Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you explain this?

"Stack: ”So you obviously stand over that disgusting tweet then?”
Devine: ”I would review your “compassionate friends” a myriad of agendas – loss is personal and traumatic, its [sic] doesn’t belong to trolls. A conflict that lost many loved ones”"

By reading the full exchange on twitter:

Devine: Apologies for entire re-tweet – primary issue with Leo. #sensitivity

Stack: ”Senator how dare you speak of my father in those terms. You have brought great shame on the Oireachtas”

Devine: ”I bring no shame – I bring equality – especially in health and well-being. We can’t ever agree but can forge forward-Let’s leave it there”

Stack: ”So you obviously stand over that disgusting tweet then?”

Devine: ”I would review your “compassionate friends” a myriad of agendas – loss is personal and traumatic, its [sic] doesn’t belong to trolls. A conflict that lost many loved ones”

eldamo

jm08 wrote: »

By reading the full exchange on twitter:

Devine: Apologies for entire re-tweet – primary issue with Leo. #sensitivity

Stack: ”Senator how dare you speak of my father in those terms. You have brought great shame on the Oireachtas”

Devine: ”I bring no shame – I bring equality – especially in health and well-being. We can’t ever agree but can forge forward-Let’s leave it there”

Stack: ”So you obviously stand over that disgusting tweet then?”

Devine: ”I would review your “compassionate friends” a myriad of agendas – loss is personal and traumatic, its [sic] doesn’t belong to trolls. A conflict that lost many loved ones”

Care to provide any interpretation on the use of #sensitivity?

That is the bit that makes my skin crawl entirely...

but maybe you have some nice rationalization of it...

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

If one fails to learn from history, one is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Quoting a century-old precedent to support unacceptable behaviour in a modern day society is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.

The behaviour of both sides in the Civil War would not be acceptable today.

If the history of conflict, not just in our own country but worldwide, has taught us anything is that to achieve peace by moving from conflict to politics there comes a time when a line has to be drawn underneath.
I am not saying that is right or wrong, but historically there has been no other way with conflict to achieve peace.
I do feel sorry for the Stack family in this. Same as I feel sorry for all sides who had family members murdered who feel they never received or are ever likely to achieved justice. But their are times that I have felt the Stack family are being used as political footballs

jm08

eldamo wrote: »

Care to provide any interpretation on the use of #sensitivity?

That is the bit that makes my skin crawl entirely...

but maybe you have some nice rationalization of it...

She should have left it out, but if using that on twitter becomes a sackable offence, we will probably be left with no politicians.

eldamo

jm08 wrote: »

She should have left it out, but if using that on twitter becomes a sackable offence, we will probably be left with no politicians.

#sensitivity translation, your dad is dead, we killed him, build a bridge and get over it.
#joinsinnfein

ok, signing out of this thread before I lose my mind.

Some people can rationalize anything.

jm08

eldamo wrote: »

#sensitivity translation, your dad is dead, we killed him, build a bridge and get over it.
#joinsinnfein

ok, signing out of this thread before I lose my mind.

Some people can rationalize anything.

Or look at the whole tweet:
Apologies for entire re-tweet – primary issue with Leo. #sensitivity

#sensitivity translation:

Devine says she wasn't attacking (or condoning the attack) the Stack family.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody has ever claimed that FF and FG don't have their roots in the Civil War.

Jawgap appeared to be. Which was the post I was replying too

Red_Wake

charlie14 wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

If one fails to learn from history, one is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Quoting a century-old precedent to support unacceptable behaviour in a modern day society is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.

The behaviour of both sides in the Civil War would not be acceptable today.

If the history of conflict, not just in our own country but worldwide, has taught us anything is that to achieve peace by moving from conflict to politics there comes a time when a line has to be drawn underneath.
I am not saying that is right or wrong, but historically there has been no other way with conflict to achieve peace.
I do feel sorry for the Stack family in this. Same as I feel sorry for all sides who had family members murdered who feel they never received or are ever likely to achieved justice. But their are times that I have felt the Stack family are being used as political footballs

Isn't the flipside of this though that by not addressing either sides past misdeeds, it legitimises and strengthens the arguments of those on the opposite side who don't wish to make peace?

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

Jawgap appeared to be. Which was the post I was replying too

Please read what's written, not what you'd like to be written.

FF and FG were not in existence at the time of the War of Independence and the Civil War......it's possible to construct a timeline to show they have roots in those and earlier conflicts, but the facts remains that neither were established until well afterwards.

James Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

Please read what's written, not what you'd like to be written.

FF and FG were not in existence at the time of the War of Independence and the Civil War......it's possible to construct a timeline to show they have roots in those and earlier conflicts, but the facts remains that neither were established until well afterwards.

If Sinn Fein change their name, is that an end to it?
The key difference between much of what people associated with FF/FG/SF carried out to push their agenda is that the IRA's SF associated actions are more recent. Mind, I also don't recall Sinn Fein claiming or taking credit for any killings.
Cameron wanted Mandela hung, but I suppose it depends on your politics, what outrages you and what doesn't.

Professor Moriarty

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If Sinn Fein change their name, is that an end to it?
The key difference between much of what people associated with FF/FG/SF carried out to push their agenda is that the IRA's SF associated actions are more recent. Mind, I also don't recall Sinn Fein claiming or taking credit for any killings.
Cameron wanted Mandela hung, but I suppose it depends on your politics, what outrages you and what doesn't.

I don't think this is true.

James Brown

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't think this is true.

He was a leading member of the conservative group that produced the 'hang Mandela' posters.

Professor Moriarty

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He was a leading member of the conservative group that produced the 'hang mandela' posters.

No, he wasn't.

James Brown

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, he wasn't.

Can you show that? If I'm mistaken, fair enough.

jm08

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't think this is true.

Its not, but a group called Federation of Conservative Students did put up posters and sold badges with ''Hang Nelson Mandela'' in the 1980s when Cameron was in university.

James Brown

He was a leading member. In fairness, let's leave the post;

If Sinn Fein change their name, is that an end to it?
The key difference between much of what people associated with FF/FG/SF carried out to push their agenda is that the IRA's SF associated actions are more recent. Mind, I also don't recall Sinn Fein claiming or taking credit for any killings.
Cameron wanted Mandela hung, but I suppose it depends on your politics, what outrages you and what doesn't.

Professor Moriarty

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can you show that? If I'm mistaken, fair enough.

Here's one. He was a student where a faction of Conservative student body created the teeshirts but wasn't even a member of the body at the time. Mind you, he opposed British sanctions against apartheid in SA.

Professor Moriarty

jm08 wrote: »

Its not, but a group called Federation of Conservative Students did put up posters and sold badges with ''Hang Nelson Mandela'' in the 1980s when Cameron was in university.

He wasn't even a member of the federation at the time. Just an ordinary student apparently.

Professor Moriarty

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He was a leading member. In fairness, let's leave the post;

No, he wasn't. Not at that time.

Jawgap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If Sinn Fein change their name, is that an end to it?
The key difference between much of what people associated with FF/FG/SF carried out to push their agenda is that the IRA's SF associated actions are more recent. Mind, I also don't recall Sinn Fein claiming or taking credit for any killings.
Cameron wanted Mandela hung, but I suppose it depends on your politics, what outrages you and what doesn't.

I think the issue with the senator (and the ongoing issues with bullying as well as previous issues on child welfare) suggest more than a name change is needed.

This latest of a long line of own goals illustrates that the mindset hasn't changed.......it was a perfect opportunity for McDonald to demonstrate that a new era has dawned, instead she failed at the first hurdle. It's business as usual.

James Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the issue with the senator (and the ongoing issues with bullying as well as previous issues on child welfare) suggest more than a name change is needed.

This latest of a long line of own goals illustrates that the mindset hasn't changed.......it was a perfect opportunity for McDonald to demonstrate that a new era has dawned, instead she failed at the first hurdle. It's business as usual.

We know FF/FG were created by the same people involved in instances.
I don't think it was a sackable offence. There's a lot of unresolved bad blood when it comes to the troubles. There are people who rightly or wrongly still hold grudges. It's recent history.
There's a lot passing for 'own goals' on this thread. If people want to criticise SF they don't need try twist so hard. There is plenty to crib about.
SF need look at the bullying or maybe SF members feel more free to criticise their party? We get inconsistent spin as regards SF. They are in turmoil to they do what they are told etc. We know all parties have internal issues.

Jawgap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We know FF/FG were created by the same people involved in instances.
I don't think it was a sackable offence. There's a lot of unresolved bad blood when it comes to the troubles. There are people who rightly or wrongly still hold grudges. It's recent history.
There's a lot passing for 'own goals' on this thread. If people want to criticise SF they don't need try twist so hard. There is plenty to crib about.
SF need look at the bullying or maybe SF members feel more free to criticise their party? We get inconsistent spin as regards SF. They are in turmoil to they do what they are told etc. We know all parties have internal issues.

The ol' "SF are just like any other party" except they're not.......the number of bullying allegations is out of all comparison to other parties, even larger ones......the willingness to defend, engage and employ criminals is unprecedented.....other parties would never force a rep out over such a tweet because no other party would have to face that kind issue......none has people who think in a way that that would lead them to conclude on any level that such an utterance would be acceptable.....quite simply, SF are not like other parties and never will be until they genuinely break with this kind of mindset.

James Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

The ol' "SF are just like any other party" except they're not.......the number of bullying allegations is out of all comparison to other parties, even larger ones......the willingness to defend, engage and employ criminals is unprecedented.....other parties would never force a rep out over such a tweet because no other party would have to face that kind issue......none has people who think in a way that that would lead them to conclude on any level that such an utterance would be acceptable.....quite simply, SF are not like other parties and never will be until they genuinely break with this kind of mindset.

Let's cut the spin first off. There's no, 'ol' "SF are just like any other party". All parties have internal issues. That's a fact. Maybe SF have it worse, I'll not contest that or say it isn't so.
I can't help but see a white collar/blue collar element to it. If SF members are guilty of crimes let them be put on trial. Or, in the case of many other politicians of other parties, if associated with fraud, cronyism, bribes, put them on trial too. Irish politics is rife with cute hoors who 'we all know' are up to no good, but that's generally not chargeable.
Referencing Turkish workers seeking rights to 'Kebabs' or drunkenly grabbing a female colleague onto you lap in the Dail are all unacceptable behaviours.
I think referring to Stack as a sadist is opinion. I don't know much about the man. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. It was in bad taste to bring it into a dig at Varadkar by mentioning his son, politician or not, in my view, but it's not sack-able.

Brendan Bendar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Let's cut the spin first off. There's no, 'ol' "SF are just like any other party". All parties have internal issues. That's a fact. Maybe SF have it worse, I'll not contest that or say it isn't so.
I can't help but see a white collar/blue collar element to it. If SF members are guilty of crimes let them be put on trial. Or, in the case of many other politicians of other parties, if associated with fraud, cronyism, bribes, put them on trial too. Irish politics is rife with cute hoors who 'we all know' are up to no good, but that's generally not chargeable.
Referencing Turkish workers seeking rights to 'Kebabs' or drunkenly grabbing a female colleague onto you lap in the Dail are all unacceptable behaviours.
I think referring to Stack as a sadist is opinion. I don't know much about the man. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. It was in bad taste to bring it into a dig at Varadkar by mentioning his son, politician or not, in my view, but it's not sack-able.

Has to go, Matt, I mean what was the actual ‘suspended’ for three months about.

What does that actually mean?

jm08

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Has to go, Matt, I mean what was the actual ‘suspended’ for three months about.

What does that actually mean?

It means that Sinn Fein representatives need to be a lot more careful in how they use social media.

James Brown

I don't think suspension is justified.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't think suspension is justified.

So SF shouldn't even have suspended her?
Its a tactical ploy anyway, but it goes to show even SF know its at least wrong to do what she did.
The biggest set of cowards in the political arena south of the border are SF, they've shown this time and time again, they quite frankly afraid to make any harsh decision on their own policies even, waiting to see what the popular opinion is before they commit.
They lost a by election in Dublin over that indecision during the water protests, we now have Paul Murphy thanks to that.
Many other decisions that should be made are pushed down the road till we see how the "popular opinion" shapes up it seems.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/frustrating-sinn-fein-leader-mcdonald-brings-so-much-disappointment-36723073.html

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

So SF shouldn't even have suspended her?
Its a tactical ploy anyway, but it goes to show even SF know its at least wrong to do what she did.
The biggest set of cowards in the political arena south of the border are SF, they've shown this time and time again, they quite frankly afraid to make any harsh decision on their own policies even, waiting to see what the popular opinion is before they commit.
They lost a by election in Dublin over that indecision during the water protests, we now have Paul Murphy thanks to that.
Many other decisions that should be made are pushed down the road till we see how the "popular opinion" shapes up it seems.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/frustrating-sinn-fein-leader-mcdonald-brings-so-much-disappointment-36723073.html

I think suspending her was cow-towing to perceived popular opinion. The suspension was the mistake, or own goal, if you will.
We see items pop up on SF and then twisted into 'own goals' for fitting into the thread and like all Sinn Fein news items the goal is to cast them in the role of political villains with the potential of ruining the country just like the 'better the devil you know' parties have done time and again. It's amusing.
To avoid claims of cowardice I suppose they could put together a populist manifesto and not bother following through on it once elected.
The amount of energy spent on the scaremongering of the Sinn Fein 'what if' would be better spent by any genuinely concerned voters on criticising bad policy either enacted or attempted by government parties; but alas some folk have a team to follow and a flag to wave and keeping 'our own' in power is more important than any genuine care towards good governance.

Jawgap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Let's cut the spin first off. There's no, 'ol' "SF are just like any other party". All parties have internal issues. That's a fact. Maybe SF have it worse, I'll not contest that or say it isn't so.
I can't help but see a white collar/blue collar element to it. If SF members are guilty of crimes let them be put on trial. Or, in the case of many other politicians of other parties, if associated with fraud, cronyism, bribes, put them on trial too. Irish politics is rife with cute hoors who 'we all know' are up to no good, but that's generally not chargeable.
Referencing Turkish workers seeking rights to 'Kebabs' or drunkenly grabbing a female colleague onto you lap in the Dail are all unacceptable behaviours.
I think referring to Stack as a sadist is opinion. I don't know much about the man. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. It was in bad taste to bring it into a dig at Varadkar by mentioning his son, politician or not, in my view, but it's not sack-able.

No, unfortunately there is. SF have several narratives they repeatedly trot out......one is that they are the same as everyone else when clearly they are not, as yet again the senator's tweet has shown.

All parties have dissent, rivalries etc, only SF have dozens of cases of alleged bullying despite being, at best, the third largest party.......no other parties would accept convicted murderers in their midst nor would they laud them the way SF do.....no other party would put up with a leader failing to report child abuse.....no other party would find it anything other then strange that a leader would arrange a blacked out van to drive a victim's family around in.....no other party would accept a leading member (or any member) being visibly, indeed almost proudly, involved with Garda killers......no other party would identify the likes of Slab Murphy as a good anything, let alone a good republican.......

......so, no, SF are still very far from being even on nodding terms with civic society, and as the current, latest own goal shows they are very much like the scorpion in Aesop's fables, bound by their own nature and demonstrable incapable of change.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Let's cut the spin first off. There's no, 'ol' "SF are just like any other party". All parties have internal issues. That's a fact. Maybe SF have it worse, I'll not contest that or say it isn't so.
I can't help but see a white collar/blue collar element to it. If SF members are guilty of crimes let them be put on trial. Or, in the case of many other politicians of other parties, if associated with fraud, cronyism, bribes, put them on trial too. Irish politics is rife with cute hoors who 'we all know' are up to no good, but that's generally not chargeable.
Referencing Turkish workers seeking rights to 'Kebabs' or drunkenly grabbing a female colleague onto you lap in the Dail are all unacceptable behaviours.
I think referring to Stack as a sadist is opinion. I don't know much about the man. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. It was in bad taste to bring it into a dig at Varadkar by mentioning his son, politician or not, in my view, but it's not sack-able.

You think referring to Stack as a sadist is opinion? Really?

If I said Gerry Adams was a commander-in-chief of the IRA, covered up child abuse, protected his brother, was involved in the Jean McConville killing among many others, would you be happy to accept that is just opinion and should be left at that? Because some people would only be starting with their opinion at that.

eldamo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think referring to Stack as a sadist is opinion. I don't know much about the man. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. .

I have not ventured into the world of political discussion on boards too much since the demise of the Café. And now I am reminded of why.
Is this really the level of discourse out there.
You are on here like a scatter gun deflecting all around you and you think it is acceptable to come out with a comment like this?
Do a bit of research, I challenge you to come up with anything other than that he was a man doing his job.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think suspending her was cow-towing to perceived popular opinion. The suspension was the mistake, or own goal, if you will.
We see items pop up on SF and then twisted into 'own goals' for fitting into the thread and like all Sinn Fein news items the goal is to cast them in the role of political villains with the potential of ruining the country just like the 'better the devil you know' parties have done time and again. It's amusing.
To avoid claims of cowardice I suppose they could put together a populist manifesto and not bother following through on it once elected.
The amount of energy spent on the scaremongering of the Sinn Fein 'what if' would be better spent by any genuinely concerned voters on criticising bad policy either enacted or attempted by government parties; but alas some folk have a team to follow and a flag to wave and keeping 'our own' in power is more important than any genuine care towards good governance.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/party-leaders-unite-in-call-for-sinn-fin-senator-to-resign-over-stack-tweet-36726796.html


Pretty much every political leader is calling for her to resign (other than SF obviously).

What SF do isn't amusing, it is disgusting and vile, painting themselves as victims equivalent to the likes of Jean McConville's family, to Mairia Cahill, to Austin Stack and the rest of the Stack family, to the family of Paul Quinn, to all those who have been left bereft by the actions of supporters of SF and in some cases members, all of whom are still publicly supported and celebrated by SF. Essentially, they are not fit to be a political party.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You think referring to Stack as a sadist is opinion? Really?

If I said Gerry Adams was a commander-in-chief of the IRA, covered up child abuse, protected his brother, was involved in the Jean McConville killing among many others, would you be happy to accept that is just opinion and should be left at that? Because some people would only be starting with their opinion at that.

Yes. No.

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/party-leaders-unite-in-call-for-sinn-fin-senator-to-resign-over-stack-tweet-36726796.html


Pretty much every political leader is calling for her to resign (other than SF obviously).

What SF do isn't amusing, it is disgusting and vile, painting themselves as victims equivalent to the likes of Jean McConville's family, to Mairia Cahill, to Austin Stack and the rest of the Stack family, to the family of Paul Quinn, to all those who have been left bereft by the actions of supporters of SF and in some cases members, all of whom are still publicly supported and celebrated by SF. Essentially, they are not fit to be a political party.

Great. You got to bring out the collection. That's all any SF thread is about. The claims of wanting sound political debate are a facade. You've proved my point.

If the senator thought Stack was a sadist, that's her opinion. I don't see a problem. If you go to parts of Britain you can find Thatcher as a monster or a saviour. Both are neither correct nor wrong, as they are opinion.
Saying Thatcher made sweet love to Pinochet would be wrong without proof, that's not opinion.

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/Submit
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Jawgap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes. No.



Great. You got to bring out the collection. That's all any SF thread is about. The claims of wanting sound political debate are a facade. You've proved my point.

If the senator thought Stack was a sadist, that's her opinion. I don't see a problem. If you go to parts of Britain you can find Thatcher as a monster or a saviour. Both are neither correct nor wrong, as they are opinion.
Saying Thatcher made sweet love to Pinochet would be wrong without proof, that's not opinion.

Except Thatcher was a politician and like the senator, she traded on her opinions.

Stack was working a job and not, I'd imagine. interested in a public profile. He was murdered not for his beliefs but for doing a job - as such he deserves the support of elected representatives not condemnation. Plus, there's a fairly long established political convention (in proper parties any way) relating to not attacking those who cannot defend themselves - obviously, SF don't see a problem with an opinionated, factless attack on the reputation of a murdered public servant.

McMurphy

Jawgap wrote: »

Except Thatcher was a politician and like the senator, she traded on her opinions.

Stack was working a job and not, I'd imagine. interested in a public profile. He was murdered not for his beliefs but for doing a job - as such he deserves the support of elected representatives not condemnation. Plus, there's a fairly long established political convention (in proper parties any way) relating to not attacking those who cannot defend themselves - obviously, SF don't see a problem with an opinionated, factless attack on the reputation of a murdered public servant.

That would explain why the leader of Sinn Fein made this comment so.

Speaking to reporters this afternoon, McDonald said: “I have zero tolerance for people or actions that bring grief to the victims or to their families and I want to apologise sincerely to the family of the late Brian Stack

And This from Declan Kearney.

Earlier, comments attributed to the party’s national chairperson Declan Kearney said Sinn F strongly disapproved of what had happened: “This is unacceptable behaviour from a Sinn F elected representative.

Glad you deciphered the cryptic messages there.

blackwhite

Jawgap wrote: »

Except Thatcher was a politician and like the senator, she traded on her opinions.

Stack was working a job and not, I'd imagine. interested in a public profile. He was murdered not for his beliefs but for doing a job - as such he deserves the support of elected representatives not condemnation. Plus, there's a fairly long established political convention (in proper parties any way) relating to not attacking those who cannot defend themselves - obviously, SF don't see a problem with an opinionated, factless attack on the reputation of a murdered public servant.

Let's not forget that Matt would have probably exploded with outrage if a FF or FG representative tweeted anything half as insensitive as Devine did - whilst most reasonable people can see that this sort of vile behaviour should be considered unacceptable no matter the party it comes from.

Double standards at play me-thinks

eldamo

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

That would explain why the leader of Sinn Fein made this comment so.

Speaking to reporters this afternoon, McDonald said: “I have zero tolerance for
people or actions that bring grief to the victims or to their families and I
want to apologise sincerely to the family of the late Brian Stack

So harsh, 3 months paid leave. Give me another! :pac:

Jawgap

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

That would explain why the leader of Sinn Fein made this comment so.



And This from Declan Kearney.




Glad you deciphered the cryptic messages there.

So upset were they by the comments they gave her a 3 month paid holiday!

Sure she'll be back just in time for the summer recess - punishment generally involves detriment - I ain't seeing that the senator is suffering a great deal of detriment.

She'll still get her salary.......assuming she was making a contribution to SF, I wonder if her suspension means she doesn't have to continue so? (Hardly a suspension if SF maintain any kind of ties with her).....and she's spared from going to countless meetings and will have to pass over her brief as mental health spokesperson!!!

So, to recap, SF's 'punishment' means less work for at least the same money!!!

James Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

Except Thatcher was a politician and like the senator, she traded on her opinions.

Stack was working a job and not, I'd imagine. interested in a public profile. He was murdered not for his beliefs but for doing a job - as such he deserves the support of elected representatives not condemnation. Plus, there's a fairly long established political convention (in proper parties any way) relating to not attacking those who cannot defend themselves - obviously, SF don't see a problem with an opinionated, factless attack on the reputation of a murdered public servant.

Doubtful the killers would agree with you. However this isn't about the killing itself. As I've said the retweet was in bad taste but labeling someone a sadist is opinion based on belief. It can be argued he was and it can be argued he wasn't.

blackwhite wrote: »

Let's not forget that Matt would have probably exploded with outrage if a FF or FG representative tweeted anything half as insensitive as Devine did - whilst most reasonable people can see that this sort of vile behaviour should be considered unacceptable no matter the party it comes from.

Double standards at play me-thinks

That's nonsense. You've absolutely nothing to back that up, but if it suits your bias, go with it.
I didn't commend the senator. I simply said it wasn't sackable. I fully supported the sacking of the kingsmill buffoon. We can go down the 'whatabout' road if you like.

Jawgap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Doubtful the killers would agree with you. However this isn't about the killing itself. As I've said the retweet was in bad taste but labeling someone a sadist is opinion based on belief. It can be argued he was and it can be argued he wasn't.



That's nonsense. You've absolutely nothing to back that up, but if it suits your bias, go with it.

Seriously, what a ridiculous point - almost as ridiculous as the argument circulating that Stack must've been a sadist and that his family must've known otherwise they wouldn't have made the connection between the use of the word and him.

It's that type of warped outlook that pretty much guarantees SF will forever be pegged at 14-16% until they cop on and join the rest of humanity in the 21st Century.

James Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously, what a ridiculous point - almost as ridiculous as the argument circulating that Stack must've been a sadist and that his family must've known otherwise they wouldn't have made the connection between the use of the word and him.

It's that type of warped outlook that pretty much guarantees SF will forever be pegged at 14-16% until they cop on and join the rest of humanity in the 21st Century.

Nonsense. The senator believed Stack a sadist. That's the end of that.
Folks found it abhorrent, fair enough. Your twisting adds little but aide in the boring repetition of standard anti-SF fare.

We'd a politician call protesting members of the public ISIS ffs... calls for sacking? *crickets* Hypocrisy is rampant.

Jawgap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nonsense. The senator believed Stack a sadist. That's the end of that.
Folks found it abhorrent, fair enough. Your twisting adds little but aide in the boring repetition of standard anti-SF fare.

We'd a politician call protesting members of the public ISIS ffs... calls for sacking? *crickets* Hypocrisy is rampant.

Then the senator is unfit for office unless she can show there's a reasonable basis for holding that opinion?

And can you not see the difference between a generalisation and expressing an factless opinion about an individual that suggests their murder was in some way justified???

Truly remarkable that SF and their acolytes see the tweet as not worthy of resignation. I guess the only difference between the MacDonald era and the Adams era will be nothing more substantive than the former only lasting about as long as a third as the latter.

McMurphy

Jawgap wrote: »

So upset were they by the comments they gave her a 3 month paid holiday!

Sure she'll be back just in time for the summer recess - punishment generally involves detriment - I ain't seeing that the senator is suffering a great deal of detriment.

She'll still get her salary.......assuming she was making a contribution to SF, I wonder if her suspension means she doesn't have to continue so? (Hardly a suspension if SF maintain any kind of ties with her).....and she's spared from going to countless meetings and will have to pass over her brief as mental health spokesperson!!!

So, to recap, SF's 'punishment' means less work for at least the same money!!!

You made a statement that they didn't care - I posted something that quite clearly contradicted that, a statement from party leader, and the party chairperson clearly condemning it.

If you're arguing that the condemnations weren't strong enough, that's a different argument completely - but I can only work on what you post, not what you could/should have posted.

James Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

Then the senator is unfit for office unless she can show there's a reasonable basis for holding that opinion?

And can you not see the difference between a generalisation and expressing an factless opinion about an individual that suggests their murder was in some way justified???

Truly remarkable that SF and their acolytes see the tweet as not worthy of resignation. I guess the only difference between the MacDonald era and the Adams era will be nothing more substantive than the former only lasting about as long as a third as the latter.

I would guess the senator has that opinion based on occurrences. I would suggest you ask her. I don't know it's 'factless'. Also you may differ with her on the reading of actual events or unproven, proven stories.

Based on the hypocrisy, it's little more than an exercise in populist point scoring. I cannot take the moral outrage seriously.
Another chance for a dig at Sinn Fein, fair enough but cut the blarney outrage. If they are as bad as painted you are genuinely shocked and dismayed? I don't buy it.

Folks will defend a party tooth and nail and deny any allegiance. I'll take it on a case by case, policy, situation basis thanks very much. I vote Sinn Fein sparingly.

Jawgap

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You made a statement that they didn't care - I posted something that quite clearly contradicted that, a statement from party leader, and the party chairperson clearly condemning it.

If you're arguing that the condemnations weren't strong enough, that's a different argument completely - but I can only work on what you post, not what you could/should have posted.

Actions and rhetoric need to be consonant for people to believe SF are not being disingenuous - they used words condemning the tweet then dole out a softly, softly 'punishment' that apologists regard as 'harsh' - if anything all SF have done is ensure that this latest own goal has legs - better to have got her to resign rather than face the resurrection of the issue when she serves out her "punishment."

Jawgap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would guess the senator has that opinion based on occurrences. I would suggest you ask her. I don't know it's 'factless'. Also you may differ with her on the reading of actual events or unproven, proven stories.

Based on the hypocrisy, it's little more than an exercise in populist point scoring. I cannot take the moral outrage seriously.
Another chance for a dig at Sinn Fein, fair enough but cut the blarney outrage. If they are as bad as painted you are genuinely shocked and dismayed? I don't buy it.

Folks will defend a party tooth and nail and deny any allegiance. I'll take it on a case by case, policy, situation basis thanks very much. I vote Sinn Fein sparingly.

Let's face it - SF are great for shooting themselves in the foot - another own goal that was completely avoidable but useful insofar as it reveals that the true nature of the odious personalities that make up that organisation are never far from the surface. In that regard, the senator has done us all some service.

McMurphy

Jawgap wrote: »

Actions and rhetoric need to be consonant for people to believe SF are not being disingenuous - they used words condemning the tweet then dole out a softly, softly 'punishment' that apologists regard as 'harsh' - if anything all SF have done is ensure that this latest own goal has legs - better to have got her to resign rather than face the resurrection of the issue when she serves out her "punishment."

So it's exactly like I said here?

If you're arguing that the condemnations weren't strong enough, that's a different argument completely

And that's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

James Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

Let's face it - SF are great for shooting themselves in the foot - another own goal that was completely avoidable but useful insofar as it reveals that the true nature of the odious personalities that make up that organisation are never far from the surface. In that regard, the senator has done us all some service.

Let's face it, this whole affair enables those so inclined to shout 'the sky is falling' and run around with their hands in the air, which is merely a vehicle for regurgitating the usual. I don't believe the theatrics.

Now, Senator of a party closely associated with the group responsible for killing Stack, has low opinion of Stack shocker....? It would be odd if affiliated folks thought he was 'that lovely man we had killed'.

Sinn Fein might deny direct association with the IRA, but I believe they were one in the same. That said, I accept that. I also accept they've moved on. I also expect references to actions to come up now and again. I accept that.
This isn't Fianna Fail, who grow a new conscience every time they get caught out and just in time for the election. I expect there are people proud of actions carried out during the troubles. I'm not shocked by that one bit.

And I agree with you, I'd rather support a warts and all party than a bunch of charlatans.
Maybe SF will get wise and pretend at being something they aren't to curry favour and get bums in governmental seats like we have with FF/FG. Maybe they aren't that slick yet.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would guess the senator has that opinion based on occurrences. I would suggest you ask her. I don't know it's 'factless'. Also you may differ with her on the reading of actual events or unproven, proven stories.

Imagine I have an opinion that Gerry Adams is a sadist who took pleasure from the deaths caused by the IRA.

I am sure you will accept that like the senator, I am fully entitled not just to hold that opinion of Gerry, but to express it openly, and that also like the senator, I am not required to provide any proof of any opinion I express. In fact, as I am not a public figure, I don't even need to be as discreet as the Senator.

Now the following opinions of Gerry need slightly less imagination, but I am sure you don't object to my having the opinion that he

- lied about his knowledge of his brother's abuse of his niece either to Spotlight or to the courts
- knows a lot more about the sexual abuse of Mairia Cahill and subsequent kangaroo court trial than he pretends
- was a commander-in-chief of the IRA
- was involved in numerous IRA operations, planning and directing them, but never got his hands dirty by actually firing a bullet

Now we all know that some people believe Gerry was never in the IRA and never did any of the above but someone surely has the right to hold and express the opinion that he did.

Jawgap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Let's face it, this whole affair enables those so inclined to shout 'the sky is falling' and run around with their hands in the air, which is merely a vehicle for regurgitating the usual. I don't believe the theatrics.

Now, Senator of a party closely associated with the group responsible for killing Stack, has low opinion of Stack shocker....? It would be odd if affiliated folks thought he was 'that lovely man we had killed'.

Sinn Fein might deny direct association with the IRA, but I believe they were one in the same. That said, I accept that. I also accept they've moved on. I also expect references to actions to come up now and again. I accept that.
This isn't Fianna Fail, who grow a new conscience every time they get caught out and just in time for the election. I expect there are people proud of actions carried out during the troubles. I'm not shocked by that one bit.

And I agree with you, I'd rather support a warts and all party than a bunch of charlatans.
Maybe SF will get wise and pretend at being something they aren't to curry favour and get bums in governmental seats like we have with FF/FG. Maybe they aren't that slick yet.

Ah, SF narrative #2.......the "SF are better than others because their sins are known" - that presumes people are willing to overlook those sins, it also presumes, rather ridiculously, that SF are being completely transparent about those sins

......so now we're expected to believe that SF are the champions of probity in public life, as well as the party of law and order, and the party of the environment.......as a group they would certainly not be out of place in a Terry Gilliam film

....next they'll be trying to persuade people that shinnernomics is the essence of prudence