Sinn Fein appealing to the lowest common denominator

Ms.M

The dub-mentality. :rolleyes: (Yep, Dubs agree on everything; we should be a mini- state)
The culturally impoverished ... :eek: (Money=Culture of course)
Dublin culshies... (Me, me, me! Please, me!)

Among many more. You can learn lots of new insults and labels on this thread. Yay....... !

Back on topic though. Anyone want to flesh out Sinn Féin's economic policy for me? It doesn't add up for me. I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong. Or is the Sinn Féin vote solely a protest vote?

Ash.J.Williams

Wibbs wrote: »

Dublin, going back many generations on one side, on the other going back a fair few, then back to Donegal. If I may be so bold, why do you ask?

NORDIE BLOW-IN!!!


(lol)

Show Time

A lot of posters on here bricking it at the thought of SF with real power.

Wibbs

IMHO For good reason.

Al Capwned

Sinn Féin in power??? - exactly the same as FF or FG or Green or PD or any other bloody incarnation.

All the right noises while in opposition about what they'd do in power, about how we'd all be so much better off with them in power.

Then when it does happen, and it most likely will eventually, they just become the same as every other government party - pocket-lining, promise-dodging chancers, who turn out to be just as inept as their predecessors.

mattjack

Ms.M wrote: »

The dub-mentality. :rolleyes: (Yep, Dubs agree on everything; we should be a mini- state)
The culturally impoverished ... :eek: (Money=Culture of course)
Dublin culshies... (Me, me, me! Please, me!)

Among many more. You can learn lots of new insults and labels on this thread. Yay....... !

Back on topic though. Anyone want to flesh out Sinn Féin's economic policy for me? It doesn't add up for me. I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong. Or is the Sinn Féin vote solely a protest vote?

You could contact the veteran Mary Lou she could fill you in on SF's economic policy .I wonder does the Dublin mentality encompass her ?

Legend has it she left FF in '98 because of her opposition to FF's economic policy's and strategy or alternatively because she wasn't allowed run in the Local Elections.

Pretty impressive rise to glory,formerly a SF poster girl ,nowadays a throat lozenge ... she helps make things more easy to swallow.

Morning Wibbs ... sleep well ?

Wibbs

Ms.M wrote: »

Back on topic though. Anyone want to flesh out Sinn Féin's economic policy for me? It doesn't add up for me. I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong. Or is the Sinn Féin vote solely a protest vote?

K-9 earlier in the thread fleshed out some of it. IN his opinion of course. One I'd agree with though.

K-9 wrote: »

But SF aren't opposed to property taxes, they'd do it through a wealth tax. From looking at their manifesto they promise to row back changes on income tax bands, cut or abolish USC on incomes under 75k, increase minimum wage but not tax it, spend on services, restore child benefit and welfare cuts etc. etc., you name it, all to be financed by basically taxing anybody with wealth or incomes over 100k, more tax on profits etc. It's dreamland stuff that a Leaving Cert Economic student would laugh at. It's a shame because there are some decent ideas in there.

Monty Burnz

mishkalucy wrote: »

You wont get a socialist rant from me and most certainly not from the 1800's, but come on............

I'm from one of the toughest areas of Dublin, grew up there in the 70's and 80's and the sh*t that I saw, God nor man should never have allowed.

I am self educated and got out. The difference between me and "them"???

I have a great family

Not everyone was as lucky as me

We were all aware of the families who for them incest and abuse was the norm.

Can you blame the sins of the father on the children???

Some of the things that went on, there was never a hope these children(who would now all be in their 30's) would never be functional members of society.

Monty, its pretty hard to put you're head in a book and become "disadvantaged" as you put it, when you never know which member of your family, brother, father, is going to anally rape you so badly that every one of the kids on the road can see the blood that you leak a week later through your clothes while out on the road

Are you saying that skanger adults are - by and large - incestuous paedophiles?

Monty Burnz

Show Time wrote: »

A lot of posters on here bricking it at the thought of SF with real power.

This isn't really something to be proud of, is it? I'd welcome them having a stint at the controls, personally - if people think the economy is a mess now, they haven't seen what happened to Argentina a decade ago.

Mallei

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This isn't really something to be proud of, is it? I'd welcome them having a stint at the controls, personally - if people think the economy is a mess now, they haven't seen what happened to Argentina a decade ago.

The Argentina that is now in economic recovery, has the potential for massive economic growth, and what's more actually has the guts to stand up to the English and fight to reclaim land that was stolen from them?

Sounds like everything we should be aspiring to, actually.

Ms.M

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you saying that skanger adults are - by and large - incestuous paedophiles?

:eek:

Monty Burnz

Mallei wrote: »

The Argentina that is now in economic recovery, has the potential for massive economic growth, and what's more actually has the guts to stand up to the English and fight to reclaim land that was stolen from them?

Sounds like everything we should be aspiring to, actually.

You think Argentina is on a path to recovery now? You think the government moves on pensions and more recently YPF were good ideas? What do you think about their manipulation of official statistics?

Personally, unless they change course PDQ, I predict another Argentinian crash within 5 years.

Incidentally, the Malvinas weren't 'stolen from them'.

Mallei

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You think Argentina is on a path to recovery now? You think the government moves on pensions and more recently YPF were good ideas? What do you think about their manipulation of official statistics?

Personally, unless they change course PDQ, I predict another Argentinian crash within 5 years.

Incidentally, the Malvinas weren't 'stolen from them'.

Sorry, what? Of course Las Malvinas were stolen from them. How else did the English get their hands on them? The same way they got the six counties, Gibraltar, Hong Kong... they stole them through armed force.

Monty Burnz

Mallei wrote: »

Sorry, what? Of course Las Malvinas were stolen from them. How else did the English get their hands on them? The same way they got the six counties, Gibraltar, Hong Kong... they stole them through armed force.

You don't have a breeze about Argentina. I advise you to change the subject fast before this gets more embarrassing.

Mallei

I know enough. I suspect your argument will revolve around the English taking "unoccupied" islands. No Argentines were displaced when they seized them; they were empty, devoid of people. Not to mention, Argentina as a country didn't even exist when England took the island, so that's another point that counts against them being Argentine. How can they claim something that was taken before they were in existence? Am I on the right track?

But that's all irrelevent. They are Argentine, they are off the coast of Argentina, and the only reason that Argentina didn't exist when the English took those islands is because it was being oppressed by another colonial power in the Spanish (who weren't and aren't much better than the English for seizing bits of the world and not giving them back, by the way).

K-9

Bets on mention of the Belgrano in next post.

Monty Burnz

Mallei wrote: »

I know enough. I suspect your argument will revolve around the English taking "unoccupied" islands. No Argentines were displaced when they seized them; they were empty, devoid of people. Not to mention, Argentina as a country didn't even exist when England took the island, so that's another point that counts against them being Argentine. How can they claim something that was taken before they were in existence? Am I on the right track?

I think you've just sunk your argument there...

Mallei wrote: »

But that's all irrelevent. They are Argentine, they are off the coast of Argentina

Much like Ireland is off the coast of Britain?

Mallei wrote: »

and the only reason that Argentina didn't exist when the English took those islands is because it was being oppressed by another colonial power in the Spanish (who weren't and aren't much better than the English for seizing bits of the world and not giving them back, by the way).

Um...the Argentines at that time WERE the Spanish, just like the 'Americans' who won their independence WERE the British. A branch of the empire - an empire that drove out the Native South Americans - broke off. I'm not sure how that fits your 'oppressed Argentinian' narrative.

So now that it's clear that your understanding of the history of the Malvinas/Falklands is more than a little muddled ('they stole them'!), perhaps you can give your opinion on the points I raised about the current state of Argentina and the current socio-economic path they are on?

Mallei

In a thread talking about Sinn Fein? I'm sure you'd love to drag it off-topic, but you can take that elsewhere.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You don't have a breeze about Argentina. I advise you to change the subject fast before this gets more embarrassing.

Mallei wrote: »

In a thread talking about Sinn Fein? I'm sure you'd love to drag it off-topic, but you can take that elsewhere.

Well played.

Mallei

What I mean is, it doesn't belong in this thread. Which forum would be suitable? A discussion on the imperialist repurcussions of England (and to a degree, other colonial powers like Spain) subjugating a sixth of the world would be very interesting.

SocSocPol

Mallei wrote: »

Sorry, what? Of course Las Malvinas were stolen from them. How else did the English get their hands on them? The same way they got the six counties, Gibraltar, Hong Kong... they stole them through armed force.

On a point of fact, The Falkland Islands never belonged to Argentina.

Nodin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It really does make things simpler when you apply labels to vast swathes of people, doesn't it? Us and them, Dubs and Non-Dubs, Catholics and Protestants, British and Irish, Real Irish and West Brits...

Bit much from somebody coming out with
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78885664&postcount=527

Monty Burnz

Nodin wrote: »

Bit much from somebody coming out with
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78885664&postcount=527

How so? You'll have to flesh that out a bit.

Nodin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How so?

Its about as "us and them" as you can make it.

Monty Burnz

Nodin wrote: »

Its about as "us and them" as you can make it.

No at all. In fact, I'd say that to argue otherwise is to be an 'us and them' argument. It's up to 'us' to help 'them'.

Nodin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No at all. In fact, I'd say that to argue otherwise is to be an 'us and them' argument. It's up to 'us' to help 'them'.

It has too much sneer to it for me to take that seriously.

Monty Burnz

Nodin wrote: »

It has too much sneer to it for me to take that seriously.

...he sneered.

MisterEpicurus

Mallei wrote: »

In a thread talking about Sinn Fein? I'm sure you'd love to drag it off-topic, but you can take that elsewhere.

Judging from the comments you've made on this thread regarding imperialist powers and your shockingly awful comments of the Falkland question, I think it's safe to assume you're just one of those types living in your politico-socialist bubble moaning about anything to do with the UK.

I mean...jesus...what you said was essentially along the lines of;

'The Falkland Islands are Argentinian even though Argentina never existed at the time, therefore through logical deduction (and not forgetting the fact they happen to be off the coast!) they must be Argentinian'

I mean any fool can see, or even smell, the desperation reeking from those comments.

And then trying to sweep all this rubbish under the proverbial carpet by claiming 'off-topic'.

What I'm really trying to say is GTFO...

mattjack

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Judging from the comments you've made on this thread regarding imperialist powers and your shockingly awful comments of the Falkland question, I think it's safe to assume you're just one of those types living in your politico-socialist bubble moaning about anything to do with the UK.

I mean...jesus...what you said was essentially along the lines of;

'The Falkland Islands are Argentinian even though Argentina never existed at the time, therefore through logical deduction (and not forgetting the fact they happen to be off the coast!) they must be Argentinian'

I mean any fool can see, or even smell, the desperation reeking from those comments.

And then trying to sweep all this rubbish under the proverbial carpet by claiming 'off-topic'.

What I'm really trying to say is GTFO...

Don't you come in here with your sensible observations ...

Smidge

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you saying that skanger adults are - by and large - incestuous paedophiles?

I was replying to your comment about people in disadvantaged areas and how in your opinion that they have disadvantaged themselves, but you know that already.
With the above comment in response to what I posted you have proved that it is not only people in "disadvantaged" areas that are uneducated.

The only difference is,

They have an excuse, you don't.

I choose not to get involved any further on this as I see no point

Monty Burnz

mishkalucy wrote: »

I was replying to your comment about people in disadvantaged areas and how in your opinion that they have disadvantaged themselves, but you know that already.

Yeah, and you basically argued that it's hard for people in disadvantaged areas to get an education or work hard because they could be raped by their parents at any moment. Re-read what you wrote, perhaps you meant to say something else.

mishkalucy wrote: »

With the above comment in response to what I posted you have proved that it is not only people in "disadvantaged" areas that are uneducated.

The only difference is,

They have an excuse, you don't.

Ok, start throwing insults - always makes your argument seem stronger... :rolleyes:

mishkalucy wrote: »

I choose not to get involved any further on this as I see no point

Not a great loss to the discussion, it would seem, if that's how your react when someone calls out your bizarre argument.

The Golden Miller

i dont really support any political party in the country as they are all next to useless.

although, no matter how much people want to complain about sinn fein breing corrupt, terrorists etc etc one thing always stood out for me.

their members normally get involved due to a genuine love of the country, which is a lot more refreshing to see compared to any of the other parties, whose members are normally there for a big pay packet, an interest in politics in general etc.

The Golden Miller

and once again the usually people out looking at things from britains point of view, defending their actions in the past and generally just sympathising and apologising for their actions. it seems to be a trait in ireland over the last 20 years here in the south. condemn our own and defend them for no reason at all

Monty Burnz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

their members normally get involved due to a genuine love of the country, which is a lot more refreshing to see compared to any of the other parties, whose members are normally there for a big pay packet, an interest in politics in general etc.

99% of people involved in politics don't see a penny. To be honest, I'm deeply suspicious of people who do things for an abstract 'love of their country' - an untold amount of evil has been done in the name of nationalism. It's an ideology, and all ideologies are wrong.

Monty Burnz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

and once again the usually people out looking at things from britains point of view, defending their actions in the past and generally just sympathising and apologising for their actions. it seems to be a trait in ireland over the last 20 years here in the south. condemn our own and defend them for no reason at all

WTF are you on about? Total bullsh!t. 'Condemn our own'? Whose 'our own' are you talking about? I guess we shouldn't condemn the Catholic priests who were raping children, because they were 'our own' too? :rolleyes:

Alactric

Agricola wrote: »

Well you either have big business parties like FF and FG scaremongering the population into believing we will all die in the ditch if we dont give "confidence" to the investors, or you have SF spouting populist leftie crap about how the elites all hellbent on crippling the country. Parties appeal to their respective demographics with their respective brand of bullshít

Thread should have stopped here, ye know, on the first page :pac:

LordSutch

The Golden Miller wrote: »

i dont really support any political party in the country as they are all next to useless. although, no matter how much people want to complain about sinn fein breing corrupt, terrorists etc etc one thing always stood out for me.

their members normally get involved due to a genuine love of the country, which is a lot more refreshing to see compared to any of the other parties, whose members are normally there for a big pay packet, an interest in politics in general etc.

Well the one thing that stands out for me is the fact that SF see the thirty five year Provo campaign of terror and misery as justifiable . . .

The Golden Miller

LordSutch wrote: »

Well the one thing that stands out for me is the fact that SF see the thirty five year Provo campaign of terror and misery as justifiable . . .

and heres the kind of man in talking about proving my point. so wheres the constant condemnation of loyalist violence from loyalist and british people the way the irish constantly condemn the actions of irish republicans? yet loyalists always condemn irish violence too, yet i dont see the irish ever having much of a go at the loyaists. always bending over backwards licking britains hole, and when the queen came over that was a perfect example.

yes what went on in the troubles was wrong, but you have to ask yourself why irish republicans got involved in the first place

Monty Burnz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

and heres the kind of man in talking about proving my point. so wheres the constant condemnation of loyalist violence from loyalist and british people the way the irish constantly condemn the actions of irish republicans? yet loyalists always condemn irish violence too, yet i dont see the irish ever having much of a go at the loyaists.

It may have escaped your notice that the loyalist terrorist apologists are not standing for political office in this country.

When that penny drops, you might understand why Sinn Fein get more heat over their terrorist past/links.

finty

The Golden Miller wrote: »

their members normally get involved due to a genuine love of the country, which is a lot more refreshing to see compared to any of the other parties, whose members are normally there for a big pay packet, an interest in politics in general etc.

What exactly is this notion based on?

And what exactly is this country that they love?

Most of them spent their lives undermining this state.....against the wishes of the majority of Irish people who think murder and maiming is wrong

Fervent nationalism isn't a good thing. same with any ideology

The Golden Miller

Monty Burnz wrote: »

WTF are you on about? Total bullsh!t. 'Condemn our own'? Whose 'our own' are you talking about? I guess we shouldn't condemn the Catholic priests who were raping children, because they were 'our own' too? :rolleyes:

would you ever see unionists making excuses for irish violence down through the years the way many irish revisionists seem to do for them. the term west brit didnt get coined out of nowhere. its there because theres a vast section of the irish population who make excuses for the unionists.

Monty Burnz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

would you ever see unionists making excuses for irish violence down through the years the way many irish revisionists seem to do for them. the term west brit didnt get coined out of nowhere. its there because theres a vast section of the irish population who make excuses for the unionists.

No it was coined by ignorant knuckle-dragging morons who think that every Irish person should be the exact same as them.

The Golden Miller

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It may have escaped your notice that the loyalist terrorist apologists are not standing for political office in this country.

When that penny drops, you might understand why Sinn Fein get more heat over their terrorist past/links.

it has nothing to do with sinn fein members standing in office. its how in general the media has portrayed the northern situation for the past 20 years. the irish times even had a pull-out of how great the queens visit was at the time when she came over, yet the same paper was also behind the sectarian love ulster march through o'connell street

finty

The Golden Miller wrote: »

would you ever see unionists making excuses for irish violence down through the years the way many irish revisionists seem to do for them. the term west brit didnt get coined out of nowhere. its there because theres a vast section of the irish population who make excuses for the unionists.

You are the lowest common denominator....collect your sinn fein membership card from parnell square :rolleyes:

The Golden Miller

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No it was coined by ignorant knuckle-dragging morons who think that every Irish person should be the exact same as them.

the people who believe in complete independence? as opposed to yourself and many others who make excuses as to why the country shouldnt be united.

a good example is when "irish" people once again take the unionist point of view and say stuff like "oh what about the 750,000 unionists who live in the north who dont want to be part of ireland". ye well what about your own people living in the same area who do? if your not going to defend your own, why do yoy feel the need to take their side and make excuses like the above quoted part

The Golden Miller

finty wrote: »

You are the lowest common denominator....collect your sinn fein membership card from parnell square :rolleyes:

ye thats me alright. sitting in a pub in a celtic jersey, in trackies, with cans of druids in my pocket, singing ira songs. you have me down to a tee.

Monty Burnz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

it has nothing to do with sinn fein members standing in office. its how in general the media has portrayed the northern situation for the past 20 years.

Bullsh!t. Absolute.

The Golden Miller wrote: »

the irish times even had a pull-out of how great the queens visit was at the time when she came over, yet the same paper was also behind the sectarian love ulster march through o'connell street

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove the editorial stance of the IT was 'behind' the Love Ulster parade, as every other claim you've made has been total poppycock.

Monty Burnz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

the people who believe in complete independence? as opposed to yourself and many others who make excuses as to why the country shouldnt be united.

What? Do you have any clue what my stance is on a UI before you go talking out of your hole? Are you the type of idiot who uses terms like 'West Brit' and I've hurt your feelings? :rolleyes:

The Golden Miller wrote: »

a good example is when "irish" people once again take the unionist point of view and say stuff like "oh what about the 750,000 unionists who live in the north who dont want to be part of ireland". ye well what about your own people living in the same area who do? if your not going to defend your own, why do yoy feel the need to take their side and make excuses like the above quoted part

WTF are you even on about?

The Golden Miller

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Bullsh!t. Absolute.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove the editorial stance of the IT was 'behind' the Love Ulster parade, as every other claim you've made has been total poppycock.

so you accept it was behind the queens visit? a queen who is over a country who claims sovereignity to 6 of your own counties? so if the pope was going to come, most people and media outlets would be against it over what went on here, about how it would be insensitive to victims etc, yet after all the irish suffering and deaths at the hands of britain the queens visit was brilliant because everything that happened "was in the past". did the government or the people who were for the visit stop to think how insensitive it would be to the irish in the north who suffered. did they ****. couldnt have cared in the slighest. just lick britains arse some more

The Golden Miller

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What? Do you have any clue what my stance is on a UI before you go talking out of your hole? Are you the type of idiot who uses terms like 'West Brit' and I've hurt your feelings? :rolleyes:

WTF are you even on about?

on about the usual rubbish which is spouted by irish people when it comes to the north. i never said you said that