People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

endainoz

Edgware wrote: »

Hopefully she will explain how she will " break the beef factories cartel"
That would be interesting

It would, could be a good question ask her. The neo liberalism of FFG wouldn't dare mess with the market as they see it as some sacred thing not to do.

Maybe someone else would.

Edgware

It's good to see puppetry making a comeback on R.T.E.
I miss that Wanderly Wagon

James Brown

endainoz wrote: »

It would, could be a good question ask her. The neo liberalism of FFG wouldn't dare mess with the market as they see it as some sacred thing not to do.

Maybe someone else would.

Like health, the civil service contracts etc. etc. it's one of those things the left are seemingly responsible for but FF/FG won't touch because votes.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

You are seeing it through a lens of posters wanting success for a particular political party.

I don't care whether pointing out the facts about Mairia Cahill or Jean McConville or Jerry McCabe or anyone else damages or helps Fine Gael or the Greens or any other political party. Sometimes it is just the right thing to do to remind people of what Sinn Fein are. If people want to listen great, if they don't want to listen, and go out and vote Sinn Fein, that's their choice.

Here is where I have a problem with those that think they are being helpful by reminding us of those that were killed or suffered in the troubles, It was just plain wrong and should never have happened. But using those victims is equally wrong and should not happen.

The IRA were not stupid. They realised that the 'war' they were in could never be won by either side. To their credit they sought an alternative solution through politics.

Even when Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, and other took significant risks, including very serious threats to their own life and family members, to bring about a peaceful though not perfectly ideal conclusion to the troubles instead of being being acknowledged as part of the solution they are still vilified and attacked.

Does that mean we should promote those men to sainthood, certainly not.
But without them and the risks they took Jean McConville, Maria Cahill, and other victims would not be in the news, they would have been long forgotten especially by those that use them as a convenient but lazy way to attack SF because there would have been many other victims of the troubles on both sides since and in the future. I dont see these same people vilifying the British government proven to have had a hand in the murder of the Miami Showband among others. The same goes for the DUP, UUP and other parties.


Its time people made a choice. Do you agree with the peace process primarily created by these men along with John Hume, Seamus Mallon and indeed members of Unionist paramilitary groups or would you prefer that these men never took the difficult road to a political solution. You cant have your bread buttered on both sides.

No one , well at least very very few, is saying that what happened was right, and that is probably the view of many of those that were involved. In fact what was done by all sides was downright ugly and repugnant, and that includes governments.

If you agreed with the peace process then part of accepting that is accepting that the troubles are over and cannot be used flippantly as ammunition in personal vendettas or in the absence of well thought out, fact based argument.
If you are incapable of making a decent argument, then dont.

If I had a member in my family that was a victim in the troubles I would be absolutely horrified and appalled by their use in malicious arguments and name calling. As far as I am personally concerned if you use a victim in the troubles as ammunition for malicious argument you are no better than the people responsible for their deaths or suffering.

Maybe I am wrong, and there are still people who believe the tit for tat should continue. Well Shame on you.
Maybe those that use victims of the troubles in malicious argument do not want the peace process and would prefer the tit for tat to continue.

An no this is not a defence of SF. Their were thousand of victims and all sides and nearly all parties played their part.

Edgware

efanton wrote: »

Here is where I have a problem with those that think they are being helpful by reminding us of those that were killed or suffered in the troubles, It was just plain wrong and should never have happened. But using those victims is equally wrong and should not happen.

The IRA were not stupid. They realised that the 'war' they were in could never be won by either side. To their credit they sought an alternative solution through politics.

Even when Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, and other took significant risks, including very serious threats to their own life and family members, to bring about a peaceful though not perfectly ideal conclusion to the troubles instead of being being acknowledged as part of the solution they are still vilified and attacked.

Does that mean we should promote those men to sainthood, certainly not.
But without them and the risks they took Jean McConville, Maria Cahill, and other victims would not be in the news, they would have been long forgotten especially by those that use them as a convenient but lazy way to attack SF because there would have been many other victims of the troubles on both sides since and in the future. I dont see these same people vilifying the British government proven to have had a hand in the murder of the Miami Showband among others. The same goes for the DUP, UUP and other parties.


Its time people made a choice. Do you agree with the peace process primarily created by these men along with John Hume, Seamus Mallon and indeed members of Unionist paramilitary groups or would you prefer that these men never took the difficult road to a political solution. You cant have your bread buttered on both sides.

No one , well at least very very few, is saying that what happened was right, and that is probably the view of many of those that were involved. In fact what was done by all sides was downright ugly and repugnant, and that includes governments.

If you agreed with the peace process then part of accepting that is accepting that the troubles are over and cannot be used flippantly as ammunition in personal vendettas or in the absence of well thought out, fact based argument.
If you are incapable of making a decent argument, then dont.

If I had a member in my family that was a victim in the troubles I would be absolutely horrified and appalled by their use in malicious arguments and name calling. As far as I am personally concerned if you use a victim in the troubles as ammunition for malicious argument you are no better than the people responsible for their deaths or suffering.

Maybe I am wrong, and there are still people who believe the tit for tat should continue. Well Shame on you.
Those that use victims of the troubles in malicious argument do not want the peace process and would prefer the tit for tat to continue.

An no this is not a defence of SF. Their were thousand of victims and all sides and parties played their part.

Paul Quinn's Mam on R.T.E. now.
Not very nice listening for Conor Murphy, Lynn Boylan etc

Mirafiori

efanton wrote: »

Here is where I have a problem with those that think they are being helpful by reminding us of those that were killed or suffered in the troubles, It was just plain wrong and should never have happened. But using those victims is equally wrong and should not happen.

It absolutely is not equally wrong.

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

Here is where I have a problem with those that think they are being helpful by reminding us of those that were killed or suffered in the troubles, It was just plain wrong and should never have happened. But using those victims is equally wrong and should not happen.

The IRA were not stupid. They realised that the 'war' they were in could never be won by either side. To their credit they sought an alternative solution through politics.

Even when Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, and other took significant risks, including very serious threats to their own life and family members, to bring about a peaceful though not perfectly ideal conclusion to the troubles instead of being being acknowledged as part of the solution they are still vilified and attacked.

Does that mean we should promote those men to sainthood, certainly not.
But without them and the risks they took Jean McConville, Maria Cahill, and other victims would not be in the news, they would have been long forgotten especially by those that use them as a convenient but lazy way to attack SF because there would have been many other victims of the troubles on both sides since and in the future. I dont see these same people vilifying the British government proven to have had a hand in the murder of the Miami Showband among others. The same goes for the DUP, UUP and other parties.


Its time people made a choice. Do you agree with the peace process primarily created by these men along with John Hume, Seamus Mallon and indeed members of Unionist paramilitary groups or would you prefer that these men never took the difficult road to a political solution. You cant have your bread buttered on both sides.

No one , well at least very very few, is saying that what happened was right, and that is probably the view of many of those that were involved. In fact what was done by all sides was downright ugly and repugnant, and that includes governments.

If you agreed with the peace process then part of accepting that is accepting that the troubles are over and cannot be used flippantly as ammunition in personal vendettas or in the absence of well thought out, fact based argument.
If you are incapable of making a decent argument, then dont.

If I had a member in my family that was a victim in the troubles I would be absolutely horrified and appalled by their use in malicious arguments and name calling. As far as I am personally concerned if you use a victim in the troubles as ammunition for malicious argument you are no better than the people responsible for their deaths or suffering.

Maybe I am wrong, and there are still people who believe the tit for tat should continue. Well Shame on you.
Maybe those that use victims of the troubles in malicious argument do not want the peace process and would prefer the tit for tat to continue.

An no this is not a defence of SF. Their were thousand of victims and all sides and nearly all parties played their part.

Mairia Cahill was subjected to the ordeal of an IRA kangaroo court in 1999/2000 which is after the GFA.

Paul Quinn was beaten to death by a gang of IRA thugs in 2007, breaking every bone in his body.

Paudie McGahon also went through an IRA kangaroo court ordeal.

These are not incidents in the far distant past, in fact they are more recent than some of the stuff that is used to bash other parties.

ohnonotgmail

efanton wrote: »

Here is where I have a problem with those that think they are being helpful by reminding us of those that were killed or suffered in the troubles, It was just plain wrong and should never have happened. But using those victims is equally wrong and should not happen.

absolute and complete bull****.

James Brown

Mirafiori wrote: »

It absolutely is not equally wrong.

It's not right either.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Mairia Cahill was subjected to the ordeal of an IRA kangaroo court in 1999/2000 which is after the GFA.

Paul Quinn was beaten to death by a gang of IRA thugs in 2007, breaking every bone in his body.

Paudie McGahon also went through an IRA kangaroo court ordeal.

These are not incidents in the far distant past, in fact they are more recent than some of the stuff that is used to bash other parties.

Housing. homelessness, health, NCH, Irish Water, Sitserv deal?

Topgear on Dave

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Housing. homelessness, health, NCH, Irish Water, Sitserv deal?

I don't remember Irish water beating anybody to death for not paying their bill?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Housing. homelessness, health, NCH, Irish Water, Sitserv deal?

You harp on here ad nauseum about Michael Lowry among others, a person who has been out of government since 1996.

I bring up the case of Paul Quinn being beaten to death by a group of good republican thugs in 2007, and you have a problem with it.

I could go back to your vintage and mention the murder of Robert McCartney, another victim of good republicans. A SF Minister is among those who was in the crowded toilets that night and saw nothing. Those toilets contained more people than the GPO in 1916.

FrancieBrady

RTE have their victim of the election now.
I listened to Lynn Boylan yesterday and knew that her reasonable point - that we shouldn't exploit one of many victims because there was an election - would be what SF opponents would be looking for.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RTE have their victim of the election now.
I listened to Lynn Boylan yesterday and knew that her reasonable point - that we shouldn't exploit one of many victims because there was an election - would be what SF opponents would be looking for.

Remind me if I can get this right.

We can't talk about Paul Quinn being beaten to death in a barn in 2007 by ten good republicans because we can't talk about victims, yet it is ok to talk about all the victims who lost their jobs because of the FF bailout a year later?

The republican hypocrisy stinks.

endainoz

blanch152 wrote: »

Remind me if I can get this right.

We can't talk about Paul Quinn being beaten to death in a barn in 2007 by ten good republicans because we can't talk about victims, yet it is ok to talk about all the victims who lost their jobs because of the FF bailout a year later?

The republican hypocrisy stinks.

Because Sinn Fein didn't kill Paul Quinn. Why do you call these scum "good republicans"?

And clearly different kinds of victims Christ but your hard work.

Mirafiori

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not right either.

People are well capable of judging the relative seriousness of these two things for themselves. I rarely post on this forum but I had to respond to a preposterous statement.

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RTE have their victim of the election now.
I listened to Lynn Boylan yesterday and knew that her reasonable point - that we shouldn't exploit one of many victims because there was an election - would be what SF opponents would be looking for.

Let SF tell Mrs Quinn the truth and there would be nothing to use against them

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Remind me if I can get this right.

We can't talk about Paul Quinn being beaten to death in a barn in 2007 by ten good republicans because we can't talk about victims, yet it is ok to talk about all the victims who lost their jobs because of the FF bailout a year later?

The republican hypocrisy stinks.

Nobody is stopping you talking about it blanch...like all of this exploitation of victims, the question is why you want to talk about it now.


It was a shocking and brutal murder and the IMC said it was a 'local dispute',

A month after his murder the Independent Monitoring Commission said it believed people associated with the IRA were involved in the murder of Paul Quinn.

However it said this was contrary to the policy and instructions of the IRA leadership and it believed the killing was the result of a local dispute.

Why SF are being held responsible for a part in it, defeats me.

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is stopping you talking about it blanch...like all of this exploitation of victims, the question is why you want to talk about it now.


It was a shocking and brutal murder and the IMC said it was a 'local dispute',


Why SF are being held responsible for a part in it, defeats me.

Ask Conor Murphy. He'll enlighten you

intellectual dosser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is stopping you talking about it blanch...like all of this exploitation of victims, the question is why you want to talk about it now.


It was a shocking and brutal murder and the IMC said it was a 'local dispute',


Why SF are being held responsible for a part in it, defeats me.

There are people who strongly believe that Sinn Fein are obstructing justice by knowing who the murderers are, but not naming them. A member of Sinn Fein made an unfounded claim that Paul Quinn was a criminal, why are they incapable of either proving this claim or apologizing for it?

Sinn Fein are on the cusp of holding the balance of power in this country, these things are worthy of discussion.

Edgware

But but but what about the Peace Process?
This hammering of the Shinners will damage it

eagle eye

Matt Barrett wrote:

Context. Be sincere. Use them as much as you like. I think it's cheap out of context. Talk on critiques of SF supporters met with the using of Maria Cahill pretty pathetic IMO. Unable or unwilling? It kills you folk when FG are criticised so you go low with critiques of Sinn Fein supporters and using victims of crime/violence. Beats trying to defend the indefensible. As I've said elsewhere you lads bring up SF when FG and their policies are rightly criticised. So don't confuse your fascination with all things SF as support when called out on FG policies and tactics.

He said you can't defend Sinn Fein and theirs involvement in violence.
You come back with a post detailing how people bring it up tomorrow not defend other parties.
Why don't you make it your business to explain SF's actions and then we'll get them to explain the actions of their party?

FrancieBrady

intellectual dosser wrote: »

There are people who strongly believe that Sinn Fein are obstructing justice by knowing who the murderers are, but not naming them. A member of Sinn Fein made an unfounded claim that Paul Quinn was a criminal, why are they incapable of either proving this claim or apologizing for it?

Sinn Fein are on the cusp of holding the balance of power in this country, these things are worthy of discussion.

Paul Quinn's mother says she knows who the murderers are. The locals know who they are.
For the IMC to make the statement they made, they would have to know too.

Do you want SF to name them publicly? That is not legal nor democratic.

intellectual dosser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Paul Quinn's mother says she knows who the murderers are. The locals know who they are.
For the IMC to make the statement they made, they would have to know too.

Do you want SF to name them publicly? That is not legal nor democratic.

There are legal ways if they had any respect for justice, but I've answered your original questions.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I don't remember Irish water beating anybody to death for not paying their bill?

Neither do I.

FrancieBrady

intellectual dosser wrote: »

There are legal ways if they had any respect for justice, but I've answered your original questions.

There are for the Quinns too and for the IMC...yet...

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Paul Quinn's mother says she knows who the murderers are. The locals know who they are.
For the IMC to make the statement they made, they would have to know too.

Do you want SF to name them publicly? That is not legal nor democratic.

S.F. The defenders of the legal system and democracy.
It gets better

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You harp on here ad nauseum about Michael Lowry among others, a person who has been out of government since 1996.

I bring up the case of Paul Quinn being beaten to death by a group of good republican thugs in 2007, and you have a problem with it.

I could go back to your vintage and mention the murder of Robert McCartney, another victim of good republicans. A SF Minister is among those who was in the crowded toilets that night and saw nothing. Those toilets contained more people than the GPO in 1916.

Lie. I mention him in context on occasion. But this isn't about me.
Who in ML's SF did it? Did you call Chalie Flanagan or maybe someone competent?
Boss, you're boring me. You made a claim about the historic being raised, I gave examples of current and recent issues. I know that puts you in a corner so go on, the 'RA, who officially stood down and operated in a vacuum :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

S.F. The defenders of the legal system and democracy.
It gets better

Is it legal for SF to come on the radio and name these people? No it isn't.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RTE have their victim of the election now.
I listened to Lynn Boylan yesterday and knew that her reasonable point - that we shouldn't exploit one of many victims because there was an election - would be what SF opponents would be looking for.

It's gas. Could you imagine many years after a peace treaty one side using incidents to score points on another in a modern political argument?