Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

alastair · 03-05-2014 7:15pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did the international downturn and the utter failure to apply any form of competent regulation to the financial markets and then agreeing to provide a blanket guarantee on bad bank debts not have a teeny bit to do with it?

As for the sheer wastage of public funds on essentials like electronic voting machines that certainly couldn't have been a factor

Tax incentives for buildings even if it was a 4k estate aimed at Dublin workers but built outside a village of 200 Leitrim - or student flats...amazing the places one can find 'student flats' - bloody great idea. Let's do that again!

No - lets gift people a wodge of taxpayer's money if they agree to save their own money in a special bank account. That's the one! That is the vote winner! What could possibly go wrong...

The bank bailout costs are a pittance compared to the overall deficit. It amounts to around 3% of our peak bailout outgoings on a household basis. What got us in the real fix was cutting taxation, increased state spending, and betting the farm on property taxes.

Manach · 03-05-2014 7:27pm

marienbad wrote: »

Ireland is not a high tax economy by euro standards .

Assuming that tax is the compulsory transfer of resources from private to public that does not entail a pro quid pro (Taxes by L. Burman), the taxes can be deemed to be personal or impersonal. However the latter are not called taxes, instead levies, contributions, charges and so are not easily quantified. Thus as well as this factor, then within the mixed economies that comprise the euro and the different return the from the government services to the citizen (minus the handling charges by the state ), then stating Ireland is low-tax might be provable for corporations but not easily calculated for the citizens.

shootermacg · 03-05-2014 7:35pm

marienbad wrote: »

You could equally argue this is the most efficient method . Or is this just a private vs public discussion ?

On my broader point - do you thing they have done a good job on what they were elected to do - i.e get us out of the hole FF left us in ?

They didn't get us out of the hole, the pension levy and various stealth taxes is what got us out of the hole. I personally think we swapped one set of good old boys for another, the system itself hasn't changed a bit, we are still paying for the bought and paid for m50 but you can add property tax, water rates to that now.

shootermacg · 03-05-2014 7:42pm

realweirdo wrote: »

Every political party says something along the lines of the following when they are in opposition (Sinn Fein included):

"We will end austerity, we will let banks fail, we will put bankers on trial, we will reduce taxes, and increase spending, we won't introduce new taxes including stealth taxes."

And when they get into power, and examine the books and understand the fact we are spending 10 billion yearly more than we take in, and our national debt is headed for 100% GDP, what do you think they decide to do once in power?

It's easy to make grandiose election promises but it would be foolish to actually implement many of those promises in the light of how this country is BROKE.

So what do they do? Tax home owners with kids, tax us for the water we drink..pretty much make it impossible to have kids, our young are leaving in their droves... but that's fine we can always import criminals / beggars / prostitutes instead.

oscarBravo · 03-05-2014 7:43pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and no politician in the ROI considers themselves exempt from the law...

That's not the reply I expected from someone who's trying to overcome their instinctive revulsion to voting Sinn Féin; that's the sort of reply I have come to expect from a card-carrying member.

If you think it's OK for the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland to state that his party's support for policing is conditional on the police not doing their jobs where his party are concerned, just because some politicians in Ireland are similarly contemptuous of the law, then you've already made up your mind and you are the future of Sinn Féin.

It's a pretty sad reflection on SF's supporters and potential supporters that, for all their rhetoric about corrupt politics, when it comes down to it they're willing to use past corruption as an excuse for SF to do it in their turn.

ummm...I thought NI wasn't relevant???

The thread is about Sinn Féin. It appears that the party's position on law enforcement is that it's something that applies to other people, not to them. If that's not relevant, then there's nothing that could possibly convince you not to vote Sinn Féin and we have nothing further to discuss.

alastair · 03-05-2014 7:50pm

shootermacg wrote: »

So what do they do? Tax home owners with kids, tax us for the water we drink..pretty much make it impossible to have kids, our young are leaving in their droves... but that's fine we can always import criminals / beggars / prostitutes instead.

Dey tuk r jobs!

Dan_Solo · 03-05-2014 7:56pm

realweirdo wrote: »

It's easy to make grandiose election promises but it would be foolish to actually implement many of those promises in the light of how this country is BROKE.

Sorry but that's nonsense.
Ireland is nowhere near broke. The STATE is broke through overspending, under taxing and paying off idiotic bailouts.
Wealth redistribution and higher taxes is how you sort this problem out.

shootermacg · 03-05-2014 8:01pm

alastair wrote: »

Dey tuk r jobs!

No but, organised crime is to be taken seriously in my book. My job is quite safe actually because I work in the fastest growing segment, but thanks for your concerns.

shootermacg · 03-05-2014 8:03pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sorry but that's nonsense.
Ireland is nowhere near broke. The STATE is broke through overspending, under taxing and paying off idiotic bailouts.
Wealth redistribution and higher taxes is how you sort this problem out.

+1, yanks are laughing their heads off with the tax they spend here, we could quadruple this tax and still be their most attractive location.

Bannasidhe · 03-05-2014 8:26pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not the reply I expected from someone who's trying to overcome their instinctive revulsion to voting Sinn Féin; that's the sort of reply I have come to expect from a card-carrying member.

If you think it's OK for the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland to state that his party's support for policing is conditional on the police not doing their jobs where his party are concerned, just because some politicians in Ireland are similarly contemptuous of the law, then you've already made up your mind and you are the future of Sinn Féin.

It's a pretty sad reflection on SF's supporters and potential supporters that, for all their rhetoric about corrupt politics, when it comes down to it they're willing to use past corruption as an excuse for SF to do it in their turn. The thread is about Sinn Féin. It appears that the party's position on law enforcement is that it's something that applies to other people, not to them. If that's not relevant, then there's nothing that could possibly convince you not to vote Sinn Féin and we have nothing further to discuss.

I think the same standards should be applied to everyone equally - both sides of the Border and within the UK.

I think McGuinness's statement was stupid and kneejerk and if he meant it then he is an idiot. However, in the context of the lingering sectarian legacy it seems to be to be a revert to bad old days reaction which makes sense of the PNSI are been perceived as reverting back to the bad old days of the RUC. Still stupid. Also - it is the first statement I have seen that concerns me. I do not like the prospect of SF returning to the bad old days.

Do I think there are people on both sides who want to see the Peace Process fail? I surely do.

Do I think there are people within the PNSI? Yes. I do.
Do I believe there are people within the Republican movement? Yes, I do.
Do I believe there are people with the Loyalist community? Yes, I do.

Do I think either Adams or McGuinness are among that number. No, I really don't. They have invested too much to throw it away.

But as I have been asked time and time again when I mention NI - what does that have to do with governing this here republic?

Yes - Adams is a TD but he is not being questioned for any crime committed in the ROI. McGuinness is, despite his stalking horse act in the Presidential campaign, a politician who operates within the ROI.

Many members of other political parties committed crimes - and were found guilty in a court of law - but do we blame the entire party for that?

Are the other SF TD's complicit in a crime that occurred when they were children in a different jurisdiction during a brutal sectarian civil war?

How far back do we project that? Collins killed people, he ordered executions, he was directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people - is FG eternally guilty by association?

Southsidecelt · 03-05-2014 8:46pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think the same standards should be applied to everyone equally - both sides of the Border and within the UK.

I think McGuinness's statement was stupid and kneejerk and if he meant it then he is an idiot. However, in the context of the lingering sectarian legacy it seems to be to be a revert to bad old days reaction which makes sense of the PNSI are been perceived as reverting back to the bad old days of the RUC. Still stupid. Also - it is the first statement I have seen that concerns me. I do not like the prospect of SF returning to the bad old days.

Do I think there are people on both sides who want to see the Peace Process fail? I surely do.

Do I think there are people within the PNSI? Yes. I do.
Do I believe there are people within the Republican movement? Yes, I do.
Do I believe there are people with the Loyalist community? Yes, I d

Do I think either Adams or McGuinness are among that number. No, I really don't. They have invested too much to throw it away.

But as I have been asked time and time again when I mention NI - what does that have to do with governing this here republic?

Yes - Adams is a TD but he is not being questioned for any crime committed in the ROI. McGuinness is, despite his stalking horse act in the Presidential campaign, a politician who operates within the ROI.

Many members of other political parties committed crimes - and were found guilty in a court of law - but do we blame the entire party for that?

Are the other SF TD's complicit in a crime that occurred when they were children in a different jurisdiction during a brutal sectarian civil war?

How far back do we project that? Collins killed people, he ordered executions, he was directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people - is FG eternally guilty by association?

There all useless , Sinn Fein are doing nothing new as a opposition party ,just spouting crap that any other opposition party would do,as they say going through the motions.
Eirigi are the alternative to real change in this country

alastair · 03-05-2014 8:52pm

Southsidecelt wrote: »

There all useless , Sinn Fein are doing nothing new as a opposition party ,just spouting crap that any other opposition party would do,as they say going through the motions.
Eirigi are the alternative to real change in this country

From the farcical to the ridiculous.

oscarBravo · 03-05-2014 11:31pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think McGuinness's statement was stupid and kneejerk and if he meant it then he is an idiot.

I've seen nothing to indicate that it's not party policy. Have any senior party figures distanced themselves from the remark?

Bannasidhe · 04-05-2014 10:39am

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've seen nothing to indicate that it's not party policy. Have any senior party figures distanced themselves from the remark?

I have no idea as bar scanning the headlines I don't tend to peruse the newspapers on a Bank Holiday weekend when hungover... The headlines are saying Alan Shatter broke the law when he referred to Mick Wallace's alleged receiving of a caution for a driving offence. I do seem to recall at the time that senior members of FG backed Shatter - does this mean it is FG policy to brake data protection laws?

Bannasidhe · 04-05-2014 10:45am

Southsidecelt wrote: »

Zzzzzz says the master of the universe , what's it like to have all that wisdom between your ears. And yet still come out with brain dead comments ,ye fool

What a bizarre tactic to employ when trying to convince people...
Or is everyone who doesn't support Eirigi a brain dead fool?

alastair · 04-05-2014 10:56am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What a bizarre tactic to employ when trying to convince people...
Or is everyone who doesn't support Eirigi a brain dead fool?

Nah - he was right from the outset:

Eirigi are the alternative to real change in this country

oscarBravo · 04-05-2014 1:04pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no idea as bar scanning the headlines I don't tend to peruse the newspapers on a Bank Holiday weekend when hungover... The headlines are saying Alan Shatter broke the law when he referred to Mick Wallace's alleged receiving of a caution for a driving offence. I do seem to recall at the time that senior members of FG backed Shatter - does this mean it is FG policy to brake data protection laws?

Just so I'm clear: you're open to being persuaded to vote for Sinn Féin because, when a senior party figure announces that the party's support for policing is conditional on being exempt from it, you can think of a vague parallel with another party?

There's really nothing that anyone can say at this point that could possibly convince you not to vote Sinn Féin, is there?

Bannasidhe · 04-05-2014 2:28pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so I'm clear: you're open to being persuaded to vote for Sinn Féin because, when a senior party figure announces that the party's support for policing is conditional on being exempt from it, you can think of a vague parallel with another party?

There's really nothing that anyone can say at this point that could possibly convince you not to vote Sinn Féin, is there?

Yes.

But I don't accept that double standards should be allowed to apply as they seem to be doing.

The Minister for Justice broke the law. The Taoiseach and senior party members are standing by him.
Adams may have broken the law. McGuinness and senior party members are standing by him.

Apparently this means SF have no regard for the rule of law but Enda is only being loyal.

Double standards.

oscarBravo · 04-05-2014 2:33pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Adams may have broken the law. McGuinness and senior party members are standing by him.

No no no no no. You're evading my point.

I'm not talking about "standing by" Adams.

I'm talking about the deputy first minister threatening to withdraw support for policing if the police charge his colleague.

Kenny may be "standing by" Shatter, but if he were to threaten to make the DPC's job unworkable unless the DPC found in Shatter's favour, only then would be comparable to what McGuinness has said - and even then, it still wouldn't make McGuinness's remark any less despicable and contemptible.

It boggles my mind that the deputy first minister of a state can threaten the police force of that state for doing their job, and you don't seem to think it's a big deal. I can't get my head around that, I really can't.

Bannasidhe · 04-05-2014 2:44pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

No no no no no. You're evading my point.

I'm not talking about "standing by" Adams.

I'm talking about the deputy first minister threatening to withdraw support for policing if the police charge his colleague.

Kenny may be "standing by" Shatter, but if he were to threaten to make the DPC's job unworkable unless the DPC found in Shatter's favour, only then would be comparable to what McGuinness has said - and even then, it still wouldn't make McGuinness's remark any less despicable and contemptible.

It boggles my mind that the deputy first minister of a state can threaten the police force of that state for doing their job, and you don't seem to think it's a big deal. I can't get my head around that, I really can't.

I think it is a stupid reversion to 1980s Shinner talk and I very much think it is a big deal and if I thought for a second that 1980s Shinner was their default setting no way would I vote for them. I do understand how it could be McGuinnesses - but is it shared by the likes of MacDonald and Doherty is the question.

Is it a throwback response or is it still at their heart?

I also happen to think having a Minister for Justice who blatantly brakes the law and for the Taoiseach to stand by him is a big deal.

BOTH are big deals. But only One of which is occurring in the State I happen to live in.

oscarBravo · 04-05-2014 2:57pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think it is a stupid reversion to 1980s Shinner talk and I very much think it is a big deal and if I thought for a second that 1980s Shinner was their default setting no way would I vote for them. I do understand how it could be McGuinnesses - but is it shared by the likes of MacDonald and Doherty is the question.

I don't care whether or not it's the default setting. It bothers me that it is considered - by them, and apparently by you - as an acceptable temporary setting. If they successfully intimidate the PSNI into dropping charges they would otherwise have brought (ironically, if they succeed in getting "political policing", which is apparently only a problem if it works against you), and then revert to supporting the police, are you telling me that everything will be OK again?

Is it a throwback response or is it still at their heart?

It's completely unacceptable that it was said at all. If Enda Kenny had released a statement to the effect that Billy Hawkes might want to think about dusting off his CV unless he left Alan Shatter alone, I'd be demanding his resignation, even if it was an off-the-cuff remark.

I also happen to think having a Minister for Justice who blatantly brakes the law and for the Taoiseach to stand by him is a big deal.

Maybe it doesn't go to the heart of Fine Gael, in which case presumably it's OK.

BOTH are big deals. But only One of which is occurring in the State I happen to live in.

It's incredibly convenient how Sinn Féin can be an all-island party when it suits them, and a completely separate organisation from thon bunch of weirdo nordies when that suits.

Bannasidhe · 04-05-2014 3:03pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't care whether or not it's the default setting. It bothers me that it is considered - by them, and apparently by you - as an acceptable temporary setting. If they successfully intimidate the PSNI into dropping charges they would otherwise have brought (ironically, if they succeed in getting "political policing", which is apparently only a problem if it works against you), and then revert to supporting the police, are you telling me that everything will be OK again? It's completely unacceptable that it was said at all. If Enda Kenny had released a statement to the effect that Billy Hawkes might want to think about dusting off his CV unless he left Alan Shatter alone, I'd be demanding his resignation, even if it was an off-the-cuff remark. Maybe it doesn't go to the heart of Fine Gael, in which case presumably it's OK. It's incredibly convenient how Sinn Féin can be an all-island party when it suits them, and a completely separate organisation from thon bunch of weirdo nordies when that suits.

You don't seem to believe there are double standards at play and I find that hard to understand.

The leader of the government condoning the breaking of the law by the Minister for Justice is huge - and it is also an example of 'political policing' as Shatter used information supplied to him by the Commissioner of police to use in a political point scoring exercise. As for the 'arrest' of Claire Daly - do you not think that was 'politically' motivated? Was that not an example of a police force abusing it's power to try and smear the reputation of a member of parliament who dared to question them?

Do you really believe the PNSI is free from making 'political' moves? I don't.

oscarBravo · 04-05-2014 3:12pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You don't seem to believe there are double standards at play and I find that hard to understand.

I'm seeing double standards, alright. You seem to think that Kenny standing by Shatter is unforgivable, but that McGuinness threatening the future of the police process unless the cops stop doing their job isn't a good enough reason not to vote for his party.

The leader of the government condoning the breaking of the law by the Minister for Justice is huge - and it is also an example of 'political policing' as Shatter used information supplied to him by the Commissioner of police to use in a political point scoring exercise. As for the 'arrest' of Claire Daly - do you not think that was 'politically' motivated? Was that not an example of a police force abusing it's power to try and smear the reputation of a member of parliament who dared to question them?

As it happens, I do. I think it's only right that Callinan is gone, and I'd like to see the back of Shatter.

The difference between us is that I see McGuinness's remarks as reprehensible beyond belief, but you seem to think they're acceptable because you've managed to draw a parallel with another party.

In other words, you're looking for an alternative party to vote for because of how horrible FF, FG and Labour are, and SF will do nicely because the bad stuff they do can be hand-waved away by comparison with the other parties.

I still don't get it.

Do you really believe the PNSI is free from making 'political' moves? I don't.

That's an argument for making Sinn Féin untouchable. If every time one of their members gets arrested for anything, all they have to do is scream "political policing" as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Are you claiming that there's no possibility that his arrest isn't politically motivated? Because that's the Sinn Féin line, and it's been completely consistent. They've been screaming "political policing" as if it was a fact proven in a court of law.

Zubeneschamali · 04-05-2014 4:18pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I resigned from the LP - how do you think I believe our current government are doing?

Phil Hogan James O Reilly/ Alan Shatter - That's how I think our current government are doing.

Now imagine if Leo Varadkar was Minister for Social Protection and Phil Hogan was Minister for Education.

Labour have very clearly tempered FGs desire to cut spending on the poor and cut taxes on the rich.

But that isn't good enough, you want to vote SF because they'll promise you the moon (and never have to deliver).

Dan_Solo · 04-05-2014 6:22pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Now imagine if Leo Varadkar was Minister for Social Protection and Phil Hogan was Minister for Education.

Labour have very clearly tempered FGs desire to cut spending on the poor and cut taxes on the rich.

But that isn't good enough, you want to vote SF because they'll promise you the moon (and never have to deliver).

Pretty serious case of Stockholm syndrome you've got there.
So we should never vote for parties with policies we like because they won't get in anyway... sure I'll just vote whichever way the opinion polls are going then. No need to engage brain.

Permabear · 04-05-2014 6:35pm

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe · 04-05-2014 11:33pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did I ?I seem to recall simply reposting your post with a comment which attempted to humorously reinforce the point you had made re: GDP still being high despite all the governments measures. Their measure don't seem to be very effective now do they?

Bannasidhe · 04-05-2014 11:41pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm seeing double standards, alright. You seem to think that Kenny standing by Shatter is unforgivable, but that McGuinness threatening the future of the police process unless the cops stop doing their job isn't a good enough reason not to vote for his party. As it happens, I do. I think it's only right that Callinan is gone, and I'd like to see the back of Shatter.

The difference between us is that I see McGuinness's remarks as reprehensible beyond belief, but you seem to think they're acceptable because you've managed to draw a parallel with another party.

In other words, you're looking for an alternative party to vote for because of how horrible FF, FG and Labour are, and SF will do nicely because the bad stuff they do can be hand-waved away by comparison with the other parties.

I still don't get it. That's an argument for making Sinn Féin untouchable. If every time one of their members gets arrested for anything, all they have to do is scream "political policing" as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Are you claiming that there's no possibility that his arrest isn't politically motivated? Because that's the Sinn Féin line, and it's been completely consistent. They've been screaming "political policing" as if it was a fact proven in a court of law.

I think the leader of the government standing by a minister for Justice who has blatantly and knowingly (and if not knowingly he can't be a very good solicitor) broken the law is an attack on the foundation of the State. That is not the same thing as Kenny standing by Shatter. That is a Toaiseach putting party loyalty put before the State. Again.

I notice Adams has been released without charge. Indeed reports are that they were mainly interested in proving he was a member of the PIRA in the 1970s - this is at least the second time they have tried that - are they now going to arrest everyone suspected of membership of the PIRA in the 1970s? Will they do likewise with the UVF?

oscarBravo · 05-05-2014 12:42am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think the leader of the government standing by a minister for Justice who has blatantly and knowingly (and if not knowingly he can't be a very good solicitor) broken the law is an attack on the foundation of the State. That is not the same thing as Kenny standing by Shatter. That is a Toaiseach putting party loyalty put before the State. Again.

And the deputy leader of the government in Northern Ireland publicly threatened the police force not to bring charges against his party colleague, or else. That's a deputy prime minister putting party loyalty ahead of the physical security of his state.

Explain to me - please, please explain to me - how that's not at least as bad.

I notice Adams has been released without charge. Indeed reports are that they were mainly interested in proving he was a member of the PIRA in the 1970s - this is at least the second time they have tried that - are they now going to arrest everyone suspected of membership of the PIRA in the 1970s? Will they do likewise with the UVF?

Ye gods, you're pitch-perfect on message. At this point, your posts are literally indistinguishable from those of people who have been publicly proclaiming their undying support for SF for years.

I don't think we've anything more to discuss, because I genuinely don't think there's a power in the 'verse that could prevent you from voting SF at this point.

What's shocking amid all the triumphalism from the assorted Shinners about Adams being released without charge - which, let's face it, was always the most likely outcome - is the unremarked fact that there's now a question mark over whether McGuinness's threat to pull his party's support for policing was a factor in the PSNI's decision not to charge. The party that has been screeching hysterically about political policing over the past few days just politicised policing in the most blatant way possible, and - worse - are incapable of detecting the irony.

Bannasidhe · 05-05-2014 12:58am

oscarBravo wrote: »

And the deputy leader of the government in Northern Ireland publicly threatened the police force not to bring charges against his party colleague, or else. That's a deputy prime minister putting party loyalty ahead of the physical security of his state.

Explain to me - please, please explain to me - how that's not at least as bad. Ye gods, you're pitch-perfect on message. At this point, your posts are literally indistinguishable from those of people who have been publicly proclaiming their undying support for SF for years.

I don't think we've anything more to discuss, because I genuinely don't think there's a power in the 'verse that could prevent you from voting SF at this point.

What's shocking amid all the triumphalism from the assorted Shinners about Adams being released without charge - which, let's face it, was always the most likely outcome - is the unremarked fact that there's now a question mark over whether McGuinness's threat to pull his party's support for policing was a factor in the PSNI's decision not to charge. The party that has been screeching hysterically about political policing over the past few days just politicised policing in the most blatant way possible, and - worse - are incapable of detecting the irony.

Actually, and I have already said this, my 1st preference would be a PBP candidate.

I have also said I believe events in both juisdictions they are equally bad several time. What I do not see is equal treatment being handed out.

But sure - I raise what I believe are legitimate points and once again it is implied I am an SF shill and simply 'on message'.

Not a very constructive, mature or effective method of getting a person to take your points on board.

Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

Comments