?

Unfounded or unproven allegations.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 1:15am

Deleted User wrote: »

i felt martins comments other day,to a niece of the woman murdered in gilbraltor showed what they really think of justice in the north

Also gave an insight into mindset,that wanted to commerate the black and tans

Obscene, straight out of the playbook here. Asked to live up to this governments commitments to the Stormont House Agreement he attacks a victim. Maybe Michelle O'Neill should write to the CC?

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 1:16am

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, you cannot back it up with any evidence...... interesting.
What do we call that?

Unfounded or unproven allegations.

See my earlier answer to Brendi.

05-02-2021 1:16am

blanch152 wrote: »

Have you watched every single hour of Dail TV live to be able to say this with any confidence?

Or is it just an impression?

i mean did they critise one party/person in the dail on basis of letter from foster

And was this action appropriate

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 1:20am

blanch152 wrote: »

Have you watched every single hour of Dail TV live to be able to say this with any confidence?

Or is it just an impression?

Like you were in the garden when 'the heavy' came to see that young shinner? Yeh?

Martin protected the CC by not commenting on the letter for the abuser. CC returns the favour kicking up a huff about something that nobody has yet shown is against any law or even protocol.

markodaly · 05-02-2021 1:22am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

See my earlier answer to Brendi.

I saw that, and you offered nothing in regards to any issues of impartiality.

For someone to be accused of being impartial one usually has something to go on, but you offered nothing!

No proof, not even an example, just more spurious allegations.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 1:24am

markodaly wrote: »

I saw that, and you offered nothing in regards to any issues of impartiality.

For someone to be accused of being impartial one usually has something to go on, but you offered nothing!

No proof, not even an example, just more spurious allegations.

I offered an opinion.
That something wrong happened here is YOUR opinion. But you are struggling to show anything wrong was done.

markodaly · 05-02-2021 1:34am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I offered an opinion.
.

An unfounded opinion based on nothing by mere speculation, previously held bias, conjecture and feelings... but yes, it is an opinion.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 1:41am

markodaly wrote: »

An unfounded opinion based on nothing by mere speculation, previously held bias, conjecture and feelings... but yes, it is an opinion.

Any luck on your opinion here mark? That something unconstitutional happened or unlawful? Or are we just dealing with the CC having a wee huff?

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 2:17am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like you were in the garden when 'the heavy' came to see that young shinner? Yeh?

Martin protected the CC by not commenting on the letter for the abuser. CC returns the favour kicking up a huff about something that nobody has yet shown is against any law or even protocol.

There you are again, nothing can be said against a SF member unless it is proven as against the law.

But, you can go around shouting that the CC is biased.

What a joke.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 2:36am

blanch152 wrote: »

There you are again, nothing can be said against a SF member unless it is proven as against the law.

But, you can go around shouting that the CC is biased.

What a joke.

You can say what you want against a Shinner, you just need to be able to go beyond statements like 'sneaked in', 'crony' 'a woman is not fit for a post' 'that somebody is barred from emailing a CC' or why you decided to lie about 'abusive' emails with no backup.

IMO the FF Ceann Comhairle is doing what his party leader is doing. Rather than answer questions he is making random attacks on the opposition...exactly the same thing Enda and Leo did. There is a pattern of behaviour here.

markodaly · 05-02-2021 2:44am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any luck on your opinion here mark? That something unconstitutional happened or unlawful? Or are we just dealing with the CC having a wee huff?

Ah see, I don't make mad stuff up. I never said anything about anything being unlawful or unconstitutional or anything like that.

markodaly · 05-02-2021 2:48am

blanch152 wrote: »

There you are again, nothing can be said against a SF member unless it is proven as against the law.

But, you can go around shouting that the CC is biased.

What a joke.

This is par of the course.

Anything that is alleged against the interests of SF, one must have an airtight case, ready to go to the High Court...
Matlock eat your heart out.

But when it comes to 'Da Gubermnet' or the Ceann Comhairle or their favourite Leo/FG, then making up allegations is 'just airing an opinion'...

No one who engages like that are doing it honestly. We all know that.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 3:30am

markodaly wrote: »

Ah see, I don't make mad stuff up. I never said anything about anything being unlawful or unconstitutional or anything like that.

So what are you saying?

Brendan Bendar · 05-02-2021 7:27am

markodaly wrote: »

This is par of the course.

Anything that is alleged against the interests of SF, one must have an airtight case, ready to go to the High Court...
Matlock eat your heart out.

But when it comes to 'Da Gubermnet' or the Ceann Comhairle or their favourite Leo/FG, then making up allegations is 'just airing an opinion'...

No one who engages like that are doing it honestly. We all know that.

Correct..... even auld Donnacha demanded and got,an apology from Liveline.

They are determined to keep the suit to the front, and the party as airtight as possible.

Poor Stanno could t hold back and nearly lost the extra wedge.;)

McMurphy · 05-02-2021 10:10am

markodaly wrote: »

Ah see, I don't make mad stuff up. I never said anything about anything being unlawful or unconstitutional or anything like that.

Yet you spent days on here insisting the Charleton report "exonerated Frances Fitzgerald for misleading the Dail"

And repeatedly ignore calls to provide the text from the relevant paragraph that exonerated her.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 12:00pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Yet you spent days on here insisting the Charleton report "exonerated Frances Fitzgerald for misleading the Dail"

And repeatedly ignore calls to provide the text from the relevant paragraph that exonerated her.

A classic example of 'making things up'.

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 12:06pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A classic example of 'making things up'.

It is a sign of extreme desperation if you lads are bringing Frances Fitzgerald into the Sinn Fein thread.

We now have several excellent examples of the double standards being applied by Sinn Fein supporters.

McMurphy · 05-02-2021 12:12pm

The absolute, clear cut, no comeback example I can give that slices right through the absolute BS that the poster "doesn't make things up" happened to be something that specifically involved Frances Fitzgerald FFS.

It was a complete and utter fabricated lie, and the best example of hoop talking.

At least blanch had the good sense to accept the lie being peddled about her being exonerated needed to be dropped hence he gave up on it when unable to produce the relevant text "exonerating her".

mark appears to have reached that conclusion now too.

Progress has been made.

Desperation indeed.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 12:12pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a sign of extreme desperation if you lads are bringing Frances Fitzgerald into the Sinn Fein thread.

We now have several excellent examples of the double standards being applied by Sinn Fein supporters.

And you never mentioned SF on non SF threads ever?

As mark seems to have left, can you point out what was 'made up' about anything I have said?

While you are at it, can you also answer the questions about 'sneaked in', 'broken rules', 'why a woman is not suitable/qualified for a post' where 'abuse' was mentioned in relation to the CC.

That'll do for a start.

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 12:17pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you never mentioned SF on non SF threads ever?

As mark seems to have left, can you point out what was 'made up' about anything I have said?

While you are at it, can you also answer the questions about 'sneaked in', 'broken rules', 'why a woman is not suitable/qualified for a post' where 'abuse' was mentioned in relation to the CC.

That'll do for a start.

Francie, I have already told you that I have finished the discussion on those issues.

I got the discussions to the point I wanted, where the cronyism of SF was being defended but the open processes in the South were being criticised. No need for any more discussion, the hypocrisy was in plain view, why would I want to contribute further?

On the CC, the reporting was plain and simple and obvious. Again, exposing the spinnning and twisting was enough.

McMurphy · 05-02-2021 12:22pm

Must be great to be able to "get a discussion to where you want", and then be free to saunter off without having to clarify what the actual fcuk one is talking about.

That's not even "discussion" that's soapboxing and then pissing off imo.

Shouldn't be allowed to happen.

a very cool kid · 05-02-2021 12:26pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

the FF Ceann Comhairle

Does this mean FF have more seats than SF now and are in government democratically?

Bit of a change of pace there !

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 12:29pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Francie, I have already told you that I have finished the discussion on those issues.

I got the discussions to the point I wanted, where the cronyism of SF was being defended but the open processes in the South were being criticised. No need for any more discussion, the hypocrisy was in plain view, why would I want to contribute further?

On the CC, the reporting was plain and simple and obvious. Again, exposing the spinnning and twisting was enough.

OR: you ran away from the discussion because you couldn't explain that anything wrong was done.

You may think of yourself as some heroic lawyer in your own blockbuster but it is a charade. You built these things on lies and 'made up' representations of what happened.

We don't have any indication that the official was 'abusive' nor doe we have any law or protocol that was broken.
What we do have is a CC having a bit of a huff about something a party - his boss routinely has a go at, in order to deflect from his own and his party's shortcomings - did.

And that is about the height of it.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 12:30pm

a very cool kid wrote: »

Does this mean FF have more seats than SF now and are in government democratically?

Bit of a change of pace there !

What?

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 12:31pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Must be great to be able to "get a discussion to where you want", and then be free to saunter off without having to clarify what the actual fcuk one is talking about.

That's not even "discussion" that's soapboxing and then pissing off imo.

Shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Operating on the failed FG strategy of the last election...throw plenty of dirt and walk away.

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 12:32pm

a very cool kid wrote: »

Does this mean FF have more seats than SF now and are in government democratically?

Bit of a change of pace there !

Ah now, don't expect consistency of argument.

a very cool kid · 05-02-2021 12:39pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

After the election every SF person said that FF and SF had the same seats because the CC doesn't count. Seemingly in this case it does...

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 12:41pm

a very cool kid wrote: »

After the election every SF person said that FF and SF had the same seats because the CC doesn't count. Seemingly in this case it does...

SF won the same amount of seats in the election as FF. Can you disprove this statement, knock yourself out on that.

Where did I say anywhere in this discussion that the CC gave FF more seats? Knock yourself out on that one as well.

McMurphy · 05-02-2021 12:42pm

a very cool kid wrote: »

After the election every SF person said that FF and SF had the same seats because the CC doesn't count. Seemingly in this case it does...

No.... Let me clarify.

FF didn't win more seats than SF, because the Ceann Comhairles seat wasn't being contested.

Was discussed on multiple threads on here at the time, and wasn't a discussion that was difficult to follow or understand, but not to everyone apparently.

05-02-2021 12:43pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Francie, I have already told you that I have finished the discussion on those issues

Your free to ignore it,and let others continue it

Demanding it be shut down as you dont like,where topic yous brought in,is going,is childish in extreme

McMurphy · 05-02-2021 12:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Your free to ignore it,and let others continue it

Demanding it be shut down as you dont like,where topic yous brought in,is going,is childish in extreme

It's the equivalent of going home in a huff with the ball under your arm because it's your ball, and the opposing team scored a goal.

atticu · 05-02-2021 1:02pm

McMurphy wrote: »

It's the equivalent of going home in a huff with the ball under your arm because it's your ball, and the opposing team scored a goal.

Well, in fairness if it is your ball, you can do what you want with it.

If the opposing team don’t have their own ball, tough luck.
They may have scored a goal, they may even have won the game, but if they don’t have a ball...

McMurphy · 05-02-2021 1:08pm

atticu wrote: »

Well, in fairness if it is your ball, you can do what you want with it.

If the opposing team don’t have their own ball, tough luck.
They may have scored a goal, they may even have won the game, but if they don’t have a ball...

Going home with the ball is an idiom

take (one's) ball and go home

To be so petulant in dealing with adversity, loss, or rejection that one quits or leaves abruptly, often disrupting other participants in the process. The image is of a child who leaves with the ball, thus preventing others from continuing to play the game.
I didn't lose, you guys are playing wrong! That's it, I'm taking my ball and going home!
I've heard that this new artist is a little temperamental, so, everyone, please be on your best behavior so he doesn't take his ball and go home.

One would expect others to understand that, and to not take it literally.

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 1:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Your free to ignore it,and let others continue it

Demanding it be shut down as you dont like,where topic yous brought in,is going,is childish in extreme

I am not demanding it be shut down - Francie and yourself can keep exposing the hypocrisy of the argument even further.

In this case, Francie was demanding that I answer specific spurious questions that he was asking, so the one "demanding" was not me. Off you go and tell us again how Sinn Fein cronyism is a good thing.

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 1:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

its not even that particularly difficult to forsee,where that conversation would go like

Throw in some random made-up sh1t and cry foul,when truth deosnt fit the fantasy

Chances are,that email to the ceann comhairle is available under FOI,the fact the indo didnt quote from it,should have told enough

FOI?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/national_government/standards_and_accountability/freedom_of_information.html#:~:text=Under%20the%20Act%2C%20the%20FOI,on%20foi.gov.ie.

"Under the Act, the FOI body must acknowledge a request for records within 2 weeks and, in most cases, respond to it within 4 weeks. If a third party is involved, there may be another 3 weeks before you receive a response."

Explain to me clearly how an email sent a few days ago is available under FOI today?

Ignorance of basic governmental functions is rampant across social media.

05-02-2021 1:16pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Off you go and tell us again how Sinn Fein cronyism is a good thing.

Not one single poster has said this....why are you making stuff up?

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 1:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

we got next day reply from FOI last year for assistance with a friends blog and the material within 5 working days

Have you ever sent an FOI request?

I answered plenty in my time.

I can tell you that this one would not be answered until the very last day unless the CC wanted it out there.

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 1:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Not one single poster has said this....why are you making stuff up?

Oh great, you agree that the appointment of Liadh without any transparency and without any competition was a bad thing. Great, we are there now, through the rabbit hole.

05-02-2021 1:31pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh great, you agree that the appointment of Liadh without any transparency and without any competition was a bad thing

And again noone said this,just that your virtue signalling about this was shallow and conceited given yous support of woulfe and feeney appointments....i have no problem saying stormont is a failure,(IE no appointments are necessary) and should be wound up to push ahead with a unity referendum

. Great, we are there now, through the rabbit hole.

Down the rabbit hole,through the looking glass.....if your going to attempt to be condensending/dismissive,do it right

atticu · 05-02-2021 1:49pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Going home with the ball is an idiom

One would expect others to understand that, and to not take it literally.

After I explained it, and you explained it, there are still poster insisting that Blanch brings the ball back because they want to keep playing.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 1:53pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh great, you agree that the appointment of Liadh without any transparency and without any competition was a bad thing. Great, we are there now, through the rabbit hole.

Where was this 'sneaked in'? What rules were broken? Why is this woman not qualified for the post? What was not transparent?

Keep running from backing up what you claim.

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 3:02pm

atticu wrote: »

After I explained it, and you explained it, there are still poster insisting that Blanch brings the ball back because they want to keep playing.

It is not about bringing the ball back, it was never taken away, they can keep playing with themselves.

The ball is there for them to play with. They have moved the ball on to a pitch full of their own sh!t. Rather than joining in, they don't like that I am sitting outside pointing out where they are.

blanch152 · 05-02-2021 3:04pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where was this 'sneaked in'? What rules were broken? Why is this woman not qualified for the post? What was not transparent?

Keep running from backing up what you claim.

Irrelevant Francie.

Liadh was a crony appointment by Sinn Fein without any competition, without any transparent process, without any democratic accountability.

Those are the facts, my opinion is that appointment is wrong, your opinion is that there is nothing wrong.

Leave it there for all to see.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 3:15pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Irrelevant Francie.

Liadh was a crony appointment by Sinn Fein without any competition, without any transparent process, without any democratic accountability.

Those are the facts, my opinion is that appointment is wrong, your opinion is that there is nothing wrong.

Leave it there for all to see.

Liadh was appointed under the aegis of the legislation you were gloating about.

Classic...and the realisation of that is the reason you scarpered from any accountability for the lies you told about it.

FrancieBrady · 05-02-2021 4:20pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How is asking what rules were broken irrelevant to the discussion....it would seem most pertinent surely?

Blanch's sole purpose in dying on this hill was to try and vindicate FG cronyism . He made a plaintive post appealing to us to agree.

Didn't go very well.

markodaly · 06-02-2021 12:18am

McMurphy wrote: »

Yet you spent days on here insisting the Charleton report "exonerated Frances Fitzgerald for misleading the Dail"

And repeatedly ignore calls to provide the text from the relevant paragraph that exonerated her.

Fake News, the report did exonerate, the only people who refuse to acknowledge that are the people who refuse to see it.

markodaly · 06-02-2021 12:20am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where was this 'sneaked in'? What rules were broken? Why is this woman not qualified for the post? What was not transparent?

Keep running from backing up what you claim.

Bookmarked!

FrancieBrady · 06-02-2021 12:23am

markodaly wrote: »

Fake News, the report did exonerate, the only people who refuse to acknowledge that are the people who refuse to see it.

WHERE did it exonerate her for misleading her boss and consequently the Dáil, the reason she had to resign?
Chapter and verse or you are lying and I will ask a mod to adjudicate on this as it is important. There is no excuse for repeatedly lying about this, if it is in the report, show where.

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

Comments