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

Gerry Adams for President

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No it's not, and it's not "simple as". It's a phrase used to highlight the partition of the country. I often use the term "26 counties", but I vote in all our elections. How could SF endorse the Good Friday Agreement if they didn't accept that the partition of the country was a reality (not changing the aspiration for unification)?

    The reality is, they couldn't. So your argument is dead in the water.
    You ignore my point about SF engaging in the British political system. Remember Danny Morrison's speech about "the armalite in one hand and ballot box in the other"? That was an open statement that SF would actively engage in the political mechanisms of the state while simultaneously trying to undermine it. Not only is is not a reality that they couldn't engage in cynical politics. But they could and did and even boasted in advance via Morrison's speech that they were going to.


    You also ignored my point about Ferris not condemning the murder of Jerry McCabe. The reason she doesn't (as again, I suspect you well know) is because in the eyes of SF he was not a bona fida defender of the state because he was not appointed by the "legitimate" government of Ireland, that being the army council of the IRA.


  • Options
    #63
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Where is Mary McAleese from Liam?

    What profession did she have before running dlofnep ?
    dlofnep wrote: »
    He's not against the state's existence, he is against the partition of Ireland and as a consequence of that fact - would like to see north and south of the country unified, desolving both states (As do the majority of the people). The fact that 4 TD's from Sinn Féin sit in An Dáil proves it.

    He's not against it, but would like to see it dissoved ?

    And you've an interesting view of the word "majority", if you think "the majority of the people" is "proven" via "4 TD's from Sinn Fein".

    Sorry, dlofnep; I know we have fundamental differences but I can usually read your posts and see where you're coming from, but neither for the above add up.


  • Options
    #64
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    lugha wrote: »
    You ignore my point about SF engaging in the British political system. Remember Danny Morrison's speech about "the armalite in one hand and ballot box in the other"? That was an open statement that SF would actively engage in the political mechanisms of the state while simultaneously trying to undermine it. Not only is is not a reality that they couldn't engage in cynical politics. But they could and did and even boasted in advance via Morrison's speech that they were going to.

    SF could continue it's armed campaign, not sign the GFA, not engage within the political institutions and support policing in the north - and your statement might well be true. But they have done all of the above - but you're real issue, and let's be frank about it - is that they are the only party who still keep the issue of partition visible and on the table for discussion. So I can only assume that you disagree with Irish Unification, although if I'm wrong - do tell me so your motives are 100% transparent.
    lugha wrote: »
    You also ignored my point about Ferris not condemning the murder of Jerry McCabe. The reason she doesn't (as again, I suspect you well know) is because in the eyes of SF he was not a bona fida defender of the state because he was not appointed by the "legitimate" government of Ireland, that being the army council of the IRA.

    I don't know why Toireasa won't condemn the manslaughter of Jerry McCabe. But it certainly isn't because she rejects the legitimacy of An Gardaí.

    So, are you going to provide evidence for your claims? I'm still waiting.


  • Options
    #65
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    And you've an interesting view of the word "majority", if you think "the majority of the people" is "proven" via "4 TD's from Sinn Fein".

    One of his sources for the "majority" of Irish people supporting the unification of Ireland is a boards.ie poll.


  • Options
    #66
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    drkpower wrote: »
    On that basis, presumably you would question having a lawyer/academic from another state as our president? Impeach Mary McAleese.

    Leave out the "presumptions", please!

    No, I wouldn't question having a lawyer/academic or any other career as our president. But a politician from the North with a dodgy and divisive history would be a no-no (and one who, as pointed out since, is OK with the murder of servants of the state).

    Having said that, I can think of one exception : John Hume might have been an option, because he didn't take sides every time an "atrocity/noble act for the cause [delete as appropriate, but check who it was first]" was committed.

    But the overall basis of my preference for not having a politician still applies. And in fact, given that people have dragged up Ahern's name in this (viral advertising, anyone ?) I'd nearly extend my original comment to say "any politician".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Soldie wrote: »
    One of his sources for the "majority" of Irish people supporting the unification of Ireland is a boards.ie poll.

    This statement is disingenous. The poll in question does demonstrate support for Irish Unity, but you act as if it is my only source for such a claim.

    There have been multiple national polls, from various sources around the state on the topic, and all have demonstrated a majority support for Unity. I asked time and time again for the detractors to provide counter-evidence, with a similar poll - but not one poll has ever been found. I also showed evidence from a poll taken nearly 20 times since the 80's on the issue in mainland Britain, and at every single poll - Irish unification was supported in a majority.

    So next time you try to make a cheap comment, try put some context behind it. Thanks.


  • Options
    #68
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dlofnep wrote: »
    SF could continue it's armed campaign...

    Huh ? I thought SF never HAD an armed campaign, and that was all those shadowy boyos in the IRA that had to be talked to and about in the third party, and had their own illegitimate demands that put SF in awkward positions.....?


  • Options
    #69
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users Posts: 45,517 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    He'd get my vote ahead of Ahern anyway.


  • Options
    #70
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    What profession did she have before running dlofnep ?

    That wasn't your point. You quite categorically made sure to point out "another state". What does it matter where he is from - Are you suggesting that he is not Irish?
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    He's not against it, but would like to see it dissoved ?

    He "supports" it while it exists, but of course - as a consequence of supporting Irish unification would like to see both parliments dissolved into one parlimentary body. What exactly is the issue?
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    And you've an interesting view of the word "majority", if you think "the majority of the people" is "proven" via "4 TD's from Sinn Fein".

    Where did I put my justification for majority on the basis of 4 TD's from SF in the Dáil? I was responding to your suggestion that they do not support the institution, when it is quite clear that they do - given the fact that they have elected representitives in the said institution.


  • Options
    #71
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Huh ? I thought SF never HAD an armed campaign, and that was all those shadowy boyos in the IRA that had to be talked to and about in the third party, and had their own illegitimate demands that put SF in awkward positions.....?

    I should have stated "support for". I would have assumed you would have read between the lines. Let's not get nit-picky over a non-issue. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Leave out the "presumptions", please!

    No, I wouldn't question having a lawyer/academic or any other career as our president. But a politician from the North with a dodgy and divisive history would be a no-no (and one who, as pointed out since, is OK with the murder of servants of the state).

    Having said that, I can think of one exception : John Hume might have been an option, because he didn't take sides every time an "atrocity/noble act for the cause [delete as appropriate, but check who it was first]" was committed.

    But the overall basis of my preference for not having a politician still applies. And in fact, given that people have dragged up Ahern's name in this (viral advertising, anyone ?) I'd nearly extend my original comment to say "any politician".

    I dont have a difficulty with your belief that Gerry is not presedential material. What I took exception to was the 'from another State' reference. And it seems I was correct because you now say that you would consider John Hume ('a politician from another State') as a candidate for president.

    Stick to the reasons for not choosing a particular candidate rather than making blanket statements that rules out some potentially fine candidates (J. Hume, S. Mallon to name but two).


  • Options
    #73
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I asked time and time again for the detractors to provide counter-evidence, with a similar poll - but not one poll has ever been found.

    How about this for a poll: the only party in the Dáil that actively supports unification has four seats.


  • Options
    #74
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Soldie wrote: »
    How about this for a poll: the only party in the Dáil that actively supports unification has four seats.

    Incorrect.

    Next.


  • Options
    #75
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So I can only assume that you disagree with Irish Unification, although if I'm wrong - do tell me so your motives are 100% transparent.
    No I don’t agree with Irish unification. I think it would be an unmitigated disaster. But that is beside the point. All the main parties have unification as an aim, albeit not as prominently as SF and I have no problem with these other parties. What I do demand though, to get back to the OP, is that anybody who presents themselves for office in this (or any other state) should fully and unreservedly give their allegiance to the state and to the people who serve to protect this state (this is what sets SF apart from other parties). For a party leader that means, not only explicitly stating this himself (which in fairness Adams has done) but sanctioning anyone in his party who fails to do so. Any that would include referring to the state as the 26 counties or refusing to condemn the murder of its guardians. Now I understand full well why Adams cannot shed the subversive tag. But until he (or more than likely a successor) does, then there are a whole swart of people who will not trust them.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't know why Toireasa won't condemn the manslaughter of Jerry McCabe.
    When you fire a loaded weapon at a man sitting in a police car and kill him then that is murder. The fact that republicans insist on using such disgusting weasel words like manslaughter just goes to show that for all their gombeen men, FF are paragons of virtue in comparison. Toireasa won’t condemn this for precisely the reasons I have outlined.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    So, are you going to provide evidence for your claims? I'm still waiting.
    Not entirely sure what you are referring to here but I’d guess it was my alluding to the IRA fund raising campaigns of the past. I am prepared to indulge your faux pretense that you don’t full appreciate why republicans talk about the 26 counties or why they don’t condemn the murder of the agents of the state but I draw the line at any pretense that SF and the IRA were two distinct and disjoint organizations.


  • Options
    #76
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dlofnep wrote: »
    That wasn't your point. You quite categorically made sure to point out "another state". What does it matter where he is from - Are you suggesting that he is not Irish?

    Hold on a second! You're right, but I also "quite categorically" said "politician" in the same post. You can check back if you want to.

    I've also corrected that, since John Hume would have been a decent example. So yup - I was wrong to view them all as divisive and unwanted......but it pisses me off that because some people think Adams is somehow on "our side" :rolleyes: that he's the candidate that should be considered, and as a consequence people who might be a worthy candidate doesn't even get discussed (to the point where I completely overlooked someone like Hume).
    dlofnep wrote: »
    He "supports" it while it exists, but of course - as a consequence of supporting Irish unification would like to see both parliments dissolved into one parlimentary body. What exactly is the issue?

    Would you like the head of Aer Lingus to be someone who wanted it dissolved ? Would you like the person speaking about and on behalf of The Republic of Ireland to be mentally saying "hopefully it won't exist next year / decade / century"

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Where did I put my justification for majority on the basis of 4 TD's from SF in the Dáil?

    To be fair, I think you've already cleared this up, but the original phrasing was pretty hairly-looking :
    dlofnep wrote: »
    He's not against the state's existence, he is against the partition of Ireland and as a consequence of that fact - would like to see north and south of the country unified, desolving both states (As do the majority of the people). The fact that 4 TD's from Sinn Féin sit in An Dáil proves it.

    Reading back, you were apparently equating the last sentence with first part of the first, referencing the states existence. But the sentence in brackets stuck in between - possibly as an afterthought, where you didn't read back ? - makes it read completely differently.


  • Options
    #77
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    What profession did she have before running dlofnep ?
    .

    So only holders of certain professions from "another state" are allowed run now...?


  • Options
    #78
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    lugha wrote: »
    No I don’t agree with Irish unification. I think it would be an unmitigated disaster. But that is beside the point. All the main parties have unification as an aim, albeit not as prominently as SF and I have no problem with these other parties. What I do demand though, to get back to the OP, is that anybody who presents themselves for office in this (or any other state) should fully and unreservedly give their allegiance to the state and to the people who serve to protect this state (this is what sets SF apart from other parties). For a party leader that means, not only explicitly stating this himself (which in fairness Adams has done) but sanctioning anyone in his party who fails to do so. Any that would include referring to the state as the 26 counties or refusing to condemn the murder of its guardians. Now I understand full well why Adams cannot shed the subversive tag. But until he (or more than likely a successor) does, then there are a whole swart of people who will not trust them.

    Fair enough.
    lugha wrote: »
    When you fire a loaded weapon at a man sitting in a police car and kill him then that is murder. The fact that republicans insist on using such disgusting weasel words like manslaughter just goes to show that for all their gombeen men, FF are paragons of virtue in comparison. Toireasa won’t condemn this for precisely the reasons I have outlined.

    If you have an issue with the wording, you might take it up with the non-jury Special Criminal Court which convicted the men involved of "manslaughter". Or, do you only use the decision of Irish courts when it suits?
    lugha wrote: »
    Not entirely sure what you are referring to here but I’d guess it was my alluding to the IRA fund raising campaigns of the past.

    What has that to do with current SF politicians earning an industrial wage? I think your comment was a bit of a red herring to be honest, and that's why I called you on it. It was a cheap shot at SF politicians.


  • Options
    #79
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Hold on a second! You're right, but I also "quite categorically" said "politician" in the same post. You can check back if you want to.

    So why does it matter if he is based in another state? Why bring it up at all? I've no problem with you disputing his political career or anything - I just took issue with the "another state" wording.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Would you like the head of Aer Lingus to be someone who wanted it dissolved ? Would you like the person speaking about and on behalf of The Republic of Ireland to be mentally saying "hopefully it won't exist next year / decade / century"

    Not sure what you are getting at - But I think your avoiding the reality of the consequences of Irish unification, of which would involve a dissolved government - to a more balanced one to include Unionist politicians. It's just one of those "It would just so happen to be that..." kind of scenarios.


  • Options
    #80
    mega man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭mega man


    So what would happen if a man who did not recognise the Irish state was elected by the Irish electorate. Would that mean the Irish electorate doesn't recognise the state or justs wants to see Gerry Adams elected?


  • Options
    #81
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    dlofnep wrote: »
    If you have an issue with the wording, you might take it up with the non-jury Special Criminal Court which convicted the men involved of "manslaughter". Or, do you only use the decision of Irish courts when it suits?

    There is often a difference between the reality of what has happened and the legal difficluties of obtaining a specific conviction or the deal-making that often goes on in the legal context.

    Murder requires a specific intention to kill and proving that intention beyond a reasonable doubt can be difficult to prove legally. But that doesnt take away from what they did.

    For instance, to take a topical issue, Roman Polanski was only ever indicted for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. But providing alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old girl and then having sex with her without her consent is rape. Just because the lawyers/prosecutors came to a deal in order to secure a conviction doesnt change the fact that what occurred was rape.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    drkpower wrote: »
    There is often a difference between the reality of what has happened and the legal difficluties of obtaining a specific conviction or the deal-making that often goes on in the legal context.

    Murder requires a specific intention to kill and proving that intention beyond a reasonable doubt can be difficult to prove legally. But that doesnt take away from what they did.

    For instance, to take a topical issue, Roman Polanski was only ever indicted for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. But providing alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old girl and then having sex with her without her consent is rape. Just because the lawyers/prosecutors came to a deal in order to secure a conviction doesnt change the fact that what occurred was rape.

    I agree 100% with you. But I just asked that he take the issue with the findings out at the court.


  • Options
    #83
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    drkpower wrote: »
    There is often a difference between the reality of what has happened and the legal difficluties of obtaining a specific conviction or the deal-making that often goes on in the legal context.

    Murder requires a specific intention to kill and proving that intention beyond a reasonable doubt can be difficult to prove legally. But that doesnt take away from what they did.
    Yes, that is a rather sanitized and civil way of describing what happened in the McCabe case. I would have been a bit more blunt and pointed out that the "legal difficulties" you speak off came about because of witness intimidation.

    If the extent of an individual's wrong is only measured by the level of conviction secured against them then there would be an extensive gallery of rogues who would have unblemished reputations including the likes of Hitler and Stalin. No doubt our republican friends would like to add Thatcher to that list. ;)


  • Options
    #84
    oncevotedff
    Registered Users Posts: 232 ✭✭oncevotedff


    trench foot wrote: »
    Does anyone think Gerry Adams would be a good President? I think at difficult times like this we need a strong President, a patriotic one at that. Would you vote for him?
    I think it would be interesting to see him as President of Ireland.
    What do you guys think?

    I'd rather vote for Pol Pot.


  • Options
    #85
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    dlofnep wrote: »
    They earn their money by working on behalf of their constituents. Nothing to do with the "Queen's shilling" - It's paid by the tax payers of Britain and the north of Ireland, and given that SF are the largest nationalist party in the North, and work on behalf of 100,000's of people - then why shouldn't they receive their cut of tax like other politicians? It should also be noted, that unlike any other party on this island that I am aware of, SF politicians earn only an average industrial wage.
    if they can't effect change, and all they can do is represent constituents well then they're the same as any unelected community based representatives, much the same as many of their colleagues south of the border have been made in recent elections. People are elected to parliaments to act as legislators primarily.


  • Options
    #86
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    I'm not one of Gerry Adams biggest fans but he is on industrial wage (Fianna fail have had endless scandals over money, Sinn Féin haven't had one) He's lived and represented one of the biggest working class communities in the Ireland and i'd be certain he would work for your average person, not bankers, not business buddys, no the upper classes


  • Options
    #87
    GSF
    Registered Users Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭GSF


    PomBear wrote: »
    I'm not one of Gerry Adams biggest fans but he is on industrial wage
    Funny how he owns a large second home if he is on the industrial wage:confused:


  • Options
    #88
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    PomBear wrote: »
    I'm not one of Gerry Adams biggest fans but he is on industrial wage
    Don't know too many lads on average industrial wage who can afford their own holiday home in Donegal.
    PomBear wrote: »
    Fianna fail have had endless scandals over money, Sinn Féin haven't had one
    :D:D:D:D:D


  • Options
    #89
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    lugha wrote: »
    Don't know too many lads on average industrial wage who can afford their own holiday home in Donegal.


    :D:D:D:D:D

    He has sold millions of books also i'd imagine you could build a nice fom that.


  • Options
    #90
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    PomBear wrote: »
    He has sold millions of books also i'd imagine you could build a nice fom that.
    Good for him. But you can't very well claim he is scarping by on the average industrial wage then?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    lugha wrote: »
    Good for him. But you can't very well claim he is scarping by on the average industrial wage then?

    in politics, he does.

    and he warrants the money he earns, unlike many of our FF politicians who seem to take special advantage of their 'political benefits'


Advertisement