Sinn Fein appealing to the lowest common denominator

Sleepy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

All Sinn Fein members, from the party leader to the guy who drives his car, earn the average industrial wage. Dunno what his income from the books would be but I doubt it runs into the millions

That's factually incorrect but popular Sinn Fein propoganda.

Mr Adams (and the other Sinn Fein TD's) earn the same basic salary as any other TD of €92,672. He also receives various expenses and allowances, much of which is unvouched or simply paid pro-rata.

While they apparently donate most of this to the Sinn Fein political party, it's incorrect to state they earn the same as other members and while they may be taking home the same amount after tax they'd be on the books as having earned (and paid tax on) a far higher salary.

It's his own business what he does with his salary (though I have wondered how this is allowed under political donations rules since the amount contributed to the party each year would surely exceed the threshold for personal donation?).

Nodin

smash wrote: »

That's all well and good but their desired demographic mostly consists of people from council areas, or who are less educated or are long term unemployed. The point is that they prey on the weak.


They're denying that it is correct.

...people from council areas are "weak" - again? No, thats not elitist in the slightest. Not at all, at all, at all.

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

So nearly 400 posts in still no detail on their economic plans, just slogans and populist rhetoric.

Sinn Fein's economic plans are not the purpose of this thread.
It has also been pointed out several times that you can get all their economic plans and policies on their website.

smash

Nodin wrote: »

...people from council areas are "weak" - again? No, thats not elitist in the slightest. Not at all, at all, at all.

Not all of them but I'm just stating the demographic of people they target. And as a demographic they would be considered weak in society.

If you were to create a chart of various demographics do you think that council areas would be on the lower end of the scale regarding wealth, employment, education? And on the higher end of the scale regarding anti social behaviour and state benefit claims?

P.C.

Morlar wrote: »

smash wrote: »

Clutching at straws about what? The thread was started to discuss how they target people of a certain demographic and so far the SF supporters have not been able to prove otherwise and instead are the ones bringing it off topic in a very SF manner.

You and I have a significantly different assessment of this thread.

smash wrote: »

You're suggesting that people who don't support SF are all Elitist?

That's clearly not what I said.

What I said was related to the content of much of the 'anti-SF' posts on this thread.

That is clearly not the same thing as 'ALL People who don't support SF'.

Did you really make the mistake of thinking those two things are exactly and always the same ? Or are you simply disingenous ?

Twist words much.

I went back and reread your post. You did not mention this thread.
So, you did say that anti SF sentiment is elitist.

Sleepy

Nodin wrote: »

...people from council areas are "weak" - again? No, thats not elitist in the slightest. Not at all, at all, at all.

Demographically speaking it's correct. There will be individuals that break the demographic mould (I know plenty of high-earning college graduates that come from council estates) but as a demographic those from council estates are poorly educated, poorly skilled and have higher rates of unemployment and drawing of welfare.

Sounds exactly like the demographic that your elected representatives describe as "weak", "marginalised" and "most vulnerable" to me tbh.

You can speak of things at a demographic level, it's when you assume someone's membership of that demographic makes the democraphic generalisations true about the individual that one becomes unacceptable.

Crooked Jack

Sleepy wrote: »

That's factually incorrect but popular Sinn Fein propoganda.

Mr Adams (and the other Sinn Fein TD's) earn the same basic salary as any other TD of €92,672. He also receives various expenses and allowances, much of which is unvouched or simply paid pro-rata.

While they apparently donate most of this to the Sinn Fein political party, it's incorrect to state they earn the same as other members and while they may be taking home the same amount after tax they'd be on the books as having earned (and paid tax on) a far higher salary.

It's his own business what he does with his salary (though I have wondered how this is allowed under political donations rules since the amount contributed to the party each year would surely exceed the threshold for personal donation?).

Fair enough then. All Sinn Fein members "take home," the average industrial wage. Whatever difference that makes to the argument about wether or not he is a personally millionaire. Whatever that argument has to do with the topic at hand anyway.

Nodin

smash wrote: »

Not all of them but I'm just stating the demographic of people they target. And as a demographic they would be considered weak in society.

If you were to create a chart of various demographics do you think that council areas would be on the lower end of the scale regarding wealth, employment, education? And on the higher end of the scale regarding anti social behaviour and state benefit claims?

You reject the term vulnerable, but have no problem with "weak"......
I think you're trying to intellectualise your own fear and snobbery at this stage.

smash

Sleepy wrote: »

You can speak of things at a demographic level, it's when you assume someone's membership of that demographic makes the democraphic generalisations true about the individual that one becomes unacceptable.

I made no assumption, I'm talking about their general target demographic. And have always said that not everyone in these target areas fall into their target.

Nodin wrote: »

You reject the term vulnerable, but have no problem with "weak"......

Because most are not vulnerable. They get great benefits! They can still be classed as part of the weak demographic though.

Nodin wrote: »

I think you're trying to intellectualise your own fear and snobbery at this stage.

Fear of what exactly?

Morlar

P.C. wrote: »

Twist words much.

I went back and reread your post. You did not mention this thread.
So, you did say that anti SF sentiment is elitist.

Here is what I said :

Morlar wrote: »

It's clear that you and the rest of the 'anti-SF' crowd are clutching at straws as you have been for most of this thread.

Sometimes amusingly but more often it's just revealing in terms of the elitist & condescending tone of much of the criticism (which btw tends to be directed not so much at the party but often against caricatures of their supporters).

Crooked Jack

swimming in a sea wrote: »

They've never answered it, they never answer anything when it comes to economy, if you are an SF supporter maybe you can answer it.

Where would NI get the money to pay for itself without the Westminster handout?????

Eh, yes they do, they always answer questions on the economy. I've seen this tactic in several TV interviews in the run up to any election. They ask SF a question, SF answers it and then they start harping on about not answering the question anyway.

Regarding the north paying for itself, setting aside that you've just brought that up out of the blue, as I said earlier, SF's There Is A Better Way document highlighted almost £2bn in savings that could be made with cuts that dont affect frontline services or low income families coupled with fat trimming and the restructuring of government bodies and departments.

I would also point out that while SF are pushing for fiscal responsibility for the north so that they can undo the damage of the Tory government, their goal is not a self sufficient north.
It is a united Ireland. So really we should be asking how can a united Ireland be afforded. SF have put many proposals forward for that, for example their Uniting Ireland Green paper, but they are also one of the few parties prepared to admit that they do not have all the answers.
They have consistently called for the SDLP, FF, LAB and FG to produce their own green papers so that every party supposedly in favour of unity can put their proposals forward and together come up with a real, workable plan.

P.C.

Here is what you said.

Morlar wrote: »

Sometimes amusingly but more often it's just revealing in terms of the elitist & condescending tone of much of the criticism (which btw tends to be directed not so much at the party but often against caricatures of their supporters).

[/Quote]

If you think I am taking what you said out of context, then have a look at some SF flyers and leaflets.

swimming in a sea

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Eh, yes they do, they always answer questions on the economy. I've seen this tactic in several TV interviews in the run up to any election. They ask SF a question, SF answers it and then they start harping on about not answering the question anyway.

Regarding the north paying for itself, setting aside that you've just brought that up out of the blue, as I said earlier, SF's There Is A Better Way document highlighted almost £2bn in savings that could be made with cuts that dont affect frontline services or low income families coupled with fat trimming and the restructuring of government bodies and departments.

I would also point out that while SF are pushing for fiscal responsibility for the north so that they can undo the damage of the Tory government, their goal is not a self sufficient north.
It is a united Ireland. So really we should be asking how can a united Ireland be afforded. SF have put many proposals forward for that, for example their Uniting Ireland Green paper, but they are also one of the few parties prepared to admit that they do not have all the answers.
They have consistently called for the SDLP, FF, LAB and FG to produce their own green papers so that every party supposedly in favour of unity can put their proposals forward and together come up with a real, workable plan.

first off the thing about the NI budget was brought up by someone else who i was agreeing with and then you came in with your own comment, so follow back the comments and you'll find I did not bring it out of the blue.

Oh SF always tomorrow with them, let them run NI first before thinking of a united Ireland. So SF can save 2billion in NI well I hope Westminster listens up and cuts 2billion of the block grant. :rolleyes:

srsly78

They save loads of money by not blowing stuff up right? :P

Morlar

P.C. wrote: »

Here is what you said.

....

If you think I am taking what you said out of context, then have a look at some SF flyers and leaflets.

To clarify -

You have removed the line preceding that where I speficically mentioned This thread & you now imply that I was not referring to this thread at all ?

Is that it in a nutshell?

Crooked Jack

swimming in a sea wrote: »

first off the thing about the NI budget was brought up by someone else who i was agreeing with and then you came in with your own comment, so follow back the comments and you'll find I did not bring it out of the blue.

Oh SF always tomorrow with them, let them run NI first before thinking of a united Ireland. So SF can save 2billion in NI well I hope Westminster listens up and cuts 2billion of the block grant. :rolleyes:

They probably would, which is why SF want fiscal autonomy.

That was the first time you'd brought up the northern economy with me.

Once again we see the typical anti-SF attitude. You asked a question, sure in the knowledge that a Sinn Fein supporting lowlife couldnt answer it, and when they did instead of providing a retort you brush it aside with some patronising dismissive comment and rummage around in your bag for the next thing to throw.
That was a childish comment at the end as well.

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Sinn Fein's economic plans are not the purpose of this thread.
It has also been pointed out several times that you can get all their economic plans and policies on their website.

I'd have thought it was relevant, moreso than the Troubles anyway but I'm used to the deflection, anything to avoid actually putting substance to the slogans.

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

I'd have thought it was relevant, moreso than the Troubles anyway but I'm used to the deflection, anything to avoid actually putting substance to the slogans.

How has anyone avoided putting "substance to the slogans?" Several people have been directed several times to the Sinn Fein website for a a comprehensive run down of their economic policies.
The only deflection here is being done by yourself

shootermacg

A lot of people will take anything over the gutless me feiner career politicians we've been putting up with. There are currently no ideals in politics in ireland, profit drives these chancers. I for one would vote sinn fein just to see what happens. I cannot stress enough how sick I am of where we are, how we got there, the crooks that got us here and the crooks that are making things worse. The straw that broke the camels back is NAMA taking 2 billion and trying to kick-start the building industry all over again!

swimming in a sea

shootermacg wrote: »

A lot of people will take anything over the gutless me feiner career politicians we've been putting up with. There are currently no ideals in politics in ireland, profit drives these chancers. I for one would vote sinn fein just to see what happens. I cannot stress enough how sick I am of where we are, how we got there, the crooks that got us here and the crooks that are making things worse. The straw that broke the camels back is NAMA taking 2 billion and trying to kick-start the building industry all over again!

Well I'm sure xerox, hp and anyone else who makes printer catridges would like to see happen too, their profits will go through the roof.:D

swimming in a sea

Crooked Jack wrote: »

That was the first time you'd brought up the northern economy with me.

Another poster makes a comment on Northern Ireland budget, I reply to this person quoting what they say, then you make a comment on what I said about the northern Ireland budget. So get it straight I didn't bring it up with you.

Try reading the comments before diving in, I'm not really anti SF either I don't really like though how a 10% party gets so much media coverage and we all know why that is.
See when all your old stagers are gone to the great H block in the sky you'll be just another loony lefty party....

Crooked Jack

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Another poster makes a comment on Northern Ireland budget, I reply to this person quoting what they say, then you make a comment on what I said about the northern Ireland budget. So get it straight I didn't bring it up with you.

Try reading the comments before diving in, I'm not really anti SF either I don't really like though how a 10% party gets so much media coverage and we all know why that is.
See when all your old stagers are gone to the great H block in the sky you'll be just another loony lefty party....

You quoted this post of mine.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzz.... typical reaction of the anti SF crowd, people who will always be anti-Sinn Fein no matter what they say or do.
Ask a question, Sinn Fein answers it, they dont get the response they wanted so they resort to this tiresome kneecap/bombing/shooting schtick.
How much longer do you think that stuff is going to work for. There is a new generation of voters coming through who are judging parties on their policies and their actions, not the prejudices they were brought up with.
Better change your tune.

Underneath it you wrote this to me

They've never answered it, they never answer anything when it comes to economy, if you are an SF supporter maybe you can answer it.

Where would NI get the money to pay for itself without the Westminster handout?????

You wrote that to me. I didnt but into any conversation you were having with any other poster. That was the first time you brought up the northern economy with me.

Also "I'm not really anti SF," followed immediately by "when all your old stagers are gone to the great H block in the sky you'll be just another loony lefty party." Hilarious.

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

How has anyone avoided putting "substance to the slogans?" Several people have been directed several times to the Sinn Fein website for a a comprehensive run down of their economic policies.
The only deflection here is being done by yourself

I don't see much on how they work out their figures.

mikeym

I would rather listen to Sinn Fein than them muppets in Fianna Fail :mad:

humanji

mikeym wrote: »

I would rather listen to Sinn Fein than them muppets in Fianna Fail :mad:

I'd rather syphilis than gonorrhea, but I'd prefer to have neither.

Nodin

smash wrote: »

...............


Because most are not vulnerable. They get great benefits! ..........

You're going to break that shovel at the rate you're going.

Wibbs

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Please point out to me where I said it wasnt an issue. I merely inferred that it wasnt the only issue. Surely you couldnt disagree with that.

Finding ways to pay for their grand schemes is by far the biggest issue.

Dudess

I don't understand why SF supporters get so snide towards those who don't support them because of their link to, and refusal to condemn all, republican violence. Even people who are usually reasonable. People have different reasons for not supporting anything - why not accept this one? It's not an attack and it's not a statement that all involved with SF are terrorists or that Catholics weren't justified in rising up in the late 60s.

Chuck Stone

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Section 31-spawned tossers

Section 31 tosser. Perfect description.

Egocentric twats would be a more uncouth description.

Dudess wrote: »

I don't understand why SF supporters get so snide towards those who don't support them

You've got to be kidding? If we're to talk about snideness then it's the people who condemn all things SF without even trying to decentre who are the most snide ****wits on these boards.

Look how many people have described SF voters as 'uneducated' (or thanked posts supporting this assertion) as if an education imbues people with democratic wisdom - teachers in the Dail, anyone? Government economists and financial regulation, anyone? Intergenerational mortgages, anyone? We've turned a corner, anyone?

Moreover, it's ****ing hilarious to hear people call SF economically naive when the usual suspects presided over one of the worst national economic calamities in modern history.

I'm not a SF voter but the section 31 tossers (props to Ellis Dee) really need to work on their decentration skills and stop having their opinions spoon fed to them by people like that tosser Kevin Myers.

Crooked Jack

Dudess wrote: »

I don't understand why SF supporters get so snide towards those who don't support them because of their link to, and refusal to condemn all, republican violence. Even people who are usually reasonable. People have different reasons for not supporting anything - why not accept this one? It's not an attack and it's not a statement that all involved with SF are terrorists or that Catholics weren't justified in rising up in the late 60s.

Because they only attribute those comments to Sinn Fein and ignore the violent origins of all the other parties in Ireland.
They also accuse Sinn Fein of being involved in these attacks when they know it was the IRA.
Furthermore, this stuff is usually spouted by the same people who like to tell you to stop harking back to the past but are the first to tear into the whataboutery at every available opportunity.

paddyandy

We know where the shinners get their support from and we won't get Law and Order issues dealt with from that quarter . They are seducing the under 25s with their jobs talk .

Capt'n Midnight

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Because they only attribute those comments to Sinn Fein and ignore the violent origins of all the other parties in Ireland.

Excluding people who were originally in SF and moved to other parties, what evidence has there been of any of the other political parties been involved in violence since the end of WWII.

They also accuse Sinn Fein of being involved in these attacks when they know it was the IRA.

Are going to suggest that there wasn't a overlap of some people between both organisations ?

Furthermore, this stuff is usually spouted by the same people who like to tell you to stop harking back to the past but are the first to tear into the whataboutery at every available opportunity.

Gerry Adams has been president or vice-president of SF since 1978.

Dudess

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Because they only attribute those comments to Sinn Fein and ignore the violent origins of all the other parties in Ireland.
They also accuse Sinn Fein of being involved in these attacks when they know it was the IRA.
Furthermore, this stuff is usually spouted by the same people who like to tell you to stop harking back to the past but are the first to tear into the whataboutery at every available opportunity.

Look, I detest people who pretend the atrocities against Catholics didn't go on and who go on about republican violence and never loyalist violence, like a handful here. Violence is violence. But whataboutery is constantly resorted to by SF supporters too - you've done it on yor post above. I'm doing it now! Some hardline republicans advocate forgetting the past when it comes to IRA atrocities but they obviously wouldn't say the same re e.g. Bloody Sunday. And rightly so.
That doesn't change that people have a reason they believe in for not supporting SF - and it's closely linked with the IRA. SF may not have carried out the attacks but that link is enough.

forfuxsake

It's hard to find a political party in the world that cannot be directly linked with the violent deaths of civilians.

Tory - World wars, etc, etc
Labour - lots of examples under Blair for example
DUP - incitement to murder innocent catholics
FG/FF - Haughey and the IRA, the blueshirts, civil war.
US Republicans and Democrats - Do I need to explain?
Communist Party
Nazi Party

I'm not a SF voter and never have been but I find all the talk about killing people very hypocritical. Politics and war go hand-in-hand and we should look to move past that instead of finger-pointing. Sinn Fein has enough in its policies to attack(as does every other party).

Dudess

Chuck, I'm not denying there is snideness from anti SF people - sometimes towards anything even vaguely republican. But what I'm talking about is people who'd be reasonable about a difference of opinion (once decently backed up) on anything else except this.

"The lowest common denominator?" /high horse

That you Bertie?

"On the other side of the election we'll get back to normality. And I think that normality will be the soft landing. The construction projections were that we will move from something like 93,000 houses to 80-something. Now that's not going to create any kind of a difficulty."

Mallei

People who bring up Sinn Fein's links to violence in the six counties seem to completely forget that BOTH FG and FF arose from violence, too. And yet, where it's seen as just and honourable the way they forced the English through bloodshed out of Ireland, it's condemned to do the same in the north? Even though that's still Ireland?

I know Catholics up in Derry and Tyrone who put up with crap every single day, but the thought that drives them is the knowledge that they are Irish, and in the Irish of the rest of Ireland they have a common cause and common commitment to a united, free, non-occupied six counties with the rest of Ireland. When they see threads such as this it breaks their heart.

It's very easy to condemn Sinn Fein's violent past when you've grown up in the relative peace and prosperity of a free Ireland. The fact that they still care about unification when the rest of you are happy enough to simply let the status quo be because "sure, I got my independence, why should I care about other Irish people" shows they actually care more about Ireland than you do.

I'd wonder if so many of you would be as happy as you are to let the EU seize control of Ireland with this treaty if you'd actually grown up in a situation where a foreign oppressor rules your land. You'd have a much better understanding of it, that's for sure.

forfuxsake

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Excluding people who were originally in SF and moved to other parties, what evidence has there been of any of the other political parties been involved in violence since the end of WWII.


Are going to suggest that there wasn't a overlap of some people between both organisations ?


Gerry Adams has been president or vice-president of SF since 1978.

Charles Haughey and the PIRA.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/charles-haughey-and-the-provisional-ira-131612.html

Capt'n Midnight

forfuxsake wrote: »

It's hard to find a political party in the world that cannot be directly linked with the violent deaths of civilians.

Tory - World wars, etc, etc
Labour - lots of examples under Blair for example
DUP - incitement to murder innocent catholics
FG/FF - Haughey and the IRA, the blueshirts, civil war.
US Republicans and Democrats - Do I need to explain?
Communist Party
Nazi Party

I'm not a SF voter and never have been but I find all the talk about killing people very hypocritical. Politics and war go hand-in-hand and we should look to move past that instead of finger-pointing. Sinn Fein has enough in its policies to attack(as does every other party).

Politics and war do not need to go hand in hand in a democracy , and you can't take a moral high ground by aledging that "it's OK others were as bad"


did you read my post ?

FG/FF - Haughey and the IRA, the blueshirts, civil war.

All those involved in the civil war are now dead.
Show me where the blueshirts killed anyone ??
Haughey and the IRA - who did Haughey kill ??

Exclusing SF and those with direct links to them it's very difficult to find an Irish party involved in the violent deaths of civilians. And you have to remember they were violent times worldwide.

Capt'n Midnight

forfuxsake wrote: »

Charles Haughey and the PIRA.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/charles-haughey-and-the-provisional-ira-131612.html

That was about money, Haughey was scum, but it's still not a party killing civilians.

And Tomas MacGiolla is hardly an impartial observer.

Chuck Stone

Dudess wrote: »

But what I'm talking about is people who'd be reasonable about a difference of opinion (once decently backed up) on anything else except this.

That's just an aspect of the human condition though isn't it? When people criticise a narrative that you genuinely subscribe to and have emotionally invested in, it can feel like an attack on your very person.

conor.hogan.2

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That was about money, Haughey was scum, but it's still not a party killing civilians.

Funding the IRA. Actual tangible funding.

Not "ah sure we all know Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA" which is mostly hearsay.

I suppose you have proof of Adams funding the IRA?

gerryo777

Ruralyoke wrote: »

"No to education cuts" almost laughable as SF in NI approves cuts of 4 billion :rolleyes:



Bunch of chancers and their supporters are worse.

Always amazes me how people on here always compare the republic with the north.
It's the same with the household tax, you get, "in the north you'd be paying £1,000 per year in a similar household tax" but then completely forget to point out what you get for your £1,000 (e.g. bins collected, free medical care, free schoolbooks etc)

As I'm sure you know ruralyoke the north is funded from London and does not have the same freedom to raise revenue as we do down here.

But that point doesn't matter, does it?

Tell you what, if Sinn Fein supporters are bad, what does that make the FF cheerleaders who elected the previous 3 administrations we had? Clueless or what?

Crooked Jack

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Excluding people who were originally in SF and moved to other parties, what evidence has there been of any of the other political parties been involved in violence since the end of WWII.


Are going to suggest that there wasn't a overlap of some people between both organisations ?


Gerry Adams has been president or vice-president of SF since 1978.

Oh right, since WWII, so now it's not a just a question of killing, it's a question of how long ago it was. Killing pre WWII was fine, so all the Shinners have to do is give it a few years and then people like yourself will drip the issue? (That aside I do recall the Labour party having various links to the Stickies, not to mention DUP and UUP links with groups like the UVF and UDA as well as the infamous South African guns/Third Force fiasco.)

I'm sure there was an overlap of members in SF and IRA, same way there was an overlap of members in SF and GAA, or AOH or the local darts club. An overlap of members does not make the two the same organisation, in fact even a brief look through modern Irish history will reveal that there was often a lot of animosity between SF and the IRA particularly during the early years of the war when IRA members would look at SF as something of a joke.

Yes, Gerry Adams has been a senior member of SF since the 70s. What of it?

jumpymunky

gerryo777 wrote: »

Always amazes me how people on here always compare the republic with the north.
It's the same with the household tax, you get, "in the north you'd be paying £1,000 per year in a similar household tax" but then completely forget to point out what you get for your £1,000 (e.g. bins collected, free medical care, free schoolbooks etc)

QUOTE]


They don't actually . Its always pointed out that people in the North (or anywhere elses where there are property taxes) get something in return for the money that they pay over. Whereas here the €100 household charge/whatever they've got planned to replace it is just a crude revenue raising measure to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes.

guitarzero

Partial I am to sinn fein, there are times when you have to beat the opposition at their own game by throwing up false tangents on a canvas. Fianna Fail/Gael have been doing this bullsh*t for as long as I remember - "Yes for Jobs", sounds familiar. The problem is how much does a party have to compromise itself to out do the rest, I suppose you would have to ask labour that question.

brandon_flowers

forfuxsake wrote: »

It's hard to find a political party in the world that cannot be directly linked with the violent deaths of civilians.

Tory - World wars, etc, etc
Labour - lots of examples under Blair for example
DUP - incitement to murder innocent catholics
FG/FF - Haughey and the IRA, the blueshirts, civil war.
US Republicans and Democrats - Do I need to explain?
Communist Party
Nazi Party

I'm not a SF voter and never have been but I find all the talk about killing people very hypocritical. Politics and war go hand-in-hand and we should look to move past that instead of finger-pointing. Sinn Fein has enough in its policies to attack(as does every other party).

The Green Party.


















They only killed themselves though.

Kathnora

I have a very simple rule of thumb.......... If Sinn Féin say vote NO to something then I know to vote YES and vice versa!!

Crooked Jack

Kathnora wrote: »

I have a very simple rule of thumb.......... If Sinn Féin say vote NO to something then I know to vote YES and vice versa!!

What a healthy and responsible political outlook. See post 338.

gerryo777

Kathnora wrote: »

I have a very simple rule of thumb.......... If Sinn Féin say vote NO to something then I know to vote YES and vice versa!!

That's some intelligent thinking right there.:D
God help us.