People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

what 'questions' have I dodged?

Are you alright there?

'Generally' against conspiracy theories suddenly when caught out in guff.
Requesting sources when the point was obvious, it is the standard level disingenuous level of posting.

Find a source

you ask about abc

Find another source

You ask for more.

--

Claiming to be a first time SF voter yet inventing rabbit holes and conspiracy theories when it suits. What other serious political party supporters has to do that in the ROI to distract the shadow of death and lawlessness surrounding the party?

---

I would put you on the ignore list but I find your posts amusing at this stage a whirlwind of guff.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This is another SF mantra used to justify the armed struggle, Republicanis, but then suddenly all talk of mandates disappear when the more unpalatable parts of Republicanism pop up. Conor Murphy - discredit, deny, distance, then reluctant apology after 13 years.

You would swear no other party has a 'mandate' all other parties, individuals in the dail have a mandate not to be involved or champion para-militarism. Guess who is in the minority? About 80% v 20% SF .

You see, if you jump to conclusions about what I am saying then I can see how your blood pressure is going up.

I never said other parties have NO mandate.

I said, let them excercise their mandates...form a government and if it fails, then we have the option of going back to the people and see what they think.

maccored

piplip87 wrote: »

Just remember shinnerbots if neither FF or FG choose to go into government with yous just remember.

People voted for FF and FG even after they stated they would not go into government with SF. So remember they can give the same reason and excuse SF do for not turning up to Westminster

what?

gormdubhgorm

blanch152 wrote: »

Here you go.

It appears the franciebrady has learnt from the masters interview technique

Adams person who claimed to not be a member of the IRA but will not 'disassociate' himself from it.

Franciebrady is brilliant at not answering questions, and likes throwing out his own. When that does not work he resorts to misdirection and so on.
I think he should run in the next local election a star in the making.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

'Generally' against conspiracy theories suddenly when caught out in guff.

You won't find a single post from me in the forum set aside for conspiracy theories.

I GENERALLY DON'T believe them. I do think conspiracies can exist though. Like the one Maurice McCabe uncovered. Like the one in th Gardai in Donegal.

Requesting sources when the point was obvious, it is the standard level disingenuous level of posting.

Find a source

you ask about abc

Find another source

You ask for more.

You provided ONE live broadcast gormdubh...ONE.

And plenty of snide invective to go with it.

--

Claiming to be a first time SF voter yet inventing rabbit holes and conspiracy theories when it suits. What other serious political party supporters has to do that in the ROI to distract the shadow of death and lawlessness surrounding the party?

I have never for a minute denied where SF have come from

I would put you on the ignore list but I find your posts amusing at this stage a whirlwind of guff.

You have spent the morning attacking a poster. Have you anything to say on the thread topic?

seamus

maccored wrote: »

what?

I think his point is that plenty of people will vote for FF on the basis that they have promised NOT to go into government with SF.

Thus, crticising FF for not forming a government with SF, is the exact same as criticising SF for not taking their seats in Westminster.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It appears the franciebrady has learnt from the masters interview technique


Adams person who claimed to not be a member of the IRA but will not 'disassociate' himself from it.

Franciebrady is brilliant at not answering questions, and likes throwing out his own. When that does not work he resorts to misdirection and so on.
I think he should run in the next local election a star in the making.

I think any fair posters on here would agree that I rarely refuse to address a question.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

I think his point is that plenty of people will vote for FF on the basis that they have promised NOT to go into government with SF.

Thus, crticising FF for not forming a government with SF, is the exact same as criticising SF for not taking their seats in Westminster.

I am not criticising them for not forming a government with SF. I disagree with their reasoning alright. But they are free not to go into government with whomsoever.
So are SF though.

NOBODY should be going into government for the comfy seats or for the sake of it. That's one of the reasons the SDLP got annihilated in the north, SF would be well aware of that.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You see, if you jump to conclusions about what I am saying then I can see how your blood pressure is going up.

I never said other parties have NO mandate.

I said, let them excercise their mandates...form a government and if it fails, then we have the option of going back to the people and see what they think.

The implication always is that SF's mandate is somehow more 'special' than the normal party political mandate. As in thier mind it justifies the armed struggle and how they tried to overthrow/destabilise the very state that they are in this election. Killing gardai, kidnappings, bank robberies, involvement in drugs, and killing members of the Irish army until very recently etc
It is an interesting trick of the mind that no other party in the dail does,

gormdubhgorm

seamus wrote: »

I think his point is that plenty of people will vote for FF on the basis that they have promised NOT to go into government with SF.

Thus, crticising FF for not forming a government with SF, is the exact same as criticising SF for not taking their seats in Westminster.

Spot on.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think any fair posters on here would agree that I rarely refuse to address a question.

We will just wait for all the fair posters to thank that post so.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The implication always is that SF's mandate is somehow more 'special' than the normal party political mandate. As in thier mind it justifies the armed struggle and how they tried to overthrow/destabilise the very state that they are in this election. Killing gardai, kidnappings, bank robberies, involvement in drugs, and killing members of the Irish army until very recently etc
It is an interesting trick of the mind that no other party in the dail does,

That is, my friend your own inference.

A mandate is a mandate. You refuse to listen to it at your peril.

Finty Lemon

Mary Lou McDonald will never be leader of this country.

She may become Taoiseach someday, but will never have executive authority. That power would rest elsewhere.
She has no issue with this either.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

We will just wait for all the fair posters to thank that post so.

I know you are desperately trying with others to make the thread about me. It's stock behaviour on these threads.

I will ignore the jibes.

McMurphy

seamus wrote: »

I think his point is that plenty of people will vote for FF on the basis that they have promised NOT to go into government with SF.

Thus, crticising FF for not forming a government with SF, is the exact same as criticising SF for not taking their seats in Westminster.

Of course this works in reverse Seamus, no more will we hear complaining from FF/FG voters about SF abstaining from Westminster I assume?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You provided ONE live broadcast gormdubh...ONE.

And plenty of snide invective to go with it.

Now you have tried another trick with words you have changed from referring to covering live press conferences to live 'broadcasts'! Sneaky move by you more disingenuous stuff.
I have given you three examples of RTE covering live PSNI conferences as another poster pointed out you resorted to sealioning. Also a SF tactic when cornered.

--

I have never for a minute denied where SF have come from




You have spent the morning attacking a poster. Have you anything to say on the thread topic?

I have made my point it is the disingenuous nature of posters like yourself, and the disingenuous nature of the SF hierarchy that means the larger electorate cannot trust SF.
It is the main reason why some form of FF and FG will be in government again. And that is SF's fault for not being open and honest like a normal democratic party.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is, my friend your own inference.

A mandate is a mandate. You refuse to listen to it at your peril.

Peril what does that mean?
How many other parties mandates imply peril?

The mask slipped the inferred 'threat' was made?

gormdubhgorm

McMurphy wrote: »

Of course this works in reverse Seamus, no more will we hear complaining from FF/FG voters about SF abstaining from Westminster I assume?

I feel SF should take the brunt for what happened with Brexit as the result of this policy. The party for 'change' kept a century old policy while letting the people of NI down.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Now you have tried another trick with words you have changed from referring to covering live press conferences to live 'broadcasts'! Sneaky move by you more disingenuous stuff.

--

Seriously, will you stop with the lies.
Here is my first reply to you on the subject. I couldn't have made it any clearer what it was I meant.

FrancieBrady wrote:

If it is not 'unusual', then you surely can point to another failed dissident attack that warranted RTE going live to the press conference.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Peril what does that mean?
How many other parties mandates imply peril?

The mask slipped the inferred 'threat' was made?

What?

You have now never heard the phrase 'to ignore something at your peril'?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seriously, will you stop with the lies.
Here is my first reply to you on the subject. I couldn't have made it any clearer what it was I meant.

This was already covered by another poster who described what sealioning was.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

You have now never heard the phrase 'to ignore something at your peril'?

Nothing sinister about that at all considering the party it refers to.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This was already covered by another poster who described what sealioning was.

And you need to google what a TV station 'going live' means.

You provided one other instance of it. After providing reams of examples of 'journalists reporting on live press conferences'.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Nothing sinister about that at all considering the party it refers to.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

You have now never heard the phrase 'to ignore something at your peril'?

Yes, and it means that something bad will happen to you if you ignore something.

In the context of Sinn Fein, that could be very bad.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, and it means that something bad will happen to you if you ignore something.

In the context of Sinn Fein, that could be very bad.

So if SF ignore their mandate...what are SF gonna do to SF?


Jaysus lads, will yis stop. :rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All I asked for was the truth. And the truth seems to have been buried here.

Did you get any back up for your claim that the Garda info came from SF lies and defamation?

Would be pretty bizarre if the Gardai and PSNI intelligence were being controlled by SF.

The Taoiseach came out a month after the initial comments and made it clear that Paul Quinn was not a criminal. Here are his comments:

"He later clarified them by saying: "I shared certain information about the lines of inquiry being pursued and in speaking about criminality I was responding to questions asked on whether the murder had a political motivation or implications for the Northern Ireland Executive.

"I did not in any way intend to make an issue out of the character of Paul Quinn and I am happy to make that clear to the House.

"I am glad to state what the minister told the family yesterday, that we have no evidence whatsoever that Paul Quinn was involved in criminal activity."

"Mr Ahern said that "the only people in this case who are criminals are the ones who murdered Paul"."


So are you going to keep peddling the lies about Paul Quinn?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The Taoiseach came out a month after the initial comments and made it clear that Paul Quinn was not a criminal. Here are his comments:

"He later clarified them by saying: "I shared certain information about the lines of inquiry being pursued and in speaking about criminality I was responding to questions asked on whether the murder had a political motivation or implications for the Northern Ireland Executive.

"I did not in any way intend to make an issue out of the character of Paul Quinn and I am happy to make that clear to the House.

"I am glad to state what the minister told the family yesterday, that we have no evidence whatsoever that Paul Quinn was involved in criminal activity."

"Mr Ahern said that "the only people in this case who are criminals are the ones who murdered Paul"."


So are you going to keep peddling the lies about Paul Quinn?

I never said anything about what Paul Quinn was blanch, because I don't know. I am merely going with what is in the public domain and asking questions about it.

I understand that Ahern said that, but I do believe at this stage that the full details should be known int he interests of the truth, if that is what all this is about, of course. For instance did the gardai contact Ahern and tell him their initial report was found to contain lies spread by SF?

A claim you still haven't haven't backed-up.

blanch152 wrote:

The garda information was based on lies spread by SF/IRA contacts and once the information was investigated, it became clear that Paul Quinn had not been a criminal.

Which is a fairly serious allegation to make against SF and the Gardai. I.E. is it you that is peddling lies maybe?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said anything about what Paul Quinn was blanch, because I don't know.

I think we are down to you, Daithi Doolan and Conor Murphy in this country who don't know whether Paul Quinn was a criminal. Everyone else says he wasn't.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think we are down to you, Daithi Doolan and Conor Murphy in this country who don't know whether Paul Quinn was a criminal. Everyone else says he wasn't.

Keeping you honest is a job in itself. I am sure others will be in with buzz words and some abuse for me, but I will ask again anyway.

Anything at all to back this up?

blanch152 wrote:

The garda information was based on lies spread by SF/IRA contacts and once the information was investigated, it became clear that Paul Quinn had not been a criminal.