Is it just me or have SF vanished?

piplip87

I see some Shinners still mourning the death of "Bobby the peacemaker Storey". Its mad how somebody can be called a Peacemaker once they stop ordering the murder of people..... Its a bit like giving Hitler credit for ending the holocaust....

maccored

piplip87 wrote: »

I see some Shinners still mourning the death of "Bobby the peacemaker Storey". Its mad how somebody can be called a Peacemaker once they stop ordering the murder of people..... Its a bit like giving Hitler credit for ending the holocaust....

whats that got to do with again?

maccored

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This bitter auld ****e again from a poster over on other threads blowing smoke up FG's ass for 'acting in de national interest'.

**** happens when a conflict/war reaches a stalemate and compromises have to be made. Would you have preferred/thought more of them had they fought to the death and turned the place into a bloodbath?

If you don't know how devolved governments work or how peace in northern Ireland was structured, isn't it time you learnt?

you can always tell a good oul unionist with the 'sf/ira' wafffle

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you think SF sitting around a table negotiating a deal while the IRA was still fully armed, is a 'surrender', 'knock yourself out mate'...as they'd say up north.

It's typical of the high moral ground partitionists to pretend though.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This bitter auld ****e again from a poster over on other threads blowing smoke up FG's ass for 'acting in de national interest'.

**** happens when a conflict/war reaches a stalemate and compromises have to be made. Would you have preferred/thought more of them had they fought to the death and turned the place into a bloodbath?

If you don't know how devolved governments work or how peace in northern Ireland was structured, isn't it time you learnt?

That was a well-constructed argument in rebuttal, thanks for that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That was a well-constructed argument in rebuttal, thanks for that.

It is an argument unique to partitionists here and Unionists/loyalists in the north and it is also a bitter one.

I didn't support the IRA or any of the violence, but that doesn't blinker me to what actually happened.

The IRA came off ceasefire when the process stalled and bombed the heart of England...progress resumed very quickly, they also refused to decommission, in spite of demands, and John Major quietly dropped the demand. An agreement was reached and decommissioning happened on IRA terms.

Those are the facts. The word 'surrender' doesn't even hove into view there. It is as I said a familiar crutch for partitionists and Unionists/Loyalists to fall back on though.

You could just as easily portray John Major's capitulation as 'surrender' (and Unionists/Loyalists did claim that).

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

.

You could just as easily portray John Major's capitulation as 'surrender' (and Unionists/Loyalists did claim that).

Yerra,their devaluation of surrender word is second only to yours of the lie word
Meaningless and neither I'd hold up as a fitting example of anything

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Yerra,their devaluation of surrender word is second only to yours of the lie word
Meaningless and neither I'd hold up as a fitting example of anything

Somebody who thinks that you cannot lie about something in the future believes you can surrender while still fully armed?

No surprise there Mort...no surprise.

landofthetree

There were 218,817 (25.4%) family units with children (of any age) headed by a lone parent. This is an increase of over 3,500 families since 2011. Almost 90,000 were single; a further 50,496 were widowed while the remaining 68,378 were separated or divorced.


So SF want me to pay even more. :rolleyes:

https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/52641
These irresponsible single parents get everything for free.

They take from responsible couples and those that are widowed.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody who thinks that you cannot lie about something in the future believes you can surrender while still fully armed?

No surprise there Mort...no surprise.

I was referring above to unionists 'no surrender ' cries (comparing their frequency to your 'lies' cries) and you know that :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

I was referring above to unionists 'no surrender ' cries (comparing their frequency to your 'lies' cries) and you know that :rolleyes:

It was a hilarious defence of Michael Martin to be honest.

I 'devalued the word 'lie'.

What special occasion were you waiting to use it for? Can you not call something a lie and then go on and call something different a lie?

If I call something leather and round you play football with a 'ball' and then go on to describe something you play tennis with as a 'ball', am I devaluing the word 'ball'?

Listen to yourself Mort.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was a hilarious defence of Michael Martin to be honest.

I 'devalued the word 'lie'.

What special occasion were you waiting to use it for? Can you not call something a lie and then go on and call something different a lie?

If I call something leather and round you play football with a 'ball' and then go on to describe something you play tennis with as a 'ball', am I devaluing the word 'ball'?

Listen to yourself Mort.

No special occasion really,just use it for what it's meant for
You've an interesting strategy of pretending a conversation maybe 40 pages back didn't occur
It was pointed out to you then that your use of the word lie was inaccurate it still is
Unionists use of the word surrender also is and continue's to be,given the Union is intact
A commonality

To be fair,talking about what politicians promise prior to an election in the way that you want to,could at best be described properly in the case of a u Turn or a total dropping of a policy as economical with the truth but even at that you'd need to know if they weren't sincere at the time of promising
Most in the funny world of politics are I think,even if what they're after in reality looks highly unlikely

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

No special occasion really,just use it for what it's meant for

No need for the toe curling twisting and turning.

I use the perfectly ordinary descriptive word 'lie' when somebody tells a lie.

You find other words for it which excuse the lie.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No need for the toe curling twisting and turning.

I use the perfectly ordinary descriptive word 'lie' when somebody tells a lie.

You find other words for it which excuse the lie.

Did the IRA tell a lie when they proclaimed "No Surrender, Brits Out" and gave up (I prefer surrendered) before that was achieved?

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No need for the toe curling twisting and turning.

I use the perfectly ordinary descriptive word 'lie' when somebody tells a lie.

You find other words for it which excuse the lie.

Nope,I brought you through all that 40 pages back
You just ignore it because without it you can't carry on
I suppose,we do have to listen to it

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Did the IRA tell a lie when they proclaimed "No Surrender, Brits Out" and gave up (I prefer surrendered) before that was achieved?

Is it over? The campaign for a UI? Nobody told me! :eek:

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Nope,I brought you through all that 40 pages back
You just ignore it because without it you can't carry on
I suppose,we do have to listen to it

Well that's certainly a lie.

A vainglorious one at that too. You got told by several posters that you were talking protective and defensive rubbish.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well that's certainly a lie.

A vainglorious one at that too. You got told by several posters that you were talking protective and defensive rubbish.

Nonsense, I dealt with every one of your 'friends ' queries
So much so ye gave up
You in particular muttering something about never wanting me on a jury :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Nonsense, I dealt with every one of your 'friends ' queries
So much so ye gsve up
You in particular muttering something about never wanting me on a jury :rolleyes:

Sure you did...you dug the hole deeper. Look at you insinuating we are all 'friends' here...ganging up on you or just pointing out that you contention was defensive goobleygook?

I'll leave it there again or 'give up' as you would say no point repeating stuff.

Maybe you might have something to say on the thread subject?

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure you did...you dug the hole deeper. Look at you insinuating we are all 'friends' here...ganging up on you or just pointing out that you contention was defensive goobleygook?

I'll leave it there again or 'give up' as you would say no point repeating stuff.

Maybe you might have something to say on the thread subject?

This is most amusing
Every non shinner regular on these threads frequently refers to you and 3 or 4 other shinner posters as colleagues who work together in coordination
I'm quite happy with that contention
Ergo it must be you and they are your words,that think ye are ganging up on me
It's very revealing language from ye
Barely freudian, maskless in fact, speaking to your processes

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

This is most amusing
Every non shinner regular on these threads frequently refers to you and 3 or 4 other shinner posters as colleagues who work together in coordination
I'm quite happy with that contention
Ergo it must be you and they are your words,that think ye are ganging up on me
It's very revealing language from ye
Barely freudian, maskless in fact, speaking to your processes

For someone who finds it hard to recognise a lie, you don't have any issue telling them.

'every non shinner'? Really?

Not responding anymore to this Mort. Back on topic.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For someone who finds it hard to recognise a lie, you don't have any issue telling them.

'every non shinner'? Really?

Not responding anymore to this Mort. Back on topic.

Every non shinner regular as I said yes
Of course you won't respond, its Sinn Féin I'm taking about

Finty Lemon

markodaly wrote: »

And SF/IRA agreed to this capitulation?
So what is the point of the Northern Assembly then?

The point of the NI assembly was to give SF something to sell to its base, while it surrendered its claim to legitimacy in carrying on an armed campaign. All Westminster wanted was an end to bombs on the UK mainland; as long as a deal could be structured to make that happen then they would go with it.

SF will argue in public that the NI assembly was hard won and can be used as stepping stone as a means to justify the body count. But privately they now know they are in a noose. If middle class northern nationalist opinion supports the structures for peace and prosperity sake it will set back the project. The only hope is to constantly destabilize things. RHI and Irish language are classics and more will come. More victimhood equals more votes. Naïve southern idealists' support comes as a nice bonus.

But the truth is Northern Nationalists have it easy. There is no oppression.

FrancieBrady

Finty Lemon wrote: »

The point of the NI assembly was to give SF something to sell to its base, while it surrendered its claim to legitimacy in carrying on an armed campaign. All Westminster wanted was an end to bombs on the UK mainland; as long as a deal could be structured to make that happen then they would go with it.

SF will argue in public that the NI assembly was hard won and can be used as stepping stone as a means to justify the body count. But privately they now know they are in a noose. If middle class northern nationalist opinion supports the structures for peace and prosperity sake it will set back the project. The only hope is to constantly destabilize things. RHI and Irish language are classics and more will come. More victimhood equals more votes. Naïve southern idealists' support comes as a nice bonus.

But the truth is Northern Nationalists have it easy. There is no oppression.

An assessment of what is going on in the north without mentioning the DUP, OO, or Unionism in general. Fascinating.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What has O'Leary to do with Holohan being a racist, misogynist homophobe on a thread about Sinn Fein? And I am sure that Holohan is proud of all that, it appeals to his followers.

I am not sure that you understand low-level homophobia and racism, and in particular, how prevalent they are in Irish society.

It shows you up as not genuine. I've explained it numerous times. They don't cancel each other out. You can't be outraged by Holohan and indifferent to O'Leary who quite clearly showed admiration for the fascist Blueshirts.
Hey it's not my place to tell people whether or not to be outraged I'm just saying I don't believe you are.

standardg60

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An assessment of what is going on in the north without mentioning the DUP, OO, or Unionism in general. Fascinating.

I thought it was perfectly rational to be honest, and seeing as you didn't come up with a meaningful response i would still hold that view.

Back OT, given that SF have held to the 'people voted for change' mantra throughout the Government negotiations i would have thought they would have been calling consistently for another election to prove their point. But there wasn't a peep out of them.
Why?
Because they are smart enough to know that people will only vote for change when things are going well, when there's a crisis people will instead become more conservative and opt for the status quo when they see things are being managed well by the current set up.
So they choose to stay in the long grass waiting for the herd to calm down and become nonchalant again.

FrancieBrady

standardg60 wrote: »

I thought it was perfectly rational to be honest, and seeing as you didn't come up with a meaningful response i would still hold that view.

Why would I be bothered with such a myopic mindset?

Back OT, given that SF have held to the 'people voted for change' mantra throughout the Government negotiations i would have thought they would have been calling consistently for another election to prove their point. But there wasn't a peep out of them.
Why?
Because they are smart enough to know that people will only vote for change when things are going well, when there's a crisis people will instead become more conservative and opt for the status quo when they see things are being managed well by the current set up.
So they choose to stay in the long grass waiting for the herd to calm down and become nonchalant again.

Did I miss an election during 'the crisis'?

Far as I could see had an election happened FG and SF would have been fighting it out with the current Taoiseach's party way back on 13%.

Throw up your own unique and heretofore secret polling there so we can see what 'the people' might have done.

standardg60

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would I be bothered with such a myopic mindset?

I think a myopic mindset describes you more than me. I'd still be interested to hear a valid response.

Did I miss an election during 'the crisis'?

Far as I could see had an election happened FG and SF would have been fighting it out with the current Taoiseach's party way back on 13%.

Throw up your own unique and heretofore secret polling there so we can see what 'the people' might have done.

So why didn't SF call for one?
Surely the public wouldn't have blamed them for dragging them out to the polls again? Sure they voted for change? Would have been a landslide.
What could possibly have gone wrong?

FrancieBrady

standardg60 wrote: »

So why didn't SF call for one?
Surely the public wouldn't have blamed them for dragging them out to the polls again? Sure they voted for change? Would have been a landslide.
What could possibly have gone wrong?

Ask SF.

I asked you to show your data on which you based your contention.

According to polls (the only data we have) the leader of the party currently running the country is the least trusted of the big 3 = 13% and falling in the polls.
I call bull on your contention until you back it up.

standardg60

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ask SF.

I asked you to show your data on which you based your contention.

According to polls (the only data we have) the leader of the party currently running the country is the least trusted of the big 3 = 13% and falling in the polls.
I call bull on your contention until you back it up.

You didn't ask me anything.

And opinions don't require backing up. They are just that. Opinions.

You don't seem to like any that are not of yours.

But instead of actually answering them with your own rational one you choose to attack the person forming them.

I call bullying my contention until you actually respond to it.

Finty Lemon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An assessment of what is going on in the north without mentioning the DUP, OO, or Unionism in general. Fascinating.

Thank you for that.

Unionism won out by doing what they do best. Digging in and waiting for Westminster to intervene. They now have SF signed up to the consent principle and engaged in a limited local parliament, and have articles 2 and 3 off the table.

Most importantly they have killed the appetite for violence in young nationalists. Not bad for doing nothing.

The demographic shift may oust them in 100 years or so (but you will never see it Francie, just like you will never see Monaghan winning big in Croke Park ). If the knuckle dragging bible thumper wing of unionism could realize that the key to NI is in the pocket of upwardly mobile Nationalists, the demographic threat will recede too.