The Official After Hours Presidential Election Thread **POLL RESET 23/10**

andyjo

Happyman42 wrote: »

So I only imagined Amnesty International criticising the Gardai and Commissioner Ned Brennan?

Like I said FG / The Gardai etc did not intimidate / murder / disappear people like McGuinnesse's provos. They generally obeyed the laws of the state / did not abduct people / torture them / plant bombs in restaurants + shopping centres etc

Happyman42

LordSutch wrote: »

I am not sure what you are getting at there Happyman^ But the reality remains that Martin McGuinness was in the Provisional IRA, then add to this fact, that when atrocities were comitted by him/them, he would refuse to condemn the bombers in the aftermath.

Look back at any of the Bombings or grizly murders comitted by the PIRA, (Start with 'Enniskillen' & work your way down the list), and you will remember (or not) a total absence of condemnation by McGuinness & Adams, for "it was their campaign" that they perpetrated over three decades, and which stopped, when they said it should stop! hence their annoyance at the Real IRA who dare to 'carry on' without permission from Adams & McGuinness who are now "Peacemakers" :rolleyes:

Don't be so deliberately obtuse.That's not the way the real world works. Point me to a country in insurrection where the political wing undermines the miltary one?

Why would he condemn them? There was plenty of expressions of 'regret' when mistakes where made.
How long did it take the British to accept responsibility for Bloody Sunday?

People who live on the high moral ground might behave like that but in reality political positions had to be maintained...a la the British refusal to condemn the actions of their forces. Did you ever read the Widgery Report?:rolleyes:

andyjo

owainglyndwr wrote: »

The Indo allows Harris and co to perform a Hatchet job on the likes of to criticise Martin McGuinness. .

fixed that for you.

You think nobody should be allowed criticise someone who was leader of the PIRA ?

Biggins

andyjo wrote: »

If the biggest scumbag mugger / thief/ robber in a city gave up his anti-social activities, I would not elect him mayor of the city.

OK, he may have downed his previous possible tactics and reversed his position, changed methods, helping to bring about a more peaceful city, but I do not worship him, as he created much of the problem over the decades.

Thats your opinion and I do not worship him, let be clear about that ...but significantly he was also part of the solution!
There is also the aspect that sometimes its better that we have folk standing up, having come from the other side of the fence and speaking out.
They know exactly the inherent dangers of the past, can speak direct from the heart about such matters, be able to further recognise more subtle incoming, often warning factors, know better exactly how to go dealing with such issues.

I and many are not blind.
We know exactly where Martin McG has come from - but then we are looking at the FULL picture and not just one part of it opposition want (I wonder why!) to keep the public from also viewing, as the same opposition never endless treats us as stupid thinking we cannot see where such people have come from.

owainglyndwr

andyjo wrote: »

fixed that for you.

You think nobody should be allowed criticise someone who was leader of the PIRA ?

Thanks for taking my quote out of context .. I will do the same for you someday !

Harris and co are Warmongering apologists for the brutal regimes they hold in high regard incl the USA Israel and UK ! They don't acknowledge the achievements of those who actively strive for Peace instead they mock them or de-legitimize their actions by stating "Once a Terrorist always a Terrorist".

LordSutch

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't be so deliberately obtuse.That's not the way the real world works. Point me to a country in insurrection where the political wing undermines the miltary one?

Why would he condemn them? There was plenty of expressions of 'regret' when mistakes where made.

Ah, I see you really are one of them, you agreed with the Bombings & the murders comitted by the Provo's, in which case I won't bother debating with you anymore.

I was always Anti Provo.

owainglyndwr

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't be so deliberately obtuse.That's not the way the real world works. Point me to a country in insurrection where the political wing undermines the miltary one?

Why would he condemn them? There was plenty of expressions of 'regret' when mistakes where made.
How long did it take the British to accept responsibility for Bloody Sunday?

People who live on the high moral ground might behave like that but in reality political positions had to be maintained...a la the British refusal to condemn the actions of their forces. Did you ever read the Widgery Report?:rolleyes:

The Widgery report also referred to as the White wash report.. :mad:

Wolfe Tone

LordSutch wrote: »

Ah, I see you really are one of them, you agreed with the Bombings & the murders comitted by the Provo's, in which case I won't bother debating with you anymore.

I was always Anti Provo.

And anti Irish independence, dont forget that. If you had your way we would all still be Brit subjects.

squod

Haughey, in hospital suffering from injuries received when he fell from a horse, was sacked by Lynch for "failing to subscribe to government policy on Northern Ireland". Later Lynch told the House that Haughey and another minister were suspected of gun-running, and of using £100,000 of public money to buy the arms.

Didn't Haughey himself come down off the cross use citizens money for the armed struggle against the bigoted terrorist invaders. That's a political endorsement if ever there was one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1521199/Charles-Haughey.html

Happyman42

LordSutch wrote: »

Ah, I see you really are one of them, you agreed with the Bombings & the murders comitted by the Provo's, in which case I won't bother debatging with you anymore.

It's the reserve of the idiot and challenged to only look at and criticise one side.
The bombings and killings happened....fact. They happened for complex reasons and both sides where involved.
When positions and rights where won people worked to stop them happening and where largely successful. But for their actions we could quite easily have had a bloodbath.
Pious, lazy and selfish people sit at cosy fire sides pretending this had nothing to do with them. When in fact the abandonment of NI by the south is the primary cause of the modern troubles. That callous inaction was always going to bite the Brave New Republic on the ass one day....and it did and is about to again.
McG in the Aras will be hard to take for these people....but sure can't they 'condemn away until the cows come home' that will help the situation. :rolleyes:

Biggins

squod wrote: »

Didn't Haughey himself come down off the cross use citizens money for the armed struggle against the bigoted terrorist invaders. That's a political endorsement if ever there was one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1521199/Charles-Haughey.html

Read "Orders for the captain" by James Kelly - a book that was banned for years in Ireland.
Its an eye-opener!

See: http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/migration/captain-james-kelly-492992.html

owainglyndwr

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't be so deliberately obtuse.That's not the way the real world works. Point me to a country in insurrection where the political wing undermines the miltary one?

Why would he condemn them? There was plenty of expressions of 'regret' when mistakes where made.
How long did it take the British to accept responsibility for Bloody Sunday?

People who live on the high moral ground might behave like that but in reality political positions had to be maintained...a la the British refusal to condemn the actions of their forces. Did you ever read the Widgery Report?:rolleyes:

The biased self serving Headline says it all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1286014/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-What-bloody-Omagh-Brighton-Enniskillen-evil-IRA.html

This is a report on the Saville inquiry but the headline is a rebuke .. I dislike that form of journalism intensely.

Happyman42

owainglyndwr wrote: »

The biased self serving Headline says it all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1286014/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-What-bloody-Omagh-Brighton-Enniskillen-evil-IRA.html

This is a report on the Saville inquiry but the headline is a rebuke .. I dislike that form of journalism intensely.

That's not journalism that's opinion.

owainglyndwr

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's not journalism that's opinion.

The "Editors" would of been a better word for me to use .. Sorry about that.

My name is URL

"I'm telling you now, the likelihood is that I will win this election and in three weeks time we'll know the outcome for sure"

-Gay Mitchell - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mitchell-confident-despite-polls-151013113.html

hahaha

Lord TSC

Thats your opinion and I do not worship him, let be clear about that ...but significantly he was also part of the solution!

Biggins, I respect the hell out of you, and I get where you're coming from. But I don't see why someone should get a pat on the head for clearing up a mess that he was involved with. If someone does something wrong or bad, the least that should be expected of them is that they help clean it up, and they shouldn't be portrayed as great because they did that

I do get what people are saying about how he's "changed his ways" and all that. But for me, personally, you cannot ignore what he was involved with just cause he says now he isn't involved anymore. It's too cheap of a line to say "forgive and forget" since that doesn't change the fact he was involved with what he was involved with. It's also a line that seems to be trotted out when offending parties know they were involved in something bad and want to try and forget it themselves cause they know how bad it looks.

Still, at least you seem to be willing to admit he was involved with something. It's something that a lot of SF supporters seem to deny unconditionally, no matter what.

Sunnyisland

Lord Sutch wrote: »

Ah, I see you really are one of them, you agreed with the Bombings & the murders committed by the Provo's, in which case I won't bother debating with you anymore.

I was always Anti Provo.

Why don't you tell the truth you are anti republican and a unionist and have posted here before that you would have fought against the men of 1916.
Which i may add your entitled to do but don't think your fooling anyone by trying to come across as someone impartial, your most definitely not at least KeithAfc nails his colours to the mast,and stays through to them.

cowzerp

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Biggins, I respect the hell out of you, and I get where you're coming from. But I don't see why someone should get a pat on the head for clearing up a mess that he was involved with. If someone does something wrong or bad, the least that should be expected of them is that they help clean it up, and they shouldn't be portrayed as great because they did that

I do get what people are saying about how he's "changed his ways" and all that. But for me, personally, you cannot ignore what he was involved with just cause he says now he isn't involved anymore. It's too cheap of a line to say "forgive and forget" since that doesn't change the fact he was involved with what he was involved with. It's also a line that seems to be trotted out when offending parties know they were involved in something bad and want to try and forget it themselves cause they know how bad it looks.

Still, at least you seem to be willing to admit he was involved with something. It's something that a lot of SF supporters seem to deny unconditionally, no matter what.

If you look at it that when he and many others got involved it was by neccessity and when the time came that politics could be used to better the life of his people then he used that route and convinced many others it was the way forward he took that route by the scruff then i think you'd look at it all differently.

It's easy to look at the negatives without thinking what brought people to feel they needed to fight back in such a way-everyone who has read a book know's what went on back then and how they where 2nd class citizen's, thats been generous by the way.

Also the fact he genuinely put his own life in danger by going the route of the peace process should not be forgot-The quality of life Nationalsts up north is so much better than it was before the troubles, and as much as people can talk about the bad times that went on they have to understand that without this then the local nationalists would have stayed downthrodden for much longer.

Biggins

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Biggins, I respect the hell out of you, and I get where you're coming from. But I don't see why someone should get a pat on the head for clearing up a mess that he was involved with. If someone does something wrong or bad, the least that should be expected of them is that they help clean it up, and they shouldn't be portrayed as great because they did that

I do get what people are saying about how he's "changed his ways" and all that. But for me, personally, you cannot ignore what he was involved with just cause he says now he isn't involved anymore. It's too cheap of a line to say "forgive and forget" since that doesn't change the fact he was involved with what he was involved with. It's also a line that seems to be trotted out when offending parties know they were involved in something bad and want to try and forget it themselves cause they know how bad it looks.

Still, at least you seem to be willing to admit he was involved with something. It's something that a lot of SF supporters seem to deny unconditionally, no matter what.

O' I fully admit he's was up to antics, most we will probably not ever know of or prove.
I personally don't wish to pat his head (I know what you really mean ).
I do give him credit for possibly seeing the error of his ways and then possibly going about rectifying his and his organisations previous actions.

I'm looking at the full picture realistically. We are never going to within a number of generations have people totally "forgiving and forgetting" - and thats understandable.
In the meanwhile - if we all like it or not, we DO have to move on.
Yes, thats hard - VERY hard at times. If we are not going to allow ourselves to fall back into the ways of the past or allow others to do so, we must work with them, must talk with them and at times - even if tough to do - accept that others have a right to to expression, political thought and if need be stand for equal election.
Naturally at such times, detailed mentions of the past will occur (hopefully with detailed proof and not just unfounded allegations/attempts at just slurs) but by looking backwards, we should never forget that we need to be looking forwards too.
If forward progression is to come about, some sort of "moving on" is going to have to occur. Keep that in mind when I say that if we are going to bring those of the past along with us, we must adopt a policy of inclusion rather than exclusion.
...And if by the selection of one Martin McG whom can additionally bring those of the past into the future, sometimes in order to gain a good thing for the future, we have to swallow a bad thing from the said past.

Lord TSC

See, the thing is I've argued before that I think it is time to move on. I've argued before I think I'd even throw my hate behind the SF banner if they were giving the impression they wanted to move on.

But so long as you have Adams as its figure head and guys like MMG at the forefront of the party, I don't think it's possible to move on in the way SF need to as a party. Guys like them are figures of the past troubles and by presenting them as your leaders, you make it impossible for many, including myself, to contemplate moving on.

I've suggested in the past that for me, the way to show they want to move on is by finding someone young, charismatic and with no ties to the Northern troubles, and installing him as the new leader of the party, at least in the Republic; the face you push constantly. Not that you'd have to get rid of Adams or MMG; it's more about moving them to behind the scenes where they can still do work if thats what they want, but they aren't the public face. By doing that, you take away a key obstacle in letting people move on.

I get why people like them. I get why people want an alternative at the elections. But Adams and MMG, no matter what they do now, have done too much in the past that cannot be forgotten, and until SF show a meaningful attempt at moving on from that past, then I as a voter cannot move on either.

andyjo

cowzerp wrote: »

If you look at it that when he and many others got involved it was by neccessity

It was never necessary to abduct and torture / murder Jean McColville. It was never necessary to plant bombs in restaurants ( eg Le Mons ) and shops ( like Bloddy Friday ). It was never necessary to embark on the armed struggle which left over 3000 dead. If it was " by neccessity " why did catrholic leaders / nationalists like Gerry Fitt and Hume go a different road to the provos / McG ?

Biggins

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

...so long as you have Adams as its figure head and guys like MMG at the forefront of the party, I don't think it's possible to move on in the way SF need to as a party. Guys like them are figures of the past troubles and by presenting them as your leaders, you make it impossible for many, including myself, to contemplate moving on.

I've suggested in the past that for me, the way to show they want to move on is by finding someone young, charismatic and with no ties to the Northern troubles, and installing him as the new leader of the party, at least in the Republic; the face you push constantly. Not that you'd have to get rid of Adams or MMG; it's more about moving them to behind the scenes where they can still do work if thats what they want, but they aren't the public face. By doing that, you take away a key obstacle in letting people move on...

There in lies many problems.

Firstly you will get those whom will say (or words to the same effect) "well they must be ashamed of their past if the party is willing to shove once leaders, now into the background."
* Then there will be those on the ground that will dislike the denying/shoving to one side, of those that represented them in the past and by effect, disfranchising them from the political process by resentment and dismissal of how/why their movement occurred.
* In time other leaders of SF (and lets be honest, any other party) will come to the fore - I already see one or two emerging. But for they to step up, there has to be a place to step up to. Shoving the top present men backwards then before a time when it might be too early, could lead to greater problems and again, create tensions within an organisation that if it should 'implode' - could have bad consequences for the whole country.
* Why should there be a new leader with no ties to Northern Ireland? - In fact if there isn't to some degree, those of the north that consider themselves to be Irish or nationalistic in nature, might find themselves unrepresented or unfairly sidelined - then that might lead to directions of the past and "here we go again..."

I wouldn't ever say its going to be easy but we really do have to look forwards to the future and small steps, sometimes big ones have to be taken - even if putting a foot forward is oft times painful. Its for the eventual betterment of all and again, that will only be brought about by inclusion, not ever (sometimes understandable) resentful exclusion.

cowzerp

andyjo wrote: »

why did catrholic leaders / nationalists like Gerry Fitt and Hume go a different road to the provos / McG ?

because they thought it would work-they where wrong, just because others tried other things and got Nowhere does not make them right.

Most parties in Ireland where set up by the gun-let's be straight about that, and there will always be innocent people caught up in war-nobody is claiming the IRA never made errors or done wrong-Martin McGuinness did not do the act's you mention and played a massive part in bringing the republican people up north into the politiocal arena when there was an arena for them to pursue-1 that was not possible before the troubles.

Lord TSC

Biggins wrote: »

There in lies many problems.

Firstly you will get those whom will say (or words to the same effect) "well they must be ashamed of their past if the party is willing to shove once leaders, now into the background."
* Then there will be those on the ground that will dislike the denying/shoving to one side, of those that represented them in the past and by effect, disfranchising them from the political process by resentment and dismissal of how/why their movement occurred.
* In time other leaders of SF (and lets be honest, any other party) will come to the fore - I already see one or two emerging. But for they to step up, there has to be a place to step up to. Shoving the top present men backwards then before it might be too early could lead to greater problems and again, create tensions within an organisation that if it should 'implode' - could have bad consequences for the whole country.
* Why should there be a new leader with no ties to Northern Ireland? - In fact if there isn't to some degree, those of the north that consider themselves to be Irish or nationalistic in nature, might find themselves unrepresented or unfairly sidelined - then that might lead to directions of the past and "here we go again..."

I wouldn't ever say its going to be easy but we really do have to look forwards to the future and small steps, sometimes big ones have to be taken - even if putting a foot forward is oft times painful. Its for the eventual betterment of all and again, that will only be brought about by inclusion, not ever (sometimes understandable) resentful exclusion.

And thats all well and good. But what I'm getting from that is that we've got to move on, but there's going to be those in SF's supporter base unwilling to do so.

I do understand from a political viewpoint, truely moving on can and would cost SF some of it's core voters. My point is that when the party is unwilling to risk losing the base, there's a large contingency that will never accept the party either.

You don't get to say "move on" but then say as well there's aspects you don't want to move on from, even if the political ramifications are genuine. It's a double-edged blade; SF preach moving on but seem to cling to the positives of what came out of the Northern troubles. In other words, it's moving on from the bad parts without moving on from the good parts. I just think thats a tad hypocritical, especially when you present MMG who wants all the pros of his involvements upnorth to be considered and none of the cons.

Again I say, I accept all you're saying. SF would lose people if it did truely move on. But until the party puts forward people who represent a genuine move forward, I cannot vote for them or support the group.

Biggins

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

...until the party puts forward people who represent a genuine move forward, I cannot vote for them or support the group.

Sadly there will always people from all walks of life that will never be able to move on - including a small minority in any party. Some might be very justified in holding on to those feelings through personal prices made and/or know of someone close who was effected by a loss.
The best we can do is try and bring along the most or rest to the best of our ability.
As in South Africa when the "peace and reconciliation" process started, it wasn't easy by any means - but most recognised that for the good of the country, it had to be done.

Some day soon I have no doubts others will stand in Mr Adams place or Martins - but till then we might not like them but we must accept whom they are trying to represent.
When the new 'others' emerge, I have no doubts even then too there will be those in opposition, unwilling to accept them while hanging onto vestiges of the past if only to throw at them stains of the past in bitterness and spite - but move on we must. I think we all agree on that.

owainglyndwr

Previous Sunday to the "Alleged Death threat" Ronald Quinlan suffered a "Harrowing?"experience at the hands of evil Shinners. All the action is going on in the Indo ... Where is George Galloway when you need him ?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/ronald-quinlan-my-clash-with-mcguinness-men-2893552.html

owainglyndwr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPPT4VV3ZuA&feature=related

This is less than 5 minutes long but well worth listening to. I dare say people will say "George Galloway is an eejit" All i can say is he has done his research !

owainglyndwr

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/in-pictures--northern-ireland-troubles-14322589.html?ino=1

365 Photos of the History of the Troubles. You can never change the past but you are permitted to remember the past.

LordSutch

realies wrote: »

Why don't you tell the truth you are anti republican and a unionist and have posted here before that you would have fought against the men of 1916.

Well yes, I quite possibly would have fought in 1916, along with the majority of other Irishmen who fought & died on the continent that year, either that, or I would have been in an Irish garrison in Dublin along with other Irish men quelling the small group of Rebels who brought death & destruction to the streets of the Capital in Easter that year. Of course, all this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Presidential election race, but you asked, so there's my answer.

Back to the 2011 Presidential elaction and with two and 1/2 weeks to go, it looks like Michael D Higgins may very well take the honours at this stage, and in my opinion its his for the taking, unless he slips up? then I guess Sean Gallagher would be the (younger) man to take it from him.

irishdude11

If you are looking for lies in this election look no further than Fianna Fail's Sean Gallagher -

1. Sean Gallagher saying - I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009.
2. Sean Gallagher going up and down the length of the country officially launching the election campaigns of several FF TDs in February 2011. Sean Gallagher attending an ogra ff event in 2010.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzNRhohYHIA

Gallagher IS 100% FF, just in case some people are still unaware.