People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

James Brown

Blaze420 wrote: »

Nobody and simply because they are all on either cheek of the same arse. Nothing will change, nothing will be done - a new bunch of ****heads doing the same **** that’s been done since the inception of the state. There isn’t a single party with the balls to do what needs to be done.

Maybe we should elect a party beside FF/FG?

Blaze420

Granny15 wrote: »

It struck me from your previous post that you were criticising homeless people and said they deserve to be where they are. I haven’t reduced it to anything other than the poors plight but you have in your previous post

Not at all, I have nothing but sympathy for genuine homeless on the streets regardless of why they are there. I do not believe the 10k figure though and never will because I personally know of people who have figured the game out and are on their way to “foreva homes”.

Blaze420

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Maybe we should elect a party beside FF/FG?

Maybe we should but there is no realistic alternative - I view SF as being the local witch doctor while FF/FG unfortunately are the qualified GP. Why take the risk just for a change?(which will very likely be for the worst)

Granny15

Blaze420 wrote: »

Not at all, I have nothing but sympathy for genuine homeless on the streets regardless of why they are there. I do not believe the 10k figure though and never will because I personally know of people who have figured the game out and are on their way to “foreva homes”.

I sincerely doubt people go homeless to “game” the system. You reducing it to such terms shows you lack of empathy and shows you have psychopathic tendencies towards the less well off. Get real

RandomName2

Blaze420 wrote: »

Where is the party calling for an end to welfare increases, or capping child benefit at 2 kids? There is none and SF in particular are simply saying **** these people want to hear.

McMurphy wrote: »

Which party is calling for this?

Take your time.

Well this is a slightly amusing one. Blaze says "There is none " but McMurphy, the investigative journalist wants to get to the bottom of it.

Blaze420 wrote: »

Nobody, that’s the problem.

Blaze responds that there is no party calling for an end to welfare increases. Unperturbed by Blaze still not making himself clear, McMurphy goes in for the kill

McMurphy wrote: »

neither [FF or FG] are proposing to cap or reduce these measures, SF don't have any plans either, but it's all SFs fault regardless.

You sir, can get up the yard.

Having scored a resounding success McMurphy gets congratulated by davycc, FrancieBrady, Matt Barrett, who are all well known for the high quality of their arguments.

Unfortunately for Blaze he just starts to dig himself deeper and says that his argument is that the volume of social welfare is too high, and that SF has a widely known policy of seeking to increase social welfare.

McMurphy shows no mercy

McMurphy wrote: »

Oh dear.

So, despite the welfare recipients receiving what they receive due to ffg introduced measures, it's SF who is catering for them?

You're talking through your hoop, and it appears you aren't too impressed on being pulled up on it either.

The yard beckons. Get up it.

It is worth pointing out that not only does McMurphy take Blaze to task for pointing out SF policy, he also coins the term FFG (which I'll explain for the slightly slower readers, is in relation to both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael). This sort of oratory cannot be taught, it is born.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well this is a slightly amusing one. Blaze says "There is none " but McMurphy, the investigative journalist wants to get to the bottom of it.



Blaze responds that there is no party calling for an end to welfare increases. Unperturbed by Blaze still not making himself clear, McMurphy goes in for the kill



Having scored a resounding success McMurphy gets congratulated by davycc, FrancieBrady, Matt Barrett, who are all well known for the high quality of their arguments.

Unfortunately for Blaze he just starts to dig himself deeper and says that his argument is that the volume of social welfare is too high, and that SF has a widely known policy of seeking to increase social welfare.

McMurphy shows no mercy



It is worth pointing out that not only does McMurphy take Blaze to task for pointing out SF policy, he also coins the term FFG (which I'll explain for the slightly slower readers, is in relation to both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael). This sort of oratory cannot be taught, it is born.

But not a word of criticism or ridicule for a poster fulminating and swearing (refined oratory skills?) at other posters while ranting on a forum and yet can't be arsed to vote?

Says a lot about RandomName.

Blaze420

Granny15 wrote: »

I sincerely doubt people go homeless to “game” the system. You reducing it to such terms shows you lack of empathy and shows you have psychopathic tendencies towards the less well off. Get real

Why do you think we had the recent headline of “increase in children being born in to homelessness”? Why do you think someone living in a hotel would willingly become pregnant in such circumstances when any logical person would ****ing wait until they had a secure environment? No empathy needed, just a brain and eyes and the ability to see a ****ing chancer for what they are.

Because every additional kid bumps you a few steps up the ladder to the free house of your dreams (and a house that ****ing mugs like me can only dream of being in anytime in the next 5 years).

Granny15

Blaze420 wrote: »

Maybe we should but there is no realistic alternative - I view SF as being the local witch doctor while FF/FG unfortunately are the qualified GP. Why take the risk just for a change?(which will very likely be for the worst)

You don’t really view them as the witch doctor. You are buying into the fallacy that you can’t tax your way into economic prosperity. A myth professed by Churchill and the Tories in England. The ones at the very top paying these taxes are not gods gifts and do not drag the economy up. They are normal human beings like the rest of us who worked hard and got lucky. But they have no right to cut loose the less well off and punish the less fortunate

Granny15

Blaze420 wrote: »

Why do you think we had the recent headline of “increase in children being born in to homelessness”? Why do you think someone living in a hotel would willingly become pregnant in such circumstances when any logical person would ****ing wait until they had a secure environment? No empathy needed, just a brain and eyes and the ability to see a ****ing chancer for what they are.

Because every additional kid bumps you a few steps up the ladder to the free house of your dreams (and a house that ****ing mugs like me can only dream of being in anytime in the next 5 years).

You have obviously been reared to see the worst in people, assume the worst and therefore project your own motives onto people. Nobody goes homeless to game the system. Of that I am 100% certain. Don’t project your lack of empathy into others motives.

deisedevil

Granny15 wrote: »

You have obviously been reared to see the worst in people, assume the worst and therefore project your own motives onto people. Nobody goes homeless to game the system. Of that I am 100% certain. Don’t project your lack of empathy into others motives.

Nobody. Not even one?

suicide_circus

FFG need to go but i cant force myself to believe that SF will make anything better and i'd have a strong suspicion they would make things worse.

the_syco

frillyleaf wrote: »

Surely if someone likes a candidate and what they stand for they should vote for them? Please explain

They may like what the candidate aims for.
But they may not like that the candidate can't explain how the money would be generated for said thing.

Or how SF seem to be against one thing in the Republic, yet seem to be in support of it up North.

Or they may not like that their Transport and Housing TD Dessie Ellis once had explosives under his bed. Or that he "had been convicted of possessing multiple power-timer units for IRA bombs, including those suspected of being used in the Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings".

Or that their Agriculture, Food and the Marine TD Martin Ferris was a gun runner, and gave a lift to "Pearse McAuley and Kevin Walsh, the men charged with the manslaughter of Garda McCabe, upon their release from prison".

But the bomber and gun runner are the ones with a "good image", who got elected.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But not a word of criticism or ridicule for a poster fulminating and swearing (refined oratory skills?) at other posters while ranting on a forum and yet can't be arsed to vote?

Says a lot about RandomName.

fulminating and swearing?

Truly he is a peasant among gods. But he is not a patch as wrong as I, who failed in my duty to point out his fulminating and swearing to all and sundry. Verily you can ignore everything I have to say, for neglecting my position as I have done merits no less.

On the actual topic at hand my only opinion is that the auction style politics of the noughties (read about in maccrored's dusty tomes) was something which helped lead us into the recession in the first place. Give away budgets drove up spending and made bubble economics more expedient.

Berserk5kk wrote:

I seen gerry Adams in krispy kreme today.

Bit embarrassing to create an account just to post that before getting hit with a ban hammer.

James Brown

Blaze420 wrote: »

Maybe we should but there is no realistic alternative - I view SF as being the local witch doctor while FF/FG unfortunately are the qualified GP. Why take the risk just for a change?(which will very likely be for the worst)

Because we know FF/FG are a disaster? Have you been reading your posts?
I'd take a gamble on an unproven before I'd back proven failures and chancers.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well this is a slightly amusing one. Blaze says "There is none " but McMurphy, the investigative journalist wants to get to the bottom of it.



Blaze responds that there is no party calling for an end to welfare increases. Unperturbed by Blaze still not making himself clear, McMurphy goes in for the kill



Having scored a resounding success McMurphy gets congratulated by davycc, FrancieBrady, Matt Barrett, who are all well known for the high quality of their arguments.

Unfortunately for Blaze he just starts to dig himself deeper and says that his argument is that the volume of social welfare is too high, and that SF has a widely known policy of seeking to increase social welfare.

McMurphy shows no mercy



It is worth pointing out that not only does McMurphy take Blaze to task for pointing out SF policy, he also coins the term FFG (which I'll explain for the slightly slower readers, is in relation to both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael). This sort of oratory cannot be taught, it is born.

Gibberish and schoolyard-Varadkar level insight.

RandomName2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gibberish and schoolyard-Varadkar level insight.

You have some bloody nerve. McMurphy did a far better job than that.

Blaze420

Granny15 wrote: »

You have obviously been reared to see the worst in people, assume the worst and therefore project your own motives onto people. Nobody goes homeless to game the system. Of that I am 100% certain. Don’t project your lack of empathy into others motives.

You are naive, that’s all I’m going to say. If you genuinely believe every single one of those 10k are not the following then you need a serious reality check:

A) Not living a few months in a hotel to get a free house that costs nothing
Not getting “accidentally” pregnant in said accommodation to make themselves appear more urgent for housing
C) A number of them are not claiming lone parents while the boyfriend/husband conveniently “disappears” when required

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

You have some bloody nerve. McMurphy did a far better job than that.

Your post is just taking the piss. Pointless.
'High quality argument' how are ya..

FrancieBrady

suicide_circus wrote: »

FFG need to go but i cant force myself to believe that SF will make anything better and i'd have a strong suspicion they would make things worse.

The power swap cartel needs to broken up. Then we might have a chance of building something that works in some way, for everyone.

Beasty

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well this is a slightly amusing one. Blaze says "There is none " but McMurphy, the investigative journalist wants to get to the bottom of it.



Blaze responds that there is no party calling for an end to welfare increases. Unperturbed by Blaze still not making himself clear, McMurphy goes in for the kill



Having scored a resounding success McMurphy gets congratulated by davycc, FrancieBrady, Matt Barrett, who are all well known for the high quality of their arguments.

Unfortunately for Blaze he just starts to dig himself deeper and says that his argument is that the volume of social welfare is too high, and that SF has a widely known policy of seeking to increase social welfare.

McMurphy shows no mercy



It is worth pointing out that not only does McMurphy take Blaze to task for pointing out SF policy, he also coins the term FFG (which I'll explain for the slightly slower readers, is in relation to both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael). This sort of oratory cannot be taught, it is born.

Perhaps you can comment on the topic rather than trying to pull apart other people's posts. That way I'll probably see fewer reports of you trolling

Any questions, PM me

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The power swap cartel needs to broken up. Then we might have a chance of building something that works in some way, for everyone.

You could describe almost every western government as a power swap cartel. The only difference in Ireland is that FF and FG don't follow a normal left-right pattern.

Bishop of hope

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are right. Posters who write a one line post just taking the piss out of another poster really are bottom feeders. Hunnngh. Sorry, it's a bit heavy, but I thought I'd bring it along. I brought you a mirror, not sure if you are going to use it, but I'll leave it here.

Edit: posted after the bolded mod post



You could describe almost every western government as a power swap cartel. The only difference in Ireland is that FF and FG don't follow a normal left-right pattern.

True enough, but we aren't going to get a left wing Govt this time either, even if SF do get all their candidates elected.

RandomName2

Bishop of hope wrote: »

True enough, but we aren't going to get a left wing Govt this time either, even if SF do get all their candidates elected.

As yes, SF, the ultra nationalist left wing party.

People Before Profit or Social Democrats are more like what western left wing parties usually resemble.

suicide_circus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The power swap cartel needs to broken up. Then we might have a chance of building something that works in some way, for everyone.

i get that, makes sense, just cant bring myself to vote them.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

True enough, but we aren't going to get a left wing Govt this time either, even if SF do get all their candidates elected.

FG are our country's right. FF where ever the wind blows and we've plenty on the left and far left.
Labour in the UK, much like our own have lost their way and the U.S. is right wing and far right IMO.
A time without FF or FG would be like a much needed social colonic.

joe40

It is strange that some people think the only support Sinn Fein has is from the unemployed, welfare scroungers.
The unemployment rate is 4% and many in that cohort don't vote, but Sinn Fein still managed to get over 20 TDs in the last election.
The numbers don't add up.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well this is a slightly amusing one. Blaze says "There is none " but McMurphy, the investigative journalist wants to get to the bottom of it.



Blaze responds that there is no party calling for an end to welfare increases. Unperturbed by Blaze still not making himself clear, McMurphy goes in for the kill



Having scored a resounding success McMurphy gets congratulated by davycc, FrancieBrady, Matt Barrett, who are all well known for the high quality of their arguments.

Unfortunately for Blaze he just starts to dig himself deeper and says that his argument is that the volume of social welfare is too high, and that SF has a widely known policy of seeking to increase social welfare.

McMurphy shows no mercy



It is worth pointing out that not only does McMurphy take Blaze to task for pointing out SF policy, he also coins the term FFG (which I'll explain for the slightly slower readers, is in relation to both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael). This sort of oratory cannot be taught, it is born.

I think you might have missed the point.

Poster complains of welfare recipients being on 55k a year apparently, free gaffs all round all the result of previous FF/FG policies and procedures (or FFG for short) goes on to say no party is calling for a reduction/cap but it's the shinners fault regardless.

Good running commentary though, I read it in the style of a John Motson voice, and imagined you wearing a sheepskin jacket typing it out.

FrancieBrady

OSI wrote: »

How are Sinn Fein going to achieve that when they’re only contesting a quarter of available seats? They can’t even make a majority coalition partner.

They won't this time. What I hope they can do (and is the reason they get my vote for the first time in a GE) is get in there and show the smaller parties how to stand up for yourself in a coalition.
Maybe they can't and they will fail, but they are worth a punt.

mynamejeff

I would not vote for SF or any SF candidate as they are a direct extension of a criminal organisation no less than mkt is .


however some of the people who left SF and are running as independents appear to be viable alternatives of the FG FF mafia

efanton

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

My Facebook feed is quite telling about the type of people who support SF. They're the only ones posting political crap. It's very cult like behaviour, and as I am familiar with their personal circumstances, it's clear that there the ones who wine be finding through their tax all the goodies that SF are promising.

Ah Facebook. the authoritative source of all information.

Are you really serious? Most sensible people ditched that pile of ****e years ago, full of gossip and innuendo, constantly trying to tell you what to buy and usually its rubbish anyhow or definitely not the deal of the century.

also your Facebook feed will be unique to you. Facebook knows what you like, and knows you prejudices and caters specifically to them. You rarely never see stuff in your feed that you have no interest in or is totally impartial and objective.

Seriously, using Facebook as a source in what should be a informed and reason debate really takes the biscuit.